At this point, I don’t think any of this matters. He’s going to skate on everything, he’s going to pay nothing, he’s never going to ‘jail’, and more likely than not, ‘win’ the election. If our justice system can’t nail this guy, what good is having one?
I’d say the $350m (or $454m now) was fair, assuming he’s guilty. Is it fair that he needs to pay it all before he has a chance to appeal? Since it likely means unretrievable losses, I have a little more trouble with that. If it was simply a matter of putting a bunch of cash in trust, then sure, have at it. But if it requires selling properties that can’t be retrieved in case of reversal, I’m less sure.
I don’t give a rat’s ass about Trump and would be overjoyed if he was forced to sell off properties today. But as a general principle that could be applied to less odorous defendants, reduction in the bond isn’t all bad.
From NY’s POV the process of getting money out of the convoluted structures of Trump’s s holdings once foreclosed upon would be very painful and tedious. Cash assured “in hand” with time to figure out ways to get the monies that will be due later is the better option perhaps.
Well, I can see one potential benefit. If he can’t even post this smaller bond, it emphasizes the fact that the bond companies think he’s still going to lose, and won’t be able to come up with the money. These companies are in this to make money, and have their eyes fixed firmly on the main chance. They won’t make emotional decisions based on liking or hating Trump, but on the basis of hard numbers analysis.
Totally agree. I said the same thing in an earlier post. I bet James is happy with this outcome.
Why is that reasonable when that’s not the way surety bonds work? It certainly didn’t work that way for the E Jean Carroll bond. The only difference here is that the amount was so large that the crybaby stomped his feet and pounded his tiny hands.
The bond companies don’t care if he wins or loses. They make their money on fees for the service. If they turn him down, it’s because he doesn’t have the collateral in their opinion.
You’re not being anything close to reasonable. You don’t have the first clue why they ruled the way they did. Courts don’t rule a certain way because of tantrums from one of the parties and it’s already been explained in other posts what the it logic likely was.
You’re right, I haven’t read the ruling yet, but if one properly interprets my hyperbolic “crybaby tantrums” as meaning “able to afford every possible avenue of appeal”, my initial reaction to this, at least, may be clearer. How much leeway do you think the average Joe gets when faced with large fines, overdue income taxes, or overdue property taxes? It’s mostly “tough shit, sucks to be you, the law applies to everyone”. It’s true that special dispensations are sometimes granted for a short period to prevent a person from becoming destitute or even homeless, but was Trump ever at any risk of that?
And incidentally, did you know that one of the leading causes of homelessness is elderly people being unable to pay their property taxes or properly maintain their homes to get decent resale value? Again, the attitude of the courts and the legal system, beyond a certain potential grace period (which Trump got, but wasted away) is “too bad, so sad, the government now owns your house”. And that’s just from bad luck in life, not due to outright blatant fraud of the kind the Trump has been carrying on his whole life, and for which he’s only now possibly facing some vestige of accountability. Maybe.
There is nothing fair globally about how the super wealthy are treated versus poor people. There is nothing fair specifically about how Trump has been treated through his life. Hyper-specifically this ruling is reasonable. @TroutMan ’s post explains it better than I could.
The man is finally facing actual consequences. He’s still going to have to pay the rest if he completely loses on appeal and we now have $175m guaranteed. How hilarious would it be if he can’t come up with that? He asked for $100m earlier which leads me to believe he can’t come up with any more.
I’m in your camp here, especially regarding …
He (and the court) had 30 days to arrive at this amount. Why the 10-day extension?
If a piece of collateral is being used for a bond, do the bond writers make that public? I’m sure Trump is supposed to disclose any encumbrances, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he put up the same collateral to several bonds if he could get away with it.
My imperfect understanding of this particular situation was that the judgement was based in part on Trump’s self-declared financial worth. Should Trump have been falsely claiming a grossly inflated value because he wanted to appear wealthier than he actually is, I consider that poetic justice as well as real justice.
And likewise, my imperfect understanding is that Average Joe gets his financial records reviewed when faced with civil judgements (taxes are a different kettle of fish). Had Trump and/or his lawyers argued for a realistic valuation of his wealth and backed it up with documents, I suspect he’d have faced a judgement under $200m from the get-go.
But then he’d have to admit his real wealth level, and that appears to be a fate worse than death for Donald.
I would think the 2nd bond company would be very, VERY diligent in finding out if the collateral was encumbered in any way by a previous bond company, mortgages or other creditors.
Well, TBF no other President has had to post a bond in order to appeal a judgement.
Of course, there are reasons for this other than the judge being a poopy-head.
I agree. It’s basically a lien as I understand it. The Carroll money is secured by one specific brokerage account.
I believe the company which is providing the bond in the Carroll case is holding a brokerage account as collateral. If the value of that account falls below the amount of the bond, does the bond company have the right to ask for more collateral or to start liquidating the account?
the 10 day extension is to come up with the new amount. team trump has 10 days to go back to the companies that turned them down and try for the new amount.
Unless I’m mistaken, every single one of the sitting judges from the NY Court of Appeals was appointed by a Democrat(ic) Governor.
One of whom – it needs be said – is named @TroutMan
I’m just sayin’…
It’s frustrating to see a man who has made it his mission to make a mockery of the judicial system benefit in any way from that system. But I’m not going to be angry if Trump is protected by that system. Or at least I’m not going to be angry at the system. I’m just going to be unhappy with Trump. I still don’t think he’s going to get out of this intact. Not in the long term.