Mediaboss Marketing

Two recent verdicts have now left Donald Trump on the hook for nearly half a billion dollars.

On Friday, a New York judge handed the former president a $355 million penalty, and banned him from serving in a leadership position in any business in New York for three years, for fraudulently inflating his net worth to lenders in order to receive more favorable loan agreements. And in January, a Manhattan jury ordered Trump to pay the writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her after she accused him of raping her. (A separate jury in May had found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s.)

Together, the damages from these two lawsuits are worth more than the amount of cash Trump claimed to have on hand last April, potentially putting him in a financial bind as he also faces debt repayments and mounting legal fees. Even if he appeals these decisions, as he is expected to do, he still likely will have to front the money while that process runs its course, or secure a bond, which would come with its own conditions.

For a well-connected billionaire, that might usually amount to nothing more than a temporary inconvenience; after all, Trump could always liquidate some of his assets or borrow even more money to cover his short-term obligations.

But Trump isnt just one of the countrys richest men, with an estimated net worth in the low billions; hes also running to serve a second term as president of the United States. And for any candidate for public office let alone the presidency being cash-strapped while owing such significant amounts of money could be a serious liability.

Its pretty scary from an ethics perspective, said Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group that has chronicled Trumps abuses of power and filed lawsuits against him.

You dont have to look far to find the reasons why. Trumps first term was riddled with conflicts of interest, and thats in no small part because of his financial well-being (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it). At the time that he tried to overturn the 2020 election, he was hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, largely stemming from loans to help rehabilitate his struggling businesses, and most of which would be coming due over the subsequent four years. Throughout his presidency, he refused to divest from his businesses, which made millions of dollars in revenue from taxpayers and continued to do work with other countries while he was in office a practice he indicated he would repeat in a second term.

The fact that he has so many entanglements with big businesses and other nations leaves plenty of room for things to go awry. Thats why a 2020 New York Times expos uncovering his staggering debt during his first term wasnt just embarrassing for Trump, who has a tendency to claim hes richer than he actually is. It also raised fears about how his debt could implicate national security.

As the former head of the Justice Departments National Security Division told Time magazine in 2020, For a person with access to U.S. classified information to be in massive financial debt is a counterintelligence risk because the debt-holder tends to have leverage over the person, and the leverage may be used to encourage actions, such as disclosure of information or influencing policy, that compromise U.S. national security.

As Trump campaigns for a second term, his personal finances are becoming increasingly relevant, especially now that he has to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from the two civil lawsuits.

And with his criminal cases still looming, things could get even worse for him. His debt makes him prime for corruption and really exploiting his office for his own personal gain, Canter said.

Trump is known for many things, but a penchant for transparency is not one of them. He famously didnt release his tax returns when he was running for office, and because his company is not publicly traded, its finances are often opaque. As a result, his personal net worth and his business empires earnings have always been shrouded in mystery.

But lawsuits, media reports, and his occasional, if narrow, public disclosures have made clear that Trumps often rosy descriptions of his wealth are far from accurate.

Its particularly unclear just how big his cash reserves are. In a deposition last year, Trump claimed to have $400 million in cash. That is a lot of money, but if its accurate, the former president likely would not have much of it left after paying the damages from his recent lawsuits. (While he can, in some cases, dip into campaign cash to cover certain legal expenses, he generally cant use those funds to pay the damages he owes.)

Lawsuits aside, Trump also has plenty of debt on his hands. His financial disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission last year showed that he has at least $200 million in debt. And according to Forbes, his business owed roughly $1.3 billion in 2021.

Thats not as dire as it sounds, especially because Trump has been steadily paying down the money he owed when he was leaving the White House three years ago. For example, hes paid off most of the $295 million he owed Deutsche Bank a major source of his debt. But some of Trumps debts warrant more scrutiny.

Ultimately, its impossible to know exactly how financially stable Trump is at any given moment. While some signs like his ability to repay some of his debts or, say, him being a very wealthy man with very wealthy friends indicate that hes doing just fine, there are still some warning signs for his campaign. Trump has faced a steady stream of hefty legal bills that stem from his four indictments, and that has drained much of his campaign cash. In fact, Trumps campaign has spent more than $50 million on legal fees in the past year alone. According to the Associated Press, 84 percent of spending from Trumps Save America political action committee has gone toward covering legal expenses.

Those arent exactly the typical spending habits of a normal campaign. But then again, Trump isnt a normal candidate.

One of the most explosive details in the New York Timess 2020 report on Trumps leaked tax returns is that despite being incredibly rich, there were years that he paid little to no federal income tax. In 2016, when he first won the presidency, he had paid a grand total of $750 in federal income taxes. That could help explain why Trump refused to release his tax returns in the first place, though doing so has been the norm for presidential candidates since the 1970s.

As serious as it is that Trump (and other wealthy Americans) can pay virtually no federal income taxes, there are even bigger consequences to his lack of transparency. Trumps web of business deals also provides ample opportunity for special interests and foreign governments to attempt to buy influence in his administration. Foreign governments, for example, spent millions of dollars at Trumps businesses during his presidency. A Chinese state-owned bank paid $7 million to rent space in Trump Tower in New York during the four years Trump was president. The company stopped renting out space when Trump left office.

To believe that the potential for that kind of revenue could not influence Trumps agenda, or even travel itinerary, would require an extraordinary level of trust in the former president something most voters dont have.

After all, how could a president fairly pursue a trade deal, for example, with a country hes doing personal business with? Its that kind of behavior that led to accusations that Trump violated the emoluments clauses of the US Constitution, which bar presidents from receiving money from foreign governments, as well as US states or the federal government outside their salary, in order to avoid undue influence.

During his presidential term, Trump also had many hidden debts, and while a lot of his creditors were big financial institutions, some were unknown. According to Forbes, for example, Trump had a previously undisclosed loan from a foreign creditor when he became president, owing nearly $20 million to a South Korean company. While Trump paid off that loan within the first six months he was in office, its just one example of how his potential conflicts of interest are tricky to keep track of.

In the runup to 2016, Trump misleadingly touted his wealth as a key advantage that furthered the public interest. He promised to self-fund his campaign, saying that he wouldnt be beholden to anybody, but he failed to keep that pledge.

But the problem for Trump isnt just his inability to self-fund his White House bids. The fact that he is constantly on the lookout for new loans or sources of income gives special interests a vehicle to curry favor with him. After his former lenders cut ties with him in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection, for example, Axos Bank, whose CEO is a Republican donor, swooped in and loaned the former president some $225 million, helping Trump shore up his finances. (Trump has also reported new income from foreign entities, like a new deal he struck with a Saudi-based firm.)

While Trumps lack of transparency might have served him well until now, shielding him from potential legal and political liabilities, it also could have far-reaching consequences should he win a second term this November.

A lot of people thought Bernie Madoff was rich, Canter said. There are a lot of characters who portray themselves as rich, but when you look into the cookie jar, theres nothing there.

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Read more here:
Trump has been ordered to pay $447 million in damages. Can he afford it? - Vox.com

The judge also imposed a three year ban on Trump serving any roles in his New York-based company, and put similar two-year bans on his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., both senior executives in the Trump Organization, from running the company and fined them each $4 million.

But the harm from that verdict cannot be measured solely in dollar signs and business transactions.

For decades, Trump has cast himself as a successful businessperson, even as he sometimes struggled to keep his company afloat. From his NBC show, The Apprentice, to his series of books on getting rich, cutting deals and thinking like a billionaire, Trump marketed himself as the savviest of tycoons to the American masses.

Trump is worth billions, according to estimates from Forbes and Bloomberg, with much of his wealth wrapped up in his New York City real estate portfolio, hotels, golf resorts and clubs. While theres been endless speculation about the validity of those estimates, experts still believe he will be able to afford the damages and fines, although has pledged to appeal it and is likely to delay any payment until he has exhausted all legal options.

But the verdict itself is a reputational hit, denting the perception that the Trump Organization is anything but a shining success. And it matters on a personal level to Trump, too. Not only does he see this as part of a witch hunt that wants to destroy his political future, but he also is invested in handing off a solid company to his children, who now run it.

He views these judgments as a kind of existential threat to his entire brand, said Tim OBrien, a Trump biographer turned critic. It will wear at him psychologically.

A Trump ally declined to engage in the psychological effect the verdict might have on him. While they have no doubts Trump who has worn his aggravation about the case on his sleeve during court appearances will be angry about the outcome, the person described it as obviously political and unlikely to shift public opinion.

I dont think this will have any effect on anything moving forward. It will just reinforce the feelings of those who already hate him, and for the people who love him it will reinforce that the system is corrupt and out to get him, the person said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, and only addressed the political impact the ruling would have.

The last time Trump found himself facing serious financial losses was in the early 1990s, when his entire real estate empire was at risk of falling apart under over $3 billion in debt.

It was the most devastating experience of his life. He was going through divorces, everything was falling around him. He became sullen, combative, pouty and I think it was not an era hes ever wanted to revisit, though circumstances creep up on him again because hes a debt monster and cant help himself, OBrien said, Judgments like this are scary because they bring back echoes of the early 1990s.

But Trump, ever the marketer, turned those early 90s setbacks around, recasting himself as a television personality and reestablishing his brand as a business savant.

He then branched out further, entering politics. And, as a politician, he used those marketing skills to turn the legal judgments against him into campaign rallying cries. Trump has claimed that the justice system is rigged and his supporters have, largely, been convinced.

Hes frustrated for being a target, and hes frustrated for what it means. This is an escalation weve never gone through in this country, where we weaponize the courts to go to an extreme after somebody, said Bryan Lanza, who worked on Trumps 2016 campaign and remains close to his current team.

Even though Trump sees a spike in polling and fundraising after major legal moments, his advisers do not view any of these court cases as entirely helpful. They pull Trump off the campaign trail and distract from their political message.

But, increasingly, Trumps legal problems and campaign have become one and the same. And as the former president emerged from Fridays verdict, it was clear that there were personal elements intertwined too.

I helped New York City during its worst of times, read part of Trumps statement, and now, while it is overrun with Violent Biden Migrant Crime, the Radicals are doing all they can to kick me out.

See the original post here:
For Trump, Friday's verdict is not just business. It's personal. - POLITICO

President Biden had been in office for less than a week before he first addressed Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader who died in a penal colony on Friday.

A reporter from Reuters asked whether the new president would approve sanctions against Russia following Navalnys August 2020 poisoning, apparently at the hands of Russian security agents. Biden said he would not hesitate to raise that and other issues with his counterpart, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He mentioned Navalny again in a February 2021 speech.

The politically motivated jailing of Alexei Navalny and the Russian efforts to suppress freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, he said, are a matter of deep concern to us and the international community.

Asked that June what might happen if Navalny died, Biden was forceful, if vague: The consequences of that would be devastating for Russia.

During his four years in office, by contrast, Donald Trump appears to have never once mentioned the dissidents name. After the Navalny poisoning, Trump was asked how he might respond. Trump riffed on how tough he had purportedly been on Russia and noted that there was no proof of Russias involvement. Asked whether he doubted Russian involvement, Trump said it was interesting that people kept asking him about Russia.

I think probably China, at this point, is a nation that you should be talking about much more so than Russia, he said, because the things that China is doing are far worse, if you take a look at whats happening with the world.

Navalny called on Trump to condemn the poisoning. Trump didnt.

Of course, this was very much in keeping with Trumps approach to Russia. Questions about his affinity for the country and for Putin dogged Trump well before his 2016 election. And his repeated refusals as president to criticize Putin even at one point rejecting the idea of Russian interference in the 2016 election while standing beside the Russian leader reinforced those perceptions.

Out of office, the pattern didnt change. He offered positive words for Putin both as the expanded invasion of Ukraine loomed in 2022 and after it unfolded. His pre-presidency shrugging at the Russia autocrats actions was unchanged by service as the American chief executive.

This was clearly in part a function of Trumps (and much of his partys) general affinity for authoritarian leadership. Trump regularly undermined and still undermines U.S. partnerships with other liberal democracies while praising autocratic leaders like Putin or Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Hungarys Viktor Orban.

Trumps approach both to Putin and to Russian aggression now permeates his party and his ideological allies. This week featured a robust debate about whether the United States should increase its assistance to Ukraines effort to fend off Russias invasion; Republican leaders and right-wing voices loudly called for no new support to be offered. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson released new videos from his trip to Russia a trip that included an obsequious interview with Putin depicting Carlson fawning over the amenities enjoyed by the Russian people. Carlson has been a very vocal opponent of Americas effort to aid Ukraine.

At an event this week, Carlson was asked why he didnt challenge Putin on Navalny and the deaths of other Russia opposition figures. He offered a rhetorical shrug: Leadership requires killing people.

Then the news of Navalnys death broke. Some eight years of right-wing apologism or overt support for Trumps treatment of Putin were suddenly cast in a very bleak light.

Luckily, a number of prominent voices on the right quickly figured out an effective pivot: In this scenario, Trump isnt Putin hes Navalny.

There was former New York congressman Lee Zeldin (R), replying to criticism of the Republican effort to block aid to Ukraine by suggesting that the Biden administration and Democrats were the authoritarianism-lovers.

As the world reflects on the murder of Alexei Navalny at the hands of Putin, he wrote on social media, its worth remembering that Democrats are actively doing Bidens bidding as they also try to imprison his chief political opponent, Donald Trump, remove him from the ballot, and ensure he dies in prison.

Right-wing commentator Jack Posobiec echoed this idea, saying that Navalnys death was what Biden and the Democrats want for Trump and MAGA. Former Trump State Department official Mike Benz had a similar suggestion about the former president.

Filmmaker Dinesh DSouza, fresh from having his election-fraud movie again exposed as nonsense, took a similar tack.

Navalny=Trump, he wrote. The plan of the Biden regime and the Democrats is to ensure their leading political opponent dies in prison. Theres no real difference between the two cases.

There are enormous differences between the cases, of course.

Navalny had been jailed repeatedly, both over the short term (for offenses like holding public demonstrations) and, as with his final detention, for long periods. He was sentenced to a 19-year term in August on charges of extremism centered on his political opposition to Putins leadership. The sentence came during a closed hearing at the penal colony. Russias justice system is widely viewed as beholden to the executive authority of the president, particularly in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Trump, by contrast, faces four sets of criminal charges. Two are federal and derive from indictments obtained by special counsel Jack Smith. Two are at the city or county level, one in New York and one in Fulton County, Ga.

Only the federal charges could be conceivably connected to the Biden administration, but there are protections in place to afford Smith independence in seeking criminal charges. In fact, Smith was appointed soon after Trump announced his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination to ensure that the ongoing federal criminal investigation into Trumps actions was afforded that independence. (Anyone concerned about the independence granted special counsels need only consider special counsel Robert K. Hur.)

Whats more, the charges against Trump derive from easily comprehensible allegations: that he retained documents marked as classified at Mar-a-Lago despite legal demands they be returned and that he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Neither allegation has been proved, but each has been backstopped with enough publicly available evidence to bolster the idea that an investigation was warranted.

But we should not spend too much time treating the comparison as being offered in good faith. Suggesting that Trump is Americas Navalny is simply an attempt to assert that Trumps indictments are solely political, an argument that has been the centerpiece of all of Trumps rhetoric for years. It was even the centerpiece of his efforts to deflect questions about how Russia attempted to boost his candidacy back in 2016.

The reality is that Trump and many of his allies see him much more as Americas Putin, the strong hand that is needed to fend off hazily defined opponents. Its why, as president, Trump didnt address Navalny or challenge Putin, unlike Biden. Its why, back in 2015, Trump even defended Putins targeting of journalists with a Carlson-esque our country does plenty of killing, too.

In September, Trump embraced another persons effort to equate his indictments with political persecution.

That person was Vladimir Putin.

See original here:
No, Donald Trump is not Americas Navalny - The Washington Post

Toby Keith performs during a 2014 "Salute to the Troops" concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. Ethan Miller/Getty Images for ACM hide caption

Toby Keith performs during a 2014 "Salute to the Troops" concert in Las Vegas, Nevada.

While the crowd waited for former President Donald Trump to take the stage at a recent rally in South Carolina, "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" played three times.

The song was written in response to 9/11, but today, that's not all it signifies.

"It didn't have as much meaning to me, I mean, because that was right after the Twin Towers. But then now it's got more of a meaning to me because our country just sucks right now," said Tonya Helm, who pumped her fist while the song played. "Biden needs to go, and you know, what better song to do it to than to Toby Keith's 'Red, White and Blue'?"

Keith's death last week brought renewed attention to his music, but "Courtesy" had already found a new life in MAGA-adjacent politics. It's a mainstay at Trump rallies, and also played at Ron DeSantis events during his presidential campaign.

It's a well-known song, even among non-country fans, for a lyric about where America would kick its enemies: "We'll put a boot in your ass; it's the American way."

Arguably, "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue" is a new political anthem, an in-your face cousin to Trump's walkout music, "God Bless the USA."

"Courtesy" was originally written for USO tours as the military response to 9/11 ramped up, according to Nadine Hubbs, a professor of women's studies and music at the University of Michigan and author of Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music.

"After 9/11, he had written and was singing it for these working class kids overseas, many of whom were about to go into harm's way," she said. "It is a very specific song directed to a specific audience at a specific moment."

Those troops urged Keith to record "Courtesy." And upon its 2002 release, it was immediately polarizing, becoming part of an early-2000s culture war. At the time, many Americans were worried that the Bush administration would take the U.S. into a costly, unnecessary war in Iraq.

Critics blasted the song as jingoistic. Natalie Maines, of the band the Chicks (then known as the Dixie Chicks), was blunt in her criticism: "I hate it. It's ignorant, and it makes country music sound ignorant. It targets an entire culture - and not just the bad people who did bad things. You've got to have some tact." As a result, the song became a key part of a feud between Keith and the band.

Not only that, but the song became a part of a persona Keith built for himself in the coming years. He would later record "American Soldier" and "The Taliban Song," two more songs that cemented his status as country music's saber-rattling patriot-in-chief.

There have long been patriotic country songs, and "Courtesy" was part of a wave written post-9/11. But "Courtesy" stands out in that field of songs.

"I don't know that you had many of them that were that aggressive," said Brian Mansfield, managing editor of trade publication Country Insider. "But you also didn't have attacks on American soil very often."

In this file photo, Toby Keith performs at a pre-Inaugural "Make America Great Again! Welcome Celebration" for then-President-elect Donald Trump at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2017. David J. Phillip/AP hide caption

In this file photo, Toby Keith performs at a pre-Inaugural "Make America Great Again! Welcome Celebration" for then-President-elect Donald Trump at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2017.

Keith's politics were complicated he praised both Republicans and Democrats. Likewise, he both criticized Trump and played at a Trump inauguration celebration.

But Keith's politics are now beside the point, because "Courtesy" has a life of its own, resonating with a crowd spoiling for an election fight.

Rally attendee Cora McGrath cheered from her seat when the song played.

"This song applies to Trump because it won't apply to Biden. He's made us weak," she said. "There's no country song came out in support of this country talking about Biden."

Today, "Courtesy" fits neatly into a pissed-off political moment, in the view of Country Insider's Mansfield.

"There are large segments of the population that have gone from anger as a response to a specific event, to anger as just a way of seeing the world," he said.

Indeed, the song's subtitle is "The Angry American." And there's something distinctly Trumpian in the defiance of loving a song that originally upset so many particularly liberals.

Still, Hubbs, at University of Michigan, sees irony in Trump using a pro-military tune.

"The former president who dodged the draft, who has mocked Gold Star families, who just recently mocked Nikki Haley, asking where Major Michael Haley, her husband, was," she said. "The level of disconnect is staggering."

It's not clear how Keith would have aligned in this election. But Trump diehards like Tonya Helm hear "Courtesy" and see Keith as one of them.

"We lost a legend, and I said we lost a vote," she said. "He put it out there like he says, you know, put a boot in their ass the American way."

It's a tune that will live on especially as long as anger is central to American politics.

Go here to see the original:
Toby Keith's 'Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue' lives on in MAGA country - NPR

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million in fines for business fraud in an excoriating decision on Friday that also imposes major penalties on the former presidents family and business associates. Both Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are each liable for $4 million, while former CFO Allen Weisselberg is on the hook for $1 million.

The ruling, if upheld, marks the end of the Trump Organization as we know it: Engoron barred Trump from serving as an officer in any New York corporation or legal entity for three years, and prohibited him from applying for loans from any financial entity in the state. The judge has effectively hobbled the entire Trump corporate empire.

The lawsuit that culminated in Fridays sweeping decision was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who spent years building a case against the former presidents business. James argued that Trump and his associates consistently overvalued their assets by millions of dollars, defrauding banks and investors while enriching themselves. Engoron sided with James in a September ruling, determining that Trump was liable for a wide range of fraudulent conduct. He then conducted a trial to determine the appropriate punishment for each defendant. (The case was tried without a jury.)

During trial, members of the Trump family took the stand to defend their fathers business dealings, with little success; Engoron declined to credit their testimony in his Friday opinion, noting that Eric Trump actually reversed himself on the stand after evidence emerged that he had lied under oath. Trump himself took the stand, as well, assuming a combative and antagonistic pose toward the judge, whom he publicly derided as a partisan hack. The former president, Engoron wrote in his Friday opinion, rarely responded to the questions asked, and he frequently interjected long, irrelevant speeches on issues far beyond the scope of the trial. His refusal to answer the questions directly, or in some cases, at all, severely compromised his credibility.

This theme of mendacity and impenitence ran throughout Engorons ruling. In a remarkable passage, he wrote that the Trump familys complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. Defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways. Instead, they adopt a See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil posture that the evidence belies. This refusal to admit to their unlawful misdeeds persuaded Engoron that they will engage in [fraud] going forward unless judicially restrained. He therefore affirmed his earlier decision to have an independent monitor, the retired judge Barbara Jones, oversee the businesss finances and assets.

The $355 million penalty is, to put it mildly, substantial, and not the first time this year Trump has been ordered by a court to cut a check with two commas and at least seven zeroes on it. Just last month he was ordered to pay out over $83 million after losing the defamation case brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll. That was actually the second penalty Trump was compelled to pay her: A New York jury previously found that Trump sexually assaulted and defamed Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages.

Some quick back-of-the-envelope math here shows just how dire the self-proclaimed multibillionaires financial situation is getting. Reporting from late October pegged Trumps cash holdings at $425 million. This most recent penalty from New York state, combined with the two verdicts in the Carroll cases, tally to $438 million. And actually, its worse than that, since Engoron stipulated that Trump is prohibited from borrowing money from any New York bank for the next three years. That ban will handicap his attempt to appeal. Moreover, New York law could force him to pay a hefty 9 percent interest rate on the judgment, which would push the original $355 million north of $450 million.

Trump will undoubtedly appeal Fridays decision, and he is not required to post bond while he does so. However, if he fails to post bond, the state can begin collecting on the judgment in 30 days time. At that point, Attorney General James can seize Trumps assets, including real property; in other words, his real estate holdings in New York, like Trump Tower, are vulnerable to seizure and potential sale.

There are numerous cases still pending against the former president. The millions of dollars still forthcoming in attorneys fees alone now look financially ruinous, and have already been a major drain on his campaign coffers: His political fundraising committees spent $50 million in 2023 alone to cover legal fees, diverting much-needed money away from his presidential campaign. In his federal court cases, Trump has deployed a successful tactic of endless delays to avoid judgment; in New York, his obstructive tactics have failed spectacularly. The state judiciary has shown little interest in running interference for him and his associates, and there is a very strong chance that Engorons penalties will be upheld, in large part or in full, once all appeals are finished. Short of a criminal conviction, it is difficult to imagine a more devastating legal and financial blow to Trump.

See original here:
Donald Trump civil fraud ruling: The $355 million fine and business restrictions could end the Trump organization as ... - Slate