politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm no expert by any means but I think once he's kicked out of NY, it's going to be pretty difficult for him to get back in.
He also has the court appointed monitor for the next 3 years which he already complained is costing him money (by stopping him from committing more fraud).
On top of that, banks will think twice before doing business with him in the future making it very difficult for him to make money without risking what he already has
While I agree that it should have been much more, I think (well more of a hope) that the long term damage this will do will cost him and his family far more than if he never committed fraud in the first place... Then again, he's shown an amazing ability to avoid consequences this far
He hasn't really been kicked out, though. Has he? He's banned from "serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in New York for a period of three years" but the business certificates were not cancelled. The judge modified his original order from September to vacate the directive to cancel them. That means that when the monitor, who Trump is paying about $186,000/month, is done in three years, he'll be back in control of it all.
Oh... I misunderstood that part then, I thought that part of the order was still in place. That's not as bad for him. My hope is that the monitor digs up a lot more dirt in that time and hands it over, like they did a month or so back
He's not allowed to control or direct the company for those 3 years, and the sum of the judgment might be enough to force the company to be sold off
Maybe, but somehow I don't think it'll play out that way.
I think one of two things will happen with the businesses. First, it may turn out that they owe so much because of the fraudulently acquired loans that they are not really profitable and will end up failing. They simply might not viable without the ongoing fraud. It'll get particularly dicey if the banks Trump and his companies defrauded decide to use the ruling to demand that the loans be immediately repaid. I doubt that will happen, but it'd be fun to watch.
On the other hand, Trump is such a bone head businessman that he could actually be richer if he'd just invested his inheritance in the stock market and not started his own businesses. This is a guy who managed to bankrupt multiple casinos. The saying, the house always wins, apparently doesn't apply when Trump is running the house. Without his tiny, incompetent hands at the wheel, his companies might actually start running more efficiently. Whoever will be running them instead of Trump may just do a better job than him, since they won't be so focused on committing crimes. Trump could actually make more money from them than he would otherwise.