Rockdoc said:

---

He was out in the open with his bias and he seemed to enjoy it. Power gone to his head.

---

And why not? New York is a failed state and no one there will challenge his power.

Seizing a golf course I guess is somewhat less risky than a skyscraper but still some hefty maintenance costs.

Im Gipper said:

---

Appellate nerds: Doesn't Trump have to appeal through highest court in New York before going to federal court for relief?

It does not seem that a imminent stay here is likely.

---

off the top of my head, I certainly cannot think of a way that a federal appeal would automatically be triggered by a state court judgment creditor executing upon that state court judgment on assets held by the judgment debtor in the same state.

another words, I think O'Reilly is full full of fecal matter

The argument would probably be something like the following. Execution process begins. Trump lawyers run to federal court, claiming that there is an eighth amendment violation (excessive fine), triggering federal jurisdiction. I don't think it flies, but that is probably the argument.

Im Gipper said:

---

Here is the O'Reilly audio.

.@BillOReilly to @ClayTravis and @BuckSexton: "This now leads to a federal appeal. Thats why the Trump lawyers want this to happen. They want Letitia James to start proceedings to seize property. Because then they can get it into the federal system and get a stay."

More in the… pic.twitter.com/uc2ZdYv0MO

— The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show (@clayandbuck) March 21, 2024

Appellate nerds: Doesn't Trump have to appeal through highest court in New York before going to federal court for relief?

It does not seem that a imminent stay here is likely.

---

It's wild how these threads on texags tend to track 5 - 10 days ahead of what the experts and pundits eventually come out with.

aggiehawg said:

---

Seizing a golf course I guess is somewhat less risky than a skyscraper but still some hefty maintenance costs.

---

does the course have members? Professional events?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seizing a golf course I guess is somewhat less risky than a skyscraper but still some hefty maintenance costs.

---

does the course have members? Professional events?

---

interesting question.

If I had to guess, I would say that the real property is probably owned by a Trump entity, which leases the facilities to the "country club," with the "club" not actually owning anything. maybe the golf carts and barware.

All of the membership contracts probably are between the individual members and that "club" entity. They also probably contain force majeure clauses, which would prevent the members from having much of a cause of action against the "club" entity, if the facility is lost by its owner.

on about 15 seconds reflection, that is probably how I would structure it. If I were actually involved in the matter, I would certainly give it a good bit more thought.

Quote:

---

Appellate nerds: Doesn't Trump have to appeal through highest court in New York before going to federal court for relief?

It does not seem that a imminent stay here is likely.

---

Technically he file in federal court under federal subject matter jurisdiction meaning alleging a constitutional violations of his due process rights. The issue that jums out is the excessive fine contained in the 8th.

But to get a federal injunction against James from executing the judgment upon Trump properties in NY, there has to be a showing of irreparable harm (easy) AND a good chance of prevailing on the merits. Here the merits would be on the 8th amendment argument. That gets tricky with the Pennzoil decision and precedent.

However, there is a distinction between Trump and the Pennzoil case, Texaco (now Chevron) was a publicly traded company with a very large market cap. Trump's case is a privately owned entity. Is that a distinction without a difference? IDK but I think in Trump's case the due process issues are the individual's rights here and those could be more persuasive to a federal court.

It is not a generalized injury such as a judgment against a publicly traded corporation. That would be the argument I would be working on here. How to get Pennzoil out of the way.

Now if the NY state appellate decision takes the appeal and issues a stay while the appeal works through those state courts (iffy but possible) then no need for a separate federal suit.

Reminder how the Pennzoil case unfolded. State court civil suit in Texas. Texaco loses big to the tune of 11 billion. Texas law also required an appeal bond to cover the judgment pending appeal. Texaco files Chapter 11 to get the automatic stay. BUT THEN files a federal suit in their HQ state of New York complaining of the pinitives award and the appeal bond reqirement as excessive under the 8th. That's how it reached the Supreme Court faster than going the appellate process in Texas first.

SCOTUS ruled against Texaco in that case on their 8th amendment claims.

Still think The State itself going after an individual and his private business interests is an angle that's got wheels.

Based on that case it seems Trump will have to exhaust his NY remedies before heading to Federal Court.

Quote:

---

In sum, the lower courts should have deferred on principles of comity to the pending state proceedings. They erred in accepting Texaco's assertions as to the inadequacies of Texas procedure to provide effective relief. It is true that this case presents an unusual fact situation, never before addressed by the Texas courts, and that Texaco urgently desired prompt relief. But we cannot say that those courts, when this suit was filed, would have been any less inclined than a federal court to address and decide the federal constitutional claims. Because Texaco apparently did not give the Texas courts an opportunity to adjudicate its constitutional claims, and because Texaco cannot demonstrate that the Texas courts were not then open to adjudicate its claims, there is no basis for concluding that the Texas law and procedures were so deficient that Younger abstention is inappropriate. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court should have abstained.

---

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/1/

Claverack said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Show us who this novel approach, charging someone with fraudulent behavior with no one involved in the transactions stepping forward to claim such violation against their person or business, has been used against before Trump.

You can't. But it doesn't matter to you as you go for anything from piss tapes to Vindman to get Trump.

Meanwhile, Representative Donalds proves Mr.Ten Percent got his cut from the Chinese Communist Party, something Trump never did.

But here you are, cheerleading political persecution and prosecution while the most corrupt President in American history continues getting a free ride.

---

What a bunch of lies.

First of all, I could care less whether or not they get Trump on this. I suspect that the Appeals Court will remand it back to the court. That doesn't bother me at all.

That said, I do think that Trump was dirty as hell. He has proven that over and over again with his lawfare against people he doesn't like or that he is trying to cheat out of money they earned or out of their property. If this sticks, I'm fine with that as well.

I'm not cheerleading the political persecution at all. I think that the political persecution is mostly in the minds of his faithful who for some bizarre reason think that they owe him some allegiance. Guess what! You don't owe him any more allegiance than he owes you.

I do, however, agree that the reason they went after him on this is because of his nutty politics and his in-your-face abrasive demeanor. In doing so, however, they went after him based on his crookedness -- they did not just make up the idea that Trump isn't Mr Clean.

If you are going to be as divisive as Trump is divisive, you don't want to be the dirtiest clown in the room.

In this case, I would feel exactly the same if it were HIllary or Biden or Obama.

In other matters, I do want to see Trump prosecuted, but it isn't about him being a Republican or a Conservative -- especially since he has never been the least bit Conservative -- but because of what he has done to deserve that prosecution and then whining incessantly when someone objects to his actions.

Rockdoc said:

---

It doesn't matter to Eric what Biden and the rest of the dems do. As long as he can scream about Trump, he's happy. Screw the country.

---

That's a big lie.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seizing a golf course I guess is somewhat less risky than a skyscraper but still some hefty maintenance costs.

---

does the course have members? Professional events?

---

Assume so. Do the members' contracts have conditions under which they can cancel them? or can the members form a consortium to buy it like what happened with Pebble Beach some years back?

As you have pointed out, there is a preservation of value issue like when companies are placed into a receivership to manage the asset temporarily and that receiver would presumably have access to COH and the monthly revenue steam to maintain the property, cover overhead, property taxes insurance, payroll, maintenance, etc.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That was a rhetorical question asked because of the confusion of some who think that disgorgements and fines are the very same thing.

---

The confusion came directly from Engeron's conflation of the two in the manner he calculated these damages.

Disgorgement is an equitable remedy for unjust enrichment, gains acquired through dirty hands. But it is the profits, not all of the proceeds. Engeron used the wrong method to calculate the 'gains" from Trump buying, rennovating and then selling the old US Post Office building in DC. He used the entire proceeds of the sale, not the profit. *FTR, I am not sure there was even a causal connection to that transaction to beging with, but that will addressed on appeal.)

He did that as well on his own calculation of the interest rates on recourse versus non-recourse loans. He pulled that one out of thin air, since the testimony from the bank was that they set the interest rates on these recourse loans.

So as night follows day, when you start with the wrong number and then apply a multiplier for punitives, you get another unsupportable number.

Quote:

---

Disgorgement is a remedy requiring a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct. The purpose of this remedy is to prevent unjust enrichment and make illegal conduct unprofitable.

---

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disgorgement

---

Thanks. That makes sense.

I'm quite willing to let it play out through the Appeals Court. Unlike many here who think that every decision of every Democrat judge is political, I think that while politics may push them in one direction or another, they will usually try to follow the law. It is certainly possible for anyone of any political persuasion to choose a decision based on what they want to see happen and rationalize that decision.

aggiehawg said:

---

Seizing a golf course I guess is somewhat less risky than a skyscraper but still some hefty maintenance costs.

---

Is there any requirement that they try to get top dollar that would force them to maintain the golf course?

This is where politics might really affect the case -- if they hate Trump so much, why would they want to seize the least amount of assets that they can? Do they really care if they get 25 cents on the dollar instead of 90 cents on the dollar for his properties?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Appellate nerds: Doesn't Trump have to appeal through highest court in New York before going to federal court for relief?

It does not seem that a imminent stay here is likely.

---

Technically he file in federal court under federal subject matter jurisdiction meaning alleging a constitutional violations of his due process rights. The issue that jums out is the excessive fine contained in the 8th.

But to get a federal injunction against James from executing the judgment upon Trump properties in NY, there has to be a showing of irreparable harm (easy) AND a good chance of prevailing on the merits. Here the merits would be on the 8th amendment argument. That gets tricky with the Pennzoil decision and precedent.

However, there is a distinction between Trump and the Pennzoil case, Texaco (now Chevron) was a publicly traded company with a very large market cap. Trump's case is a privately owned entity. Is that a distinction without a difference? IDK but I think in Trump's case the due process issues are the individual's rights here and those could be more persuasive to a federal court.

It is not a generalized injury such as a judgment against a publicly traded corporation. That would be the argument I would be working on here. How to get Pennzoil out of the way.

Now if the NY state appellate decision takes the appeal and issues a stay while the appeal works through those state courts (iffy but possible) then no need for a separate federal suit.

Reminder how the Pennzoil case unfolded. State court civil suit in Texas. Texaco loses big to the tune of 11 billion. Texas law also required an appeal bond to cover the judgment pending appeal. Texaco files Chapter 11 to get the automatic stay. BUT THEN files a federal suit in their HQ state of New York complaining of the pinitives award and the appeal bond reqirement as excessive under the 8th. That's how it reached the Supreme Court faster than going the appellate process in Texas first.

SCOTUS ruled against Texaco in that case on their 8th amendment claims.

---

If I remember correctly from when the trial happened, Texaco's biggest problem leading up to that judgment was that Texaco did not think they could lose and weren't ready to argue the judgment. Pennzoil made a case for what they thought the judgment should be and the Texaco lawyers were left standing around with no basis to argue anything.

Is that correct?

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Show us who this novel approach, charging someone with fraudulent behavior with no one involved in the transactions stepping forward to claim such violation against their person or business, has been used against before Trump.

You can't. But it doesn't matter to you as you go for anything from piss tapes to Vindman to get Trump.

Meanwhile, Representative Donalds proves Mr.Ten Percent got his cut from the Chinese Communist Party, something Trump never did.

But here you are, cheerleading political persecution and prosecution while the most corrupt President in American history continues getting a free ride.

---

I think that the political persecution is mostly in the minds of his faithful who for some bizarre reason think that they owe him some allegiance. Guess what! You don't owe him any more allegiance than he owes you.

I do, however, agree that the reason they went after him on this is because of his nutty politics and his in-your-face abrasive demeanor.

---

So which one is it?

aggiehawg said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seizing a golf course I guess is somewhat less risky than a skyscraper but still some hefty maintenance costs.

---

does the course have members? Professional events?

---

Assume so. Do the members' contracts have conditions under which they can cancel them? or can the members form a consortium to buy it like what happened with Pebble Beach some years back?

As you have pointed out, there is a preservation of value issue like when companies are placed into a receivership to manage the asset temporarily and that receiver would presumably have access to COH and the monthly revenue steam to maintain the property, cover overhead, property taxes insurance, payroll, maintenance, etc.

---

If the golf club there leases the course from a Trump company, isn't it more likely that the Trump company would be responsible for maintenance or the golf club?

I can see it two different ways.

If the Trump company is responsible for maintenance, then that would enable them to charge more for the property, but could lead to a lot of arguments if the golf club thinks that it isn't being maintained properly.

In this case, would that obligation to maintain the golf course be more likely to be contractually tied to ownership of the golf course or would it be more likely to remain with the Trump company owning the golf course?

On the other hand, if the golf club is responsible for the maintenance, then wouldn't they presumably still be responsible for the maintenance?

eric76 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Seizing a golf course I guess is somewhat less risky than a skyscraper but still some hefty maintenance costs.

---

Is there any requirement that they try to get top dollar that would force them to maintain the golf course?

This is where politics might really affect the case -- if they hate Trump so much, why would they want to seize the least amount of assets that they can? Do they really care if they get 25 cents on the dollar instead of 90 cents on the dollar for his properties?

---

When I said less risky it is because of the office and resdential tenants in Trump's Manhattan properties. Can James keep the lights on? The elevators working, etc, such as to avoid suits against her for constructive eviction?

My assumption is that maybe some wait or maintenance staff may reside within the grounds of the golf course but those would be employees not tenants.

His "nutty" politics was much better for this country.

Who has access to the COH, accounts receivable (monthyl dues) to fund those costs?

If James tries to seize those and is successful? Then she has the duty, in my view.

RogerFurlong said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Show us who this novel approach, charging someone with fraudulent behavior with no one involved in the transactions stepping forward to claim such violation against their person or business, has been used against before Trump.

You can't. But it doesn't matter to you as you go for anything from piss tapes to Vindman to get Trump.

Meanwhile, Representative Donalds proves Mr.Ten Percent got his cut from the Chinese Communist Party, something Trump never did.

But here you are, cheerleading political persecution and prosecution while the most corrupt President in American history continues getting a free ride.

---

I think that the political persecution is mostly in the minds of his faithful who for some bizarre reason think that they owe him some allegiance. Guess what! You don't owe him any more allegiance than he owes you.

I do, however, agree that the reason they went after him on this is because of his nutty politics and his in-your-face abrasive demeanor.

---

So which one is it?

---

I think it is more that he is such an obnoxious twit.

If Trump wasn't such an obnoxious twit, I think that he would have been far more likely to get a pass even though such a prosecution is likely justified.

If Trump were an honest man, then I think that there would have been no prosecution.

aggiehawg said:

---

Who has access to the COH, accounts receivable (monthyl dues) to fund those costs?

If James tries to seize those and is successful? Then she has the duty, in my view.

---

That's an excellent point.

Presumably, she would also be seizing the bank accounts that belong to the owner of the building, so she would have some money for operations.

I'm not sure that's really a big deal because the point here is to flip the properties not run the business. I don't think the intention is to be operating them for very long.

eric76 said:

---

I think it is more that he is such an obnoxious twit.

If Trump wasn't such an obnoxious twit, I think that he would have been far more likely to get a pass even though such a prosecution is likely justified.

If Trump were an honest man, then I think that there would have been no prosecution.

---

Find me the man and I'll find you the crime Comrade.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Presumably, she would also be seizing the bank accounts that belong to the owner of the building, so she would have some money for operations.

I'm not sure that's really a big deal because the point here is to flip the properties not run the business. I don't think the intention is to be operating them for very long.

---

And who would be stupid enough to buy them? Chinese billionnaires?

I can see a consortium of buyers for a golf course and club. But Trump Tower and 40 Wall?

aggiehawg said:

---

Who has access to the COH, accounts receivable (monthyl dues) to fund those costs?

If James tries to seize those and is successful? Then she has the duty, in my view.

---

I briefly addressed this earlier, but I think it ties in with your suggestion that the golf course is perhaps the easiest approach.

If the golf course is owned by the judgment debtor, but the club is operated by a separate entity, it is entirely possible that that separate entity would continue to operate (and maintain) the club (even to be obligated to do so) during the pendency of the sale. it is entirely conceivable that the state would have no maintenance obligations whatsoever, because some other entity (the "club") would be contractually obligated to continue providing those services.

If the sale were "private" (simplify), it would probably be subject to the leases and other agreements with the "club" operator. With the same be true, vis-a-vis the sheriff (temporarily holding the property) or the eventual purchaser?

I don't know.

eric76 said:

---

RogerFurlong said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Show us who this novel approach, charging someone with fraudulent behavior with no one involved in the transactions stepping forward to claim such violation against their person or business, has been used against before Trump.

You can't. But it doesn't matter to you as you go for anything from piss tapes to Vindman to get Trump.

Meanwhile, Representative Donalds proves Mr.Ten Percent got his cut from the Chinese Communist Party, something Trump never did.

But here you are, cheerleading political persecution and prosecution while the most corrupt President in American history continues getting a free ride.

---

I think that the political persecution is mostly in the minds of his faithful who for some bizarre reason think that they owe him some allegiance. Guess what! You don't owe him any more allegiance than he owes you.

I do, however, agree that the reason they went after him on this is because of his nutty politics and his in-your-face abrasive demeanor.

---

So which one is it?

---

I think it is more that he is such an obnoxious twit.

If Trump wasn't such an obnoxious twit, I think that he would have been far more likely to get a pass even though such a prosecution is likely justified.

If Trump were an honest man, then I think that there would have been no prosecution.

---

If you made 10% the effort criticizing dems as you do Trump, maybe two or three people here would believe you.

You want to see Trump burn because of some weird obsession you have with him. Thanks for helping to F up my kids future.

Oh and by the way eric. This BS is gaining votes for Trump. It doesn't move the needle for the left and never Trumpers. You already hate him. But it's pissing off and scaring a lot of people on the fence.

Why would it be stupid to buy seven springs for example? Or the Trump tower?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Presumably, she would also be seizing the bank accounts that belong to the owner of the building, so she would have some money for operations.

I'm not sure that's really a big deal because the point here is to flip the properties not run the business. I don't think the intention is to be operating them for very long.

---

unlike golf courses, I do have some experience with downtown office buildings. They are almost never operated by the same entity or entities that own them.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Why would it be stupid to buy seven springs for example? Or the Trump tower?

---

Same question.

major downtown buildings change hands all the time

The complicating factor is that that sort of transaction usually develops over a period of months or even years. The purchaser is usually some very complex business entity, such as a limited partnership or the wife. Even if someone were interested, would they have time to create that entity (entities) in time to make this purchase?

Urban Ag said:

---

If you made 10% the effort criticizing dems as you do Trump, maybe two or three people here would believe you.

---

and if you folks spent 10% as much time responding to the substance of his post as you spend attacking him personally, this forum would be greatly improved as well.

Urban Ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

RogerFurlong said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Claverack said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

This is a decent article that explains a few things that have been severely misrepresented by several posters

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

---

Quote:

---

An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump's case stands apart in a significant way: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.

---

One rule for Trump, potentially the same rule applying to any Republican businessman or investor who decides to run (or even exist) in New York or in some other part of Hobbesian America.

---

So all the claims that nothing like this has ever happened before is a big fat lie?

I thought so.

---

Show us who this novel approach, charging someone with fraudulent behavior with no one involved in the transactions stepping forward to claim such violation against their person or business, has been used against before Trump.

You can't. But it doesn't matter to you as you go for anything from piss tapes to Vindman to get Trump.

Meanwhile, Representative Donalds proves Mr.Ten Percent got his cut from the Chinese Communist Party, something Trump never did.

But here you are, cheerleading political persecution and prosecution while the most corrupt President in American history continues getting a free ride.

---

I think that the political persecution is mostly in the minds of his faithful who for some bizarre reason think that they owe him some allegiance. Guess what! You don't owe him any more allegiance than he owes you.

I do, however, agree that the reason they went after him on this is because of his nutty politics and his in-your-face abrasive demeanor.

---

So which one is it?

---

I think it is more that he is such an obnoxious twit.

If Trump wasn't such an obnoxious twit, I think that he would have been far more likely to get a pass even though such a prosecution is likely justified.

If Trump were an honest man, then I think that there would have been no prosecution.

---

If you made 10% the effort criticizing dems as you do Trump, maybe two or three people here would believe you.

You want to see Trump burn because of some weird obsession you have with him. Thanks for helping to F up my kids future.

Oh and by the way eric. This BS is gaining votes for Trump. It doesn't move the needle for the left and never Trumpers. You already hate him. But it's pissing off and scaring a lot of people on the fence.

---

Your bias is blinding you.

I do not criticize Trump because he is a Republican. To the contrary, I criticize him because I do not trust him to do anything for the benefit of anyone but himself. I criticize his cult because they are delusional and put their trust in such an untrustworthy twit as Trump.

As for hate, I don't hate him. If I hated him, I'd want to see him go down regardless of anything else. In truth, if he would step back and try to act like a responsible human being and leave the Republican Party to continue on as at least some kind of partially Conservative group, I would be perfectly happy to ignore the twit.

We seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. James would have file a lien and foreclose on that lien before she could sell to anybody. That doesn't happen automatically.

The way Trump structures his businesses is the proverbial briar patch. And she's not that smart. Maybe she has someone on staff somewhere who can wade through through them and follow the very different funding mechanisms.

aggiehawg said:

---

We seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. James would have file a lien and foreclose on that lien before she could sell to anybody. That doesn't happen automatically.

The way Trump structures his businesses is the proverbial briar patch. And she's not that smart. Maybe she has someone on staff somewhere who can wade through through them and follow the very different funding mechanisms.

---

The machinations she needs to go through keeps getting more and more convoluted!