“Any foreign adversary seeking to buy a President knows the price,” warns Rep. Sean Casten

A Democrat who sits on the House Financial Services Committee warned that former President Donald Trump’s inability to secure a bond for his $464 million fraud judgment makes him a “massive national security risk.”

Trump’s lawyers in a filing on Monday told a New York appeals court that he cannot secure a bond after approaching 30 underwriters.

“The amount of the judgment, with interest, exceeds $464 million, and very few bonding companies will consider a bond of anything approaching that magnitude,” the attorneys wrote.

The filing quoted an insurance broker who signed an affidavit stating that securing the bond is a “practical impossibility.”

  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    3 months ago

    When I got my security clearance, one of the things they drove home was reporting people who were having money problems because, as this points out, having money problems makes you prone to being bribed, and thus a threat.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      44
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t think it should negate you from running for high office but it should make people consider who they vote for.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        So that’s an interesting question there. An elected official gets to see top secret information that anyone else would have to go through a stringent check on. Why shouldn’t the elected official be held to the same standard as they will be accessing the same information? Why does being elected override that?

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well, in my opinion, I’d rather have a homeless person as president than a rich bastard. I don’t think wealth should influence electability, but it does anyway. There should be plenty of checks in place though, just not requiring wealth.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean I agree.

          I also think that we could do away with primaries and parties together, then put together a list of qualifications for all the available elected positions; each voter is required to when registering to list their qualifications; then at random we select a pool of potential applicants for a given campaign cycle. We then vote on the candidates and decide. Public office shouldn’t be a career, it should be a civic obligation like jury duty. Unless you have a valid reason to not hold office, welp, if your number comes up…

      • radiohead37@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ideally, yes. But this guy can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any voters.