386

The Trump Organization is trying to determine the sweep of Tuesday’s ruling that Donald Trump is liable for fraud and what it means for the future of the former president’s namesake business, his attorneys say.

At a pre-trial hearing Wednesday, Trump attorneys said they didn’t know to which part of the company the ruling applied and were starting to work out what may need to be dissolved to comply with the judge’s surprise decision.

Officials from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office also said they needed more time to go through the order.

The fraud case “changed significantly since yesterday,” New York Judge Arthur Engoron said in court Wednesday, referring to his stunning ruling where he found Trump and his adult sons liable for fraud and canceled the Trump Organization’s business certification.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 56 points 1 year ago

At best, The Trump Organization gets pulled into little, tiny pieces that are unable to work together. There won't be anything left of value, power or influence.

Bought time we hit him in the money. Kicked him in the fork so hard he suddenly went deaf.

And if it needs saying, money is the only thing propping this man up. His influence will evaporate overnight once he's truly broke.

[-] geekworking@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago

Don't underestimate the ability of stupid people to give him money. I suspect that he makes more from the grifting than the company. Losing the company martyrdom will be a boon for fundraising.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

You're right, but the Org is also almost certainly a huge part of how he launders campaign money to pay off his ... Russian bankers.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

He's over 1 billion in debt. He didn't even fundraise that much after the election and he had other expenses to cover.

[-] obviouspornalt@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 year ago

Don't underestimate the ability of Saudi Arabia to give him money.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

This guy made so much money when the first charge was levied that it made my eyes water. People who can't afford rent are dying to bail him out. It's so stupid.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Don’t underestimate the ability of foreign influences to fund him either.

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, the grift will continue. Close enough to half the people of the US voted for him last time.

[-] designatedhacker@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago

46% or 74M voters voted for him. Only 29% of 258M US adults voted for him. This same delusional 30% shows up all the time and they vote hard. They aren't 50% though.

[-] FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

close to half of the people in the US voted for him

This is legitimately enough to say “pack it in.” The american experiment has failed and failed fucking fantastically.

Edit: guys I get it, it’s not half of the country. It IS roughly half of the people who voted though, which is what fucking matters

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Would be if it was a true measure but with the low voter participation and him getting less than 50% of what few people voted, he never got more than 21% of the total population to vote for him. That means that over three quarters of Americans have never voted for him and probably never will.

That he got that far with so little of the population voting for him (18% when he "won" in 2016) says a LOT about how undemocratic the system is, though..

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

Whatever way you do the figures, he was elected once and nearly elected a second time. He’s the most likely candidate for a third term and it’s neck and neck. People choosing not to vote is just as big a problem when one of the candidates is this terrible for the world.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He was APPOINTED once. Elected is when you get more votes than the other candidates.

People choosing not to vote

You mean politicians from both parties alienating prospective voters by representing rich people and their corporations many times more than regular people, being staunchly pro-cop and laughing at the very notion of common sense policies that most of the population wants?

While Biden is by far the lesser evil, him and the other neoliberals are still very much an evil, complicit in the rise of fascists like Trump because they never do enough to resist them or represent and help the poor people who have been fooled by Trump pretending to care about them.

And that's not even mentioning all the voter suppression the Dems make pretty speeches against but hardly ever do anything to actually stop it.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago

An indirect election is a type of election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Voter suppression is certainly a problem but voter apathy is a bigger problem.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

An indirect election is one thing, but the EC isn't democratic. Not even close.

And voter "apathy" (more like resignation) is mostly a problem because, with very few center-left exceptions, the major parties only cater to the rich and others with right wing policy positions.

To have nobody who represents you faithfully in Congress or the white House is de facto disenfranchisement, not apathy or laziness.

[-] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

In the most recent election, as it was an election, trump nearly won. That's apathy, not resignation.

None of the candidates in the republican side can get support over trump. Again, apathy. I'm no saying they are good candidates, but a bucket of vomit would be better than a narcissist who steers the country towards civil war and fascism, only caring about his own enrichment.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think it's more damning to see how many eligible voters saw his disastrous administration, and still didn't vote.

Imagine seeing Trump on the golf course for a literal year out of his term and thinking, "Yeah, I don't care if that guy wins or loses again."

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Trump attorneys said they didn’t know to which part of the company the ruling applied

gestures towards all of it and then makes a completely different, significantly ruder gesture at them

[-] Binthinkin@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago

I hope his and the conservative community gets shut down so hard ALL of 2024 that the election just becomes a show about why we don’t want conservatives around anymore and people just abandon it wholly.

That would be a great end to a shit story about what happens when you let human cancer grow in politics.

[-] TwoGems@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

You'd have to block the routers and tv's of 74 million idiots.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s what the 2016 election should have been and what I thought the 2020 election was right after it happened. So the fact that we are where we are today means that there probably isn’t any hope of that happening, ever.

[-] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago

BURN MOTHER FUCKER

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

The future eh? Good thing I can see that. My future vision says that eventually T***p will die and his idiot sack spawn will waste whatever is left after the government finishes chewing on his economic corpse. Ivanka will no longer have to think about her horny weirdo dad, Eric will mourn for the hug he never got, Don Junior will switch from cocaine to meth, Tiffany still won't matter, and Barron will probably get arrested for something weird and gross in his 30s. Oh and Melania will make a fortune on book sales and public speaking while thanking God it's finally over.

[-] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

While Trump Tower is eshine as the Trump homeless community center our whatever. We will make all his hotels homeless and low cost housing and we dedicate them all to him.

[-] Pratai@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago

Yeah. For a trump based business, I would imagine it’s next to impossible to turn a profit legitimately.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

That's what happens when the leader is a nepo baby who's also an idiot who thinks himself infallible 🤷

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How about the future is - NO FUTURE. Shutter the place.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


At a pre-trial hearing Wednesday, Trump attorneys said they didn’t know to which part of the company the ruling applied and were starting to work out what may need to be dissolved to comply with the judge’s surprise decision.

Trump attorney Christopher Kise stressed during Wednesday’s hearing that the judge’s ruling injected fresh uncertainty for his team about the fast-approaching trial and raised a host of questions for them, including over how far-reaching the decision is for the company.

“It’s the reason why I’m saying we would ask the court for a little more time with the monitor,” he said, referring to a retired federal judge who had been appointed several years ago to oversee the company’s financial statements.

Engoron said in his ruling that a receiver will be put in place to “manage the dissolution” of the corporate entities, a move that is rare outside of cases where a judge finds there to be a notable amount of business fraud, according to Simon Miller, a New York-based attorney with broad expertise on receiverships.

Engoron said in his ruling that the issues that will be determined at trial include how much Trump will be held liable for in the lawsuit and the amount of disgorgement, or ill-gotten funds, the company will need to pay to the attorney general’s office.

Kise said in a separate statement that the judge’s decision is “outrageous” and argued that it “seeks to nationalize one of the most successful corporate empires in the United States and seize control of private property.”


The original article contains 1,128 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

So who's looking into the not at suspicious 1bil deal ivankas idiot got.

[-] joenforcer@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

You're a billion short, there.

[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The business still functions and makes money. Trump gets paid , but isn't allowed to run it. If parts get sold they will be sold for market prices. I woudn't be surprised if Trump gets paid for the sale of his assets and fund raises to buy them back under a business from another state. He could make out really well from this.

[-] catfish@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

wrong. everything you said.

[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

The government is revoking the business license, not stripping Trump of assets. Trump still owns the business, but the court is now in charge of winding them down. All of the money is still going to Trump and family while this happens. The businesses will get sold off and Trump will get the money for that as well.

People thinking like you will believe that the government is stealing Trumps properties, which it is not. He will be able to fund raise off of this.

When the pieces are sold off, other companies can buy the assets as long as they are in good standing. Trump has businesses in other states not covered by this ruling, which is specific to New York state.

[-] Pipoca@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The ruling is specific to NYS.

However, from what I understand, the Trump Organization itself is incorporated in NYS. So they'll be selling off everything it owns, in every state.

That includes Mar a Lago.

The proceeds of the sale go first to pay any debts and obligations - to stiffed contractors, to government fines, and to pay off the remainder of bank loans. The owners (i.e. Trump) gets the rest of the cash from the sales. There's literally no way Trump ends up poor from this, but he might find it difficult to repurchase things like Trump tower.

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The damages they owe to the state will be determined at the trial starting next week. It's likely to be a large number; the state is asking for $250 million.

[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Depending on what assets are covered under this ruling there would still be considerable finances even after the selloff. Each apartment in Trump towers alone go for the millions. Trump tower alone is likely worth more than even the asking damages, much less awarded.

[-] fruitleatherpostcard@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Gosh, and those steaks were tasty. Good thing I still have a bunch in the freezer.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
386 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19088 readers
1986 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