118
submitted 5 months ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

One line buried in the agreement may be cause for concern for James, according to a new report from The Daily Beast, which described the contact as "bizarre" and "shadier than it looks."

The contract includes a line that if the judgment is "affirmed" or the "appeal is dismissed," the defendants in the case "shall pay to Plaintiff...the sum directed to be paid by the Judgment plus interests and costs or any part of it as to which said Judgment is affirmed," without a guarantee the insurance company would pay.

This essentially means that Trump will be required to pay the judgment if he loses the appeal but leaves questions about whether the insurance would pay if he is unable, essentially leaving James in the same position as before Trump secured the bond, according to the report.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] 4am@lemm.ee 71 points 5 months ago

Am I reading this correctly? Is this article claiming it’s bad for James and her case if Trump can’t pay?

If he can’t pay doesn’t it just go back to being as if he never got the bond in the first place? So, she can just go after his assets?

Why is this bad? Did I miss something or is this the weakest motherfucking spin I’ve ever read?

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago

It's bad because if he cannot pay at all, then he cannot appeal.

The idea is that you aren't able to use the appeals process as a stalling tactic, so in order to appeal, you must either set aside the money or secure a bond for the amount.

Trump has done neither. His "bond" isn't a bond at all, because the contract states that the insurer will not be responsible for the judgement amount. His application to appeal should be rejected.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago

It's bad because if he cannot pay at all, then he cannot appeal.

This is patently false. He does NOT need to post a bond in order to appeal. He can absolutely appeal without posting a bond. The only purpose of the bond is to stay enforcement on the judgment.

[-] MacAttak8@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

You are absolutely correct. Trump is the one insisting he had to post the bond in order to appeal. He appealed back in February a month before posting this “bond”.

load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
118 points (86.4% liked)

politics

18973 readers
3049 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS