"writing it off on their taxes" doesn't negate the damage of a failed investment/gamble. Sure it will lead to them paying less taxes, as it did for Trump all the years where he paid little taxes, but I don't see it as anything more than a failure on the purchaser's part.
Donations to the campaign can be used for his legal fees, so that's one avenue if you want to help.
i doubt you'll see any attempt to raise$500 million for his bond in short order though. If he can get one (a loan) and wins his appeal he'll only have the fees to pay. Otherwise he's on the hook for all of it but at least he'll have had time to liquidate assets at non "fire sale" prices.
I suppose that part of the defense could have just been for show.
That being said, the SCOTUS opinion did delve into how the 14th amendment could be used, which is what caused concurrences by ACB and the liberal judges who felt it was out of scope.
If it was one of hundreds of orgs that Putin provides some funding to, and they were quoting someone else in their reporting that felt the a deep state may have been involved, then yes it's a comparable stretch. Well that was fun.
"orders" is a strong word.
In this case a news organization who receives some funding from the WEF published an article about democrat operatives who point out that electors could refuse to certify Trump's win.
Saying that the WEF ordered it is a bit of a stretch.
It's actually his business that owes the money. Though he does owe millions to law firms that defended him in cases brought on by Dominion and Smartmatic, the former of which he owes 150(?) million. So yeah some kind of crowdfunding wouldn't be the worst idea.
The challenge is proving that someone was willing to pay that much at that time.
Jon Stewart didn't claim his property was worth 17 mill for leverage, he simply sold it for that amount.
If Trump sold one of his "overvalued" properties for the amount he claimed they're worth to pay for the bond, that would have been embarrassing for the prosecution.