In the news

One thing he doesn't want is for NY State to start combining through his assets and debt, working out what they will seize. If they start to pick off properties only to find they are already security for massive debt he will be humiliated.

So he has to sell, but how do you sell so much in so little time when you are so publicly desperate.

Thing about Trump is that he has been a master at wriggling out of these situations his whole life. So does he have anything up his sleeve bar attempted delays until he is in power?

He has to win the election.

If NY State start seizing things in April and by June it becomes obvious that he is not that rich and has to declare bankruptcy (I don't actually think this will actually happen btw), does he still win the election or is his money his Achilles heal? I have no clue, he may just spin it well and ride it out to the Whitehouse.

All the money and assists aside, I don't understand how he's even allowed to run given he's a convicted sexual assaulter. Surely that's a blocker?

convicted sexual assaulter

Wasn't that in a civil court, not a criminal one though?

Wasn't it also a conviction for calling her a liar rather than the actual sexual assault?

Someone I know worked at Citi in the late 80s or early 90s. They were paying Trump a 7 figure retainer to help recover money he'd borrowed from them, hidden in offshore accounts, then defaulted on before filing for bankruptcy. Apparently he was a micro manager when it came to his money and it was cheaper to pay him to "find it" than to try themselves.

even if the loan/bond is secured on the equivalent value in assets

Which likely already have loans / other obligations liens against them that have more seniority.

So he has to sell

Which, arguably, he can't do without paying back loans, or that he doesn't actually own the assets in the first place - he just has his name above the door.

Wait, are you suggesting his wealth is all smoke and mirrors? But I thought he was a succesful self made businessman

😂😂😂

This is why this is a step into the unknown, we will get a little peek behind the curtain. It really could all unravel but then it really could have all unravelled all the time since he announced he would run all those years ago.

Before now he hasn't been in the position where there's an court order that can be used to start unwinding a whole load of his assets.

He led an insurrection, a genuine attempt to over turn an election result, but that doesn't seem to be a blocker either.

Doesn't look that way.

1 Attachment

That was also a civil suit.

Another injustice is that many media persist in calling it sexual assault. It was penetration with fingers, which is legally rape in the US and most other jurisdictions. But many Americans take the view that 'it wasn't really rape'.

Ah, there were two court cases. This one and then the defamation one (the latter was where the $83m damages came from). It's hard to keep up with them all.

That was also a civil suit.

Personally (not a lawyer) I don't really see why that should matter. As if somehow that makes it less important? Dude did wrong, found guilty, should not be allowed to be president surely.

Civil suits have a lower burden of evidence

Civil lawsuits often have a lower threshold of proof than criminal so it is a bit different.

Insurrection / Rape / Tax fraud / Hush money / Election interference / Classified files / Who knows what else, hard to keep up.

Yeah but civil, also Hillary’s emails.

Dead on cert for 47th POTUS.

To be clear I don't think it's a valid reason - but also the fact that clearly a large proportion of his base appear to simply not care should probably be more worrying than Trump himself

To be clear I don't think it's a valid reason

Am I reading that right, that you don't think that sexually assauting a woman, and "only being found guilty in a civil court" is not a valid reason for him not to be president?

If I've got that wrong, I apologise in advance.

Because he is guilty on balance of probability - ie it is more likely he did it than did not.

That is not the same as saying that he did something beyond reasonable doubt.

He's obviously a vile cunt, but I don't think you can say he definitely did it, when actually he probably did it.