⚖ Do you think Trump has enough to post bond? ✍Supercharge your writing with Grammarly and get 20% off Grammarly Premium: legaleagle.link/grammar ⚖Get a great lawyer, fast! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Yes, he just can't be bothered to spend the money on it. Maybe not in cash, but he definitely has it in assets- He said it himself, after all! He just doesn't know when to stop talking 😂
I wonder if any US citizen can get a 70% reduction of his bond in a fraud case. This continuation of helping the rich against justice is greatly eroding the credibility of our justice system.
He bragged that he had the cash. But on twitter you're not under oath and it's not a statement towards the court. There's no reason to immediately assume that he is telling the truth. Therefore it doesn't have to be lying to the court
@@thijndeveer2592 when was this again? I’m sure the only time he bragged about a specific amount of money was almost exactly a year ago… you know before he got hit by 91 cases… that costs money XD
@@thijndeveer2592it doesn't have to be under oath or said directly to the court because Trump has already said things under oath directly to the court that are incongruent with this post. Should Trump take the stand again, I'd imagine this incongruency would be addressed. Either he lied to his followers or he lied to the court
He got his "empire" fraudulently, so now he gets to lose it honestly. Why is this such a nightmare to the "party of personal responsibility"? The punishment has never fit the crime so perfectly.
the "party of personal responsibility" is the party that wants no taxes on inheritance, no taxes on stock gains and workers to pay all the taxes... and the dem party is secretly ok with it. And when the economy goes down, both parties agree to have all the losses be concentrated as possible on currency inflation as a way to save the wealth of the rich, which they all are as politics is the domain of the princeling families.
That's not the question on my mind, the question on my mind is; How? How does Trump escape accountability every single time? All I can say is, Good Luck to Ms Carroll and the State of New York in receiving any penny of those judgments. He is about to attempt to do what he's done his entire adult life, appeal a ruling, then tie it up in litigation waiting for an appeals court to take up something besides his appeals to motions against him in the case. Appeal & Delay. Fight to get any motions in the case overturned, but postpone the appealing of the judgment of the case indefinitely. The man is a deceiver above and beyond all other deceivers.
Most of it is by design. Our legal system is meant to throw away the keys for the pores and let the rich off Godfree. It doesn’t matter they’re crimes.
For the Carrol case, the money is already guarantied. The bond holder is responsible to pay out if she wins appeal, for whatever amount it remains after it.
No he has not so much money,he has no shame and he is a thief and a liar. People believe that he has money because he says so all the time,i am rich,i am a billionaire, rich people trying to hide the wealth to be anonymous, he did the opposite 😂. But he was a politician,he did a lot of favours and he is presidential candidate,he appointed many judges and he has an army of idiots to supporting him and donate their money,so yeah he is above us for now!!!!
Can't imagine why a guy who lost a court case about over-inflating his property values to get loans is finding companies unwilling to accept his real estate as security for a bond in the appeal. Seems so unfair of them to not accept his valuations are worth a damn.
@@bobbygill6571 And if his valuations were worth a damn, he'd be able to get a bank eager to give him a loan at some stupid rate of interest secured against the properties, to then use as liquid assets for the bond. The point still stands.
It boggles the mind that so many people in the country believe this dude is both good at running businesses or will help working class economically when there’s mountains of evidence proving the contrary. Its like saying Madoff would be good for the economy
Ah the other Bernie lmao I remember Robin Williams saying the obvious, and I paraphrase, "The man's name is Made Off! If that doesn't get you thinking idk what will." 😅
Well, most of his followers are more motivated by malice than self-interest. I find it humorous that old retirees living off social security worship the man, even though he has threatened to gut social security and put them all out on the street. They'd be happy starving as long as he sticks it to the libs.
It's easier to join a mob of hate, than to try and do good... or change yourself. Those people already made their choice a long time ago. They chose ignorance. They don't want to learn. They'd rather live in fear and hate, because it's easier and familiar. Like a messed up form of "nostalgia." It's the same people who think all homosexuals are automatically out to assault everyone, or that all Muslims are terrorists, or if you live in a low-economy neighborhood you must be a thief/druggie/gang member. The worst part is, I'm really not exaggerating. Born and raised in TX, and it's 2024. Everything is out there if you want to learn, and many just choose not to. I see it all the time... and they don't all live out in the country, either.
So tired of the court system giving this guy one more chance. No normal person would get this type of treatment and no one would get as many free passes….
You should test this theory and go grab some loans based on collateral you don't have and then default on some of those. Let me know how it goes for ya
10:35 - "Now, if you've defrauded the state of New York, you'll need a good lawyer." Are you ENTIRELY sure about that? Because Trump's been represented by Alina Habba, lost his cases and still ended up with insanely favourable treatment that no one else have ever gotten. So .. if you've defrauded the state of New York, you don't need a good lawyer. You just need a corrupt judicial system. If you can't have that - THEN you need a good lawyer.
I fully expect that Trump will lose the E. Jean Carroll appeal, Chubb will be forced to pay, and then Trump will refuse to pay Chubb. Because that's what he does.
I still don't understand why the amount was lowered when he couldn't pay up. He keeps claiming he's got the money, if he doesn't, apply penalties in full?! They keep saying thingswhich then turn out to be lies, how is that allowed? Why is the US legal system seemingly incapable of handling this trash fire?
Because they don't want to. Trump represents everything the upper crust is without their pretenses of class and reason. Trump facing consequences means their own facing consequences, and why hold their own to account when the poor exist?
There are literally hundreds of politicians and thousands of judges that do exactly what this seditionist is doing in court. Our legal system is designed to benefit the upper crust not hold them accountable.
@North_West1 True, the only issue is that New York state law states that an appeal requires a bond of 110% of the verdict amount to stay judgement and in this case Trump is getting let off with a meager 40% of the verdict. In general this gives people the impression that the appellate court is just going to let him off the hook seeing as his lawyer was actually lying about him being unable to raise the required funds meaning Trump had the means to raise the required 110% but now has to only pay 40%.
I swear, if that man was only forced to pay a single dollar, he would first complain online about it being robbery, then try to renegotiate the deal until it is the same dollar but on his terms, and then order Eric, Don Jr., Ivanka, and Jared to each give him a quarter to pay it off.
During the appeals, can the State bring up Trump's inability to secure a bond as evidence that the fraud charges were true? I.e. Trump said MAL was worth 2 billion, banks love to loan him money because he always pays, every bank is lining up to loan him money, he has half a billion in cash, etc. Doesn't all the State have to say is "if any of that was true, Trump should have had zero problems posting a bond"?
"Doesn't all the State have to say is "if any of that was true, Trump should have had zero problems posting a bond"?" No. I don't think that's an argument The State can make in Court; and if it could, the State still would need to prove that no unrelated event impacted Trump's finances (the same reason why stockholders can't usually sue a company just for its stock's value crashing).
I don't think they can really use that as from my understanding (I am not a lawyer), an appeal only looks at what was covered in the original trial. The fact that he could not raise the bond certainly does not help him, but I doubt that the state would use it against him because the evidence that they need to defend is the evidence that was originally presented at the trial. One exception will be the fact that Trump's former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg plead guilty to perjury for comments he made during the original trial. I am sure that will be brought up and it will hurt Trump
They probably can't use that specifically, given the number of confounding factors, but they might be able to do something with all his contradictory claims about whether or not he has the money to pay, depending on who he's talking to; seems like pretty clear evidence of a pattern of behavior rather than simple clerical errors.
They probably don't *care* -- as Devon / Mr. Eagle said, the court of appeals will likely defer in questions of fact to the lower court. The main questions reviewed will be questions of law. So, the fact that he lied is *likely* not gonna be questioned intensly. What *is* going to be discussed on appeal is how much he should pay for it. I hope that makes sense!
A comment I've heard attributed to The Donald: "If you owe $100, that's your problem. If you owe $100 million, that's the bank's problem." Actually Donald, it seems like it is, in fact, your problem.
Well that is a difference between a bank and a court. The court has more ways to make your inability to pay into your problem. But let's not get too hopeful just yet. We've yet to see any element of the greater legal and justice institution actually make anything into his problem. Thus this conversation about the possibility of any such thing actually materializing.
I've heard a lot of advertisements in my time, but "Now, if you've defrauded the state of New York, you'll need a good laywer" is just absolutely brilliant :D
I wonder why the guy who got to stack the SCOTUS is getting a slap on the wrist. I wonder why Barre Seid donated 1.6 billion to the campaigner for those justices, Leonard Leo... bah must be just a coincidence, better go back to chanting "4 more years" for the guy who refuses to do anything besides hand bombs to King Bibi
@@HellDuke-The fact that he has already convinced people that they are is either a point for or against that argument. If they were going to complain either way, then why not? vs If they already believe it after being thrown lifeline after lifeline, then don't give them any more.
He has to pay the full amount. The bond was reduced. That means he wont be forced to sell property if he can pay the smaller bond until appeals are over.
Folks, diamondthree can be safely ignored. They seem to think fraud charges that have been proven in a court of law is the same thing as political persecution. They may also be sad that their favorite fraudster and sexual assaulter *also proven in court!* is being held accountable under the law.
***Security Clearance: As a man who could hold the highest security clearance, I don't understand how he could hold a security clearance with debt. Normal citizens are refused clearances because of significant debt. This is an enormous debt, and he could easily be manipulated because of it.
Article 2 of the US Constitution is what defines who can run, and as a republic, we elect Presidents with a national election where things like your debt level comes out. No other law about security clearance restrictuons can stop an elected president from access to any information because the Constitution does not allow those restrictions.
@@libtrs838 Yes, that makes sense. He could liquidate all of his assets. He just doesn't want to. I guess my question: What happens if someone pays it for him. e.g., Elon. Ostensibly, he would be beholden to him.
@@christopherchilds6124 Yes, these things are public knowledge. But, anyone can pay this debt for him. As an extreme example, the mafia could pay this for him. Would he then be beholden to them? publically, no...but what about privately?
The guy who got convicted for misrepresenting the value of his properties gets a bond reduction by telling the judge he doesn't have the money, while at the same time tweeting that he has the money. It's almost as if he is repeating the kind of fraud he was found guilty of. And the court of Appeals falls for it, and doesn't give any reason for this reduction.
@@lolilollolilol7773 I always have trouble determining if the people who decide these things are painfully optimistic, just plain stupid, or just maliciously complicit it willful acts of crime. Like please explain the logic in stupid people speak so people like me can understand. Dumb it down for me if you will.
@@lolilollolilol7773 I would laugh if he was brought back into court over this statement and they change their minds and tell him to pay the full amount again.
@@urazz7739 That statement was already out and viewable had the appeals court felt the need to look at it. I genuinely don't think they care about his postings because they just see it as him trying to save face - which is ridiculous because part of the whole reason he committed the fraud in this case was wanting to showboat and be known as a billionaire.
Isn’t this the same guy saying bad things should happen to countries that are in debt? Something about not helping those who don’t pay their bills, or something along those lines?
Devin, I love your delivery! Unlike most fast-talkin' lawyers, you have good enunciation and diction. I really like the speed, the precision and clarity and your clear, concise layout of the facts of the case. I bet you are really good in court.
One would think in the course of determining fraud and determining penalty that non-Trumpian valuations of the properties have been calculated. I don't think the value is the problem, it's the mortgages.
@@TimoRutanen Yeah, the (to be charitable with our words) imbalanced system was always there, it's just that Trump is so goddman blatant that it's impossible to hide it behind "case by case basis" or "that was just a biased judge".
When the SCOTUS is completely illegit, completely aligned against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, it's no surprise, but, yeah, it's infuriating.
17:50 I'm glad our potential president, who isn't allowed to hold any financial position in New York, hasn't received anything from any foreign nations
Regarding appealing the Carol cases to the SCOTUS: "extremely unlikely" automatically becomes "highly likely" whenever it has to do with Trump and trying to weasel out of responsibility... especially when it comes to his SCOTUS judges.
Capitalism is based on one's ability to game the system. We like it or not, rich people will always win, Trump is just a tip of the iceberg. Apple pays less tax than it should Elon move assets like chess pawns. rich will become richer, poor becomes more broke.
Look at this. This guy is able to undermine your entire nation without even being able to make complete sentences and you would be oh so happy if the hundredth attempt would perhaps show a modicum of oppertunity to... fail to put him in jail before he becomes president again? America is such a clusterfuck, there are no words for it any more.
@@ruben9912 Any sign of improvement is still a sign of improvement, and this is exactly why you don't allow large scale religious control over your country, generations of people taught not to critically think by conmen that took advantage of their faith.
It's not supposed to be particularly easy to pay. His root problem is not showing remorse at trials, so the judgements have to be larger to discourage repeat crimes.
Trumps clear preferential treatment is the equivalent of me getting a speeding ticket, going to my cities courthouse to argue I don’t have the money to pay the bill while footage of me winning the lottery plays on the tv in the background, and still getting a reduced total. It must pay to be a rich person backed up by a government bought and payed for the hedge funds and oil fracking companies.
No, the proper analogy is footage of me CLAIMING that I won the lottery when I am such a notorious liar that the lottery I supposedly won probably doesn't even exist.
So Bond companies won’t accept property in collateral for a penalty incurred for over inflating the values of those exact properties…. Hmmm can’t think why!
Half the time the two-bit scammer just transposes cash and real estate, he uses them interchangeably..."Ohhh, we've got lots of everything, ohhhh yes billions in cash, cash everywhere, property everywhere..." We're supposed to believe he's got 10 billion dollars laying around when he couldn't even pay the E.Jean Carroll amount and had to get a loan for that?
Either they're lying, or every real asset he has is already tied up in a complex web of special tax statuses and loans. Either way, he deserves whatever happens next.
Shame that "not a good look" means absolutely nothing for him. He and his lawyers are already at the bottom of the barrel, so unless a court actually acts on them lying in court, it makes no difference whatsoever.
@@ASocialistTransGirl Nah, at this point it doesn't matter. Anyone who was going to support him at this stage will not be swayed by what happens in a legal court, because they've already ignored the court of public opinion. And the reverse: he won't be gaining new supporters because anyone wise to him has been for a while now, and this is nothing new to that side of the coin.
The video explains why. Trump couldn't pay the full amount without selling key assets, so they would take irrecoverable losses if forced to do so. That would be unjust if he were to win his appeal. (Don't worry, he will lose. But even Trump gets the full protection of the law.) The fact that Trump's ego couldn't handle that admission so he lied on "Truth" Social about having the cash is problematic but doesn't undo the decision or the reality he couldn't pay. I'm actually glad the New York legal system gives him the same options as other defendants to try to win the case. It makes it clear this is not, in fact, a political prosecution.
@@agsystems8220 Who knows... Perhaps the government may even offer him a payment plan. With all happening, I do not doubt anything anymore. Disgusting!
It’s interesting that Trump stated that he had no intent to ever pay the fine despite having the money. Seems that the first part is certainly coming true…
@@hugh_jassoyea I’m gonna go ahead and assume the dude is saying legal analysis doesn’t matter because he believes Biden and the judges and the lawyers are all in a big conspiracy to take down Donald despite all the evidence in those cases and the times trump has FAILED IN COURT to prove ANY of his own points
My grandma got an email asking people for $1-10 each to help pay his fines of the $500 million when i was there last weekend. She said they were asking 10 million people or something according to the email. I asked her if he didn't flrx being so rich and that's why he expected people to love him? She said yeah she thought she would keep her $1. I'm pretty sure she would have even if i hadn't said anything and that's why she even brought it up to me. But she did say it's not a bad fundraising strategy, but she's still keeping her $1😂
Well, he's asset rich (real estate) but cash poor. Lots of 'real estate people' are that way. So yeah, a person can be 'rich' and still not have liquid cash. But that's enough to make Trump's empire go down in flames, I'm all for it.
I don't agree with you there. It makes no sense to have 100s of millions stuck in your bank accounts, it makes you no money and you risk losing it if something happens to the bank. He owns a bunch of expensive real estate, that doesn't sell fast, especially when you just got outed for misrepresenting property values. You can definitely be a billionaire without having any cash on hand.
Billionaires do not keep actual cash in something like a checking or savings account because the FDIC only insures accounts to $250,000 per account per bank and if you have billions you can only spread it around to so many banks until you run out of options. Most wealthy people who have large amounts of liquid assets, and who wants to keep them safe and liquid, will engage the cash management part of a big bank, much like a company does, that invests in low yield high quality liquid fixed income instruments like t-bills and other government instruments, CD's, repo's, high quality liquid paper and other "no lose" instruments. They can be converted to cash nearly instantly or at worst T+3 but if someone wanted to write a hundred million dollar check they could in theory. Most ultra wealthy people have their money locked up in whatever made them or their progenitors wealthy in the first place. Their money is in a privately held business or in publicly traded stock that they can't liquidate without screwing the stock price up or are held to black out periods. Or it's in illiquid assets like real estate or things like private equity or venture capital funds. However, when you hit a certain level of wealth your banker isn't the teller or branch manager at BofA anymore. You get into the private banking division and they'll open up lines of credit against your assets that you can spend on just about anything that's legal. They'll give you $20 million dollar mortgages if you have the assets to back it up. Sure, they'll underwrite the asset but if you're worth billions they'll overlook it (if your billions aren't in an overvalued pre-IPO startup). So no, wealthy people don't have much in cash but they can readily access it. I don't know Zuckerberg's personal financial situation much at all but I don't think he's sold much stock other than putting it in trusts or donating it. He also doesn't take much of a salary relatively but he's worth almost $80 billion. He probably can't write much of a check, relatively, against his actual cash but he probably has tens of billions in lines of credit available if he wants.
Wait, someone might have to sell off a bunch of their stuff to afford paying for a fine??? How dare we inflict that on them, surely that's just unfair and
Why did the court reduce it? Is he getting special treatment or would the court reduce a bond for anyone in that situation? That's the question I can't get an answer to.
@@yasniellopez9690 And needing to pay a $5,000 bond in 2 weeks has put people on the street homeless, cost them their jobs, and ruined their lives. Their bonds were not reduced. It happens every day. I was on a jury for a young man who had been in county jail for 11 months. He was *obviously* innocent. We found him innocent in 20 minutes. Afterwards, the defense attorney talked to us and said the prosecutor's office knew he was innocent too and had sent a junior prosecutor so the loss wouldn't go on a senior prosecutor's record. They could have reduced the bond. Heck, they could have dismissed the case instead of trying to railroad someone they knew was innocent. They could have saved the court costs and they could have used our jury for a real case. If the last four years have shown us anything, it's that we have two justice systems in this nation. The top gets "easy" mode.
@@yasniellopez9690 i mean if you steal half a billion dollars, and you're fined half a billion dollars equal to what you took, you should be able to pay that money back.
Massive bond? Do you mean the once significantly more massive bond that was alarmingly reduced by a corrupt court in an unprecedented decision (to my knowledge, and, yes, it's a pun of sorts)? What can be done about all the corrupt individuals in public office? They need to be removed, held accountable, punished, and their past works needs to be reviewed. This is a nightmare farce. This is awful.
If you'd understood the video, you'd know that this is simply the court giving Trump the same leeway it would give other defendants. He gets treated as if he could be innocent until the appeal is finished. It's simply more evidence this isn't a political prosecution. And it's not like he's going to win this appeal so he will have to pay for everything anyway pretty soon. And even the reduced bond is already proving a problem according to this video. So, Trump ain't getting out this time. Justice will be done, we just have to wait a little longer until the process is completed.
Well, it's the $175 plus the Carrol case, plus the upcoming Georgia case, plus the upcoming Daniels case. At some point the bondsmen are going to be looking at one another, wondering who is going to get paid first....or perhaps last and how much it's going to cost *them* to pursue a legal attempt to collect their pay from the guy who wants to make himself immune to the law, forever.
Maybe they're waiting for him to die so they can fight it out with his estate. Homie's old, hated, and not fighting either of those facts effectively so it won't be long.
When I was a kid, a guy in my town was literally sentenced 25 to life for stealing a slice of pizza. You steal millions and the state accommodates and forgives…
People have tried to tell me Dolt 45s FINE was reduced. I'm no lawyer, but I watch lawyers on YT, and I can use a dictionary. Lowering the bond has no effect on the judgment. ✌🖖
@@dirtydish6642 do you . The fact your democrat disprove basic understanding ecomics. It's kinds basic platform of democrat party. Please explain why Truth Social stocks going up didn't make him more money. Seriously I'm so emotional damaged 😰at this news I can't stop crying😭 I'm about have stroke🤯 and a project😭 about projection 😿
Devin, you (and your team who no doubt help research these videos) are a shining beacon of sanity and truth in today's world, and I hope your arguments here will reach at least some of the less rabid Trump supporters, turning them towards actual reality rather than the manufactured reality their side has been promoting for years -- and not just hearten those of us who are already well aware of all his many lies and misdeeds. Keep up the good work -- you are appreciated!
17:13 "Iconic properties such as 40 Wall Street"?? I was shown a condo unit in that building once. It was an irregular, shoehorned, forsaken corner of a place.
@@KateBee123- truth social going public doesn't automatically give him 3 billion. The 3 billion is based on current market valuation. But who's to say it will stay the same after the merger? Lots of unknown variables in such a gamble.
Does anyone else think its funny that the case was about inflated property values and the only way to pay off the fines is if someone trusted his property values?
This video helped me understand collections, judgments, and appeals in civil procedure…which is great bc my final is in a few weeks! Thanks, Legal Eagle!!
So the regular person would have to pay the full amount, but when you're "special" because you're rich and therefore your penalty is massive, you only have to pay about 1/3. Got it.
Technically, right. So *technically* this is just the *bond* reduced, not the actual judgement itself. So he's still on the hook for the full amount in the event that he's not able to appeal, I believe? This is just a measure which makes it so that rather than having his properties seized (as we should have, by the way, I do regard the court's decision here as a massive mistake and miscarriage of justice.) he'll be able to actually acquire a bond and then when he loses the case he'll be on the hook for the full amount. *I THINK* this is how the situation has settled, at least. I'm fairly certain he will still be on the hook for the full amount when the trial concludes. But this *was* a massive favor for him that he in no way deserved.
I just don't understand the lowering. Yeah he might of lost everything if he was at the $500+ million bond but that's his problem. Why does he get to keep things just because "he would forever lose them". Smh.
@@brainstewXHow? If Trump wins the appeal he gets his money back. If Trump loses the appeal he still lives in luxery, at least until such a time where he is arrested. And to top it all off, it's not like Trump got any money from actually adding value to the economy. Rent-seeking is litterally the term economists use for manipulating markets to vacuum out money without contributing to anything productive. I.E. the tennets pay rent, that rent covers the cost of building, the cost of maitaince, the cost of intrest and taxes. The entire cost of buying. But the tennet's all of whom are the financers of thier buildings never own their portion of the building. Hence rent-seeking is the defacto example of adding zero economic value but gaining all the economic rewards and power of ownership. Thus; it cannot be injust to remove access to rent, as there is no justice in rent.
@@brainstewX Gee I wonder if this injustice happens quite often to legitimately and objectively more innocent people, and perhaps because access to appeals and the bullshittery surrounding them is only accessible to a small group of rich ghouls. Maybe you could call it an injustice, but I can't say I have the energy to fight for some mild injustice to a pansy ass corruption magnet when I could spend that energy going for actually beneficial justice.
How weird that nobody will accept property as collateral... ...when one of the cases concluded he committed fraud in lying about the value of said properties...?
Everytime Devon mentions investigating bank accounts, all I can think of Brooklyn Nine Nine where Andy Samberg's Character yells out " Ask him about his back account! Ask him about his bank account!"
Hopefully the crash will happen before Trump can sell any shares. However I am sure that at some point there will be a Legal Eagle report on the laws broken in selling a loss making company for a fortune.
Begged the judge to lower my traffic ticket fines, he did. Then as I am walking out of the courtroom I say lol " I really have the money" but I want to go on vacation so I won't give you the money but I do have it. Sounds silly doesn't it. Now multiply that up to 500 million. Proof that there are 2 justice systems.
So, what's the over/under on this decision not being available to anyone else facing similar circumstances? My guess is that if anyone else were to cite this decision to get their bond amount reduced by 2/3rd is the same judges laughing their asses off and rejecting it.
Is it possible that surety companies are unwilling to use real estate as collateral for a loan *BECAUSE* the judgment is for his fraudulent valuation of the same real estate?
Yeah. Hilarious. Then he would win on appeal and it would cost the New York taxpayers 9% of whatever he had paid in. I hate trump, too, but the fact that people okay with this is insane.
@@curtisjamesbeck8789 being fair though, every sale would be fully contingent on him not winning any appeals. So they'd be "on paper" pending appeal; and the sale would be credited toward the amount. He loses, they're sold. He wins, nothings changed hands anyway.
@@curtisjamesbeck8789 except for the fact that, with an unbiased view of the facts of the case and New York state law, the judgment is incredibly watertight. He has no chance of winning a legitimate appeal with an unbiased judge or panel.
He will eventually but he's trying to slow walk everything until he has a shot at being president and then likely staying for life ( He's already said he deserves a third term).
That's very clearly his goal; whether he can do that in time before November is the issue. My hope is that he loses in November, and then it won't matter if it takes 6 months or 2 years more to conclude.
Because elevating it isn't free, he's got to post the bond before he can even file the appeal. If he can't do that, and can't convince the lower courts the bond amount is excessive (which is what just happened, they reduced it by 60%, but that's as far as he can go on that front), the supreme court could be entirely composed of just himself wearing different wigs and it still wouldn't matter.
Not a US law expert or lawyer, but I could speculate that the reduction of the fraud case's bond amount could have similar reasoning to the EG Carrol case: it ensures that the defendant pays at least *something* while any appeal to stay is in the works, and that if the appeal is denied, that some amount is paid out towards the judgement. The difference, it could be argued, is that the defendant would be *subsequantly* on the hook for the remaining amount, in addition to any personally-incurred legal fees incurred in any unsuccessful appeal case.
Haha and the ‘vibe suggested’ that he can come up with that amount. Sure wish someone would just let me not pay mortgage interest so I don’t become homeless.
There's something I just can't understand. How can Trump owe 1.7 Billion and live his completely normal life. But the moment I'd go into red with my account, the bank would swoop in, take what they can and liquify it. Many, MANY people have lost their livelihood for a tiny fraction of Trumps debts. It's just messed up.
my understanding is that the judge did not reduce the actual judgement amount. The judge reduced the BOND amount. If Trump looses the appeal then he is still on the hook for the full amount. is that correct?
Why is any of this different from how a poor person, who, let's say, gets arrested and can't make bail and loses their job and loses their home and loses their car and can't get any of that back if the charges get dropped? Oh right, the poor thing. Their suffering doesn't matter because the poor aren't people! Not according to the rich, anyways.
10:34 Also read as "Why isn't any other rich billionaire willing to help another rich man stay rich and in power!? How dare you not give your money to a rich man caught in legal troubles!" The most obvious answer: "How do you figure we managed to *stay* rich? We only help when it is profitable. That's like asking us to pay our employees a fair wage!"
Campaign finances are subject to usage laws... They are not personal funds until the campaign is over. Saying he has X in campaign funds is not equivalent to having that in personal liquidity.
The question on my mind is "Why the hell was his bond reduced so much, after he has repeatedly broken oaths, lied through his teeth, insulted all the judicial system, judges, clerks, all of them, threatened even ?" How the hell does he get through all of this, any single occurrence directed at your average joe would land them severe repercussions, so WHY ?
due to a systematic corruption at all levels of the government. the product of having money and power be considered moral paragons, that along with the pervasive nature of 'freedom' often being interpreted as 'lack of personal responsibility' as a means to justify any action they want. the system started foul but it was never corrected. most of America's history is spent in war of one kind or another because it's an empire by any other name. nobility has entrenched itself and while it may not be legally codified it is still there