“Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka … and now, Trump Pruno!”
Here in Canada, I think there were two Trump hotel/condo buildings, one in Toronto and one in Vancouver.
The one in Toronto was the subject of lawsuits and eventual takedown of the Trump sign. It was supposed to be a super-prestigious hotel and condo complex, and it turned out to be an utter disaster and money loser for everyone involved. There was great rejoicing in the city when the Trump name finally got taken down. City Council had been pushing for it for a long time.
The one in Vancouver started out with this notice reminiscent of a foreclosure notice, and was eventually rebranded the “Paradox Hotel”.
Here in this country, at least, the Trump brand is toxic.:
Well, not everyone, I assume, nudge nudge.
Here’s what the DA’s office officially in their filings has to say about the Knight Insurance “bond”
James on Trump bond - DocumentCloud
Basically, Knight Insurance is not authorized to write surety bonds in the state of NY, has not demonstrated they have the ability to cover the $175 M, does not have exclusive right to control the funds being relied upon as collateral and still gives Trump access to the funds (ie. Knight is required to give Trump two days advance notice they’re exercising control over the account, during which time Trump could theoretically clean out everything), Knight’s figures cannot be trusted because they send 100% of their retained insurance risk to its affiliates in the Cayman Islands in a practice known as “shadow insurance”, and lastly, that Knight and its affiliated companies/structure has already been found responsible for violating federal law on multiple occasions and is therefore not trustworthy.
That feels like it would be an issue.
Sounds like it’s time to start selling off some golf courses!
This part seems to be more of Knight’s problem than the State’s. The other issues seem pretty significant, though.
Judge Arthur Engoron held a hearing on the issue Monday, where the state and Trump’s team reached an agreement that requires Knight to have full control over the account and ensures it stays entirely in cash, according to the attorney general’s office.
The agreement also requires Trump and Knight to report monthly account statements to the court and attorney general’s office.
from: Trump’s $175 Million Fraud Bond Survives After New York AG Strikes Deal (msn.com)
Christ, what a list! The very first point is an automatic disqualifier just for starters, and so are most of the others. Just about the only thing missing is “Knight Insurance doesn’t actually exist”. It amazes me that this crap appears to have been conditionally accepted.
Could be worse. Could have been the “John Barron Bond Service and Car Wash”
WTAF?
How does this resolve the issues regarding Knight’s ability to even do business in NY, or their Cayman Islands affilates? And a monthly account statement gives Trump et. al. 29 days to fuck around before anyone’s the wiser.
Prediction: Disputes over this bond’s legitimacy will still be going on come election day, and NY won’t be any closer to enforcing judgement.
Prediction 2: Trump will NEVER pay a dime, even if his appeal fails
My understanding of Engoron’s ruling is that, effectively, most of everything doesn’t matter if there’s actual cash in the account and no one can touch it.
With cash, it doesn’t really matter whether Knight can afford it or not. If they put the cash in and can’t use it for their business, then obviously they can afford it. Maybe they’re the ones that put it there. Maybe Trump put it there. The court doesn’t really need to care.
I would be curious whether it’s Trump or Knight that does put the money in the account. But I’d also wonder whether - if Knight does it - whether that counts as a campaign contribution, should Trump ever try to say that he has a 1st Amendment right to use his legal issues as a campaign piece.
I don’t think so; you’d have to draw a direct line between paying this off and helping him get elected. If you had some communication where Trump clearly said, “We need to pay this bond or I look like a deadbeat and I won’t win the election,” and they said, “Very well Mr. Trump, then we will make sure it’s paid to handle that problem,” you could maybe establish a crime that way. But if it’s something indirect or generally, “Everything that helps Trump helps the campaign,” I doubt you could get that sort of indictment.
Then why the need for a bond at all? If Trump can put up an account holding $175 million cash, and no one cares where it came from, and no one’s allowed to do anything with the cash, then why not just put that up as security?
I sincerely hope the process of denying Trump’s appeal wasn’t delayed by this farce.
No! Really? How very on-brand.
Because someone has to cover the rest of it. If (when) he loses the appeal, the rest of the bail needs to be paid. AIUI Knight already has control of the [account with] $175m which they’ll transfer to the state along with the remainder of it. It’s then on them, Knight, to collect from Trump.
Without the bond, Trump would have had to come up with half a billion dollars.
Right – but don’t the out-of-state license, inexperience with surety and Cayman ties call into question Knight’s ability to make good on the other $300 million? The whole point of the bond is to guarantee that, but the only thing guaranteed here is the $175 million. Knight sure as hell doesn’t look like a lock to cover the balance – and Engoran didn’t address that.
So again … what’s the point of the bond if the cash is already on hand and the balance isn’t guaranteed?
I don’t think Knight HAS to make good on the other $300 million. They’re only on the hook for the lesster amount that the court came up with after the appeal on the amount of bond.
If it turns out that the amount owed (after the appeal on judgement) is more than $175 million, then the state of NY will get the first $175 million from Knight and the rest from Trump (by seizing properties or whatever)
I thought the whole point of this bond was to say, in essence, “We’re putting up $175 million to guarantee that the full $450 million will be paid if the appeal fails to reduce that amount.”
Well, Knight didn’t put up the $175 million (as far as we know). And they look pretty shaky to guarantee anything beyond that. So what exactly have they done? And how does this “bond” guarantee beyond the $175 million (which only gets verified every 30 days)?