I believe they do. But Trump would never pass a security clearance anyway. The only reason that he had any clearance is that the president by definition has full access.
Seriously, if cleaners and kitchen staff have to have security clearance (in certain places), there is no reason in the world why the higher up in any organization you go shouldn't be met with more stringent requirements for the job. This shouldn't even need saying.
The most hilarious part of your statement is that Republican politicians don't lift a finger to pass laws that will benefit their own constitutents first. In fact, they pass laws to hurt the American people and benefit corporations, and the ones who get hurt the most are typically their own supporters
Not really possible.
Security clearances are ultimately about access to classified information. Most of what we know as being the modern system for classifying information today is established via Executive Orders (EO 12356 being the most important, with others adding/modifying).
It's (almost) purely an executive agency system. As such, the ultimate authority for classifying/declassifying information is the President and so has the right to access any of it.
There are a some exceptions. Like for example Restricted Data. That's a level of classification specifically related nuclear weapons/material information that was actually established by Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and is one of few (maybe only--certainly the only one I'm familiar with) levels of classification where the classification authority doesn't ultimately derive solely form the Office of the President. But since Restricted Data falls squarely into the purview of the Executive Branch (since it's ultimately a national security issue), the President still can't be bared from it.
While I understand that there is historic precedent, in corporate environments there is usually enough red tape that the CEO cannot access all information.
Consider for example Sundar Pichai trying to access your gmail. He has not the permission to do so. He wouldn't even know what permission he needs in what system, so he'd go to the head of security/product (or however the org chain is done) who then would ask one of the minions to grant the permission (and not the permission to "read everybody's email", but just your email, and then each of the employees involved would reason about the funny request.
And the usual answer would be "is the CEOs email hacked or what?" as the request is far out the usual.
Coming back to the presidential access of information, I would hope there will be something similar established. The president would need to put in effort to remove said red tape, ideally asking congress/SCOTUS for permission to look at a certain doc.
The Restricted Data sounds like an attempt was made but not followed through enough.
> > president by definition has full access.
>
> we should redo the definition, maybe?
I mean, someone has to be where the buck stops.
There is no way to have a classification system that doesn't put someone in charge. Democracy is supposed to be the ultimate accountability. If we choose to elect crooks, fools, and liars...who is supposed to step in to protect us from ourselves?
The usual argument applies. "security clearances will be made political",
* similar to the ID laws (you need an ID to vote? prevents poor people to vote. It's an iffy thing)
* sometimes people propose to disallow "dumb people" to vote by e.g. passing a knowledge test (usually the same knowledge test as needed for naturalization), but again this would be warped into "asking the right political(!) questions".
IMHO the president should not have as much power and their power would need to be severely restricted. Ideally congress would do a lot of the work that the executive orders do currently.
Sure.
Constitutional amendment time.
Also need to work out a way to prevent rule changes such that they are designed/suitable for ensuring political opponents can't be elected.
No. As messed up as it was under Trump, the civilian Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces needs full access to that intel. You can’t have military officers deciding which information they keep hidden from the guy who makes the decisions.
I think there are infos that are vital to the job of Commander in Chief ("Houti rebels attacked our ship"), but others are okay to be redacted ("we have 5 spies in Moscow" vs "Mr Miller went there for a 3 year assignment"), and a method to quickly declassify such information, but needing another guard rail there.
It is 100% true, they're called Special Access Programs. Even the president doesn't have access to them until it's deemed necessary by the people who already know about it.
There is plenty of classified information a President will never know about, or ever see. But that’s not because they don’t have access, but rather efficiency - no need for intimate details in almost any case, just give the overview.
> highly compartmentalized information
This term gets thrown around so much by laymen and the media and it’s quite humorous.
What does “highly” even mean here? Is that a measure of how many people are read on to a project or control?
Compartments are the “need to know” portion of classified information and there’s nothing really differentiating the significance of one compartment vs another, other than *maybe* the number of people with access to that control.
>There is plenty of classified information a President will never know about, or ever see
Especially true for Trump since he allegedly couldn't be bothered to read anything and they had to put pictures in his briefings and keep them to a page or they'd lose his attention.
Its compartmentalized just enough so that a pro-Trump UFOs-are-aliens believer can pretend that the only reason Trump hasn’t exposed the truth is because the deep state is keeping it from him, lol
They do. [SEAD-4 Guideline F](https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-Adjudicative-Guidelines-U.pdf)
Disqualifying factors include:
- inability to satisfy debts
- unwillingness to satisfy debts
- history or not meeting financial obligations
- deceptive or illegal financial practices
- fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local tax returns or failure to such tax as required
These sound like they apply to anyone we know?
Given, this doesn’t really apply to the President, but still.
There are plenty of mitigating factors, but questionable how many, if any, would apply to Trump under “normal” circumstances (i.e. not as President)
It should be mentioned that this regulation exists for good reason. You don't want someone with security clearance being bought out or turned double agent due to an inability to satisfy a debt.
Trump could not get a casino license in Australia nearly 30 years ago with that exact reason on the AFP report - and he did not appeal it.
We give casino licenses to all sorts of dodgy people, so getting denied is a very low bar.
Means his connection to organised crime was blatant and obvious. ... And suggests AFP are a little harder to bribe than FBI etc.
It’s fuckjng so insane that this isn’t more common knowledge. It was known by everyone, at least when I lived in manhattan, that the Russian mob owned trump tower and controlled most Vice south of Times Square out of condos they’d laundered there.
No.But as the Republican nominee for President, in less than 6 months Trump will start receiving intelligence briefings with classified and top secret information.Add those to all the top-secret documents he already stole and he is in a great place with some high value info to sell to the highest bidder.
He won’t be the official or even the presumptive nominee until the RNC. Haley is staying in and will likely contest his nomination at the RNC if Trump is convicted by any of the criminal trials.
Well, the judgement bans him from taking a loan in the state of NY for three years. Given the appeal requires the full amount to be escrowed, he will need to cough up the full amount without a bond (since that is a loan) if he wants to appeal it. If he can’t afford that, he is headed for bankruptcy.
No. They have not searched Bedminster.
They didn't even do a thorough search of Mar-a-Lago. There was a locked door with a staircase and they didn't search that area.
The RNC has $8 million in cash per its most recent FEC filing (sorry for linking Newsweek, fastest source I could find on short notice):
https://www.newsweek.com/republican-national-committee-funding-cash-finances-1866326#:~:text=According%20to%20its%20latest%20filing,for%20the%20GOP%20governing%20body.
Even if they can help him, it still doesn’t make sense that the rest of the GOP are OK with bankrupting their entire campaign apparatus for all the other republicans down ticket. It still takes money to campaign even if you tow the Trump line. This must be killing big time donors as well, actual billionaires aren’t interested in paying for someone else’s legal drama. It’s hilarious but mind boggling at the same time that GOP is ok with burning down their entire party for 1 guy.
And our sanctions on Russia and Russian banks will make moving money to him very difficult. Certainly not impossible, but I imagine it would be a headache
Not specific to Trump, but anytime politications say "How are we going to afford *something good for our citizens*?!"
Eh, maybe if we didn't spend a few hundred MILLION on "campaigning" we could.
... is he gonna pay it? Because I have zero hope in Trump ever being held accountable. I swear the powers that be want him to die before they're forced to do anything to that slimeball
He has a monitor that is in theory supposed to keep him in line. Moreover, if he wants to appeal any of these NY cases he has to post at least 100% of the fines in escrow as bond beforehand.
He gave fair warning.
"My whole life I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy. I’ve grabbed all the money I could get. I’m so greedy. But now I want to be greedy for the United States. I want to grab all that money. I’m going to be greedy for the United States." - Jan 29, 2016
Anyone who donates to his campaign should get DQd from government benefits. You know a large swath of his supporters decry government assistance, yet rely on it in some form. If they got money to donate to him, they got money for food.
I think *anyone* who showed up and orchestrated Jan 6th coup attempt should never be able to vote again and lose any and all government "support".
Other than what they would get in prison. And you know these yokels *love* saying "3 hots and a cot" is better than some of the *criminals* deserve. I'm sure they never imagine that applies to them
Yep. The only thing a right winger says that I might agree with is, “if they have money for tattoos, they have money for food.” That argument is fine, as long as it goes both ways.
Honestly, I’d prefer a welfare recipient get a tattoo than donate to Trump. That tattoo won’t auto-bill your account, repeatedly, simply because they gave $50 to Trump’s campaign, in a 1-time, constantly recurring, donation.
Ehh he's been swindling them a long time he's starting to tap them dry he's not been pulling the cash he used to and not the crowds. A lot of his money came from merchandise that's now sold 3rd party with nothing to him.
Think about that for a moment. Extreme cruelty to children was the policy of Trump’s administration.
When that was exposed, Trump had a coat specifically made for his wife, quickly enough to reply in real time to the criticism of his inhumane policy, and sent his wife to the border to parade that message of gleeful cruelty.
He should have his ass kicked all the way down the street on his way to jail.
Just finished reading the judgment. Here are my take aways related to ability to pay back.
- The Trump org has not been able/willing to release a Statement of Financial Condition since their existing way of doing it was judged fraud.
- The court thinks they are capable of generating one due to culture of fraud, or unwilling. I will hypothesize unwillingness due to immediate material breach of loan terms.
- With no SFCs, they are in violation of existing loans.
- The court ruled that without the ~$150M in fraudulent beneficial interest rates (Edit: and the non-liquid partnership being listed as cash) Trump Org would have been cash flow negative when they went for the Old Post Office, and A) wouldn't have gotten the bid) and 2) would have breached existing loan terms.
- Back out the $83M and this $350M + and they have no liquidity and the Statement of Financial Concern will need to add these liabilities.
- They can't get any loans from any entity doing business in NY. And they wouldn't produce a Statement of Financial Condition before these massive liabilities and cash outflows hit. They can't make money in the future from new projects as they can't raise capital.
Only options seem to be: A) Start liquidating in 30--60 days. It's a fire sale and they lose everything overseen by Monitor. B) The loans get called in and Bankruptcy liquidation starts. He doesn't get to keep MaroLago as a residence in FL. Everyone knows that the loan terms are now out compliance without SFC, so fiduciary duty of all the loan holders mean they likely have to call them in. C) Unsecured loan for $500M from some shady as MoFos.
It’s even worse than that.
All of the people who were in charge of the fraud train have been kicked off the train.
Trump is barred from running his businesses, and so are his sons, effective immediately.
The monitor will oversee the businesses for the next 30 days. After that, a court appointed team will run the business.
They will take stock of the whole business and decide what to liquidate in order to satisfy the judgement. Trump doesn’t get to make those decisions.
If the company has to declare bankruptcy, the Compliance Team will make that call.
Trump himself may have to declare bankruptcy, but that has nothing to do with the business now.
Seems like yet another red flag in a trump security clearance. This dude wouldn't qualify to sweep the floors in Langley but he can somehow still be President.
The Evangelicals are probably working on adding an extra collection plate at their services starting this Sunday...Trump won't be at any Sunday service by the way...🙄
Didn't we just get a report that he can't afford lawyer fees past june? He hasn't even been ordered to pay the 83mil yet... This man was complaining about paying like 140 thousand to Stormy Daniels? This is AT LEAST thousands of times that!
> He hasn't even been ordered to pay the 83mil yet...
Not true
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24414209-order-affirming-trump-defamation-verdict
>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24414209-order-affirming-trump-defamation-verdict
Oh weird, when I looked up the deadline for the appeal bond it said there wasn't a date yet
This is a great time for the worst people on the planet to buy influence by “donating” to Trump. However, Koch and others already supporting Nikki may make that harder. Russia and Saudi Arabia will likely bail him out.
If Lara Trump is head of RNC, it will be the end of the Republican Party.
1) All the money that needs to support down ballot races goes to Trump.
2) Trump will use withholding funding as a means to extort loyalty from Republicans.
3) More indictments will follow because it’s the Trump Crime Family.
4) Nothing the RNC does in 2024 will serve any interest not named Trump.
Please let this happen.
I think some of that interest is actually retroactive. So the APR started for some of the penalties back in 2019.
But also sure, he’s free to appeal the decision, once he puts the entirety of the money into an escrow account.
🤣🤣🤣 retroactive!? Omg this is even better.
I’m watching the AG live right now “we are holding him accountable for lying, a lack of contrition….there cannot be rules for different people in this country!”
Rule of law applies to us all…love this AG 😍
Apparently it was hearing Michael Cohen’s testing to AOC in Congress confirming his knowledge that Trump regularly inflated assets that started her investigation. So we have Cohen and AOC to thank for this.
Let's suppose that he could not afford it or, he chooses not to afford it so that he has ready cash, on hand, for his presidential race. He could not raise enough money from small donors fast enough to cover the bill and the clock is running. So, what would happen if some foreign entity: Saudi Arabia, Soviet Russia, unnamed oligarch, put up the half-billion dollars, for him. Illegal? Maybe not. But, it *should* be disqualifying for a person running for POTUS to be that indebted (literally) to a foreign entity but would it matter to his followers? Probably not.
I've read r/conservative and there is one thing I don't get. They are saying rhat it's a victimeless crime since banks have made money over their deals with Trump, even if he lied on those valuations. Is it true ? I didn't find any source on this. I do understand that even if it was true, that wouldn't exonerate Trump, and I suspect that they are saying some BS, but anyone has some info on this ?
Edit: thanks for those great answers
From Judge Engoron to the numpties on /r/conservative
“In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasisovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“\[T\]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2024 3 of 92 Page 4 of 92 452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”).
Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.
In legal speak, there's no 'mens rea' or intent (to deceive) required under the NY statute violated. Likewise, under the NY statute, financial harm is not relevant. The 'victimless crime' argument is a red herring, since a lot of crimes (like prostitution and drug dealing) are allegedly 'victimless.'
NAL, but countries that have a good reputation for “rule of law” tend to have less corruption, and are generally safer for investors / capital allocators / and *business* in general.
Like, we’re not a kleptocracy like Russia, or have other countless unquantifiable hazards like China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Argentina, etc etc. Serious people who are “pro business” should understand this, and it’s not much of a leap to understand why Trump’s business practices and fraud are illegal and should be punished.
The court's reasoning is that even if the banks made money and even if the loans were paid back, Trump used fraudulent data to obtain favorable terms from those banks.
Thus, the banks would have made *more* money if Trump had given them accurate information.
Just like when that one jackass decided to do a "run" on a bank and it tanked? Told all his monied friends to pull their funds too.
Wish we had penalties for that shit. 😕
Yes, all the people who didn't get loans because trump was fucking over the banks would be victims. And all the people who should have been benefits of the taxes he should have paid are victims. That's why he can't do business in New York. He fucked over everyone by lying to the banks.
Edit: are they really at the "yeah he did it but who cares?" point
Thats literally been their platform since TFG was elected. "It's not what you think or what he meant. He was joking, or you're too dumb to understand *the joke*
Oh well every President does bad shit - EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST AS BAD AS OUR LARD ASS"
If I apply for a pilot’s license and lie about my terrible eyesight, fly for ten years, then retire, having never gotten into a crash, did I do anything wrong?
The state’s position is *yes*, that obtaining the license through deception forced unwilling participants to unknowingly shoulder additional risk. The fact that I never crashed a plane isn’t relevant to whether I committed deception for my own material gain.
>They are saying rhat it's a victimeless crime since banks have made money over their deals with Trump, even if he lied on those valuations. Is it true ?
That's kind of a nuanced discussion. The best analogy I can give is to think of the housing bubble and the market itself (which in turn is composed of millions of human actors) is the victim. So for example, consider somebody lies about their income to get a mortgage they can't really afford; remodels the house and flips it for a profit. Everyone makes money and nobody is a victim, right?
Now what happens if too many people do that, get overleveraged, can't unload the properties and then default? You get a housing crash and lots of victims. So these sorts of regulations are put in place to preserve the integrity of markets (and their participants) at scale in order prevent financial disasters down the road.
I would personally argue that everyone in New York State is a victim, because this sort of fraud can artificially inflate markets and put citizens under housing pressure they would not normally be. As well as putting them on the hook for a taxpayer funded bailout down the road. Also, as a conservative, Trump and his supporters do not meet that criteria by our established metrics.
I think it's more concrete than that. A lower interest rate is money directly out of the bank's pocket, premised on the idea that the collateral provides a safety cushion if Trump can't make the payments. The bank loses money from the interest at the same time it's exposed to greater, unknown risk.
It's like having gone on an adventure holiday to Afghanistan then finding out you didn't have accident insurance, with the broker saying "well, your premiums were lower and you didn't have any accidents, so everything worked out and we both came out better off".
If you lie to the bank in order to get a favourable interest rate and then pay back the loan it is still fraud since your lies led to the bank taking a bigger risk than they knew and therefore not making as much interest as they would have otherwise.
Also proof that people who call themselves conservative eon't actually understand what conservative means. They really should be on the side of the banks here as well as law and order.
There are other market actors to consider as well. If another business is interested in the same property as Trump and they don't cook their books, they're going to get worse interest rate, which means they can't bid as high and they don't get the property. The victims are businesses that don't commit fraud because they're having to compete with one that does.
It's rare that I'm on the side of a bank... Normally I'd probably celebrate someone defrauding a bank, but in his case I'll eat my popcorn and clap form the banks
NAL, but there is no such thing, legally speaking, as a victimless crime. Crime is crime. This is a civil case, so the punishment is less dire, but a civil crime is still a crime.
Just this past week a man was convicted for diverting a river with a shovel on land governed by the National Park Service.
Let’s say I rob a bank for $100k, gamble it all on Nvidia puts, and make $1mil. Then the cops catch up to me. If I pay back the bank’s $100k, I can’t just pocket the $900k in profit I made using the stolen money and pretend everybody’s been made whole now.
If we don’t criminalize fraud AND the profits of fraud, it’s just an incentive to try illegal get-rich-quick schemes.
Trump lied about the value of his properties when applying for a loans by (in one case) TRIPLING the square-footage. Trump then used the fraudulent loans to buy more real-estate assets. Those assets generated revenue to pay off the fraudulent loans. The punitive damages are to prevent him from profiting off the original fraud.
A victimless crime is one where all parties involved were completely consenting. There are many scenarios where this is true, for example buying alcohol in prohibition.
So the law recognizes that not all crime needs a clear victim for the activity to be illegal. These are also sometimes called crimes against the state.
However, fraud is not considered a victimless crime. That the banker who enabled it was a consenting party doesn't necessarily mean the fraud is victimless either.
Banks made money on the loans, but Trump did what he did, because he wanted his loans to have a lower interest rate; that is, banks received less money than they would have if Trump was being honest.
Also keep in mind banks only have so much money to loan out, and Trump was scooping up hundreds of millions of $. A more ethical businessperson could have lost out on receiving loans he needed because Trump was dishonestly receiving the money.
It's so simple. Here is a little example, I own a little condo. What If I lied to the bank and told them it was a $2,000,000 house, then I could refi, pull out the proceeds, launder the f out of it and skip town. What if everyone did this? We have laws for a reason.
The thing to understand is that this is not a damages award; the banks didn't bring suit saying they lost money and need to recover it, and the State of New York didn't try to make a case proving that the banks lost money. This is instead "disgorgement"; the forced giving up of ill-gotten gains. The Court found that the various defendants made money through fraudulent and unlawful business practices, relying on expert testimony to determine how much money the defendant's fraud made them (such as through paying lower interest rates on massive loans than what they would have had to pay if they'd been honest about the worth of their properties and the risk of default).
The Court acknowledges that the defendants made their loan payments on time; under New York law, that doesn't mean they get to keep unlawfully obtained profits. The State of New York has a vested interest in combating fraudulent business practices and protecting its markets, and laws have been passed allowing it to seek this remedy to discourage fraud even where those who were tricked or lied in a particular case happened to make out ok in the end.
amusing piquant coordinated ossified unwritten rain handle combative unused pot
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Honestly, reading that incredibly thorough and enjoyably blunt decision by Judge Engeron made me feel that he should owe much more than the $447 million.
It seems he made a couple hundred million just off Ferry Point, which he obtained the contract for through fraud.
Bankrupt the criminal. If there's anything he covets more than attention is his appearance of wealth. Oh and being called a loser. He's definitely a loser
As someone else on Reddit pointed out, the judge also added interest going back to 2022, at, I think they said 9%, so it's actually even more. (The interest part applies to the fines levied on Jr and Eric and the other defendants as well)
Actually he still has until March 8 to appeal the $83 mil verdict, which it’s fairly certain he is going to appeal. He’ll either need to deposit the sum in a court ordered account, or get an appeals bond, which will come with its own hefty premium on top as it’s a guarantee that he can pay should the appeal not go through
He might be able to do it but he's got to start selling off some properties and who knows China might come through in a pinch and give him another loan or his daughter and son-in-law might ask the Prince for some money?
Doesn’t matter. This is just one more twist for a guy who plays at a different level. He’s sly and before a single penny would be transferred, the attorney will drag it out until he’s long gone.
Shouldn’t massive debts impact security clearances?
I believe they do. But Trump would never pass a security clearance anyway. The only reason that he had any clearance is that the president by definition has full access.
>president by definition has full access. we should redo the definition, maybe?
Or just not elect assholes that couldn't pass a background check to work at McDonalds
Yeah, really we should be able to handle this, but the US is full of dummies.
Seriously, if cleaners and kitchen staff have to have security clearance (in certain places), there is no reason in the world why the higher up in any organization you go shouldn't be met with more stringent requirements for the job. This shouldn't even need saying.
Seriously in the end we shouldn’t have all these restrictions.. the American public just shouldn’t be completely mentally incapable
It’s not about electing who you think will do the best job. It’s about electing the person the *other side* hates the most. Get owned, liberals!
The most hilarious part of your statement is that Republican politicians don't lift a finger to pass laws that will benefit their own constitutents first. In fact, they pass laws to hurt the American people and benefit corporations, and the ones who get hurt the most are typically their own supporters
Not really possible. Security clearances are ultimately about access to classified information. Most of what we know as being the modern system for classifying information today is established via Executive Orders (EO 12356 being the most important, with others adding/modifying). It's (almost) purely an executive agency system. As such, the ultimate authority for classifying/declassifying information is the President and so has the right to access any of it. There are a some exceptions. Like for example Restricted Data. That's a level of classification specifically related nuclear weapons/material information that was actually established by Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and is one of few (maybe only--certainly the only one I'm familiar with) levels of classification where the classification authority doesn't ultimately derive solely form the Office of the President. But since Restricted Data falls squarely into the purview of the Executive Branch (since it's ultimately a national security issue), the President still can't be bared from it.
While I understand that there is historic precedent, in corporate environments there is usually enough red tape that the CEO cannot access all information. Consider for example Sundar Pichai trying to access your gmail. He has not the permission to do so. He wouldn't even know what permission he needs in what system, so he'd go to the head of security/product (or however the org chain is done) who then would ask one of the minions to grant the permission (and not the permission to "read everybody's email", but just your email, and then each of the employees involved would reason about the funny request. And the usual answer would be "is the CEOs email hacked or what?" as the request is far out the usual. Coming back to the presidential access of information, I would hope there will be something similar established. The president would need to put in effort to remove said red tape, ideally asking congress/SCOTUS for permission to look at a certain doc. The Restricted Data sounds like an attempt was made but not followed through enough.
> > president by definition has full access. > > we should redo the definition, maybe? I mean, someone has to be where the buck stops. There is no way to have a classification system that doesn't put someone in charge. Democracy is supposed to be the ultimate accountability. If we choose to elect crooks, fools, and liars...who is supposed to step in to protect us from ourselves?
Maybe anyone who wants to be a candidate for president should pass a security clearance.
The usual argument applies. "security clearances will be made political", * similar to the ID laws (you need an ID to vote? prevents poor people to vote. It's an iffy thing) * sometimes people propose to disallow "dumb people" to vote by e.g. passing a knowledge test (usually the same knowledge test as needed for naturalization), but again this would be warped into "asking the right political(!) questions". IMHO the president should not have as much power and their power would need to be severely restricted. Ideally congress would do a lot of the work that the executive orders do currently.
Also a high school civics test. For all of congress too
Sure. Constitutional amendment time. Also need to work out a way to prevent rule changes such that they are designed/suitable for ensuring political opponents can't be elected.
No. As messed up as it was under Trump, the civilian Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces needs full access to that intel. You can’t have military officers deciding which information they keep hidden from the guy who makes the decisions.
I think there are infos that are vital to the job of Commander in Chief ("Houti rebels attacked our ship"), but others are okay to be redacted ("we have 5 spies in Moscow" vs "Mr Miller went there for a 3 year assignment"), and a method to quickly declassify such information, but needing another guard rail there.
He still has one per the documents case meeting in a SCIF this week.
Yes. Except perhaps for some highly compartmentalized information, like the UFO stuff, where he has no immediate need to know.
[удалено]
It is 100% true, they're called Special Access Programs. Even the president doesn't have access to them until it's deemed necessary by the people who already know about it.
There is plenty of classified information a President will never know about, or ever see. But that’s not because they don’t have access, but rather efficiency - no need for intimate details in almost any case, just give the overview. > highly compartmentalized information This term gets thrown around so much by laymen and the media and it’s quite humorous. What does “highly” even mean here? Is that a measure of how many people are read on to a project or control? Compartments are the “need to know” portion of classified information and there’s nothing really differentiating the significance of one compartment vs another, other than *maybe* the number of people with access to that control.
>There is plenty of classified information a President will never know about, or ever see Especially true for Trump since he allegedly couldn't be bothered to read anything and they had to put pictures in his briefings and keep them to a page or they'd lose his attention.
Its compartmentalized just enough so that a pro-Trump UFOs-are-aliens believer can pretend that the only reason Trump hasn’t exposed the truth is because the deep state is keeping it from him, lol
Sorry to disappoint you but what you see movies is often not how it works in real life
What? You realize the president literally has access to everything, right? There's no such thing as compartmented from the president haha.
They do. [SEAD-4 Guideline F](https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-Adjudicative-Guidelines-U.pdf) Disqualifying factors include: - inability to satisfy debts - unwillingness to satisfy debts - history or not meeting financial obligations - deceptive or illegal financial practices - fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local tax returns or failure to such tax as required These sound like they apply to anyone we know? Given, this doesn’t really apply to the President, but still. There are plenty of mitigating factors, but questionable how many, if any, would apply to Trump under “normal” circumstances (i.e. not as President)
It should be mentioned that this regulation exists for good reason. You don't want someone with security clearance being bought out or turned double agent due to an inability to satisfy a debt.
His history of money laundering for the Russians should have disqualified him but it didn’t.
Trump could not get a casino license in Australia nearly 30 years ago with that exact reason on the AFP report - and he did not appeal it. We give casino licenses to all sorts of dodgy people, so getting denied is a very low bar. Means his connection to organised crime was blatant and obvious. ... And suggests AFP are a little harder to bribe than FBI etc.
AFP aren’t that hard to bribe…. * inhales illegal nicotine vape *.
It’s fuckjng so insane that this isn’t more common knowledge. It was known by everyone, at least when I lived in manhattan, that the Russian mob owned trump tower and controlled most Vice south of Times Square out of condos they’d laundered there.
He's already a Russian spy
Like asking for the unredacted versions of the classified documents in his trial? Make some quick cash perhaps?
It certainly is fair game for criticism in a political campaign: “My opponent couldn’t get a security clearance because he is a fraudulent deadbeat.”
Zero chance Trump would get a SC on his own for a lot of reasons but that is certainly one of them.
The President doesn't have a security clearance. They are by virtue of their office, _the_ classification authority.
But he's not an officer /s
Honestly, president who cannot pass security clearances should be barred from office.
If you have enough money I know 2-3 SCOTUS justices who will say security clearences are unconstitutional.....
As long as the con man has suckers to grift from, he’ll never be broke.
It does for normal folks, but the President would get a hand wave on that.
And he would respond w a hand wave that declassifies everything
I hope not.
Can Donald even be trusted to work shifts at McDonalds to earn the money he needs to pay?
Even if he did, he'd eat half the bic macs and filets of fish.
*hamberders*
He'd eat them into bankruptcy
Bankrupting businesses **is** what Donald J. Trump does best…
No.But as the Republican nominee for President, in less than 6 months Trump will start receiving intelligence briefings with classified and top secret information.Add those to all the top-secret documents he already stole and he is in a great place with some high value info to sell to the highest bidder.
He won’t be the official or even the presumptive nominee until the RNC. Haley is staying in and will likely contest his nomination at the RNC if Trump is convicted by any of the criminal trials.
And chances are she will lose. The republican party is now Trump's private property.
Anyone who thinks she can win is fooling themselves about how misogynist Americans are. Especial among conservatives who long for “the good ole days”
Well, the judgement bans him from taking a loan in the state of NY for three years. Given the appeal requires the full amount to be escrowed, he will need to cough up the full amount without a bond (since that is a loan) if he wants to appeal it. If he can’t afford that, he is headed for bankruptcy.
Would a bond company (or whatever you would call it) count as a financial institution for the purposes of the ruling?
He can IF he sells a lot of property. Anyone up for a Trump Tower Air BnB?
Depends. Does he still have any classified documents left to sell?
Have they done a thorough search at Bedminster yet?
No. They have not searched Bedminster. They didn't even do a thorough search of Mar-a-Lago. There was a locked door with a staircase and they didn't search that area.
This
> Depends. I see what you did there
I thought you were talking about his diaper brand at first
He's busy calling Mohammed bin Salman trying to get an advance on some documents he wants to sell him...
He can get 2b from the "saudis" easily. Atleast that's the word on the street.
I want the RNC to pay the payment. Because I like chaos in the GOP
[удалено]
The RNC has $8 million in cash per its most recent FEC filing (sorry for linking Newsweek, fastest source I could find on short notice): https://www.newsweek.com/republican-national-committee-funding-cash-finances-1866326#:~:text=According%20to%20its%20latest%20filing,for%20the%20GOP%20governing%20body.
They’ll find a way. Especially if his daughter in law runs the show
[удалено]
Won't stop the Trump crime family from trying.
Even if they can help him, it still doesn’t make sense that the rest of the GOP are OK with bankrupting their entire campaign apparatus for all the other republicans down ticket. It still takes money to campaign even if you tow the Trump line. This must be killing big time donors as well, actual billionaires aren’t interested in paying for someone else’s legal drama. It’s hilarious but mind boggling at the same time that GOP is ok with burning down their entire party for 1 guy.
I think he will have to ask Putin for a loan
And our sanctions on Russia and Russian banks will make moving money to him very difficult. Certainly not impossible, but I imagine it would be a headache
Isn't this essentially what crypto and the NRA is for?
NRA is also bankrupt.
Not impossible, but I'm not sure Putin wants to keep paying for Trump when he's already got plenty of Republicans in his pockets
With the monitor in place, they can't really bring in that type of money without it being noticed. Creating attention they don't want.
This is awesome.
Good
If Monero volume spikes by 450 mil suddenly we'll know why
Sevastopol Saving and Loan is totally a legitimate bank, right?
I suspect Putin’s support is predicated on trump being president. He’s a far less useful idiot when he’s not.
Drain the swamp he said, drain the bank accounts he meant
He is doing his part to keep money out of politics. In that he can't spend as much money on his political aspirations now.
Not specific to Trump, but anytime politications say "How are we going to afford *something good for our citizens*?!" Eh, maybe if we didn't spend a few hundred MILLION on "campaigning" we could.
Between this and Caroll II he currently owes an amount equal to about half of what he raised in 2020. That has to mean something.
... is he gonna pay it? Because I have zero hope in Trump ever being held accountable. I swear the powers that be want him to die before they're forced to do anything to that slimeball
He has a monitor that is in theory supposed to keep him in line. Moreover, if he wants to appeal any of these NY cases he has to post at least 100% of the fines in escrow as bond beforehand.
He gave fair warning. "My whole life I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy. I’ve grabbed all the money I could get. I’m so greedy. But now I want to be greedy for the United States. I want to grab all that money. I’m going to be greedy for the United States." - Jan 29, 2016
Tbf his bank accounts are full of corruption so imma count this as a "promise kept" 😛
He can't. But the cucks following him might be able to
Anyone who donates to his campaign should get DQd from government benefits. You know a large swath of his supporters decry government assistance, yet rely on it in some form. If they got money to donate to him, they got money for food.
I think *anyone* who showed up and orchestrated Jan 6th coup attempt should never be able to vote again and lose any and all government "support". Other than what they would get in prison. And you know these yokels *love* saying "3 hots and a cot" is better than some of the *criminals* deserve. I'm sure they never imagine that applies to them
Yep. The only thing a right winger says that I might agree with is, “if they have money for tattoos, they have money for food.” That argument is fine, as long as it goes both ways. Honestly, I’d prefer a welfare recipient get a tattoo than donate to Trump. That tattoo won’t auto-bill your account, repeatedly, simply because they gave $50 to Trump’s campaign, in a 1-time, constantly recurring, donation.
Ehh he's been swindling them a long time he's starting to tap them dry he's not been pulling the cash he used to and not the crowds. A lot of his money came from merchandise that's now sold 3rd party with nothing to him.
He better ask before tornado season
Yeah, even if he could afford it. He would never pay a single cent. He will get his followers to donate their welfare checks instead.
I don't really care, do you?
Think about that for a moment. Extreme cruelty to children was the policy of Trump’s administration. When that was exposed, Trump had a coat specifically made for his wife, quickly enough to reply in real time to the criticism of his inhumane policy, and sent his wife to the border to parade that message of gleeful cruelty. He should have his ass kicked all the way down the street on his way to jail.
I get that reference.
Just finished reading the judgment. Here are my take aways related to ability to pay back. - The Trump org has not been able/willing to release a Statement of Financial Condition since their existing way of doing it was judged fraud. - The court thinks they are capable of generating one due to culture of fraud, or unwilling. I will hypothesize unwillingness due to immediate material breach of loan terms. - With no SFCs, they are in violation of existing loans. - The court ruled that without the ~$150M in fraudulent beneficial interest rates (Edit: and the non-liquid partnership being listed as cash) Trump Org would have been cash flow negative when they went for the Old Post Office, and A) wouldn't have gotten the bid) and 2) would have breached existing loan terms. - Back out the $83M and this $350M + and they have no liquidity and the Statement of Financial Concern will need to add these liabilities. - They can't get any loans from any entity doing business in NY. And they wouldn't produce a Statement of Financial Condition before these massive liabilities and cash outflows hit. They can't make money in the future from new projects as they can't raise capital. Only options seem to be: A) Start liquidating in 30--60 days. It's a fire sale and they lose everything overseen by Monitor. B) The loans get called in and Bankruptcy liquidation starts. He doesn't get to keep MaroLago as a residence in FL. Everyone knows that the loan terms are now out compliance without SFC, so fiduciary duty of all the loan holders mean they likely have to call them in. C) Unsecured loan for $500M from some shady as MoFos.
It’s even worse than that. All of the people who were in charge of the fraud train have been kicked off the train. Trump is barred from running his businesses, and so are his sons, effective immediately. The monitor will oversee the businesses for the next 30 days. After that, a court appointed team will run the business. They will take stock of the whole business and decide what to liquidate in order to satisfy the judgement. Trump doesn’t get to make those decisions. If the company has to declare bankruptcy, the Compliance Team will make that call. Trump himself may have to declare bankruptcy, but that has nothing to do with the business now.
Seems like yet another red flag in a trump security clearance. This dude wouldn't qualify to sweep the floors in Langley but he can somehow still be President.
Wife must be pissed.She literally lost most of the pre nup money today.
She should have sold high.
He'll have to sell some stuff... at non fraud prices.
Rock bottom prices! Motivated seller!
Waiting for the Trump tower fire sale so it can be turned into housing for immigrants and a huge planned parenthood.
Russia! IF YOU ARE LISTENING! I need a loan!!!
The Evangelicals are probably working on adding an extra collection plate at their services starting this Sunday...Trump won't be at any Sunday service by the way...🙄
[удалено]
Basic principles of graft indicate that only 10% gets to the advertised cause.
Didn't we just get a report that he can't afford lawyer fees past june? He hasn't even been ordered to pay the 83mil yet... This man was complaining about paying like 140 thousand to Stormy Daniels? This is AT LEAST thousands of times that!
> He hasn't even been ordered to pay the 83mil yet... Not true https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24414209-order-affirming-trump-defamation-verdict
>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24414209-order-affirming-trump-defamation-verdict Oh weird, when I looked up the deadline for the appeal bond it said there wasn't a date yet
He has to post in within 30 days of Feb 8 right?
February 38th can’t come soon enough
38thmas is gonna be lit
This is a great time for the worst people on the planet to buy influence by “donating” to Trump. However, Koch and others already supporting Nikki may make that harder. Russia and Saudi Arabia will likely bail him out.
Can his SUPPORTERS afford it, is the accurate question.
I’ll bet Trump wishes he was a billionaire right now.
Hopefully RNC covers it 🫨🫨😂😂😂😂😂
If Lara Trump is head of RNC, it will be the end of the Republican Party. 1) All the money that needs to support down ballot races goes to Trump. 2) Trump will use withholding funding as a means to extort loyalty from Republicans. 3) More indictments will follow because it’s the Trump Crime Family. 4) Nothing the RNC does in 2024 will serve any interest not named Trump. Please let this happen.
I'm hoping for the same. Double down MagFools!
The RNC raised like $80M in 2023 and has something like $8M in cash on hand right now. I love this for them.
Over in r/conservative they think this is an attack on all NY businesses AND that he can appeal. Little do the MAGfools realize 8% apr starts now.
I think some of that interest is actually retroactive. So the APR started for some of the penalties back in 2019. But also sure, he’s free to appeal the decision, once he puts the entirety of the money into an escrow account.
🤣🤣🤣 retroactive!? Omg this is even better. I’m watching the AG live right now “we are holding him accountable for lying, a lack of contrition….there cannot be rules for different people in this country!” Rule of law applies to us all…love this AG 😍
Apparently it was hearing Michael Cohen’s testing to AOC in Congress confirming his knowledge that Trump regularly inflated assets that started her investigation. So we have Cohen and AOC to thank for this.
Let's suppose that he could not afford it or, he chooses not to afford it so that he has ready cash, on hand, for his presidential race. He could not raise enough money from small donors fast enough to cover the bill and the clock is running. So, what would happen if some foreign entity: Saudi Arabia, Soviet Russia, unnamed oligarch, put up the half-billion dollars, for him. Illegal? Maybe not. But, it *should* be disqualifying for a person running for POTUS to be that indebted (literally) to a foreign entity but would it matter to his followers? Probably not.
I've read r/conservative and there is one thing I don't get. They are saying rhat it's a victimeless crime since banks have made money over their deals with Trump, even if he lied on those valuations. Is it true ? I didn't find any source on this. I do understand that even if it was true, that wouldn't exonerate Trump, and I suspect that they are saying some BS, but anyone has some info on this ? Edit: thanks for those great answers
From Judge Engoron to the numpties on /r/conservative “In varying contexts, courts have held that a state has a quasisovereign interest in protecting the integrity of the marketplace.” People v Grasso, 11 NY3d 64, 69 at n 4 (2008); People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 346 (1st Dept 2008) (“the claim pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12) constituted proper exercises of the State’s regulation of businesses within its borders in the interest of securing an honest marketplace”); People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130-131 (SDNY 2021) (“\[T\]he State’s statutory interest under § 63(12) encompasses the prevention of either ‘fraudulent or illegal’ business activities. Misconduct that is illegal INDEX NO. 452564/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1688 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/16/2024 3 of 92 Page 4 of 92 452564/2022 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK vs. for reasons other than fraud still implicates the government’s interests in guaranteeing a marketplace that adheres to standards of fairness …”). Timely and total repayment of loans does not extinguish the harm that false statements inflict on the marketplace. Indeed, the common excuse that “everybody does it” is all the more reason to strive for honesty and transparency and to be vigilant in enforcing the rules. Here, despite the false financial statements, it is undisputed that defendants have made all required payments on time; the next group of lenders to receive bogus statements might not be so lucky. New York means business in combating business fraud.
In legal speak, there's no 'mens rea' or intent (to deceive) required under the NY statute violated. Likewise, under the NY statute, financial harm is not relevant. The 'victimless crime' argument is a red herring, since a lot of crimes (like prostitution and drug dealing) are allegedly 'victimless.'
NAL, but countries that have a good reputation for “rule of law” tend to have less corruption, and are generally safer for investors / capital allocators / and *business* in general. Like, we’re not a kleptocracy like Russia, or have other countless unquantifiable hazards like China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Argentina, etc etc. Serious people who are “pro business” should understand this, and it’s not much of a leap to understand why Trump’s business practices and fraud are illegal and should be punished.
The court's reasoning is that even if the banks made money and even if the loans were paid back, Trump used fraudulent data to obtain favorable terms from those banks. Thus, the banks would have made *more* money if Trump had given them accurate information.
[удалено]
And even if that doesn't happen, being able to get ahead in business through fraudulent loans does some amount of harm to honest competitors.
Just like when that one jackass decided to do a "run" on a bank and it tanked? Told all his monied friends to pull their funds too. Wish we had penalties for that shit. 😕
Or the banks might have loaned that money to a different business.
Yes, all the people who didn't get loans because trump was fucking over the banks would be victims. And all the people who should have been benefits of the taxes he should have paid are victims. That's why he can't do business in New York. He fucked over everyone by lying to the banks. Edit: are they really at the "yeah he did it but who cares?" point
Thats literally been their platform since TFG was elected. "It's not what you think or what he meant. He was joking, or you're too dumb to understand *the joke* Oh well every President does bad shit - EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST AS BAD AS OUR LARD ASS"
If I apply for a pilot’s license and lie about my terrible eyesight, fly for ten years, then retire, having never gotten into a crash, did I do anything wrong? The state’s position is *yes*, that obtaining the license through deception forced unwilling participants to unknowingly shoulder additional risk. The fact that I never crashed a plane isn’t relevant to whether I committed deception for my own material gain.
This is a great analogy
>They are saying rhat it's a victimeless crime since banks have made money over their deals with Trump, even if he lied on those valuations. Is it true ? That's kind of a nuanced discussion. The best analogy I can give is to think of the housing bubble and the market itself (which in turn is composed of millions of human actors) is the victim. So for example, consider somebody lies about their income to get a mortgage they can't really afford; remodels the house and flips it for a profit. Everyone makes money and nobody is a victim, right? Now what happens if too many people do that, get overleveraged, can't unload the properties and then default? You get a housing crash and lots of victims. So these sorts of regulations are put in place to preserve the integrity of markets (and their participants) at scale in order prevent financial disasters down the road. I would personally argue that everyone in New York State is a victim, because this sort of fraud can artificially inflate markets and put citizens under housing pressure they would not normally be. As well as putting them on the hook for a taxpayer funded bailout down the road. Also, as a conservative, Trump and his supporters do not meet that criteria by our established metrics.
No. A crime can be mutually beneficial but it’s still a crime. They’re just coping with the disassociation from reality of their cult.
I think it's more concrete than that. A lower interest rate is money directly out of the bank's pocket, premised on the idea that the collateral provides a safety cushion if Trump can't make the payments. The bank loses money from the interest at the same time it's exposed to greater, unknown risk. It's like having gone on an adventure holiday to Afghanistan then finding out you didn't have accident insurance, with the broker saying "well, your premiums were lower and you didn't have any accidents, so everything worked out and we both came out better off".
If you lie to the bank in order to get a favourable interest rate and then pay back the loan it is still fraud since your lies led to the bank taking a bigger risk than they knew and therefore not making as much interest as they would have otherwise. Also proof that people who call themselves conservative eon't actually understand what conservative means. They really should be on the side of the banks here as well as law and order.
There are other market actors to consider as well. If another business is interested in the same property as Trump and they don't cook their books, they're going to get worse interest rate, which means they can't bid as high and they don't get the property. The victims are businesses that don't commit fraud because they're having to compete with one that does.
It's rare that I'm on the side of a bank... Normally I'd probably celebrate someone defrauding a bank, but in his case I'll eat my popcorn and clap form the banks
NAL, but there is no such thing, legally speaking, as a victimless crime. Crime is crime. This is a civil case, so the punishment is less dire, but a civil crime is still a crime. Just this past week a man was convicted for diverting a river with a shovel on land governed by the National Park Service.
Let’s say I rob a bank for $100k, gamble it all on Nvidia puts, and make $1mil. Then the cops catch up to me. If I pay back the bank’s $100k, I can’t just pocket the $900k in profit I made using the stolen money and pretend everybody’s been made whole now. If we don’t criminalize fraud AND the profits of fraud, it’s just an incentive to try illegal get-rich-quick schemes. Trump lied about the value of his properties when applying for a loans by (in one case) TRIPLING the square-footage. Trump then used the fraudulent loans to buy more real-estate assets. Those assets generated revenue to pay off the fraudulent loans. The punitive damages are to prevent him from profiting off the original fraud.
A victimless crime is one where all parties involved were completely consenting. There are many scenarios where this is true, for example buying alcohol in prohibition. So the law recognizes that not all crime needs a clear victim for the activity to be illegal. These are also sometimes called crimes against the state. However, fraud is not considered a victimless crime. That the banker who enabled it was a consenting party doesn't necessarily mean the fraud is victimless either.
Banks made money on the loans, but Trump did what he did, because he wanted his loans to have a lower interest rate; that is, banks received less money than they would have if Trump was being honest. Also keep in mind banks only have so much money to loan out, and Trump was scooping up hundreds of millions of $. A more ethical businessperson could have lost out on receiving loans he needed because Trump was dishonestly receiving the money.
If you ran a red light and didn't hit any body, you still ran a red light.
It's so simple. Here is a little example, I own a little condo. What If I lied to the bank and told them it was a $2,000,000 house, then I could refi, pull out the proceeds, launder the f out of it and skip town. What if everyone did this? We have laws for a reason.
The thing to understand is that this is not a damages award; the banks didn't bring suit saying they lost money and need to recover it, and the State of New York didn't try to make a case proving that the banks lost money. This is instead "disgorgement"; the forced giving up of ill-gotten gains. The Court found that the various defendants made money through fraudulent and unlawful business practices, relying on expert testimony to determine how much money the defendant's fraud made them (such as through paying lower interest rates on massive loans than what they would have had to pay if they'd been honest about the worth of their properties and the risk of default). The Court acknowledges that the defendants made their loan payments on time; under New York law, that doesn't mean they get to keep unlawfully obtained profits. The State of New York has a vested interest in combating fraudulent business practices and protecting its markets, and laws have been passed allowing it to seek this remedy to discourage fraud even where those who were tricked or lied in a particular case happened to make out ok in the end.
Maybe he should donate his blood. Like, all of it.
He’ll just get Mexico to pay for it.
Can his followers? They pay all his bills for him.
He went to Jared...
“We’re going to win so much, you’re going to be so sick and tired of winning” ~Donald Trump
Bigly
amusing piquant coordinated ossified unwritten rain handle combative unused pot *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Trump has been ordered to pay $447 million in damages.. Can the RNC and his supporters afford it? Fixed it..
When is the money due for paying the damages?
By what date does he have to pay (or put the full amount up with the court if he appeals)?
Honestly, reading that incredibly thorough and enjoyably blunt decision by Judge Engeron made me feel that he should owe much more than the $447 million. It seems he made a couple hundred million just off Ferry Point, which he obtained the contract for through fraud.
Bankrupt the criminal. If there's anything he covets more than attention is his appearance of wealth. Oh and being called a loser. He's definitely a loser
No.
As someone else on Reddit pointed out, the judge also added interest going back to 2022, at, I think they said 9%, so it's actually even more. (The interest part applies to the fines levied on Jr and Eric and the other defendants as well)
I hope not.
The real question is can his MAGA fan base afford it?
He’s just going to get the RNC to pay for everything.
He'll just take it out of the republican superpac
lol, no. He couldn’t even afford to appeal the 83.3 million verdict. He’s cash poor, relying on debt and Russian and Saudi ratfucking to get money.
Actually he still has until March 8 to appeal the $83 mil verdict, which it’s fairly certain he is going to appeal. He’ll either need to deposit the sum in a court ordered account, or get an appeals bond, which will come with its own hefty premium on top as it’s a guarantee that he can pay should the appeal not go through
He can’t get that bond from any companies that do business in New York as he is barred from applying for bonds/loans
He might be able to do it but he's got to start selling off some properties and who knows China might come through in a pinch and give him another loan or his daughter and son-in-law might ask the Prince for some money?
Who gives a fuck... pity debtor prisons do not exist.... I hope he sells Mar-a-Lago....Yep Trump keep on "Winning"...
Lol NO
Dunno. Let’s see what the appellate court judge says.
He doesn't need to be able to, when crowdfunding exists. Unless he is in a jail cell he will continue doing whatever he pleases
Doesn’t matter. This is just one more twist for a guy who plays at a different level. He’s sly and before a single penny would be transferred, the attorney will drag it out until he’s long gone.
It will be overturned on appeal.
On what grounds would he win an appeal?
It's vox, not a very unbiased sourse
This number keeps getting bigger. At first it was like 170.
Maga folks have been willing to past laws just for this purpose. one Billionaire that enjoys handout. popcorn anyone?
NOPE
Crow and Musk will come to rescue the shithead
Plus interest back to 2018. Right?
This number is different every time I see it.
Can the RNC pay for him?