The AG of New York has filed the letter with the Court in support of her application to examine TrumpKids under oath.
The letter from Mazars says that while it prepared the decade worth of statements in accordance with GAAP, its internal investigation states that the statements cannot be relied upon and has advised TrumpCo to so advise anyone that TrumpCo gave the statements to and who has relied upon them.
I think this is a significant development.
Accountants. That’s how they took Al Capone down. The dull methodical way, death by a thousand papercuts. I like it.
There’s so much to love here, but my favorite is the (fully expected by this point) claim by TrumpCo that Mazars’s statement not only exonerates them, but also somehow invalidates the ongoing investigations by the state attorney’s office.
There’s a lot to enjoy about this.
Trump’s accounting firm drops him like a hot potato.
Good luck finding another accounting firm, Donnie.
Financial statements from the last 10 years cannot be trusted. Good luck getting any more business loans, Donnie.
Also how does this affect loans he currently has outstanding? I’m sure those banks aren’t happy about being defrauded.
The NY AG is definitely tightening the noose. Who will flip next?
The day one of his children flip will be a glorious day.
Ivanka, please tell us about those deals you had China.
With the money he’s raking in from rallies, book sales and memorabilia sales, fake charities, donations to his “campaign” and other grifts, he might not need any more loans.
The key question here (and it’s also central to the criminal case) is to what extent his lenders rely on these statements versus their own DD.
I myself routinely lend money to a lot of people who I regard as shady characters (not quite as shady as Trump, but that still leaves room for a lot of shadiness 
) but I do it because I’m relying entirely on the expertise of other people who I do trust.
Still there’s no doubt that this - along with all sorts of other exposures, and polarizing behavior generally - would make it a lot harder for Trump to get new loans. OTOH, he could sell some properties to pay his debts coming due. With the RE market as it is, it’s not a bad time for that anyway.
Any bank dumb enough to have loaned him any money in the last ten years pretty much deserves everything that’s about to happen to them.
One thing, the long this takes, the closer Don is to his end of life, and he is up there, and I don’t believe for a second that his reported state of heath is as good as his doctors have reported. And with that I believe there would be great incentive to just abandon the efforts as no former president was ever prosecuted and there would be pressure to just let it go for the good of the nation.
But with that said I can’t help to also think that the most serious charges will be brought up at a time which would be thought of as most strategic to try to derail any attempt of Trump to run again in 2024, so at least there is that push to get him to be held accountable.
Also kudos to his former accountants for distancing themselves from Trump. I’m sure there is a NDA between them and some of their statements makes me think they are not able to say anything much else, however I hope they have said enough.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the same outfit that fought subpeonas to hand over Trump’s documents to Congress tooth and nail?
Also, if his numbers have been untrustworthy for 10 years, they could have spoken up in 2015 and saved the country a lot of grief.
I’m clueless on accountant-client privilege (if that’s even a thing), so apologies in advance if I’m off-base.
You are most likely correct, but did they know everything at the time? Or was this statement in hindsight with more information coming out. It has been said that Trump kept 2 sets of books, one for tax purposes and one to get investment support, perhaps the accountants only got the one set, but found out about the other set of actual numbers.
IDK if that is the case but it’s certainly in line with their statements that they have lost confidence in the financial statements.
ooops! I meant:
Seriously? You think he spends his own money? Ever?
A bit of a WAG on my part, but I think what they’re saying is, “the numbers with which we were provided by the Trump Org, and which we used in good faith, are no longer reliable and therefore neither is our accounting of those numbers.”
I have no idea how much of that is CYA and how much of it is true. I have to assume that these big accounting firms know full well that they’re just painting the pictures their clients want them to paint.
Doesn’t this also make the accounting firm look stupid?
“We’ve been providing financial reports for ten years that are all wrong. But I assure you, we’re not incompetent.”
In the two days this has been in the news, there have been at least 10 million op-ed articles about it. There seems to be a consensus among the op-edders that this is bad shit for Trump and his companies.
First, he probably can not get any reputable accounting firm to work for him again.
Second, he probably can not get any more loans or financing from any reputable financial company.
Third, the banks that hold his existing debt may have good cause to call in those debts immediately, if they so choose.
One opinion piece I saw today argues that this could be a major national security danger. The more Trump cannot get any financing from any reputable operators, the more he may turn to shady foreign operators for money. These may loan him money in return for certain favors, like for instance, national security secrets that Trump may know.
Hard to say if he knows anything, but he did take (steal) a bunch of classified documents. And destroyed others.
Strongly disagree. For the good of the nation, criminals, especially those in politics, need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
In my brief time working in the banking industry, I learned that there’s a difference between what you know and what’s documentable. So if everyone at Mazars “knew” Trump was dirty, but he was feeding them documents that passed due diligence, then nobody would really care.
Mazars never loaned Trump money. Their financial interest is in billing him for work. Their reputational interest is in respecting their client’s privacy up to the point where it becomes publicly untenable. Once Trump’s fraud became public knowledge, documented in legal filings, the fig leaf wilted and Mazars could no longer keep up the pretense.
I doubt this will hurt Mazars at all. They are the firm who went to absurd lengths to cover for the dirtiest guy imaginable, and very nearly succeeded. There’s big demand for that kind of amoral pluck and brazenness.
LOCK HIM UP!
What is taking you so long?
How is it good for the nation to confirm that it IS possible to be above the law?