Sure, if you could borrow government/Fed money to give the loans, have the loans written down, then foreclose on the homeowners and hold the homes till you could sell at a good profit.
Trump may have been right, but not in the way he thought…
Another example of how there is such an inconsistency in the degree of scrutiny each candidate is receiving. We now have tens of thousands of every email that ever may have landed in Clinton’s inbox, allowing her opponents to comb through and look for dirt. (And yes, they are finding some.)
On the other hand we don’t even have Trump’s tax returns – basic information that every candidate has customarily made public for decades. He’s started entire businesses based on shady principles but the media seems to be indifferent about all of it.
When looking at the ethics of each candidate, the choice is sort of a ‘devil you know vs. devil you don’t situation.’ There is clear evidence that there was sloppy sloppy ethics in the organizations Clinton ran, but with Trump there’s no way to apply enough scrutiny to know any details. (What we do know about Trump certainly shows some serious red flags…)
But so many people don’t seem to care. Trump is a ‘successful businessman’ (as far as we know) and apparently that’s all many need to qualify him as president.
.
