434

Trump Might Be Too Broke for a $175 Million Bond, Too (newrepublic.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A New York appeals court on Monday reduced the $454 million that former President Donald Trump was required to put up while he appeals his civil fraud case. Now Trump must put up, by April 4, a mere $175 million. The trouble is, he may not get a bond for that amount, either. Should that happen, this act of judicial mercy will end up feeling to Trump like a curse.

The stay deprives Trump of the only argument on which he was gaining any traction at all—that the amount the court required him to put up was excessively high. Four hundred and fifty-four million was indeed an unusually large judgment against a private corporation or individual. (The distinction between Trump and the Trump Organization is paper-thin.) Monday’s appeals court decision doesn’t reduce that judgment, as New York State Attorney General Letitia James pointed out in a written statement. But it does dramatically reduce the amount Trump needs to turn over to the state while he pursues his appeal. It also gives us some hint that the appeals court may reduce Judge Arthur Engoron’s $454 million judgment to, well, $175 million.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

Do you think the process of seizing property is fast? They don't just change the locks. It's a whole lot of things. They would probably have to go one by one appraising, finding a buyer, and wading through the debt owed on the mortgage. It's slow and they don't want to do any of that, if possible.

Judgements this large are very rare. Trump is absolutely fucked even coming up with $175 million in cash now and the rest later.

Remember, the court has a monitor watching the trump org approving every check and money transfer right now. They probably know exactly how much money he has in the bank. They probably just asked for 80% - 90% of what he has available. They are fucking him and he thinks he won.

[-] baru@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Remember, the court has a monitor watching the trump org approving every check and money transfer right now.

The way you wrote that suggests something different than what the monitor does.

For one, they monitor after the fact. Likely one a month and after book close. So they don't monitor in detail while it is happening. Secondly, transfers above a certain amount need to be reported. That amount can be an aggregate. Those need to be reported and I think the monitor needs to ok them before they can be executed.

That's quite different from what you seemed to suggest, meaning that the monitor needs to approve every check.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

It was changed recently. The monitor has to be told ahead of time now.

Under the order, Trump must give five days advance notice "of any transfer of cash or other assets" totaling $5 million or more, "including transfers to any individual defendant."

Under Thursday's order, Trump must also give the monitor 30 days notice of "any planned creation or dissolution of business entities, including equity ownership purchased or assets acquired by any Defendant," the judge further ordered on Thursday.

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-nys-judge-engoron-is-tightening-the-leash-on-trump-2024-3

[-] baru@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

It was changed recently. The monitor has to be told ahead of time now.

But only in some cases, not for everything. If a monitor would need to approve everything that would require quite a lot of people. A business often has quite a lot of regular invoices and so on.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

You caught me in a minor technicality. Yes, they don't need to ask the judge if they can buy lunch.

That doesn't make a difference overall though. Trump is not going to hide meaningful amounts of money through lunch orders and paychecks.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago

Which has all been delayed even longer.

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024

434 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19136 readers

3711 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News