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.

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        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.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        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.

    • TehWorld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              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.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    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.

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.”

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Imagine seeing 4 years of the kind of damage Trump can do, running on returning to the exact same status quo that made a demagogue like him all but inevitable, and then shaming everyone who doesn’t think that’s a great idea as indifferent 🤦

              • Billiam@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t have to imagine it, because that’s exactly what I’m doing.

                If anyone thinks America before Trump was just as bad as America during Trump, they literally don’t deserve the right to vote, because they lack critical thinking skills and empathy for their fellow people.

                Oh, and PS: your “enlightened centrism” is neither.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you’re thoroughly misunderstanding what I’m saying. You’re definitely misunderstanding where I’m coming from.

                  What I’m saying is that it’s not enough to return to how things were just before Trump, because things were so damn bad for so many people that they (extremely unwisely and in most cases with malicious intent) made TRUMP president.

                  To go “you know what? We need to do exactly the same things that we had been doing for 30 years when the disaster happened” is absolute lunacy that invites the disaster back.

                  In case you still can’t tell, I’m not a centrist. I’m a progressive who knows that it’s no longer 1992 like the DNC thinks but also that it’s beginning to smell a lot like 1920s Italy when fascists first came to power while liberals didn’t use what power they had to stop them either.

        • 🐱TheCat
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          except its not true and you should fact check things you read on the internet before condemning an entire country