Alternative interpretation. This is an example of risk management and pragmatism writ large.
When asked to testify that they were harmed by Trump inflating the value of his assets, the banks made a very pragmatic choice. Having been paid back in full there was no point, and a lot of business risk, to poke at the presumptive Republican nominee for President. Kind of like testifying against Santa Claus in Miracle on 34th Street. So they declined to testify against him. There was no upside, only downside.
But now that the question is, do you want to lend him money again against what he says his real estate is worth? The answer is a resounding no. Kind of an endorsement of the verdict.
Are you upset he did it? No. Are you willing to do it again? Also, no.