this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
266 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2426 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Experts say a cash crunch in coming weeks could thrust the former president’s business into greater uncertainty than it has seen in decades

Hours after a New York judge ordered Donald Trump to pay a $355 million penalty for submitting false data to financial institutions, the former president railed against the decision during a fundraiser at his Mar-a-Lago Club with some of the Republican Party’s wealthiest donors.

Trump claimed at that Feb. 16 gathering that the judge in the civil fraud case had made history by ordering him to pay such a staggering sum, according to two people who were there. He suggested that the judgment was so severe that the public would consider it unfair and rally in support. Over and over, he returned to the penalty, livid at its size.

The episode offered a glimpse of Trump’s preoccupation with a legal decision that threatens his wealth and has thrust his business empire into greater uncertainty than perhaps any time since the 1990s, when his Atlantic City casinos fell into extreme debt, leading six of his companies to file for bankruptcy.

Trump, who built his business and political identities around boasts of financial savvy, now faces an immediate cash crunch of more than a half-billion dollars — the combined cost of two legal battles that will now test the limits of his personal wealth.

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're overthinking this. Your original comment asked about the consequences of him saying "no," so I outlined the legal options the prosecutor of the case has already considered and discussed. Let's see what happens soon.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Maybe. We'll see. I think its important to consider more than just what the legal options prescribe.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Up James's power structure, taken to the maximum, is the US military. Up Trump's power structure is...the Proud Boys or some other wannabe militia. The end result then is the seizure of Trump's property. Somewhere in there you can start imagining all manner of things from the start of a civil war, assassination, bankruptcy, Trump dropping out of the race etc. etc. so it becomes silly to try and extrapolate any further beyond yes the seizure will happen.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's not like New york had to physically secure a building either. They can take legal ownership without setting foot in a building and sell it to whoever wants it. If there is a shortfall, they can make it up seizing accounts/boats/jets/whatever.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

I assume you mean 'Bidens' power structure?

The right has been cheering on civil war for decades. The took a crack at it in 2021. They've made assignation attempts as recently as 2020 (Pelosi, Wittmer, a bit further back Giffords, who suffered a major brain injury as a result). Its easy to write this kind of speculation off as hysterics, but there is a legitimate history forming where it seems like the right will seize power by any means. Like this isn't made up hysterics, this is what these people are doing.

I don't think its unreasonable to expect something unexpected here, and certainly don't expect Trump to suddenly decide that its time to roll over and pay his dues. He'll fight this. It might not be in court, but he will fight this. And he's far cleverer than some of the above commentators give him credit for. Just because they can't see out side of the box doesn't mean Trump can't. I don't like to underestimate those I find myself in opposition to.

So like right now, what is Trump doing? He's about to have all of his liquidity erased. That's huge. He won't suffer that in passing, so what is he doing in the background right now? Is he calling around to the Saudis and cutting deals? Is he on the phone with Musk and others who might carry water for him so its not his money he has to spend? Like either he's going to try to figure out how to hold onto the cash, or he's going to need to find another source of cash, assuming he can even front the bond.

He doesn't have many legal options, so I expect him to to consider other than legal ones. Just a matter of sussing out which ones have legs.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Her enforcement options will never include the US military, because she is a NY state official. She doesn't have that authority, and even if she did the US military cannot get involved in civilian enforcement actions. The appropriate enforcement group here is the NY State Sheriff's Department, perhaps in cooperation with the NYPD.

But it won't even get that far, because there is already a court-appointed administrator for Trump's assets in the state. When James comes to collect, if Trump doesn't have the payment on time she always has the option to ask the administrator to provide the difference.