comment: >
  
  You forgot “with small fins”….
context: All of Trump's lawsuits are frivolous. His whole life is frivolous. >
  
  Unfortunately, this is true about most exceedingly wealthy people. >
  
  This was my biggest takeaway from working at Bloomberg. >
  
  Man sometimes I imagine the grimmest and darkest timeline where we followed up Trump with nominating Bloomberg as the democrat. >
  
  I remember Bloomberg's brief attempt at a run against Trump.  A reporter asked him if people would want to choose between two billionaires and he responded; "Two?  Who's the other one?"  Bloomberg seems to doubt that Trump is actually a billionaire. >
  
  Trump is known, when asked, multiple times to give out his different net worth.. Sometimes he says a billion, sometimes 2,etc. If he was actually as rich as he said he was then he probably want to endlessly fundraise nor would his would be asking for Russian loan money. Something is noticeably off about a man who even talks about net worth and gives out a different answer to the same question. >
  
  The NYT a year ago obtained financial records and estimated Trump’s net worth to be less than $50 million ... Trump has never had an actual net worth higher than $200 million which is why he tried so desperately to get his hands on his father's estate just before he passed away. 
  If Trump ever had a total worth of a billion dollars his father would not have had to bail him out with his banks when he ran the TAJ in Atlantic city by buying $200k in chips and never using them >
  
  The issue with net worth or supposed net worth is that it just shows what assets if any of value were recorded... Whatever what's in his bank accounts only him and some members of the govt actually know as it's never been known to anyone how much is in a leader's bank balance at any given moment. Perhaps I'm wrong.. But a lot of people didn't know about all these secret offshore accounts the criminals and world leaders have as exposed in the Panama Papers and whatever else that was leaked. >
  
  If he's got a brain (big if) then the majority of his wealth (if it exists) will be invested and managed by a wealth management company.  I get not knowing what he is worth because other than the odd valuation (that is inaccurate by the time it arrives), he will have little to no visibility of what the value of his portfolio is. >
  
  Yeah, but he will know what a spitball estimate is in that situation.  Because of course. >
  
  I am sure it's just a coincidence. >
  
  Guy had a change of heart last minute and felt generous >
  
  Trump thinks generous is that lady who used to have a talk show. >
  
  That was a fuckin' fantastic joke mate, gave me a good chuckle, well done. I'd give you gold, but you see, i am but a poor ma'fucker, i have naught to give but a personal commendation and a spot on the next flight to Jupiter. >
  
  Can you explain it? I'm French and I guess that's why I'm missing it >
  
  Ellen Degeneres >
  
  thanks >
  
  (Her name is pronounced duh-generous in case anyone else doesn’t get it) >
  
  idk if it's "duh" .. more "deh" >
  
  It is when it's Trump, lol >
  
  Frivolous lawsuits have been his bread and butter for decades. About time he's gotten slapped down. >
  
  I can’t believe it’s taken this long. >
  
  The judge in this case used the other cases as justification for sanctions. Courts tend to err on the side of caution when sanctioning people because they don't want to discourage people from bringing lawsuits without perfect knowledge. In the long run it would hurt more than it would help as the rich would take advantage of it to prevent people from holding them accountable.
  So even when they know they are acting in bad faith, they have to justify it with strong evidence and a history. It is one of the imperfections in the court system that probably does not have a solution, and it is where people like sovereign citizens and Trump live.
  Luckily now it looks like Trump stepped out of the range of plausible deniability (his lawyer too, as she was bad mouthing the judge on Hannity and to other right wing "news") and so now they might start bringing the hammer down. >
  
  Indicating that the  case brought against Letitia James is knowingly frivolous >
  
  Of course it was, he's been using the courts as a cudgel for decades. Nice that folks are finally calling his bluff and he's actually being told to foot the bill. >
  
  The courts should let the case go through instead of letting them back out. >
  
  No, there is two problems with this. 
  First, that means the other party has to pay to defend themselves against false charges. This is money, time, energy that they have to expend on their part. There is no contingency for a lawyer when you are defending. 
  Second, that eats up too much resources for the rest of us. Someone else is delaying or being denied their opportunity because trump is eating up all of the time. Our judicial system has limited resources, we should use them wisely.
  A possible solution might be to force trump to put up a bond, several million, and then have to ask to sue. A judicial board would review the case and decide, from the initial filing, whether there was enough "evidence" for the case to proceed. The a defendant would not need to hire a lawyer or spend any time unless there was an actual need to do so. The judicial board would be paid out of his retainer so the rest of us were not footing the bill for his abuse. 
  But this would never happen. >
  
  That's not a bad plan for serial offenders of judicial abuse, but that would set a scary precedent that anybody without the full burden of evidence would not have their opportunity because of a financial barrier, or otherwise corrupt judges could start a pay-to-play level of court.
  Best to just leave the system as is, it's perfect how we have it then /s >
  
  Yes, this thought is only for serial offenders, this should not be instituted across the board. >
  
  So this validates Leitita James probe to all the deniers. >
  
  I doubt it will change much in the minds of deniers.
  Trump knew all along that the case was frivolous and he would never win. The ruling in the Clinton case may have convinced him and his lawyers to do the case earlier than intended, but it was never going anywhere anyway.
  Meanwhile, the people who need to know about this will never hear about it anyway. Notice that this is trending on many political themed subs, but not any conservative leaning ones. It will not be reported, or will barely be reported on right wing news outlets.
  The Trump base will never know that the case was dropped. They’ll only know that he “fought back” and filed the case. Some may even assume they stopped hearing about it because he must have won. >
  
  Trump and his lawyers are getting sanctioned because the case was frivolous. So is the james case. It was mentioned by the judge in the hillary case. Thats why they dropped it. >
  
  Trump is being sanctioned for taking his antics into a court of law before judges who have read the law suits he previously filed and read the decisions of other judges . This decision is a shot across his bow to either bring cases with merits or stop filing frivolous law suits as publicity stunts.
  When Guilanni DC law license is revoked and the NY bar follows suit,Trump won't be able to get into court anywhere in the US because no lawyer will want to go before a judge and risk being sanctioned >
  
  I can think of a few million reasons why they would represent him. >
  
  Will they see those million reasons? >
  
  At this point if trumps lawyers aren't collecting their fees up front they don't deserve their law license in the first place. >
  
  The real reason why Gulianni is getting disbarred >
  
  Wait is he really? Lmao >
  
  I wish, but I was just making a joke >
  
  Trump: Russia collusion witch hoax! Most unfair hitjob in history! Greatest victim! Even worse than Jesus and Emmett Till!
  This judge: Oh my god, shut the fuck up >
  
  Trump: No President has ever been treated so badly. Well i know a few that took a bullet to the head but, OK. >
  
  Are we sure Trump doesn't have one lodged in his brain? His speeches are not comprehensible. >
  
  You assume he has something between those ears of his. >
  
  A single crayon. >
  
  But if doctors take it out then he gets really smart, right? >
  
  Nope. Because there is literally nothing else. >
  
  Trump is a stupid fat fish flopping around in a frying pan.