The major problem in today's politics is that even obvious facts (that should not be disputed) are ignored to "score" political points. I view this as a tremendous problem. The starting point of any discussion should be the facts -- and then there can be a discussion over policy solutions based on opinion, etc. There are three points that demonstrate the problem clearly in this thread: The first is the original Politico article which did no reasonable fact checking (the continual Fake News problem). The second is Politico simply trying to re-word their article rather than admitting it was completely incorrect. The third is exGOPer trying to make false assertions despite clear evidence that Trump does not owe $63.3 million to China. Trying to deliberately evade and/or twist the facts is a fundamental problem with people at the extremes (on both sides of the spectrum).
No fact was ignored, I specifically highlighted China's response in the original article, it was not omitted. The problem is China's obfuscation when reached for comment. What, we're going to believe China now? The Bank of China could not explain why its name was listed on the 2017 document, describing it as “technical error.” Trepp, a database of securitized mortgages, also listed the Bank of China along with the three other banks, in a description on their site about the financing of the building. The site noted the Bank of China might securitize their portion of the loan, although there were no additional comments. The bank pointed to another document filed in 2012 in New York City that showed the mortgage on the property had been assigned to a new financial institution as a trustee for the debt, listing Bank of China as an “assignor/old lender.” But it declined to share additional documentation on the loan.
File this one in the 'Trump Colluded with Russia' category... Fuckin Moronic Leftards and their ORANGEMANBADisms..
Really? Who cares what the Bank of China says? You believe the Chinese government who own the bank? There are multiple things that the Chinese didn't explain or provide documents for, nobody is going to believe the Chinese anymore on anything.
Since their is obvious paperwork in the U.S. that they securitized and re-sold the loan nearly immediately - yes, we should believe the obvious paperwork and the statement from the bank. Being blind to obvious facts is a problem - you really should take a more rational approach with the facts as a starting point.
Can you explain to me the change in wording in the Politico article to use the word "owed" as in the past and not "owes"?
Because the Chinese government bank denies it - without providing evidence, Politico doesn't want to be liable even though the counter claim is unverified.
The 48-hour rule still applies but thanks for playing. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-president-trump-and-the-bank-of-china-214107
So Politico finally came out and admitted their reporting was completely incorrect and had to provide a correction -- after widespread push back from many people outlining how wrong their reporting was.