You may be proved right in the end, but I wouldn't make bets on what a jury's going to find. Every day there are prosecutors who lose cases they thought they'd win. I was on a jury that found someone not guilty of several felonies, and the prosecutor was stunned. I was also on a jury that found a doctor not liable in a civil malpractice case that the plaintiff's lawyer seemed very sure of until the defense's expert witnesses took the stand.
Trump is reported very afraid of the idea of prison. He is a germaphobe. Prisons are seldom spotless when it comes to cleanliness. Other things scare him too.
In other news, a national poll of historians have rated Lincoln as the best president. You will never guess who came in last.
You may be proved right in the end, but I wouldn't make bets on what a jury's going to find.
Me neither.
For some time this case arising out of the Stormy Daniels payments was thought to be the weakest of those facing Trump. But recent developments have rehabilitated Michael Cohen as a credible witness. His testimony in the case against the Trump Corporation was found to be both credible and confirmed by other evidence. Maybe Cohen has got records of uncooked books and conversations with Trump? We’ll see.
However, if CFO Weisselberg flips to avoid more prison time (he’s 80) and gives evidence supporting Cohen, then I think Trump would probably be toast. But that’s quite a big if.
You may be proved right in the end, but I wouldn't make bets on what a jury's going to find. Every day there are prosecutors who lose cases they thought they'd win. I was on a jury that found someone not guilty of several felonies, and the prosecutor was stunned. I was also on a jury that found a doctor not liable in a civil malpractice case that the plaintiff's lawyer seemed very sure of until the defense's expert witnesses took the stand.
Absolutely. And that's how the system works.
What is unconscionable is Trump's argument that he should not have to face trial.
I’ve got a feeling that a judge would be tempted to fine him rather than work out how the secret service can defend him in jail.
I'm not sure I get the thinking behind comments like this. Prisons are, supposedly, secure facilities. It would arguably be easier for the Secret Service to protect Trump in prison since it's a limited access space where no one has access to guns except the guards (and, theoretically, the Secret Service detail).
I’ve got a feeling that a judge would be tempted to fine him rather than work out how the secret service can defend him in jail.
I'm not sure I get the thinking behind comments like this. Prisons are, supposedly, secure facilities. It would arguably be easier for the Secret Service to protect Trump in prison since it's a limited access space where no one has access to guns except the guards (and, theoretically, the Secret Service detail).
Admittedly I wouldn't like to guess at whether state prison guards could pass a background check, nor whether if Trump was in general population he could be kept safe when he mouths off at another inmate.
I would surely think Trump would not be in the general population but in an isolated cell for his own protection. One hour out alone for shower, exercise, and phone calls sounds about right.
Admittedly I wouldn't like to guess at whether state prison guards could pass a background check, . . .
Admittedly I was under the impression that state prison guards had already passed some form of background check, rather than the New York Department of Corrections simply hiring anyone who showed up on job day and not asking any pesky questions like "have you ever been convicted of a felony?" or "did you pass the civil service exam?"
... Though that's mainly because there isn't a real will to make them safe, IMHO. The fucked-upness of American prisons isn't a matter about which we can just say, "Oh, it can't be fixed!" It could totally be fixed. And in the case of Trump, we're talking about fixing it for a single man. Not difficult at all, just a bit expensive (and embarrassing. VERY embarrassing. But that's what we get for having once elected him.)
I believe he will likely be placed in a minimum security prison. Some people call them country club prison. There are several in New York State. These prisons were established for those at management level who were convicted of white color crimes. Some of them have small nine hole golf courses on them. He will be happy.
I’ve got a feeling that a judge would be tempted to fine him rather than work out how the secret service can defend him in jail.
I'm not sure I get the thinking behind comments like this. Prisons are, supposedly, secure facilities. It would arguably be easier for the Secret Service to protect Trump in prison since it's a limited access space where no one has access to guns except the guards (and, theoretically, the Secret Service detail).
I suppose it would be possible to use some form of home detention under which the secret service operatives charged with his safety could also be charged with ensuring he obeyed the House arrest comditions. A fairly cushy form of imprisonment. It might be unconstitutional (!)
The point is that special arrangements would have to be made for his bodyguards.
Prisons are notoriously not safe places, either in the UK or the USA
... Though that's mainly because there isn't a real will to make them safe, IMHO. The fucked-upness of American prisons isn't a matter about which we can just say, "Oh, it can't be fixed!" It could totally be fixed. And in the case of Trump, we're talking about fixing it for a single man. Not difficult at all, just a bit expensive (and embarrassing. VERY embarrassing. But that's what we get for having once elected him.)
One of the reasons that there is very little political will behind those kinds of reforms is the belief that the wealthy and powerful (i.e. those with the greatest ability to implement such reforms) should never be subjected to America's prison system. For example:
I suppose it would be possible to use some form of home detention under which the secret service operatives charged with his safety could also be charged with ensuring he obeyed the House arrest conditions. A fairly cushy form of imprisonment.
There seems to be an underlying assumption here that because Donald Trump, Sr. is an allegedly wealthy man who was once President of the United States that he is above being subjected to the same correctional system as ordinary Americans.
The point is that special arrangements would have to be made for his bodyguards.
Again, I just don't get this kind of thinking. Prisons routinely have to make arrangements for those guarding the prisoners. This is, theoretically, a solved problem. If prisons cannot accommodate the people guarding the prisoners then the problem is much greater than the specific logistics of a hypothetical Trump imprisonment.
It’s not about wealth at all. My reading tells me that Congress authorised in 1965 that the Secret Service have a duty to protect an ex President and his or her spouse for the remainder of their lives. That protection only applies to ex Presidents.
That’s the source of the additional challenge facing the prison service. The protection must be provided by the Secret Service. It is not the responsibility of the prison.
So the prison and the Secret Service would need to confer on how that could be done given the normal conditions in the prison. In detail. For every minute of that imprisonment. That’s not a trivial issue. It’s an unprecedented issue, so far as I’m aware.
I agree it's unprecedented, but I don't see it as unsolvable, or even particularly difficult, given the will to solve it--and yes, there's the rub.
For example, we could stick the man in some medium-security prison somewhere (hopefully in the middle of nowhere to minimize the amount of crap they'll encounter from his fan club). Give him a building by himself--build it special, if you like, it would so totally be worth it--and let it be outfitted with his personal quarters and also everything necessary for the Secret Service to do their jobs. Decide (this is probably a judge's issue) exactly kinds of restrictions apply to Trump based on his crimes and also on what's feasible for the prison he's in. For example, I doubt anyone would condemn him to solitary confinement for the rest of his life, though it would be easiest. But you don't want to upend the whole prison any more than you must. So they might compromise on the hours he can spend out of his cell, and the population (very limited, and checked first) with whom he could interact. Given his germophobia and arrogance, I suspect he wouldn't insist on being free to interact with the general population!
Draw up a protocol delineating the responsibilities of the prison and of the Secret Service people. Include what to do when conflicts arise that haven't been foreseen, and who the decision-maker is (probably another judge). Allow the SS to vet all staff who interact with the man, and take other precautions (against poisoning or what have you).
This is totally do-able, it's just a major, major, MAJOR pain in the butt. So maybe "difficult" in that sense, but not in the "we can't work out these challenges" sense. Heck, I could probably do it, given a budget and experienced advisors, and I'm an ordinary layman.
I guess it is up to the Secret Service to determine how they might be able to carry out their duty under these hypothetical circumstances. And that was my point. I think their view would override the view of the prison as to what might be safe.
The death or severe injury of an ex President in prison or anywhere else would be a very big deal.
It would. But that's exactly what the SS exist for. I think it's a challenge they could cope with (given the budget, judge, etc.).
And to speak in a way that sounds shockingly hard-hearted, the SS is not infallible, and if we lose Trump despite best efforts (and they'd better BE best efforts), it won't be the first one they've lost.
I’ve done a bit of second guessing in considering whether a judge might prefer a fine, or the possibility of some form of house detention. Probably premature of me. On reflection, should the situation arise, the Secret Service would have to declare its hand. And I guess Congress might stick its oar in as well.
And to speak in a way that sounds shockingly hard-hearted, the SS is not infallible, and if we lose Trump despite best efforts (and they'd better BE best efforts), it won't be the first one they've lost.
Here is an article from the Washington Post that discusses the possibbility of Secret Service protection in prison and what other options may be avaialbe should Trump be convicted of a felony.
I note it says former Vice President Spiro Agnew got three years probation and a fine for pleading guilty to Tax Evasion. However, Trump will not plead guilty to anything. It is not in his character.
Minimum Security in a house on a prison campus seems like a done deal for me.
That is unless Congress decides to withdraw the detail protecting Trump.
Of course, there is the question of whether the Secret Service personnel would be willing to accept such duty. Here, go to prison to protect this nasty person until he dies.
I have always been impressed by Teddy Roosevelt's insistence that despite being shot, he would of course proceed with his speech. Imagine this happening today; by the end of the day, the opposition candidates would be saying it was his own fault. He didn't win that election, but he made a good try.
Could you not just swap out some subset of the warders for secret service staff ?
Reveals some of the issues. The prison employs its staff and they have their own contracts, terms and responsibilities. The Secret Service contracts, terms and responsibilities are another matter. And would the Prison Governor have ultimate responsibility for their discipline and actions? Don’t see how that works.
I note it says former Vice President Spiro Agnew got three years probation and a fine for pleading guilty to Tax Evasion.
Historical correction: Spiro Agnew actually plead nolo contendere (no contest) to the tax charges against him. The legal result is the same as pleading guilty, but the defendant does not technically admit guilt.
Of course, there is the question of whether the Secret Service personnel would be willing to accept such duty. Here, go to prison to protect this nasty person until he dies.
While an ex-president has access to 24/7 Secret Service protection, individual agents are not on duty 24/7. They go home at the end of their shift. As such, suggesting that they'd have to "go to prison" is misleading.
I’m sure you’re right, Lamb Chopped. I should think the Secret Service have a lot of policies and processes in secret files. Ready should the occasion require them.
I’m sure you’re right, Lamb Chopped. I should think the Secret Service have a lot of policies and processes in secret files. Ready should the occasion require them.
After 159 years, they undoubtedly have a plan for any occasion necessary. Fun facts: the Secret Service was created to combat rampant counterfeiting after the US Civil War. It only took on Presidential protection after Wm. McKinley's assassination in 1901.
I may have missed it, but no-one on the ship seems to have commented on the outcome of his NY fraud case just yet. Guardian article here.
Sorry - ETA - Croesos mentioned it, but it does not seem to have been discussed. This looks like a big deal to me, but I guess I may be just looking at things from the perspective of someone for whom getting on for half a billion is a bit of a serious liability...
I may have missed it, but no-one on the ship seems to have commented on the outcome of his NY fraud case just yet. Guardian article here.
Sorry - ETA - Croesos mentioned it, but it does not seem to have been discussed. This looks like a big deal to me, but I guess I may be just looking at things from the perspective of someone for whom getting on for half a billion is a bit of a serious liability...
If Trump is as rich as he claims to be, this is not a major problem.
If he is in fact as heavily leveraged as many of us think he is, then there is no way he can afford it without selling some major assets.
Of course, he's whining about it all being a political witch hunt, that's just on-brand for him and not remotely convincing.
The technical bit is that in order to appeal, he needs to put up a bond. So effectively he needs to find half a billion in cash. I don't think he has it. He may be forced to sell or have assets seized.
One point of evidence here is how much he is fundraising for legal fees. Both directly and indirectly he's begging his supporters for the money, so I really don't think he has it.
I think you’re right, though i also think he would fund raise regardless of his financial status, because he’s shameless and will do anything to get more money.
I think you’re right, though i also think he would fund raise regardless of his financial status, because he’s shameless and will do anything to get more money.
You could buy some of his golden sneakers for $400--okay, $399. You get a promissory note for delivery in July. Made in China, I think.
We’ll see. There are some in the GOP who are concerned (based on things Lara Trump has said) that GOP funds may be “diverted” to help him with his legal costs.
I’m wondering what McConnell will do. Both in terms of elections for Congress (House and Senate) and the use of funds from the faithful, Trump is looking increasingly like a luxury it may be unwise for them to afford. Despite his cult popularity.
If Trump is as rich as he claims to be, this is not a major problem.
If he is in fact as heavily leveraged as many of us think he is, then there is no way he can afford it without selling some major assets.
He could borrow, using major assets as collateral. A couple of problems with this, in addition to the likelihood that he is already heavily leveraged:
-- He's in this particular mess because he misrepresented the value of certain assets, so anyone who might lend to him will need to be very careful about evaluating what he puts up as collateral, and bond companies might not want to deal with that.
-- His family is not running the Trump Org anymore. The judge appointed a monitor a while ago, and that person is now going to appoint a director of compliance. Trump and his sons can no longer just do whatever they want with the holding company, which all of their assets are under. This is also a complicating factor in any potential sale of assets.
One point of evidence here is how much he is fundraising for legal fees. Both directly and indirectly he's begging his supporters for the money, so I really don't think he has it.
I don't think this has any bearing on his getting a bond for the money he owes, partly because, as @Lamb Chopped has said, this is just what he does now, and also because what he's raising from small potatoes supporters is a drop in the bucket. People with the ability to give him enough money to make a real dent in this penalty would have to pay taxes on that money.
He could borrow, using major assets as collateral. A couple of problems with this, in addition to the likelihood that he is already heavily leveraged:
-- He's in this particular mess because he misrepresented the value of certain assets, so anyone who might lend to him will need to be very careful about evaluating what he puts up as collateral, and bond companies might not want to deal with that.
-- His family is not running the Trump Org anymore. The judge appointed a monitor a while ago, and that person is now going to appoint a director of compliance. Trump and his sons can no longer just do whatever they want with the holding company, which all of their assets are under. This is also a complicating factor in any potential sale of assets.
A third problem with borrowing is that there is a possibility that Trump may be president* again starting in January 2025. This may give potential lenders pause given that collecting a nine-figure debt owed by a sitting president would be complicated in the best of circumstances and Trump has a history of using whatever leverage he has to avoid paying his debts, so those would not be the best of circumstances.
We’ll see. There are some in the GOP who are concerned (based on things Lara Trump has said) that GOP funds may be “diverted” to help him with his legal costs.
I’m wondering what McConnell will do. Both in terms of elections for Congress (House and Senate) and the use of funds from the faithful, Trump is looking increasingly like a luxury it may be unwise for them to afford. Despite his cult popularity.
That would probably cause the RNC to lose its non-profit status. Whether or not the RNC is a tax-exempt organization going forward is probably of very little concern to Donald Trump, but it probably matters a great deal to many people within the Republican party. I guess we'll see how deeply the cult-think has taken hold, or if they even realize that there's a bust out going on.
We’ll see. There are some in the GOP who are concerned (based on things Lara Trump has said) that GOP funds may be “diverted” to help him with his legal costs.
The RNC doesn't have anything near what Trump's legal bills come to. They've got about $9 million on hand, and they need that just to operate. Trump's legal fees in 2023 were $54 million.
And if the RNC does end up paying Trump's legal bills, that's money they don't spend advancing the interests of the Republican party. So there might not be a huge downside for the public.
The $9 million is just a reserve. The RNC raised $100 million in the last year and Lara Trump is talking about a target of $500 million this year.
I think the real issues so far as Trump support is concerned are whether they can and should support Trump’s legal costs. Enthusiasm for supporting Trump seems likely to get in the way of supporting the needs of other GOP candidates.
Trump needs the money now. He's racking up something like $114,000+ in interest every day, and his likely deadline for putting upthe bond is March 25. He can't wait for the RNC to raise money.
True. If he can’t get help with the bond he’s really up the creek. But if he does, that will come at an additional cost. There’s no way the RNC can provide significant immediate help.
Indeed. That’s what “up the creek” would look like. But I’m too soft-hearted. Not sure I’d want to watch. Could probably stand reading about it. And maybe smile a little bit ….
On a related matter, Trump (via his lawyers) made a very special argument about why he shouldn't be required to post a bond for the money (US$ 83.3 million) he now owes E. Jean Carroll after her second successful defamation suit. You see, he's simply too rich to do it. No, seriously.
“Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
They argued that Trump’s extreme wealth was security enough that he would eventually pay. The lawyers also suggested that the court project that the total judgment would be reduced on appeal to $22.25 million, requiring a bond of about $24.48 million.
Presiding Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday declined to grant Trump a stay until Carroll’s lawyers had a chance to reply. Carroll’s legal team has until Thursday to respond, and then Trump’s team has until March 2 to reply to them. Kaplan also noted that Trump’s team had waited almost until the end of his payment window to file the request for a stay.
There is a disturbing trend of rich people feeling like they shouldn't have to pay for anything, but this is the first time I've heard of that one was willing to argue in court that this should apply to legal judgments.
These legal arguments are becoming more and more ridiculous. But I guess they provide further support for the assessment that he really is in financial difficulties.
No, wait! Donald Trump is too poor to post a bond.
Donald Trump is unable to post a full bond while he appeals a $454.2 million judgment that a judge imposed in New York state's civil fraud case against him, and wants instead to secure a $100 million bond, his lawyers said on Wednesday.
Trump is appealing a Feb. 16 decision by Justice Arthur Engoron of the state court in Manhattan, which includes a three-year ban from serving in a top role at any New York company, or seeking loans from banks registered in the state.
Letitia James, the state’s attorney general, sued Trump, the Trump Organization and other defendants in 2022, accusing them of overstating the value of Trump’s properties to inflate his net worth and obtain better loan and insurance terms.
In a filing with the Appellate Division, a mid-level appeals court, Trump’s lawyers asked to temporarily stay the judgment during his appeal, saying he would suffer “irreparable harm” if James were free to sell his real estate assets to raise capital.
The lawyers also said the “exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond.”
In a separate filing, James opposed a stay, calling it “especially inappropriate” given the defendants “all but concede” that Trump does not have enough liquid assets to satisfy the judgment.
“These are precisely the circumstances for which a full bond or deposit is necessary, where defendants’ approach would leave (the attorney general’s office) with substantial shortfalls once this court affirms the judgment,” she wrote.
It's grimly amusing that this whole thing is pretty much an exact microcosm of New York's civil fraud case against Trump, where he was found liable for either inflating or deflating the worth of various properties depending on whichever was more advantageous to his circumstances.
Comments
In other news, a national poll of historians have rated Lincoln as the best president. You will never guess who came in last.
Me neither.
For some time this case arising out of the Stormy Daniels payments was thought to be the weakest of those facing Trump. But recent developments have rehabilitated Michael Cohen as a credible witness. His testimony in the case against the Trump Corporation was found to be both credible and confirmed by other evidence. Maybe Cohen has got records of uncooked books and conversations with Trump? We’ll see.
However, if CFO Weisselberg flips to avoid more prison time (he’s 80) and gives evidence supporting Cohen, then I think Trump would probably be toast. But that’s quite a big if.
Absolutely. And that's how the system works.
What is unconscionable is Trump's argument that he should not have to face trial.
AFZ
I'm not sure I get the thinking behind comments like this. Prisons are, supposedly, secure facilities. It would arguably be easier for the Secret Service to protect Trump in prison since it's a limited access space where no one has access to guns except the guards (and, theoretically, the Secret Service detail).
Admittedly I wouldn't like to guess at whether state prison guards could pass a background check, nor whether if Trump was in general population he could be kept safe when he mouths off at another inmate.
Admittedly I was under the impression that state prison guards had already passed some form of background check, rather than the New York Department of Corrections simply hiring anyone who showed up on job day and not asking any pesky questions like "have you ever been convicted of a felony?" or "did you pass the civil service exam?"
Not sure why this would be more of a problem in prison than anywhere else.
I suppose it would be possible to use some form of home detention under which the secret service operatives charged with his safety could also be charged with ensuring he obeyed the House arrest comditions. A fairly cushy form of imprisonment. It might be unconstitutional (!)
The point is that special arrangements would have to be made for his bodyguards.
One of the reasons that there is very little political will behind those kinds of reforms is the belief that the wealthy and powerful (i.e. those with the greatest ability to implement such reforms) should never be subjected to America's prison system. For example:
There seems to be an underlying assumption here that because Donald Trump, Sr. is an allegedly wealthy man who was once President of the United States that he is above being subjected to the same correctional system as ordinary Americans.
Again, I just don't get this kind of thinking. Prisons routinely have to make arrangements for those guarding the prisoners. This is, theoretically, a solved problem. If prisons cannot accommodate the people guarding the prisoners then the problem is much greater than the specific logistics of a hypothetical Trump imprisonment.
That’s the source of the additional challenge facing the prison service. The protection must be provided by the Secret Service. It is not the responsibility of the prison.
So the prison and the Secret Service would need to confer on how that could be done given the normal conditions in the prison. In detail. For every minute of that imprisonment. That’s not a trivial issue. It’s an unprecedented issue, so far as I’m aware.
For example, we could stick the man in some medium-security prison somewhere (hopefully in the middle of nowhere to minimize the amount of crap they'll encounter from his fan club). Give him a building by himself--build it special, if you like, it would so totally be worth it--and let it be outfitted with his personal quarters and also everything necessary for the Secret Service to do their jobs. Decide (this is probably a judge's issue) exactly kinds of restrictions apply to Trump based on his crimes and also on what's feasible for the prison he's in. For example, I doubt anyone would condemn him to solitary confinement for the rest of his life, though it would be easiest. But you don't want to upend the whole prison any more than you must. So they might compromise on the hours he can spend out of his cell, and the population (very limited, and checked first) with whom he could interact. Given his germophobia and arrogance, I suspect he wouldn't insist on being free to interact with the general population!
Draw up a protocol delineating the responsibilities of the prison and of the Secret Service people. Include what to do when conflicts arise that haven't been foreseen, and who the decision-maker is (probably another judge). Allow the SS to vet all staff who interact with the man, and take other precautions (against poisoning or what have you).
This is totally do-able, it's just a major, major, MAJOR pain in the butt. So maybe "difficult" in that sense, but not in the "we can't work out these challenges" sense. Heck, I could probably do it, given a budget and experienced advisors, and I'm an ordinary layman.
The death or severe injury of an ex President in prison or anywhere else would be a very big deal.
And to speak in a way that sounds shockingly hard-hearted, the SS is not infallible, and if we lose Trump despite best efforts (and they'd better BE best efforts), it won't be the first one they've lost.
Depends on how you think of it. I don't think the U.S. has ever had an ex-president die through violence. The closest incident I can think of was the 1912 attempted murder of former president Theodore Roosevelt.
I note it says former Vice President Spiro Agnew got three years probation and a fine for pleading guilty to Tax Evasion. However, Trump will not plead guilty to anything. It is not in his character.
Minimum Security in a house on a prison campus seems like a done deal for me.
That is unless Congress decides to withdraw the detail protecting Trump.
Nah, not going to happen.
I have always been impressed by Teddy Roosevelt's insistence that despite being shot, he would of course proceed with his speech. Imagine this happening today; by the end of the day, the opposition candidates would be saying it was his own fault. He didn't win that election, but he made a good try.
Historical correction: Spiro Agnew actually plead nolo contendere (no contest) to the tax charges against him. The legal result is the same as pleading guilty, but the defendant does not technically admit guilt.
While an ex-president has access to 24/7 Secret Service protection, individual agents are not on duty 24/7. They go home at the end of their shift. As such, suggesting that they'd have to "go to prison" is misleading.
(Washington Post article in Gramps49’s post)
It really is up to them to evaluate risks.
though I'd certainly have some people in a back room doing some heavy duty theorizing just in case.
After 159 years, they undoubtedly have a plan for any occasion necessary. Fun facts: the Secret Service was created to combat rampant counterfeiting after the US Civil War. It only took on Presidential protection after Wm. McKinley's assassination in 1901.
Sorry - ETA - Croesos mentioned it, but it does not seem to have been discussed. This looks like a big deal to me, but I guess I may be just looking at things from the perspective of someone for whom getting on for half a billion is a bit of a serious liability...
If Trump is as rich as he claims to be, this is not a major problem.
If he is in fact as heavily leveraged as many of us think he is, then there is no way he can afford it without selling some major assets.
Of course, he's whining about it all being a political witch hunt, that's just on-brand for him and not remotely convincing.
The technical bit is that in order to appeal, he needs to put up a bond. So effectively he needs to find half a billion in cash. I don't think he has it. He may be forced to sell or have assets seized.
One point of evidence here is how much he is fundraising for legal fees. Both directly and indirectly he's begging his supporters for the money, so I really don't think he has it.
AFZ
You could buy some of his golden sneakers for $400--okay, $399. You get a promissory note for delivery in July. Made in China, I think.
I’m wondering what McConnell will do. Both in terms of elections for Congress (House and Senate) and the use of funds from the faithful, Trump is looking increasingly like a luxury it may be unwise for them to afford. Despite his cult popularity.
He could borrow, using major assets as collateral. A couple of problems with this, in addition to the likelihood that he is already heavily leveraged:
-- He's in this particular mess because he misrepresented the value of certain assets, so anyone who might lend to him will need to be very careful about evaluating what he puts up as collateral, and bond companies might not want to deal with that.
-- His family is not running the Trump Org anymore. The judge appointed a monitor a while ago, and that person is now going to appoint a director of compliance. Trump and his sons can no longer just do whatever they want with the holding company, which all of their assets are under. This is also a complicating factor in any potential sale of assets.
I don't think this has any bearing on his getting a bond for the money he owes, partly because, as @Lamb Chopped has said, this is just what he does now, and also because what he's raising from small potatoes supporters is a drop in the bucket. People with the ability to give him enough money to make a real dent in this penalty would have to pay taxes on that money.
Here's a gift link to a Washington Post discussion of the details.
A third problem with borrowing is that there is a possibility that Trump may be president* again starting in January 2025. This may give potential lenders pause given that collecting a nine-figure debt owed by a sitting president would be complicated in the best of circumstances and Trump has a history of using whatever leverage he has to avoid paying his debts, so those would not be the best of circumstances.
That would probably cause the RNC to lose its non-profit status. Whether or not the RNC is a tax-exempt organization going forward is probably of very little concern to Donald Trump, but it probably matters a great deal to many people within the Republican party. I guess we'll see how deeply the cult-think has taken hold, or if they even realize that there's a bust out going on.
The RNC doesn't have anything near what Trump's legal bills come to. They've got about $9 million on hand, and they need that just to operate. Trump's legal fees in 2023 were $54 million.
And if the RNC does end up paying Trump's legal bills, that's money they don't spend advancing the interests of the Republican party. So there might not be a huge downside for the public.
The $9 million is just a reserve. The RNC raised $100 million in the last year and Lara Trump is talking about a target of $500 million this year.
I think the real issues so far as Trump support is concerned are whether they can and should support Trump’s legal costs. Enthusiasm for supporting Trump seems likely to get in the way of supporting the needs of other GOP candidates.
There is a disturbing trend of rich people feeling like they shouldn't have to pay for anything, but this is the first time I've heard of that one was willing to argue in court that this should apply to legal judgments.
It's grimly amusing that this whole thing is pretty much an exact microcosm of New York's civil fraud case against Trump, where he was found liable for either inflating or deflating the worth of various properties depending on whichever was more advantageous to his circumstances.