With interest, Trump owes $456.8 million. In all, he and co-defendants including his company and top executives owe $467.3 million. To obtain a bond, they would be required to post collateral worth $557 million, Trump's lawyers said.
A state appeals court judge ruled last month that Trump must post a bond covering the full amount to pause enforcement of the judgment, which is to begin on March 25.
According to a quote I saw on NBC, they won't accept any real estate properties because they're (assumably) afraid (of their creditors and shareholders) that the value isn't what Trump Org say it...
According to a quote I saw on NBC, they won't accept any real estate properties because they're (assumably) afraid (of their creditors and shareholders) that the value isn't what Trump Org say it is, considering that's the whole point of the damages.
The bond companies will not “accept hard assets such as real estate as collateral,” but “will only accept cash or cash equivalents (such as marketable securities)
I've seen speculation elsewhere that these buildings may already be leveraged, as well. Do these bond companies want collateral that's already collateral to other loans? Would the bond companies...
I've seen speculation elsewhere that these buildings may already be leveraged, as well. Do these bond companies want collateral that's already collateral to other loans? Would the bond companies be senior to other lienholders in the event things go south, or are others' rights senior to the bond companies?
Generally, to the best of my knowledge as a homeowner seeking loans, lienholders basically are just a straight line...the first one gets dibs, leftovers go to #2, those leftovers go to #3. Hence...
Generally, to the best of my knowledge as a homeowner seeking loans, lienholders basically are just a straight line...the first one gets dibs, leftovers go to #2, those leftovers go to #3.
Hence why you get much better terms with fewer checks on your first mortgage than your second (on the same house).
If they're more than 2nd in line it's a very risky loan, especially in a real estate valuation fraud case.
Maybe he can crowdsource it. Even I'll happily toss him a few thousand dollars for a few hundred acres of land. Direct sale only though. None of this 'first lein' funny business. /joke
Maybe he can crowdsource it. Even I'll happily toss him a few thousand dollars for a few hundred acres of land.
Direct sale only though. None of this 'first lein' funny business.
My response is Ha Ha using Nelson's voice from the Simpsons. More seriously, I want to know if New York will strictly enforce its requirement for a bond in order to appeal the judgement and if it...
My response is Ha Ha using Nelson's voice from the Simpsons.
More seriously, I want to know if New York will strictly enforce its requirement for a bond in order to appeal the judgement and if it does whether a challenge to the law might succeed. If the state starts taking assets early and later loses in court, that could be expensive. However, sooner or later Trump properties are likely to be taken and sold to enforce this judgement.
This was good food for thought, but I don't think Trump (or anyone) should get special treatment here. It happens all the time that penalties are meted out which are later found to have been in...
This was good food for thought, but I don't think Trump (or anyone) should get special treatment here. It happens all the time that penalties are meted out which are later found to have been in error (to excessive, or just flat out wrongly applied). There are countless cases where accused people have lost months, years or even decades of their lives due to incorrect judgments. Losing some property is small potatoes in comparison, imo.
There should absolutely be a better system that avoids wrongful judgments. But, given the system we have, Trump should be treated equally. That means that he should pay the judgment (or post bond to stay it). If it is later found, on appeal, that the judgment was too harsh, and his properties were wrongly siezed - oh well.
It's also not as if there was no recourse; he was just denied a pause. He petitioned the appellate court to pause several portions of the ruling, and was only granted a stay on the issue of being...
It's also not as if there was no recourse; he was just denied a pause. He petitioned the appellate court to pause several portions of the ruling, and was only granted a stay on the issue of being able to operate businesses within the state. My understanding is that the weakest part of the ruling was the forced dissolution of the licenses and the order preventing him from operating businesses.
So it makes sense that the appellate court would pause a judgement that will require review to examine the application of law, but would decline to do so for something that appears straightforward and unlikely to be changed.
I think the real issue is that everyone knows that it's probably "later" and if it is later, his real game is "win the election" and then leverage that to get out of it. I don't know if they'll...
However, sooner or later Trump properties are likely to be taken and sold to enforce this judgement.
I think the real issue is that everyone knows that it's probably "later" and if it is later, his real game is "win the election" and then leverage that to get out of it.
I don't know if they'll start before November, but I doubt it.
Seizing assets from a business to cover a penalty isn't an irreversible action in the eyes of the courts. If assets are sized to cover a financial penalty, the then that action can be remedied if...
Seizing assets from a business to cover a penalty isn't an irreversible action in the eyes of the courts. If assets are sized to cover a financial penalty, the then that action can be remedied if the judgement is reversed later on by writing them a check (plus interest, differential value, etc. depending on circumstances).
Last month, a New York state court found Donald Trump liable for a somewhat odd form of fraud. Over the years, Trump borrowed a lot of money from banks, and as part of these deals the banks wanted financial statements from him. Because he is Donald Trump, he delivered inflated vanity financial statements to the banks, and because he is Donald Trump, the banks ignored those financial statements. Everyone knew he was lying about his wealth, because he has very publicly done that for decades, but the banks were able to underwrite the loans without paying too much attention to his inflated estimates of his own net worth, and in fact the loans at issue in this case were paid back and the banks did fine.
As a philosophical matter, I think there’s a good argument that lying about something immaterial to your banks should not be treated as fraud, and if the banks knew you were lying about your net worth then that lie is not quite fraud. As a practical matter, though, if you are filling out a loan application at a bank and lying about how much money you have, you should probably expect to get in trouble. A lot of people do not have a sense of humor about these things and are not interested in the philosophical arguments.
Trump was ordered to pay $454 million to the New York attorney general, and he plans to appeal. But to appeal he needs to post a bond for the full judgment with the court, and he can’t come up with the money
...
This, I should say, is somewhat weird. His whole argument is that his banks were in fact thrilled to lend him money, and that whatever was wrong in his financial statements didn’t matter because the banks knew he was worth far more than they were lending him. Now, though, nobody will give him money.
...
Where will Donald Trump get $557 million worth of marketable securities by March 25? Oh man, do I have amazing news for him. The New York Times reported last month:
Former President Donald J. Trump’s stake in Trump Media & Technology Group, his social media company, could be worth as much as $4 billion once a long-delayed merger closes.
The deal, with Digital World Acquisition Corporation — a publicly traded shell company — could provide him with a potential financial lifeline at a time when he must come up with the cash to pay a $454 million penalty after a New York judge’s ruling in a civil fraud case.
Digital World has scheduled a March 22 shareholder vote on the merger with Trump Media, whose flagship product, Truth Social, has become the social media platform of choice for Mr. Trump to attack his critics and political opponents.
The shareholder vote is this Friday; the bond is due on Monday. Pretty tight! There are problems. For one thing, the shareholders have to vote to approve the deal. They obviously should do that: DWAC’s stock closed yesterday at $35.575 per share in anticipation of the deal; if the deal fails, shareholders will get back roughly $10.87 per share. They want the deal. But in the past, DWAC has failed to get shareholder approval for obviously good things because its heavily retail shareholder base doesn’t vote that much. I would be surprised if that happened on the merger vote, but it’s not impossible.
Then, the deal has to close right after the vote. At that point, Trump will personally have shares worth about $2.8 billion.
(complications omitted)
The shares are worth billions of dollars at present market value, but TMTG has never actually made money, and a bank that lends money against a locked-up meme stock is making a risky bet that the shares will still be valuable in six months. A lot can happen in six months! Still, at current prices, that’s a lot of collateral. It’s not an insane bet. You’d want recourse.
Mostly though it seems fitting. Trump was fined $454 million because of his habit of inflating his own estimates of his wealth, basing his estimates on how he feels rather than objective measures like cash flows or comparable transactions. But then DWAC came along and gave him the opportunity to, in effect, turn his celebrity into a publicly traded security. Lipschultz:
“This is a meme stock, it’s not the type of thing where you bust out P/E ratios — you can throw that out the window,” said Matthew Tuttle, the chief executive and chief investment officer at Tuttle Capital Management. “DWAC has now become the de facto way to bet on or against Trump,” he added.
The old world (“just making up your net worth based on your feelings is fraud”) is dying at the exact same time that the new one (“actually there’s a stock ticker for how Donald Trump feels and it has a market cap of several billion dollars”) is being born, and if he times it just right maybe he can use the new stock to pay the old fine.
I want to highlight how this bolded bit is an example of a factually correct, but useless and inflammatory editorial choice to add. The only purpose it serves is to stoke partisanship and...
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, has said that she will seek to seize some of Trump’s assets if he’s unable to pay the judgment.
I want to highlight how this bolded bit is an example of a factually correct, but useless and inflammatory editorial choice to add. The only purpose it serves is to stoke partisanship and conspiracy theorists that say these are entirely politically motivated lawsuits.
Here is a similiarly useless and irrelevant edit that I'm making up:
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a black woman, has said that she will seek to seize some of Trump’s assets if he’s unable to pay the judgment.
And here's a less useless one (edit: not 100% sure accuracy of, just an example):
New York Attorney General Letitia James has said that she will seek to seize some of Trump’s assets if he’s unable to pay the judgment, which is pretty standard operating procedure for this sort of thing.
This is kinda shameful to be seeing from AP, they should know better.
It's simultaneously true that Trump, and other individuals/organizations that similarly misrepresented their assets, should ideally be held accountable and that this is a politically motivated...
It's simultaneously true that Trump, and other individuals/organizations that similarly misrepresented their assets, should ideally be held accountable and that this is a politically motivated case.
An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.
...
In making her case against Trump, Letitia James called to the stand a lending expert who estimated that Deutsche Bank gave up $168 million in extra interest on its Trump loans, basing his calculations as if Trump never offered a personal guarantee.
But Trump did offer a guarantee, even if his estimate of his personal wealth was exaggerated. In fact, the bank made its own estimates of Trump’s personal wealth, at times lopping billions from Trump’s figures, and still decided to lend to him.
The Deutsche unit making the Trump business loans wasn’t the typical lending unit, but its private wealth division. That group often lends to rich clients not only to earn interest but to help its chances of winning the lucrative business of managing their vast personal investments and getting them to buy other bank services — something that testimony showed Deutsche was clearly hoping to do with the ex-president. [ie. there would have been no effect on the availability of loans to ordinary borrowers]
Expert commentary:
“This is a basically a death penalty for a business,” said Columbia University law professor Eric Talley. “Is he getting his just desserts because of the fraud, or because people don’t like him?”
“This sets a horrible precedent,” said Adam Leitman Bailey, a New York real estate lawyer who once successfully sued a Trump condo building for misrepresenting sales to lure buyers.
“Those who want to see Donald Trump suffer by any means necessary,” he [University of Michigan law professor] said, “risk ignoring the very commitment to a rule of law that they accuse him of flouting.”
[Edit: opposing view] as New York lawyer and Fordham University adjunct law professor Jerry H. Goldfeder put it, “Just because no one is complaining doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a fraud.”
Edit, first and foremost I am a lawyer. Many people are guilty of crimes, possibly without knowing it, because the law is complicated. That doesn't save them if someone tries to charge them....
Edit, first and foremost I am a lawyer. Many people are guilty of crimes, possibly without knowing it, because the law is complicated. That doesn't save them if someone tries to charge them. However Trump seems to have assumed his wealth shielded him from paying attention to legal requirements. The judgement against Trump is technical, complicated but seems to be legally valid.
However, whether charges would have been brought were he not a politician, well maybe imho
There are more reasons to dislike Trump than that he became president. The biography Plaintiff in Chief by Zirin a New York appellate attorney looks at the litigation strategies he has used throughout his career. He was apparently party to more than 3500 lawsuits before the election in 2016. He made a habit of turning on business partners and suing them. He notoriously stiffed contractors for payment. Trump's way of living life has created many enemies who are personally motivated to do him dirty if they can.
Having said that, if he had not chosen to become president, he likely wouldn't have attracted the organized opposition he faces now. I'm in California and have no reason to care about Trump except that I watched him be president once and want to avoid seeing it again. I will be very happy if I never hear his annoying voice again or have to think about his acts or decisions. Although I am liberal, I responded to the news about Hillary's email server thinking that she shouldn't have done that. And then Trump goes much much farther willfully retaining classified documents. Trump being president put his acts, flaws, foibles and judgement in every citizen's face and his campaign for reelection made it every citizen's problem.
Doesn't the old adage "don't commit two crimes at once, that's how you get caught" apply here? His various kinds of illegal behaviors during and around the presidency drew additional scrutiny to...
However, whether charges would have been brought were he not a politician, well maybe imho
Doesn't the old adage "don't commit two crimes at once, that's how you get caught" apply here? His various kinds of illegal behaviors during and around the presidency drew additional scrutiny to his other activities. Nothing unjust there I'd say, that kinda stuff happens to everyone.
I do think that this perspective offers more to why he would be charged and not strictly be politically motivated, even if he's being somewhat uniquely targeted (since it was seemingly argued that...
I do think that this perspective offers more to why he would be charged and not strictly be politically motivated, even if he's being somewhat uniquely targeted (since it was seemingly argued that other businesses aren't getting these cases brought against them), he uniquely made himself a target by doing other crimes from a unique position. Even if he wasn't a politician but if he had publicly wronged a huge portion of the population in some way as he did while being President, presumably that type of negative attention would have ended up backfiring on him too. There's just seldom situations where you can wrong millions of people like that. He wrongs people all the time in his various businesses, just not on that order of magnitude typically. Of course since he did it from a political position, it's kind of impossible to untangle the potential political motivations from it. But I think the principle of that adage you stated is visible in many aspects of our society, rich people especially can get away with a lot, but sometimes they do an additional crime that is just a bad combination to have with the other crimes they would normally have gotten away with that gets them busted.
Even if he was never president, he's been a celebrity for over 40 years. He has been drawing attention to himself. When you draw attention to yourself, you have to expect people to find the crimes...
Even if he was never president, he's been a celebrity for over 40 years. He has been drawing attention to himself. When you draw attention to yourself, you have to expect people to find the crimes you're committing.
This made me picture two kids. "Little Johnny Rockefeller gets to hit people, why can't I?" This isn't me arguing a point, I just think it's a weird direction to go.
since it was seemingly argued that other businesses aren't getting these cases brought against them
This made me picture two kids. "Little Johnny Rockefeller gets to hit people, why can't I?"
This isn't me arguing a point, I just think it's a weird direction to go.
Yeah, before he got into politics I had a mildly positive view of him. I just knew he was that rich guy that was in Home Alone Lost in New York and that seemed kind of cool. I think most of these...
Yeah, before he got into politics I had a mildly positive view of him. I just knew he was that rich guy that was in Home Alone Lost in New York and that seemed kind of cool.
I think most of these billionaires are better off being quiet. Besides the fact that being a billionaire means you most likely had to do unethical things to gain wealth, I thought Elon Musk was alright before he started talking too. I like spaceships and electric cars, but when he opens his mouth it's just gross.
The same thing has happened to Elon Musk. The public's view of him has gone from real life Tony Stark to real life internet troll. He's done everything in his power to demean and slander anyone he...
The same thing has happened to Elon Musk. The public's view of him has gone from real life Tony Stark to real life internet troll. He's done everything in his power to demean and slander anyone he can.
Off topic, but according to the director (and given credence by Matt Damon) Trump "bullied" his way into that cameo. Unsurprisingly Trump has since responded with his standard deny-and-double-down...
Off topic, but according to the director (and given credence by Matt Damon) Trump "bullied" his way into that cameo. Unsurprisingly Trump has since responded with his standard deny-and-double-down approach ("[They were] begging me to make a cameo appearance" and "I was very busy, and didn’t want to do it"), so I think we can safely conclude that Trump definitely did want to do it and bullied his way in.
I've always been of the "don't meet your heroes" mindsets, but even a step further - I don't think having role models is valuable in the long run. Regardless, other people seem to disagree, and...
I've always been of the "don't meet your heroes" mindsets, but even a step further - I don't think having role models is valuable in the long run.
Regardless, other people seem to disagree, and platforms like twitter allow celebrities and other famous people to have a constant audience, which I mostly think is negative. Instead of having a PR team buffer, these people are just fueling the fire of internet trolls which transforms into clickbait "articles" on some "journalism" outlets, which are shared on social media and gain a false sense of truth through repetition. The cycle continues with "this is what really happened" articles, and of course the pointless discourse that takes place in the comments.
What I'm getting at is that yes, most people should shut up for their own good. If you're rich enough to have a PR manager, let them do their job.
It's a bit of (legal) security through obscurity. In theory, prosecutors have an obligation to pursue prosecutable evidence, subject to resource constraints and prioritization. As a known but...
It's a bit of (legal) security through obscurity. In theory, prosecutors have an obligation to pursue prosecutable evidence, subject to resource constraints and prioritization. As a known but mostly innocuous business man, investing years of resources to investigate his business dealings wouldn't be a priority unless he was causing clear harm. However, as president, he became subject to tremendous scrutiny, as all senior officials should.
So I tend to agree. It might be politically motivated, but it's a level of scrutiny trusted officials should be able to clear.
What makes me sad is, do none of his voters remember what a joke he was in the 90s? Home alone 2 had cameo as a joke for what a douche he was. He bankrupted a casino headlining Mike Tyson. Talk...
What makes me sad is, do none of his voters remember what a joke he was in the 90s? Home alone 2 had cameo as a joke for what a douche he was. He bankrupted a casino headlining Mike Tyson. Talk about failing upward. I will never forget the look of defeat when he actually won for president. He knew the clock had just started clicking.
Have read part of biography, Plaintiff in Chief by Zirin. Before 2016 he had sued or been sued in more than 3500 lawsuits. Betraying former business partners and stiffing contractors for payment...
Have read part of biography, Plaintiff in Chief by Zirin. Before 2016 he had sued or been sued in more than 3500 lawsuits. Betraying former business partners and stiffing contractors for payment was standard operating procedure. His mentor was Roy Cohn but when Cohn died of AIDS, Trump didn't visit.
Remember that we had voting age adults in 2016 who were born in the late 90s. But also, I'm not from the northeast and I had little awareness that he was considered a joke.
Remember that we had voting age adults in 2016 who were born in the late 90s.
But also, I'm not from the northeast and I had little awareness that he was considered a joke.
The few times I've run into t supporters, "That's your guy?" A homeless guy off the street would not only represent you better, but cost a lot less. In both money and prestige. Bizarro world. When...
The few times I've run into t supporters, "That's your guy?" A homeless guy off the street would not only represent you better, but cost a lot less. In both money and prestige.
Bizarro world. When did I buy the ticket and how do I get off this ride?
Vote in November and if possible, call or text in get out the vote efforts. Some people volunteer to be drivers. Make funny videos about Trump flaws and publish them. idk just a few suggestions....
Vote in November and if possible, call or text in get out the vote efforts. Some people volunteer to be drivers. Make funny videos about Trump flaws and publish them. idk just a few suggestions. This year there is a need for Dems and independant anti Trumpers to mobilize and campaign like never before.
Oh no, the ethnicity was me editing in a similiarly useless way, the AP didn't do that. My point is that the AP is the gold standard for neutral factual reporting. And in the scope of this news, I...
Oh no, the ethnicity was me editing in a similiarly useless way, the AP didn't do that. My point is that the AP is the gold standard for neutral factual reporting. And in the scope of this news, I see it as a bad editorial choice.
It makes sense in the article you linked, which breaks down the motivating factors in more detail and is addressing that partisianship a bit. From the same article you linked, expert testimony on why it's not politically motivated:
When big loans are issued with an inaccurate picture of risk, said state lawyer Kevin Wallace, it damages the public and business community, “distorts the market” and “prices out honest borrowers.”
Plus, Wallace suggested, letting such lies to banks slide if those banks don’t take legal action on their own would amount to saying, “if you are rich enough, you are going to be allowed to do it.”
Or as New York lawyer and Fordham University adjunct law professor Jerry H. Goldfeder put it, “Just because no one is complaining doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a fraud.”
Think about how a cascade of inflation would be permitted to continue on a lie of improper valuation in a market like NYC. That's a lot of potential bad debt or insurance payouts if something goes awry, even to parties completely tangential to Trumps direct actions.
My bad I misread the ethnicity thing. My concern is that this level of scrutiny isn't being applied to other potentially similar cases (I'm not too familiar with corporate law, but exaggerating...
My bad I misread the ethnicity thing.
My concern is that this level of scrutiny isn't being applied to other potentially similar cases (I'm not too familiar with corporate law, but exaggerating asset value I can't imagine is terribly uncommon), and that selective enforcement of the law is generally a very dangerous route for the judicial system. The $168M of lost interest, based on what's described in the article, also seems plainly inaccurate.
All enforcement of the law is selective. 5 mph over the speed limit is also against the law, but you generally won't get ticketed for it unless you're also doing something else wrong. Also bear in...
All enforcement of the law is selective. 5 mph over the speed limit is also against the law, but you generally won't get ticketed for it unless you're also doing something else wrong.
Also bear in mind that Nixion's administration sued Trump for violating housing discrimination laws in the 70s/80s. He's a bit of a repeat offendor.
I disagree. I hope this does set a precedent and makes it easier to go after other business as well. Businesses should operate in alignment with the law, but when we don't punish lawbreaking...
“This sets a horrible precedent,” said Adam Leitman Bailey...
I disagree. I hope this does set a precedent and makes it easier to go after other business as well. Businesses should operate in alignment with the law, but when we don't punish lawbreaking consistently, we effectively punish law-abiding businesses and incentivize the promotion of unethical, high-risk-taking personalities to some of the most influential roles in the economy.
If the law itself is bad, then fixing it should be a top priority. Haphazard enforcement lets legislators off the hook for procrastinating on badly needed reforms.
I didn't realize he doesn't own the majority of t tower, apparently just the 5th and 56th floors and concessions on the ground floor. A not small portion being owned by Russian citizens.
I didn't realize he doesn't own the majority of t tower, apparently just the 5th and 56th floors and concessions on the ground floor. A not small portion being owned by Russian citizens.
This is something I've always wondered about. If omitting the D or R (or rarely, I) after the name of a politician would help stop or slow some of the divisiveness that we see. I'm reminded of...
This is something I've always wondered about. If omitting the D or R (or rarely, I) after the name of a politician would help stop or slow some of the divisiveness that we see. I'm reminded of that thing where "people love the ACA, but hate Obamacare," even though they're literally the same thing.
I know I've caught myself reading an article about some policy proposal and then stopping and getting mad as soon as as I see the R after a politician's name. Even if I keep reading and maybe agree with the policy, that "these bastards..." is still in my head.
It's a mental, or perhaps emotional, shortcut. And it seems to do no good.
We should be doing that with ballots too. Don't list D or R next to that person's name, just lidy their name. That would do a lot to make our elections better I think.
We should be doing that with ballots too. Don't list D or R next to that person's name, just lidy their name. That would do a lot to make our elections better I think.
Agreed. People would actually have to research candidates. Or at least remember what they saw on a campaign ad or something. In my state, we do judicial retention elections. And they're all...
Agreed. People would actually have to research candidates. Or at least remember what they saw on a campaign ad or something. In my state, we do judicial retention elections. And they're all non-partisan. Guess what? I actually end up looking up newspaper or bar recommendations/reviews on these judges.
If people want to vote D or R up and down the ballot, they still can. It's just going to require a little work to do so.
For those voting in-person, there will often (perhaps even usually; I haven't voted in-person for a while) be volunteers from political parties outside the polling location handing out pamphlets...
For those voting in-person, there will often (perhaps even usually; I haven't voted in-person for a while) be volunteers from political parties outside the polling location handing out pamphlets with their slates of electors anyway. Though this is going to depend on your location -- when I voted in 2016 there weren't any Republican volunteers at my polling location because of the area I was in.
I actually disagree on that one. Candidates can be sneaky about their true intentions and as long we have two major political parties, it’s important to know who’s who when voting. I agree with...
I actually disagree on that one. Candidates can be sneaky about their true intentions and as long we have two major political parties, it’s important to know who’s who when voting.
I agree with leaving the D or R out when talking about otherwise non-political issues.
Yeah, the current system does not ensure any kind of real Integrity or quality, but removing political Association from the ballot just means that the winner will probably be the person who has...
Yeah, the current system does not ensure any kind of real Integrity or quality, but removing political Association from the ballot just means that the winner will probably be the person who has the most name recognition (who cares if people have positive associations with your name, as long as they say oh I know who this guy is so he must be better than the rest), unless that person's name has been tarnished through mudslinging. I know there are places that do this already, so I would be interested in seeing what the political advertisements are like in those areas.
Its already happening now. Kristen Sinema used the Democrat brand to get elected and did a U-Turn as soon as she got the job. I'm moreso talking about lower level races though. There's no reason a...
Its already happening now. Kristen Sinema used the Democrat brand to get elected and did a U-Turn as soon as she got the job.
I'm moreso talking about lower level races though. There's no reason a Board of Education member should be a Democrat or a Republican. They should run on their ideals only, and not having their labels next to them will (hopefully) cut down on the random selection of candidates based on their party.
There’s no reason to elect the board of education. We don’t elect nuclear regulators, why should we elect folks directly managing the education system? Have the legislature appoint them.
There’s no reason to elect the board of education. We don’t elect nuclear regulators, why should we elect folks directly managing the education system? Have the legislature appoint them.
The legislature already has an outside impact anyway by being the authority that gives the schools funds. The BoE just gets to take the heat for spreading too little pie too thinly.
The legislature already has an outside impact anyway by being the authority that gives the schools funds.
The BoE just gets to take the heat for spreading too little pie too thinly.
That’s fair. However, I think we’d have to work on ensuring their platform is clearly laid out to the public. The issue I repeatedly come up against, is trying to research judges, which are...
That’s fair. However, I think we’d have to work on ensuring their platform is clearly laid out to the public. The issue I repeatedly come up against, is trying to research judges, which are elected but “non-political” positions. When you try to search for their platform/world view, all you get is generalities and platitudes. Nothing concrete to sway you one way or the other. If they aren’t pushing a particular talking point, that infers their political leanings, I have to rely on who endorses them. With the advent of generative AI, I think it will be even harder to get truthful, actionable information to voters. If all the information I have to go on, is whether they are Democrat or Republican, and I can only choose between one or the other, then it probably doesn’t even matter what the platform is, as sad as that is.
Yeah that's definitely a concern. The more local the election, the less information about a candidate there is. One of the downsides of democracy I guess.
Yeah that's definitely a concern. The more local the election, the less information about a candidate there is.
In the smaller races, you can pony up a few hundred dollars to get your information put in the voter information packet. When I was younger I knew someone who was running for an advisory committee...
In the smaller races, you can pony up a few hundred dollars to get your information put in the voter information packet. When I was younger I knew someone who was running for an advisory committee role in her town had a local businessperson offer to pay the fee for her "out of the goodness of his heart," since he saw such a bright future for her in politics.
It wasn't a bribe, since she was a private citizen, but it still left me feeling weird.
But yeah, the voter information packet still exists to help people have a little something about the candidates.
This can be done with non-partisan races, and arguably, there, has even less regulation. Alex Villanueva , for example, ran a campaign for LA Sheriff, a non-party position, in part by stating that...
Its already happening now. Kristen Sinema used the Democrat brand to get elected and did a U-Turn as soon as she got the job.
This can be done with non-partisan races, and arguably, there, has even less regulation. Alex Villanueva , for example, ran a campaign for LA Sheriff, a non-party position, in part by stating that he was "a Democrat", and his opponents were not. As the position was not partisan, reputable candidates did not give or campaign on party affiliations, and as what he actually meant was that he was a registered Democratic Party member, he was technically not lying. In a non-partisan race, there was no primary process, and the fact that most Democratic politicians endorsed his opponent was lost on low-research voters. There was no label next to his name, or anyone else's, on the ballot, but he prominently campaigned on the affiliation, and there was no way for the party to prevent him from doing so. Despite being essentially a political outlier not dissimilar to Trump (essentially, pro-police-violence, anti-oversight, anti-mask, interested in helping his friends), he was able to unseat a moderate reformist and make a mess of the department, likely in large part owing to voters who knew only that he was "a Democrat" from the campaign material with that next to his name.
How much do endorsements matter? I can’t imagine them helping a candidate—most impact I’ve seen them have is hurting a campaign because she was endorsed by “those assholes.” One of the motifs...
How much do endorsements matter? I can’t imagine them helping a candidate—most impact I’ve seen them have is hurting a campaign because she was endorsed by “those assholes.”
One of the motifs about people predicting the 2020 elections was that the unions unanimously endorsed Biden while their members dutifully lined up to pull the lever for Trump.
AP has been pretty shit lately. They're reviewed as being unbiased but skimming their headlines is shit like "Biden in trouble? Faltering polls after weak presentation" and "GOP enjoys powerful...
AP has been pretty shit lately. They're reviewed as being unbiased but skimming their headlines is shit like
"Biden in trouble? Faltering polls after weak presentation"
and
"GOP enjoys powerful victories in key races, critics silent"
and
"Trump avoids prosecution while DOJ struggles to stick charges"
obviously I made these up to illustrate a point, being that while on the surface these seem fine, they use very specific word choice and title rhetoric to shape reader opinion. Even if you dive into the articles, they will obfuscate info behind irrelevant context and leave the actual events in the last paragraph.
I used to really like AP for how bland their writing was, but the last couple of years have had some pretty heavy slant. A lot of criticism for NYT can be found to a lesser extent in AP.
I believe this happens but maybe your point would be better illustrated by taking real headlines rather than making up biased headlines to prove bias. P.S. when you write "skimming their headlines...
I believe this happens but maybe your point would be better illustrated by taking real headlines rather than making up biased headlines to prove bias.
P.S. when you write "skimming their headlines is shit like", my initial read is that your listed headlines are real ones you skimmed off of AP... I know you add in later that you made them up, but I could have easily missed that.
EDIT: "I believe this happens" in my first sentence really should be "I know".
I'm illustrating something I've noticed, not putting together a study or legal case. I considered taking time to find real headlines but decided against it because I'm not making an argument or...
I'm illustrating something I've noticed, not putting together a study or legal case. I considered taking time to find real headlines but decided against it because I'm not making an argument or trying to convince anyone of anything, just sharing my perspective as it relates to the context.
I think your point would have been just as good without being potentially misleading if, instead of constructing hypothetical examples, you just left it at a description of your feelings/opinions...
I think your point would have been just as good without being potentially misleading if, instead of constructing hypothetical examples, you just left it at a description of your feelings/opinions on the subject.
For example:
AP has been pretty shit lately. They're reviewed as being unbiased but skimming their headlines [gives me the impression that] while on the surface they seem fine, they use very specific word choice and title rhetoric to shape reader opinion. Even if you dive into the articles, they will obfuscate info behind irrelevant context and leave the actual events in the last paragraph.
I used to really like AP for how bland their writing was, but the last couple of years have had some pretty heavy slant. A lot of criticism for NYT can be found to a lesser extent in AP.
30 companies have turned him down.
According to a quote I saw on NBC, they won't accept any real estate properties because they're (assumably) afraid (of their creditors and shareholders) that the value isn't what Trump Org say it is, considering that's the whole point of the damages.
I've seen speculation elsewhere that these buildings may already be leveraged, as well. Do these bond companies want collateral that's already collateral to other loans? Would the bond companies be senior to other lienholders in the event things go south, or are others' rights senior to the bond companies?
Generally, to the best of my knowledge as a homeowner seeking loans, lienholders basically are just a straight line...the first one gets dibs, leftovers go to #2, those leftovers go to #3.
Hence why you get much better terms with fewer checks on your first mortgage than your second (on the same house).
If they're more than 2nd in line it's a very risky loan, especially in a real estate valuation fraud case.
Maybe he can crowdsource it. Even I'll happily toss him a few thousand dollars for a few hundred acres of land.
Direct sale only though. None of this 'first lein' funny business.
/joke
My response is Ha Ha using Nelson's voice from the Simpsons.
More seriously, I want to know if New York will strictly enforce its requirement for a bond in order to appeal the judgement and if it does whether a challenge to the law might succeed. If the state starts taking assets early and later loses in court, that could be expensive. However, sooner or later Trump properties are likely to be taken and sold to enforce this judgement.
This was good food for thought, but I don't think Trump (or anyone) should get special treatment here. It happens all the time that penalties are meted out which are later found to have been in error (to excessive, or just flat out wrongly applied). There are countless cases where accused people have lost months, years or even decades of their lives due to incorrect judgments. Losing some property is small potatoes in comparison, imo.
There should absolutely be a better system that avoids wrongful judgments. But, given the system we have, Trump should be treated equally. That means that he should pay the judgment (or post bond to stay it). If it is later found, on appeal, that the judgment was too harsh, and his properties were wrongly siezed - oh well.
It's also not as if there was no recourse; he was just denied a pause. He petitioned the appellate court to pause several portions of the ruling, and was only granted a stay on the issue of being able to operate businesses within the state. My understanding is that the weakest part of the ruling was the forced dissolution of the licenses and the order preventing him from operating businesses.
So it makes sense that the appellate court would pause a judgement that will require review to examine the application of law, but would decline to do so for something that appears straightforward and unlikely to be changed.
I think the real issue is that everyone knows that it's probably "later" and if it is later, his real game is "win the election" and then leverage that to get out of it.
I don't know if they'll start before November, but I doubt it.
Well, he was denied a stay on that portion of the judgement. So I think they can start collecting the 25th.
Seizing assets from a business to cover a penalty isn't an irreversible action in the eyes of the courts. If assets are sized to cover a financial penalty, the then that action can be remedied if the judgement is reversed later on by writing them a check (plus interest, differential value, etc. depending on circumstances).
Matt Levine wrote about this today:
...
...
(complications omitted)
I want to highlight how this bolded bit is an example of a factually correct, but useless and inflammatory editorial choice to add. The only purpose it serves is to stoke partisanship and conspiracy theorists that say these are entirely politically motivated lawsuits.
Here is a similiarly useless and irrelevant edit that I'm making up:
And here's a less useless one (edit: not 100% sure accuracy of, just an example):
This is kinda shameful to be seeing from AP, they should know better.
It's simultaneously true that Trump, and other individuals/organizations that similarly misrepresented their assets, should ideally be held accountable and that this is a politically motivated case.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
Expert commentary:
Edit, first and foremost I am a lawyer. Many people are guilty of crimes, possibly without knowing it, because the law is complicated. That doesn't save them if someone tries to charge them. However Trump seems to have assumed his wealth shielded him from paying attention to legal requirements. The judgement against Trump is technical, complicated but seems to be legally valid.
However, whether charges would have been brought were he not a politician, well maybe imho
There are more reasons to dislike Trump than that he became president. The biography Plaintiff in Chief by Zirin a New York appellate attorney looks at the litigation strategies he has used throughout his career. He was apparently party to more than 3500 lawsuits before the election in 2016. He made a habit of turning on business partners and suing them. He notoriously stiffed contractors for payment. Trump's way of living life has created many enemies who are personally motivated to do him dirty if they can.
Having said that, if he had not chosen to become president, he likely wouldn't have attracted the organized opposition he faces now. I'm in California and have no reason to care about Trump except that I watched him be president once and want to avoid seeing it again. I will be very happy if I never hear his annoying voice again or have to think about his acts or decisions. Although I am liberal, I responded to the news about Hillary's email server thinking that she shouldn't have done that. And then Trump goes much much farther willfully retaining classified documents. Trump being president put his acts, flaws, foibles and judgement in every citizen's face and his campaign for reelection made it every citizen's problem.
Doesn't the old adage "don't commit two crimes at once, that's how you get caught" apply here? His various kinds of illegal behaviors during and around the presidency drew additional scrutiny to his other activities. Nothing unjust there I'd say, that kinda stuff happens to everyone.
I do think that this perspective offers more to why he would be charged and not strictly be politically motivated, even if he's being somewhat uniquely targeted (since it was seemingly argued that other businesses aren't getting these cases brought against them), he uniquely made himself a target by doing other crimes from a unique position. Even if he wasn't a politician but if he had publicly wronged a huge portion of the population in some way as he did while being President, presumably that type of negative attention would have ended up backfiring on him too. There's just seldom situations where you can wrong millions of people like that. He wrongs people all the time in his various businesses, just not on that order of magnitude typically. Of course since he did it from a political position, it's kind of impossible to untangle the potential political motivations from it. But I think the principle of that adage you stated is visible in many aspects of our society, rich people especially can get away with a lot, but sometimes they do an additional crime that is just a bad combination to have with the other crimes they would normally have gotten away with that gets them busted.
Even if he was never president, he's been a celebrity for over 40 years. He has been drawing attention to himself. When you draw attention to yourself, you have to expect people to find the crimes you're committing.
This made me picture two kids. "Little Johnny Rockefeller gets to hit people, why can't I?"
This isn't me arguing a point, I just think it's a weird direction to go.
Yeah, before he got into politics I had a mildly positive view of him. I just knew he was that rich guy that was in Home Alone Lost in New York and that seemed kind of cool.
I think most of these billionaires are better off being quiet. Besides the fact that being a billionaire means you most likely had to do unethical things to gain wealth, I thought Elon Musk was alright before he started talking too. I like spaceships and electric cars, but when he opens his mouth it's just gross.
The same thing has happened to Elon Musk. The public's view of him has gone from real life Tony Stark to real life internet troll. He's done everything in his power to demean and slander anyone he can.
Off topic, but according to the director (and given credence by Matt Damon) Trump "bullied" his way into that cameo. Unsurprisingly Trump has since responded with his standard deny-and-double-down approach ("[They were] begging me to make a cameo appearance" and "I was very busy, and didn’t want to do it"), so I think we can safely conclude that Trump definitely did want to do it and bullied his way in.
I've always been of the "don't meet your heroes" mindsets, but even a step further - I don't think having role models is valuable in the long run.
Regardless, other people seem to disagree, and platforms like twitter allow celebrities and other famous people to have a constant audience, which I mostly think is negative. Instead of having a PR team buffer, these people are just fueling the fire of internet trolls which transforms into clickbait "articles" on some "journalism" outlets, which are shared on social media and gain a false sense of truth through repetition. The cycle continues with "this is what really happened" articles, and of course the pointless discourse that takes place in the comments.
What I'm getting at is that yes, most people should shut up for their own good. If you're rich enough to have a PR manager, let them do their job.
It's a bit of (legal) security through obscurity. In theory, prosecutors have an obligation to pursue prosecutable evidence, subject to resource constraints and prioritization. As a known but mostly innocuous business man, investing years of resources to investigate his business dealings wouldn't be a priority unless he was causing clear harm. However, as president, he became subject to tremendous scrutiny, as all senior officials should.
So I tend to agree. It might be politically motivated, but it's a level of scrutiny trusted officials should be able to clear.
What makes me sad is, do none of his voters remember what a joke he was in the 90s? Home alone 2 had cameo as a joke for what a douche he was. He bankrupted a casino headlining Mike Tyson. Talk about failing upward. I will never forget the look of defeat when he actually won for president. He knew the clock had just started clicking.
And in the 80's. He was the walking trope of 'evil narcissist that will do anything to make a buck.'
Same old scumbag. Before the days of Twitter, he took out newspaper ads for his halfwit screeds. Such as during the Central Park Five incident.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/what-trump-has-said-central-park-five/1501321001/
Have read part of biography, Plaintiff in Chief by Zirin. Before 2016 he had sued or been sued in more than 3500 lawsuits. Betraying former business partners and stiffing contractors for payment was standard operating procedure. His mentor was Roy Cohn but when Cohn died of AIDS, Trump didn't visit.
No, he had a cameo in Home Alone 2 because he said they could only use his hotel if they let him be in the movie.
Of course. Thanks for the update. The man can sure shoehorn himself into everything. I guess that is a talent of sorts?
Remember that we had voting age adults in 2016 who were born in the late 90s.
But also, I'm not from the northeast and I had little awareness that he was considered a joke.
The few times I've run into t supporters, "That's your guy?" A homeless guy off the street would not only represent you better, but cost a lot less. In both money and prestige.
Bizarro world. When did I buy the ticket and how do I get off this ride?
Vote in November and if possible, call or text in get out the vote efforts. Some people volunteer to be drivers. Make funny videos about Trump flaws and publish them. idk just a few suggestions. This year there is a need for Dems and independant anti Trumpers to mobilize and campaign like never before.
We even have folks like that on Tildes ;) 2016 was my first presidential election (rough start).
Oh no, the ethnicity was me editing in a similiarly useless way, the AP didn't do that. My point is that the AP is the gold standard for neutral factual reporting. And in the scope of this news, I see it as a bad editorial choice.
It makes sense in the article you linked, which breaks down the motivating factors in more detail and is addressing that partisianship a bit. From the same article you linked, expert testimony on why it's not politically motivated:
Think about how a cascade of inflation would be permitted to continue on a lie of improper valuation in a market like NYC. That's a lot of potential bad debt or insurance payouts if something goes awry, even to parties completely tangential to Trumps direct actions.
My bad I misread the ethnicity thing.
My concern is that this level of scrutiny isn't being applied to other potentially similar cases (I'm not too familiar with corporate law, but exaggerating asset value I can't imagine is terribly uncommon), and that selective enforcement of the law is generally a very dangerous route for the judicial system. The $168M of lost interest, based on what's described in the article, also seems plainly inaccurate.
All enforcement of the law is selective. 5 mph over the speed limit is also against the law, but you generally won't get ticketed for it unless you're also doing something else wrong.
Also bear in mind that Nixion's administration sued Trump for violating housing discrimination laws in the 70s/80s. He's a bit of a repeat offendor.
I disagree. I hope this does set a precedent and makes it easier to go after other business as well. Businesses should operate in alignment with the law, but when we don't punish lawbreaking consistently, we effectively punish law-abiding businesses and incentivize the promotion of unethical, high-risk-taking personalities to some of the most influential roles in the economy.
If the law itself is bad, then fixing it should be a top priority. Haphazard enforcement lets legislators off the hook for procrastinating on badly needed reforms.
I didn't realize he doesn't own the majority of t tower, apparently just the 5th and 56th floors and concessions on the ground floor. A not small portion being owned by Russian citizens.
You are not AP’s costumer, the news outlet that’s buying their work is — their customers demand salacious stories to draw readership.
This is something I've always wondered about. If omitting the D or R (or rarely, I) after the name of a politician would help stop or slow some of the divisiveness that we see. I'm reminded of that thing where "people love the ACA, but hate Obamacare," even though they're literally the same thing.
I know I've caught myself reading an article about some policy proposal and then stopping and getting mad as soon as as I see the R after a politician's name. Even if I keep reading and maybe agree with the policy, that "these bastards..." is still in my head.
It's a mental, or perhaps emotional, shortcut. And it seems to do no good.
We should be doing that with ballots too. Don't list D or R next to that person's name, just lidy their name. That would do a lot to make our elections better I think.
Agreed. People would actually have to research candidates. Or at least remember what they saw on a campaign ad or something. In my state, we do judicial retention elections. And they're all non-partisan. Guess what? I actually end up looking up newspaper or bar recommendations/reviews on these judges.
If people want to vote D or R up and down the ballot, they still can. It's just going to require a little work to do so.
For those voting in-person, there will often (perhaps even usually; I haven't voted in-person for a while) be volunteers from political parties outside the polling location handing out pamphlets with their slates of electors anyway. Though this is going to depend on your location -- when I voted in 2016 there weren't any Republican volunteers at my polling location because of the area I was in.
I actually disagree on that one. Candidates can be sneaky about their true intentions and as long we have two major political parties, it’s important to know who’s who when voting.
I agree with leaving the D or R out when talking about otherwise non-political issues.
Yeah, the current system does not ensure any kind of real Integrity or quality, but removing political Association from the ballot just means that the winner will probably be the person who has the most name recognition (who cares if people have positive associations with your name, as long as they say oh I know who this guy is so he must be better than the rest), unless that person's name has been tarnished through mudslinging. I know there are places that do this already, so I would be interested in seeing what the political advertisements are like in those areas.
Its already happening now. Kristen Sinema used the Democrat brand to get elected and did a U-Turn as soon as she got the job.
I'm moreso talking about lower level races though. There's no reason a Board of Education member should be a Democrat or a Republican. They should run on their ideals only, and not having their labels next to them will (hopefully) cut down on the random selection of candidates based on their party.
There’s no reason to elect the board of education. We don’t elect nuclear regulators, why should we elect folks directly managing the education system? Have the legislature appoint them.
What is your preferred level of government to set educational standards?
The legislature already has an outside impact anyway by being the authority that gives the schools funds.
The BoE just gets to take the heat for spreading too little pie too thinly.
That’s fair. However, I think we’d have to work on ensuring their platform is clearly laid out to the public. The issue I repeatedly come up against, is trying to research judges, which are elected but “non-political” positions. When you try to search for their platform/world view, all you get is generalities and platitudes. Nothing concrete to sway you one way or the other. If they aren’t pushing a particular talking point, that infers their political leanings, I have to rely on who endorses them. With the advent of generative AI, I think it will be even harder to get truthful, actionable information to voters. If all the information I have to go on, is whether they are Democrat or Republican, and I can only choose between one or the other, then it probably doesn’t even matter what the platform is, as sad as that is.
Yeah that's definitely a concern. The more local the election, the less information about a candidate there is.
One of the downsides of democracy I guess.
In the smaller races, you can pony up a few hundred dollars to get your information put in the voter information packet. When I was younger I knew someone who was running for an advisory committee role in her town had a local businessperson offer to pay the fee for her "out of the goodness of his heart," since he saw such a bright future for her in politics.
It wasn't a bribe, since she was a private citizen, but it still left me feeling weird.
But yeah, the voter information packet still exists to help people have a little something about the candidates.
This can be done with non-partisan races, and arguably, there, has even less regulation. Alex Villanueva , for example, ran a campaign for LA Sheriff, a non-party position, in part by stating that he was "a Democrat", and his opponents were not. As the position was not partisan, reputable candidates did not give or campaign on party affiliations, and as what he actually meant was that he was a registered Democratic Party member, he was technically not lying. In a non-partisan race, there was no primary process, and the fact that most Democratic politicians endorsed his opponent was lost on low-research voters. There was no label next to his name, or anyone else's, on the ballot, but he prominently campaigned on the affiliation, and there was no way for the party to prevent him from doing so. Despite being essentially a political outlier not dissimilar to Trump (essentially, pro-police-violence, anti-oversight, anti-mask, interested in helping his friends), he was able to unseat a moderate reformist and make a mess of the department, likely in large part owing to voters who knew only that he was "a Democrat" from the campaign material with that next to his name.
How much do endorsements matter? I can’t imagine them helping a candidate—most impact I’ve seen them have is hurting a campaign because she was endorsed by “those assholes.”
One of the motifs about people predicting the 2020 elections was that the unions unanimously endorsed Biden while their members dutifully lined up to pull the lever for Trump.
AP has been pretty shit lately. They're reviewed as being unbiased but skimming their headlines is shit like
"Biden in trouble? Faltering polls after weak presentation"
and
"GOP enjoys powerful victories in key races, critics silent"
and
"Trump avoids prosecution while DOJ struggles to stick charges"
obviously I made these up to illustrate a point, being that while on the surface these seem fine, they use very specific word choice and title rhetoric to shape reader opinion. Even if you dive into the articles, they will obfuscate info behind irrelevant context and leave the actual events in the last paragraph.
I used to really like AP for how bland their writing was, but the last couple of years have had some pretty heavy slant. A lot of criticism for NYT can be found to a lesser extent in AP.
I believe this happens but maybe your point would be better illustrated by taking real headlines rather than making up biased headlines to prove bias.
P.S. when you write "skimming their headlines is shit like", my initial read is that your listed headlines are real ones you skimmed off of AP... I know you add in later that you made them up, but I could have easily missed that.
EDIT: "I believe this happens" in my first sentence really should be "I know".
I'm illustrating something I've noticed, not putting together a study or legal case. I considered taking time to find real headlines but decided against it because I'm not making an argument or trying to convince anyone of anything, just sharing my perspective as it relates to the context.
I think your point would have been just as good without being potentially misleading if, instead of constructing hypothetical examples, you just left it at a description of your feelings/opinions on the subject.
For example: