• iBaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    200
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s already lost, this trial is only to determine how much it will cost him. I think it’s more that he’s realized how bad his attorneys are, and that he’s going to lose everything.

    • FiniteLooper@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      140
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And to think, all he had to do was not run for president of the United States (among many other things) and this probably never would have happened to him.

      I mean, I’ve never run for president of the United States, it’s a very easy thing to not do.

      • billy_bollocks@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Seriously. Had he not ran, or dropped out early, he could have probably started his own fringe news channel and lived a relatively unchanged, trouble free life and probably made some money doing it.

        I personally think he expected to lose and wasn’t expecting the Russians to barely tip the scales to eek out an electoral college victory.

        • TechyDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same here. There's a photo of him on election night as his win was being declared. Everyone around him looks happy, but he looks like he was just told he has 2 weeks to live.

          Had Trump lost to Hillary, he would have done the whole "they stole the election from me" shtick. He'd have launched Trump Tirade Hour where he'd rant about the latest political topics - criticizing the people in charge and declaring that he'd solve everything so easily.

          Of course, like his health care plan, Trump would never give details on HOW he'd fix everything. It would just be "A is doing B to fix complex problem C. That's the wrong thing to do. If I was in charge, I'd fix the complex problem easily by… whoops, looks like it's time for a commercial break!" It would really have been the best job for him. It would have fit his skills of being an armchair critic that understands nothing and yet claims to know more than anyone else.

          Sadly, he won and did the whole "I know better than anyone else despite not understanding anything" from the most powerful seat on the planet.

          • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know better than anyone despite not understanding anything

            Fucking lol. If this century could have a headline

      • CavalierBob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        56
        ·
        1 year ago

        Respectfully, I hope you are wrong.

        If not running was all it took not to be prosecuted then, to me, that says this is indeed a political prosecution and not about the rule of law.

        • iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          56
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think they meant not run the first time? As in: he doesn't run, and therefore doesn't get elected, so he stays away from the spotlight and can, relatively, quietly live his life with his foot in his mouth at every turn, but nobody cares because he's a D list celebrity.

          And of course, not being the president, he has no access to half of the shit he's dealing with federally. I feel like the state stuff in NY was a pretty long time coming, but the federal stuff could've been avoided had he lost or not ran in 2016.

          I don't even know what a world like that would look like, but I'm sure it would've been better than the four years we had of him.

          Edit: Mobile, misspelled some things due to autocorrect.

          • Archer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t even know what a world like that would look like, but I’m sure it would’ve been better than the four years we had of him.

            President Hillary Clinton would be fully supporting Ukraine as House Republicans desperately searched for any excuse to launch their fifth impeachment

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

              Clinton would have been out of office for more than a year when the invasion started and the Democrats would have a stain on their record that would have made it much harder to fight whichever Republican fascist (but I repeat myself) was currently in charge.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          1 year ago

          When you run for president, you get the spotlight, but you also get a magnifying glass…

          And in THAT mixed metaphor:

        • FiniteLooper@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.

          I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.

        • klemptor@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they mean for the first presidency. Had he not run for president and won via the electoral college, he never would've been in a position to commit a lot of the crimes he's in trouble for.

        • FiniteLooper@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.

          I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.

        • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          He might have maybe still been persecuted but the feds and everyone involved would have taken their sweet time investigating potentially a few more years since he's still an ex president. Officially convicting him makes the office look bad and could potentially turn ugly with the MAGA supporters. Nobody wants jan6 2.0 and they very well might have been happy to let him fade into obscurity if that was deemed the best strategy to avoid civil unrest as a whole. Him putting himself in the spotlight again lit a fire under everyones ass and accelerated things drastically.

    • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      he’s realized how bad his attorneys are

      Maybe he should have paid or listened to the first dozen sets of lawyers he went through.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      He’s almost certainly going to appeal whatever verdict he gets, claiming that he had ineffective legal council and that the judge was biased against him. Because the only effective reason you can appeal is if you don’t believe your trial was fair. So he’s basically stacking the “this trial was unfair” deck in his favor.

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        93
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hate to be that guy, but you can't appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding.

        • CubbyTustard@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          79
          ·
          1 year ago

          why do you hate to be that guy that is relevant information i didn't have and other than the disclaimer you delivered it succinctly and without drama keep being this guy mate

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            35
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don't know, I just feel like correcting people on the internet often comes off as being pedantic even if that isn't the intention. That is why I included the disclaimer I suppose. Thanks for the kind words though, I appreciate it.

          • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            1 year ago

            Whoa, whoa…I was told this was a Reddit replacement and this is way too kind, humble, accepting, and level headed.

            This is downright peaceful.

        • nfh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Since when has something being legal or not ever stopped Trump from trying it?

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I'm not sure what you mean exactly in this context? Are you saying he will try to appeal on those grounds anyway? If that is what you are saying then it doesn't work like that because the appeals court will simply throw out the appeal for lack of standing I believe.

            • nfh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              That's exactly what I'm expecting would happen. Trump submits paperwork trying to appeal, it gets rejected for not being valid grounds to appeal, and he cries persecution in the media.

              • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Oh, well in that case then I guess I agree with you. Both because that is his M.O. and also because his legal team in this specific case is especially incompetent.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “My trial was unfair!”

        “On what grounds?”

        “I made it unfair for myself!”

      • mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This oversight was first reported over two weeks ago, yet he hasn’t mentioned it or taken action in any way. Wonder if that would have an effect on such an appeal.

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

          I don't think it would because it is unlikely this case would have been granted a jury trial anyway due to New York law. There are specific requirements for requesting a civil jury trial in New York, and all the legal analysis I have seen has suggested they would not have met that bar.

          Jury Trials are onerous on the public and the judicial system, but are fundamentally necessary as well as guaranteed in criminal proceedings. However, for civil matters that is the exception rather than the rule.

          • mateomaui@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Interesting, I hadn’t heard the possibility that he may have been denied a jury until now. Maybe that’s why he’s been quiet about it (until now of course.)

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

              It wasn't denied, his attorney's never requested one in the first place. It is unlikely it would have been granted even if they had due to the aforementioned reasons. However, that has not stopped Trump from saying he was "denied" a jury trial which is just patently false.

    • unclever_lemmy_name@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      he’s going to lose everything.

      He's going to send out a new round of "save our country" money-raising emails and every one of his cult members are basically going to bail his ass out of this again.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but surely there must be diminishing returns, or at least there's a somewhat finite pool to draw from. Like as case after case goes bad why would anyone keep giving him money?

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

      Just to clarify, that makes it sound like it is political. It is not although I don't think you meant to imply it was.

      Running for president just put him under the microscope like it should. Lots of illegal stuff came out.

    • pezhore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would be happy with just one loss that actually sticks.

      I feel like all I read is, "Trump is really in trouble this time!" - but all I actually hear is Waylon Jennings saying, "Boy that Donald sure is in a heap ah trouble."

    • Selmafudd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      He really is the best at losing, no one loses like he does, they say they do but they don't he is the best loser.

  • halfempty@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trump knows he can't win in a court of law, so he wants to win in the court of public opinion, where a con-man like him actually has some leverage over the gullible.

  • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if he loses, he will suffer no significant consequences, nor will the lawless movement that supports him.

    He could lose all of these cases tomorrow, and it still wouldn't mean a thing. He could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and there still would be no significant consequences.

    The GOP are a lawless terrorist movement, but everyone else wants to "take the high road."

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump has already suffered huge consequences of losing his business license in NY and having his business go into receivership. In addition to the expected $250 million fine.

    • Chronova@citizensgaming.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      That still remains to be seen.

      He's losing in a big way with these NY cases. There's a strong chance that he'll never be able to do business in NY again, which means a lot of work restructuring his businesses. It's a pretty big hit and will take a lot of time and money to resolve.

      The election cases will be held next year, and will determine whether or not he sees jail time. I still have high hopes that we'll see him behind bars in the next couple of years. These cases just take time because of the ramifications if the DOJ gets them wrong.

    • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If the Democrats/Progressives take the low road to beat the Republicans at their own game, isn't that just one team winning over another team? Whereas if you’re fighting for ideals then you’re going to end up taking the high road a lot

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        The ideal I'm fighting for is not being labelled a child sex offender and executed by the government because of my rainbow lapel pin. I'm open to higher ideals but when one side says we need to be "eliminated" I'm probably gonna tolerate a lot from the people who are trying to stop them.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        "Take the high road" in this case means "treat treasonous criminals with kid gloves because they're supported by the GOP." If everything had been done by the book, Trump would have been in prison a long time ago.

      • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The terrorists on the right need to be met - unfailingly - with unwavering resistance. And when they get violent, we have to stop them. That doesn't mean making a press release saying "we condemn in the strongest possible terms blah blah…" That means rounding up the violent actors and locking them away from civilized society.

        Conservatives used to say that "tough on crime" should mean "tough on criminals." Well when the GOP are criminals, the law needs to get touch on them.

        Currently they aren't scared of anything, because most of the other violent people sympathize with them. If they are going to wreck our Capitol and dismantle our freedoms, it's time for another Sherman's March, and finish the work that we started in Reconstruction.

        They speak openly of killing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And anyone else they don't like. They need to be scared of doing that, and we have to beat them to a pulp in order to make that happen - because that's the only language that thugs understand.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s everyone take a moment and collectively laugh at the sad little coward that’s downvoting all the comments for making fun of their beloved hero.

    No rebuttals. No arguments in defense- just butt-hurt worthless downvotes.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    John Yoo?

    "I think that Trump has already decided he's going to lose on the law," John Yoo, a Berkeley Law professor and former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, told Fox News on Monday. "Last week, the judge already made all the key findings against him. So what I think President Trump has done is turn this all into a political strategy."

    Yeah… THAT John Yoo:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

    "a March 13, 2003, legal opinion written by John Yoo of the Office of Legal Counsel, DoJ, and issued to the General Counsel of Defense five days before the U.S. invasion of Iraq started, concluding that federal laws related to use of torture and other abuse did not apply to agents interrogating foreigners overseas;[3] and other DoD internal memos authorizing techniques for specific military interrogations of certain individual detainees."

    and:

    "You have asked for this advice in the course of conducting interrogations of Abu Zubaydah."[6] The memo's author, John Yoo, acknowledged the memo authorized the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the CIA in Zubaydah's interrogation.[7] Yoo told an interviewer in 2007, "there was an urgency to decide so that valuable intelligence could be acquired from Abu Zubaydah, before further attacks could occur."[7]

    • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      71
      ·
      1 year ago

      John Yoo, a Berkeley Law professor and former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration

      It's insane that a guy like this who tried to get government torture legalized in the United States has now had a long, well-paying, distinguished career and is being referred to as "a Berkeley Law professor and former Justice Department official" instead of "torture guy."

      I guess having zero morals and ethics really does pay off.

  • cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    Look, you are allowed as a defendant in a criminal case or a civil case," he continued. "You're allowed to criticize the prosecutor, you're allowed to criticize the other party. You're allowed to criticize the judge."

    Are you allowed to criticize the judge like this, though? My understanding is that judges can nail people for contempt for far less. I know Trump is trying to score a political point here and a contempt of court ruling would play into that… but I wish one of these judges would go "idgaf" and bring down the hammer.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, you're "allowed" to do many things if you don't care about the consequences. Trump right now can criticize the judge as much as he wants - so long as he's willing to suffer contempt of court rulings.

      You're right, though. Judges are being lenient on Trump with regard to his outside courtroom behavior due to his being a political figure. If you or I did what he has been doing, we'd be found in contempt of court ASAP.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      When he says "criticize" he's employing the time tested GOP tactic of genericizing his way out of criminality. You start by saying something obviously inflammatory and criminal, then you characterize your actions as more and more generic until you end up with something harmless sounding. That's how you start by threatening witnesses and calling for violence against a judge then end up on TV talking about how you're being imprisoned for "having an opinion".

  • InfiniteLoop@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really just wanna see the judge eviscerate this “no victims” defense BS. We do NOT wait for someone to be hurt to enforce the law. Can you imagine how many speeding tickets would be pled out of if this was a legitimate defense?

    Even if you scope it down to the case at hand, we’d keep letting people commit financial fraud until the bank is finally harmed. And guess what happens when banks get fucked? The govt uses the common people’s tax dollars to bail them out.

    • Tammo-Korsai@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      The 'no victims' defence is right out of the Sovereign Citizen playbook and is often used in a futile attempt to get out of driving related charges and violations. I've seen videos of such world salad bombardments when the cops pull them over; it usually ends in a smashed window and handcuffs.

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

        You can argue the same about blasphemy. Either there is a god and it is so far beyond us nothing we could ever do could hurt it or there isn't one in which case what doesn't exist can't be hurt.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everyone who uses the banking system was a victim. The money that Convicted Sex Offender Treason Trump defrauded the banks out of was paid for by other bank consumers.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. It's a federal crime to lie on a bank document because they are federally chartered. Each document (or lie or something) can be punished with 2 years in jail.

        If you say "I have this much money" on a bank document and sign it, you can go to jail for 2 years. It's not punished often, usually when a bank employee steals something.

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      And the "no victims" defense is garbage anyway. He still committed fraud.

      Suppose I steal $100 from you. I take that $100 and use it to bet on horse racing. My bets pay off and I win $1,000. Now, I return your $100. Can I be arrested for theft? After all, you got your money back so you (by Trump's "logic") aren't a victim. So I should be allowed to walk free with my $900 profit, right?

      Of course not. I still committed theft. Returning the money later doesn't absolve me of my crime. Maybe, I'd get a lighter sentence for returning the money, but that's up to the judge.

      So maybe Trump gets off slightly easier because the banks got their money back, but he still got loans based on fraudulent information and profited off of his fraud. No amount of loan repayment absolves him of the fraud that got him those loans.

  • limelight79@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    "It seems to me Donald Trump's strategy here is essentially damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead,"

    That has ALWAYS been Trump's strategy for everything.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And it has worked spectacularly well. Hoping someone will have the guts to finally impose consequences on him.

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only part of that I disagree with is the part that implies that is the only problem with him. Otherwise, yes.

        I have a cousin that disappeared off Facebook that was a huge Trump fan (he literally commented "Don't worry, we still love you, President Trump" after the election loss). It's possible he unfriended me, which means I wouldn't see his profile or anything, but the timing is odd - you'd think he would have done that when we were arguing about, say, Covid in 2020. It makes me wonder where he was on January 6 and where he is now.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you are curious can't you just check out lic records to see if he got arrested? Or do you think he didn't get caught and is just trying to keep his head down?

          • limelight79@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I suppose I could, but eh, effort. I did a quick search and didn't find anything. I wouldn't be surprised if he was there but never went in the Capitol, or something like that. Or it's even possible he wasn't there and is horrified by what happened that day; I don't know.

            After another Q-anon relative called me a pedophile for voting for Biden over Trump, he actually was like, "Whoa, slow down there, let's not be crazy…" (and then the other relative doubled down). So he may not have been as all in as it seemed and just deleted his FB account for other reasons.

            It was really odd…he drove an electric Nissan Leaf (from one of the first years they made them) and loved it and would often post things like "150,000 trouble free miles and still extremely happy with it". He's also heavily into cycling. Neither are really what you'd expect from a Trump fan - but I guess it can be an attractive cult.

  • Rice_Daddy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Looks like the only path of the man is to become a dictator. Can't see any other ways for him to avoid being held to account at this point.

    • Corporate_Hippie@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      He's known this for a while now. Its why he's been pushing for delays to his trials, so he can just get another chance at being elected and then never leaving power again.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Watch the video of him on election night 2016. While everyone else is celebrating that they actually pulled off a really impressive underdog win, Trump himself looks rather morose. He looks like a guy who just realized that he's moved out of the realm of "screed-oriented media grifter surrounded by sycophants" into an arena where lying has consequences, criminality can't easily be dismissed and for the first time in his life his opponents will be just as if not more powerful than him. I think that day was the day he realized he's either gonna be king for life or he's going to prison.

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

        His wife knew exactly what was going to happen. She had tears of rage rolling down her plastic face the day he was sworn in.

      • bemenaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        He didn't want to win. He wanted to lose, and then he could launch TrumpTV to take on Fox News. That was his plan.

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted for the main fraud charge. There remain other fraud charges to be litigated.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh sure, and it's $250M at minimum, even just for that one charge (is there a different word for that in a civil case?) which he was found liable for in summary judgment. There are still more, each with their own set of consequences.

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

          That and losing Trump Org and his properties. The fact that Trump Tower could be taken from him and sold off infuriates him. This strikes at the very heart of his narcissistic pride.