Your original statement was:
"Yeah the reason bank gave him a loan is because he over valued his asset. These were well known even before he was running for pres.
Of course Cool aid drinker think that is fake news.
If I LIE to a bank that my tiny little property is $100m to secure $20m loan, I would end up in ....."
Did the bank give him a loan? From the article, no.
Did any bank give him a loan based on overvalued assets? Did any bank do so without 3rd party appraisal/verification?
Values are a weird thing. If we consider market value to be whatever someone will give for X product/service, then why don't we consider loanable value to be whatever a bank would give a loan for, with something as collateral?