This is getting pretty meta. Who had “Trump probably lied about lying about lying about whether or not he has any money??”
It’s a bit more nuanced than that. We’re really at a “may have” at this point, but … Trump.
Stop, Hammer time!
I think all of Trump’s cases have lost their appeal, in that I’m no longer interested because they’re being dragged along. And I’m increasingly sceptical that any of them will result in significant consequences for him.
Something about whoever posts the bond having to also provide a statement about their finances, I think (don’t take that to the pub for trivia night).
Knight, the surety who provided the bond for Trump, may not be adequately capitalized to meet New York’s supersedeas bond requirements.
They also appear not to be licensed in the State of New York, potentially violating another requirement.
Engoron has a hearing set for April 22 on the bond issues.
“This bond is further financial chicanery in a trial about financial chicanery,” Pollock said. “This judge is going to have little patience for a flawed bond.”
Since they are going back to court, the judge may also have questions about the fact that Hankey apparently offered, initially, to cover the entire amount of the bond. When Donald’s lawyers begged for a lower amount, because donald “couldn’t” secure the full judgment total, they may not have been completely candid.
If proven, could that be a criminal offence by his lawyers? A variant of obstruction of justice? Consciously misleading the court on a material fact strikes me as more than just a legal ethics issue.
But as always, IANAUSL. Just curious.
Nothing will come of that. If there are questions about Knight being able to cover the $185m bond, it’s an easy argument that the offer to cover $464m wasn’t real. Trump can spout some BS that they looked into Knight’s finances and knew it wouldn’t fly.
More like an ethical violation for failing to be sufficiently candid with the tribunal.
Ethical violations, if severe enough, can result in suspension or disbarment. But this doesn’t get there, in my opinion.
It’s just more shady dealing. Par for the course, at this point.
I don’t know. I read that the specific question regarding the reliability of the bond related to the fact that Knight doesn’t appear to have the liquid assets to both secure the judgment and meet their reserve requirements. Hankey seems extremely unconcerned.
So, maybe Hankey’s a nut and a crank, which would be surprising for someone heading a reportedly stable financial firm. Or, the reporting’s accurate and the bond’s worthless. In which case, Trump is in the soup.
Or…Hankey’s lack of concern turns out to be reasonable and he has an explanation for why he can cover either amount, some financial detail we’re unaware of. In which case, Trump has some ‘splaining to do about his laments over his inability to secure a bond for the full amount of the judgment.
IOW, this just doesn’t seem to be a “nothing will come of it” situation, no matter how it turns out.
So here we are at the beginning of April. Now there’s a hearing toward the end of April. This shit is ridiculous.
The ProPublica article raises the possibility that the offer to cover the full $454M via an appellate bond may have come:
- After Trump’s attorneys told the Judge that it wasn’t going to be possible to get a bond for that amount, but
- Before the Appeals Court lowered the bond amount to $175M
Which means it could be an issue of who knew what, and when, and whether or not they had an affirmative obligation to alert the Court(s) that things had materially changed since their first statement about the $474M being unobtanium.
I don’t think this delays the appeal. It’s a separate matter. Either the bond is approved or they start taking things on 4/23.
Will no one rid us of this…
Oh, never mind.
That’s very nice phrasing for “They lied”
It’s pretty normal in the court system from what I understand.
Our courts generally take a long time.
From what I understand, none of this bullshit is normal.
It isn’t. Most institutions that post bonds know what they’re doing. CHUBB for example. Knight doesn’t know what they’re doing. If this bond doesn’t pass muster it’s going to be interesting to see what excuse Trump comes up with next.
Might be more ‘know what they’re doing is a little dodgy, but are trying to bluff their way through it’.
CBS article here has a few details:
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/
When is a Bond not a Bond? When Donald Trump is involved.
We may be a bit short on details here, but it doesn’t even appear that Knight provided Trump with a Bond at all:
[bolding mine]
If true, I expect Engoron’s head to – nigh unto literally – explode at the Bond hearing.
Missed the editing window.
This (8pp PDF) appears to be the Bond.
IANAL, but it sure looks like Knight is promising that – on a decision against him or dismissal of Trump’s appeal – Trump, et al, will pay the judgment.
To our esteemed attorney Dopers? Am I missing something here?