Now you're just grasping for straws comparing him to a drug lord ... 

Evaluation doesn't even have to be from friends or family, it could either come from longtime and intimate rivals or former persisting partners ... 

1. Are you serious ? That guy listed over 400 million in operating income alone! Even if he takes the entire brunt of the corporate tax rate of 35%, he is still making a noticeable fraction of a billion ... 

2. Except Donald Trump has sold and rent real estate to make that money while Clinton made money by selling words ?! Depending on your definition of "corrupt" he hasn't exactly done a lot of flip-flopping compared to Romney so he doesn't really have cognitive dissonance to show that he's corrupt ... 

3. We DON'T know what he WILL do as there's a given amount of uncertainty for the future but that applies for every presidential candidate. At that point, how one decides to vote is down to his/her feelings ... 

4. Umm, Tony Schwartz is not a biographer at all and the book "Trump: The Art of Deal" is also not a biography although it does contain some memoirs plus he appears to be politically motivated too as he describes himself to be a "lifelong liberal" while "giving money to democrats year after year after year" so how can we prove that he DOESN'T have an agenda ? 

1.  I didn't say he was poor, I'm saying he might not be quite as rich as he claims to be.  There is a fairly significant difference between "merely wealthy" and the $10 billion or whatever Trump claims.  Not that income tax returns show net wealth but you get the point:  IIRC he claims most of his wealth by his brand name; how much does that make him?  How much does he actually get from selling "real estate" as you believe? 

2.  Flip-flopping isn't really corruption.  I have no idea what you are thinking with this comment.  And Trump has done plenty of flip-flopping, or rather his claims vary widely (even wildly) and the only reason it wouldn't count as flip-flopping is if his position wasn't seriously held in the first place. 

3.  Even with all the bad reputation many politicians have, "you can't trust them without a literal legally binding contract" is a pretty low bar.  That is the bar your defense of Trump's participation in Trump University sets. 

4.  I stand corrected on Schwartz not being a biographer.  Art of the Deal may not be an autobiography but it certainly does have a lot of autobiographical information as I have been led to believe.  As for his agenda, clearly he does have one, the explicit agenda of he does not think Trump is mentally prepared for the rigors of the office of POTUS.  If you think he would say the same thing about any Republican to try to make them lose the election, I think you need a little more than "he's a liberal" to make a serious claim.  As it is he seems to me like a person who actually knew Donald Trump, closely interacting with him for months, and has a very strong opinion about how well he can do the job. 

Final you bring up an interesting point whether Trump would be a new breed of corruption instead of current establishment. I believe we already have an insight into where Trump corruption would come from and it has everything to do with his business interest. Trump organization is Trump's business where he pretty much license his name around the world to real estate developers. There seems to be a serious conflict of interest with a lot of the business and people Trump Organization does business with. Trump has stated that the will place the company into a "blind Trust" and have his Kids run the show but unless he plans on never talking to them ever, this means nothing. There is a newsweek article on the subject and it brings very interesting ways for Trump to use his powers as POTUS if he were elected. Not long ago we saw Trump on Russian TV, putting Putin on a pedestal while in the same breath condemning the current president. Only recently Trump Jr was praising how they were going to do business in Russia and this self promotion really looks like Trump is already making moves whether he is POTUS or not. The question them comes into play is when he does anything for any country or policy that effect trade, so forth, is he doing it to further his organization or is it for the people. Statements not to long about about his getting rid of the EPA and other agencies start to look very suspect when you think about how those agencies regulations effect his businesses.

1. His main business is being a real estate developer. Literally, evidence is EVERYWHERE to show for it. Seriously you can't be implying that his whole entire business was a lie ... 

2. No but it's a sign of corruption as it shows a conflict of interest. Clinton is a BLATANT example of corruption since she curries favours for the Clinton Foundation donors ALL THE TIME when political donations are known for being conflicts of interests! 

3. It is a low bar and there's nothing anyone can do to change that. Trust itself is a low bar altogether for politicans so we can't be bothered to put trust in them, only confidence and I place mine in the Don when he's a non-politican ... 

4. The Art of Deal doesn't say a whole lot about Trump's autobiography, in fact it's mostly about how he does business so it belongs in that genre. Yes, Tony Schwartz has a very strong opinion, at least strong enough to tweet his every last ad hominem attack on Trump for the past month ever since the RNC convention. In fact he knew Donald Trump so much so that he twisted Ivanka Trump's own thought for implying that she had a better judgement of her father despite never meeting her, if that isn't FUD from him then I don't know what is. He's so much of the for the establishment typical democrat that he acts as with the mentality that "if your not with us then your against us" to the likes of deriding JILL STEIN so even he's not immune to alienating his own common beliefs and I bet he would grit undecided voters too. He even does damage control for Hillary Clinton by averting a conspiracy theory that turned out to be true by creating conspiracy theory for Trump despite not showing any physical health complications in public! Not only did he appeal to Clinton's comment about "basket of deplorables" but he went on doubling down by generalizing them as being dishonest so what exactly makes him unique from the rest of the DNC defense force that he'd offer aside from the 18 months of watching his enemy when he too will distort his view for his goals ? 

He's not just driven by personal bias, he shows stereotypical political bias going by the above and self proclaims it too so I have every reason to question that his view is not perverted ... 

1.  You are correct; the real estate portion of his empire (which he largely inherited) seems from skimming through that article to be significantly larger than his licensing and other ventures, which I was alluding to.  For the record, I was never implying that he did not have such interests. 

2.  Are you saying that flip-flopping is a sign of a politician's opinion being bought?  That's the only way I can make sense of how you got from what we were talking about to the Clinton Foundation.  In that case, I will agree that Trump won't be susceptible to that kind of bribery but surely you can admit that he has a strong incentive to bend policy for personal gain.  I wonder whether the EPA (which he proposed abolishing) ever gave him grief about one of his developments...

3.  But why do you put that confidence in him when your DEFENSE of his conduct in the Trump University deal is that he will lie his ass off for personal gain if you don't have him nailed to a legal contract? 

4.  Links 1 and 2:  he never met her 30 years ago when the book was being written.  Possibly he has met her since (like after it was written and he and Trump were going to book signings), and anyway he doesn't have to meet her to know about her secondhand and form an opinion of her intelligence and judgment.  Link 3:  Third party candidates being "spoilers" is a sad result of our current electoral system (not just electoral college).  Whether his claim is true depends on how many of Stein's voters would vote Democratic if they weren't voting for her.  I agree that he is stating his point insensitively.  Link 4:  Hyperbole, I agree.  I don't care for that myself, but doesn't make him wrong about Donald Trump.  Even if he's exaggerating what he's told us about that time as well Trump can't pay attention to topics that don't interest him.  If his account of that time period was entirely fabricated I'm sure Trump's lawyers would have followed through on their threat to sue.  Links 5, 6, 7:  I don't like the man much more than you do, but I don't care about what he's saying in his capacity as third-rate talking head.  I care about what he can tell us about Donald Trump as someone who, while not quite being a member of his inner circle, had comparable access to him for a long period of time.  Am I satisfied that his account of that time is 100% correct?  No.  Do I believe that it has some truth to it?  Yes.  And if what he said was so much as 20% true I think we can seriously question Trump's willingness to engage intellectually on topics that do not particularly interest him, regardless of their objective importance.  That is a pretty dangerous thing to have in a president.  (P.S.  Are you aware that Schwartz's deplorables comment was referring to Trump's media surrogates and not popular supporters?)  In summary:  if you want to discredit Tony Schwartz, stop trolling his Twitter feed and find me something that can either independently vouch for Trump's intellectual chops (when his own self-aggrandizement isn't on the table), or some evidence that Tony Schwartz's account of his observations of Trump is a fabrication. 

1. FWIW, Trump could be inflating his numbers but nobody can get a truly precise measurement when your a private business in Trump's case ... 

2. I don't deny that Trump won't make policies to his advantage but he also naturally favours the vast majority of his views so tit for tat ? I view abolishing the EPA as a positive since it means less government intervention in the flexibility of being able to improve solely upon human capital ...

3. You have to put some confidence/instincts in almost decision you make so I don't see why this case is isolated for Trump when there are no guarantees to be had in the future. Can you prove that Clinton can deliver every time while making sure she doesn't sell us out ? 

4.

This fucking isn't about her intelligence and judgement! (Fun fact, Tony Schwartz has never claimed to have met Trump's daughter!) He made himself look like an idiot by by becoming the very thing he hated, distortion. So not only is he a hypocrite but he's a scumbag for even trying to deform something as personal as family relationships into something ugly. What in god damn right does he have to claim to know about her OWN feelings towards her father even after finishing his work when she was at the age of 6 ?! Does he have no shame defacing everything about Trump along with his own dignity as a human being ? 

It doesn't matter how much support Jill Stein has when just for the principle of it the things he said applied to Gary Johnson as well when he's taking votes from Clinton enough to make Colorado competitive! This is the type of narrative that comes from a typical big party establishment sheep that just keeps fucking poisoning the system in a two party one and he's damn guilty of it. In fact if you claimed that he wasn't so polticially inclined in this case then why the hell did he specifically state that he responded due to the fact that Trump's running for POTUS ?! If Tony Schwartz truly only had a personal beef then why would he make it specifically known that he's donating to minorities that Trump is known to be incendiary with ? Just how exactly would that personally rub Trump ? 

You can't exactly sue when everyone has the right to freedom of speech since opinion's can be protected so Trump is next to powerless ... 

If you don't like him then at least try to validate everything he says. If you and Tony Schwartz seriously thinks that Trump doesn't have the willingness to intellectually engage on any topic then how the hell did he graduate from one of the most reputable business schools in the world like Wharton ?! I don't see the big problem with disinterest when you can also get the benefit of having the least amount of bias regarding the subject at hand ... 

You've got some audacity for calling me out on trolling when the man we're talking about does nothing but troll on Trump (He made a conspiracy theory FFS and he recently attacked his son too!) and just because he is stating facts doesn't mean Tony isn't trolling ... 

Tony says some really cancerous shit that he'll even attack those closest to Trump ... 

I wish there were better candidates.

Apparently, you are not alone with a majority of Americans disliking both candidates.

2.  You are probably too young to remember the Love Canal disaster or the Valley of the Drums that inspired the Superfund, or the Cuyahoga River catching fire multiple times, not because there was a particular spill, but just because of all the stuff being dumped into it.  Actually, I'm too young too, but the EPA was created as a direct response to these kinds of things, and removing those protections would be inviting these problems back.  Remember acid rain?  I'm old enough to remember that one.  And it costs only a quarter of what they estimated would be the case. 

3.  I don't expect Clinton to keep all her promises, especially when she has to deal with political opposition.  But I do trust her to generally try to follow the main thrust of her policy proposals, or at least not do the opposite.  I really have no idea what Trump will actually do once in office, and additionally I do not trust his ability to behave rationally on the global stage.  He recently said that if he had been offended the way Obama was by the Chinese not bringing him red-carpet stairs for Air Force One like they were supposed to, he would have just turned around and left instead of continuing the meeting. 

4a.  Calm down.  I don't think this thing about Trump's daughter is going anywhere fruitful and relevant so I'll drop it unless you really want to continue. 

4b.  It's a simple fact that in our current system a person who regularly votes can't vote for a third party without leeching support from one of the two big ones; and if the third parties have no realistic chance to win then a vote for them necessarily will be a simple drain on the voter base of the party you would otherwise prefer, assuming that voter did in fact have a preference.  That's why instant runoff voting is so important to me because it will allow third party support to thrive without that fear. 

4c.  Has Tony Schwartz participated in past election cycles beyond a quiet donation?  I didn't find evidence of it in a few seconds of Google searching.  This is relevant to your claim that he is just a party hack and not concerned genuinely about Trump.  In fact, you act like it's some kind of damning evidence that he said he only got into this when he realized Trump was winning, but actually that supports the idea that he is more anti-Trump than anything else.  Schwartz has mentioned he feels guilty about writing the book; maybe that explains the donations you mention—just opposing Trump. 

4d.  Different type of trolling.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll  How could you troll his Twitter feed in the sense you're talking about when you haven't even interacted with it?  Have you interacted with it? 

4e.  None of what you said in this entire point in any way answers final bolded challenge.  Let me clarify:  you are discrediting Tony Schwartz as a political commentator, but not discrediting the specific claims he has made in relation to Trump's behavior during the writing of the book.