TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A respected and powerful Wall Street businessman wouldn't be suspected of fraud unless you knew the math. The speaker, who has taken calculus, linear algebra, and statistics courses, claims it took him five minutes to recognize the fraud. He then spent almost four hours using mathematical modeling to prove it.

Why did you and your husband participate in a large Visa IPO in March 2008, especially with legislation affecting credit card companies at that time? Did you consider it a conflict of interest? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with your question. Are you suggesting it's acceptable for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? You participated in the IPO while being Speaker of the House. Do you believe that wasn’t a conflict of interest or at least appeared to be one? It only appears that way if you base it on a false premise, which isn’t true. I’m unclear on which part you find untrue. Can you clarify? Yes, I can act upon an investment.

The judge's recent comments indicate that about 80% of the case is likely resolved due to the statute of limitations, particularly regarding transactions before 2014. While it's unusual not to have a jury, the judge's acknowledgment of the statute is appreciated. There are no victims in this case; banks profited and were satisfied with their dealings. This situation is seen as political interference in the 2024 presidential election, taking time away from campaigning. The speaker emphasizes the success of their business, which has grown significantly since 2011, and criticizes the New York Attorney General for focusing on this case instead of addressing violent crime in the state.

The speaker discusses the testimony of a woman in a legal case. They praise her performance on the stand and mention that the press was quiet because the day was uneventful. The speaker explains that the case requires proving intent to defraud and reliance, particularly with sophisticated banks like Deutsche Bank. They criticize the bank's involvement in private business contracts and mention that the only testimony about the president came from Michael Cohen, who they claim lied under oath. The speaker accuses Cohen and Letitia James of not being above the law and wasting taxpayer dollars.

The speakers discuss a potential conflict of interest involving Vivian and an Israeli intelligence firm called Blackfeet. Vivian denies any affiliation with the firm. Keith Wood mentions the case they are involved in, but the conversation quickly moves away from it. They note that the information being discussed is not available on Wikipedia.

An expert was asked their opinion on the validity of election numbers certified by the secretary of state and the governor. The expert stated that if they were an executive at a publicly traded company, they would never sign off on those numbers, citing the risk of jail time and financial penalties from lawsuits. They concluded that they would never have certified the results and would have resigned instead.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

The Kansas Attorney General is suing Pfizer for violating the Kansas Consumer Protection Act by making misleading claims about its COVID-19 vaccine. The suit alleges Pfizer misrepresented the vaccine's safety, particularly for pregnant women. While vaccine manufacturers have immunity from injury lawsuits, they aren't protected from liability for misrepresentation. The Attorney General claims Pfizer advertised the vaccine as safe for pregnant women despite knowing of risks. He states that Pfizer possessed information as early as February 2021 regarding complications, including miscarriages in over 10% of cases, yet still promoted the vaccine as safe for pregnant women. The lawsuit focuses on Pfizer allegedly misrepresenting their product.

Tonight, we will be filing a complaint against Mrs. Von der Leyen, the European Union, and Pfizer. The complaint is significant because it exposes their complicity in the deception surrounding the Covid vaccine. We have evidence, including a contract signed on November 20th between the EU and Pfizer, where the EU blindly invested €200 million without any knowledge of the product's outcome or nature. This money came from our taxes and was meant to fund Pfizer's research.

In the video, the speaker discusses the testimony of an accounting expert, Professor Bartov, who was used by both Leticia James's team and the OAG's team in the past. The speaker highlights that despite his expertise, the opposing side objected to his testimony because it didn't support their claims. Professor Bartov stated that there was no fraud, the financial statements of President Trump were understated, and there was no evidence of concealment. The speaker also emphasizes that President Trump's financial statements provided detailed information about his properties, indicating transparency. The speaker expresses concern about the attorney general's involvement in private companies and asserts that the case lacks merit.

The speaker is asked about accepting and participating in a large Visa IPO deal in February while serving as Speaker of the House, given pending legislation affecting credit card companies. The questioner asks if the speaker believes it was appropriate to accept a favorable stock deal and whether it constituted a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. The speaker denies any conflict of interest, stating it only appears so if based on a false premise. They deny acting upon an investment.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

An accounting expert testified that there was no fraud in President Trump's financial statements. He stated that the statements were undervalued and that Trump had nothing to hide. The expert criticized the attorney general for investigating a private company and violating constitutional rights. Despite a gag order, the expert plans to testify on Monday. The speaker expressed frustration with the trial, calling it election interference and garbage claims. They believe the outcome was predetermined and that there is no case. The speaker hopes this serves as a lesson to other attorneys general and district attorneys trying to make a name for themselves.

The speaker expresses shock and disbelief over a recent decision in New York, stating it makes the state unattractive for investment. They highlight the importance of winner states with favorable policies. The conversation shifts to Governor Hochul's comments on the issue, questioning the lack of a clear victim and the legal basis for the decision. The focus is on New York's reputation and the impact on potential investments. The discussion concludes with a call for New York to address its status as a "loser state" and attract businesses.

Donald Trump is facing a case in New York where he is accused of inflating property values to get better loan terms. However, a Deutsche Bank executive testified that it is common for clients to overstate their net worth and that the bank does its own due diligence. Another executive stated that the bank has benefited from its business relationship with Trump and wants to continue it. This contradicts the civil fraud case against Trump. The executive also mentioned that no one was harmed by the alleged overestimates of Trump's worth. This situation is getting more intense.

Judith Foehl, representing the New York Attorney General's Office, argues the defendants repeatedly violated the law. Defense questions if there's precedent for the Attorney General suing under Executive Law 6312 to overturn a private business deal between sophisticated partners. They highlight the alleged victim's ability and obligation to conduct due diligence, written disclaimers advising independent due diligence, and the subjective nature of property valuations. The defense also notes the alleged victim never complained about fraud or transactional losses. They claim cited cases always involve consumer protection or market protection. The defense adds there was little to no impact on the public marketplace.

We've faced years of politically motivated attacks from the New York Attorney General, who campaigned on targeting me. Despite millions of pages of documents and extensive litigation, they lack evidence against us. The only witness they have is a convicted felon who has recanted his statements. We've already won in the Court of Appeals, but the judge has been slow to acknowledge that. This case is unprecedented, using a consumer fraud statute inappropriately, and feels like a witch hunt and election interference. Despite these challenges, our poll numbers are strong, and the American people understand the situation. Thank you for your support.

The speaker argues that there is no victim in the case against President Trump for alleged financial fraud. They claim that the attorney general, Letitia James, is leading a politically motivated campaign. The speaker criticizes the judge for undervaluing Trump's properties. They believe the case lacks merit due to Trump paying his bills and having no intent to commit fraud. The speaker questions the judge's decision to side with the banks over Trump's valuation of Mar a Lago.

The attorney general found no fraud or accounting fraud in this case. The speaker believes this is a political witch hunt orchestrated by the White House to influence the election. They claim that the judge and attorney general manipulated the values of properties like Mar-a-Lago and Doral to deceive the court. The speaker argues that the case should be ended and criticizes the judge for not acknowledging a higher court's rebuke. They believe this is a weaponization of justice and election interference. The speaker expresses frustration at being in court instead of campaigning in Iowa, despite leading by a large margin.

My financial statements prove that they were undervalued, not overvalued, which disproves the politically biased lawsuit against me by the New York State Attorney General. The AG stated that she wanted to get me, but I am actually worth billions more than what my conservative financial statements show. The bank confirmed in court that they did not rely on my statements and were paid in full. There were no victims, only success and profits. I hope Judge Angora, who should have dismissed this trial long ago, will show that the New York State judicial system is strong. Businesses are hesitant to return to New York. God bless New York and America.

Forensic accountant Sam Antar, a self-proclaimed non-partisan Democrat, uncovered alleged financial discrepancies involving New York Attorney General Tish James. He claims James filed false financial disclosures to New York State, omitting mortgages and a property. Antar alleges that James listed mortgages that don't appear in property records and undervalued a Virginia property with $510,000 in mortgages, listing its valuation between $100-150,000. He also claims James misrepresented a Brooklyn property as a four-unit building when the certificate of occupancy indicates five units. Antar suggests James fraudulently claimed the Brooklyn home as her primary residence to obtain a lower interest rate. He says complaints overlap the units she claims to occupy, suggesting potential illegal sublets. He asserts every false financial disclosure benefited her financially. Antar dismisses claims of political motivation, stating James committed mortgage fraud and violated New York state law, regardless of who revealed it. He welcomes scrutiny of Governor Hochul and AOC next.

Judith Vail represents the New York attorney general's office. A lawyer questions Vail about any previous case where the attorney general sued under executive law 6312 to upset a private business transaction between equally sophisticated partners. The lawyer specifies a scenario where the alleged victim could discover misrepresented matters through due diligence, was advised to do so via written disclaimers, and the misrepresentations concerned subjective valuations. Further, the lawyer asks about cases where the victim never complained about fraud or losses. The lawyer claims the cited cases always involved consumer protection or market protection, with little impact on the public marketplace. Vail begins to respond.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

The New York Attorney General, Letitia James, is accusing the Trump Organization of inflating the value of its assets in a fraud scheme. A judge ruled that Mar-a-Lago is worth only $18 million, despite its prime location and historical significance. The Trump family had language in their contracts stating that they would use their own appraisals for property values. No banks or insurance companies have complained about this. The judge's valuation seems biased and contradicts common sense. Legal experts believe that this case will not hold up on appeal, as it undermines established law and violates the First Amendment. It is clear that the Attorney General's actions are politically motivated and not in the best interest of New York businesses.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust and appall at Speaker 2, the president of a company, for investigating legislators. Speaker 1 states the investigation was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts and questions the legality of the actions, suggesting the attorney general investigate. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of gathering information with the intent to use it against legislators doing their jobs. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge about individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 challenges this explanation, suggesting Speaker 2 is avoiding the question due to a lawsuit, and defends the legislators as colleagues and family, deeming the actions despicable.