776
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month's judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump's lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount. 

In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a "practical impossibility" for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as "about 30 surety companies" have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.

To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—"a sum he simply does not have," reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 156 points 7 months ago

Why would he need to raise the money? He told the court he had $500M in liquid assets.

Could it be that he was being untruthful in his statement to the court? I think there is a word for that.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 51 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

He testified to $400M, and he already put up a $100M bond for the other thing. But the whole point of this is that he overvalues things, right? I bet when his people had to get down to the actual state of the accounts and not what DJT feels they are, it was probably only $200M or so that is liquid.

It's not worth going after him again for overstating that in court. It's too easy to skirt around. His punishment will come when the DA starts seizing and auctioning stuff to pay the judgement.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

He put up I believe $2m for the other thing. The rest was covered by the bond company.

So he should still have at least $398m if he claimed 400...

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

That's not quite how it works. When the bond company writes the bond, they don't just take the $2m from the client and then the client is off the hook. They ask the client to put up collateral. So in order for Trump to secure this bond, he would have had to set aside the full amount of the bond and say "If the verdict doesn't get reduced on appeal, I am giving you all this stuff, and not using it for anything else in the meantime".

All Trump is getting for that fee is not actually having to sell those assets now, and have any overage refunded if the appeal gets the verdict reduced. (Given the interest rates right now, the passive income on that kind of cash is not trivial).

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 months ago

I suspect that trump life is over if he fails to win in November, he will either take it himself or it will be effectively over bc he will be in jail and penny less. To that end he does not care about consequences of some extra crimes in the near term.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago

Maybe he was talking in terms of Zimbabwe dollars

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 122 points 7 months ago

I'll believe it when it happens.

Last time he had one lined up but up until the last second said it was impossible. Likely to maximize donations from his rubes.

[-] b3an@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Re: Donations, I saw this today. So it may not be that easy (ha!!).

Behind Trump’s campaign cash crunch: Small-dollar donor fatigue, major donor hesitation

KEY POINTS

  • Former President Donald Trump is facing two major fundraising problems: a shortage of big money interest and a drop in small-dollar donor support.
  • The decline in small-dollar contributors could be a significant obstacle, as the former president seeks to cobble together a 2024 war chest.
  • Small-dollar donors are critical to Trump’s ability to raise enough money to fund his presidential campaign.
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

(Letitia James, wearing her pearls and flipping her hair) "You best believe it."

load more comments (25 replies)
[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 89 points 7 months ago

If you owe the bank half a billion dollars, it’s the bank’s problem right?

Sounds like the banks don’t want this problem.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 81 points 7 months ago

Wait, how in the world could this have been a 5000-page filing? Is the entire text of War and Peace included 3 times in an appendix?

[-] Sabin10@lemmy.world 95 points 7 months ago

The point is to make the case difficult and time consuming, hoping to cause a delay. One common method I have seen is to print every email in an email chain. The efficient way would be to print the last email in a 30 reply long chain and have it make up about 5 pages of the filing. Instead of doing that though, you can print every email in the chain and turn it in to 50+ pages pretty easily. Trump does not want this case to be handled efficiently and having a 5000+ lage filing, full of repeated and unnecessary information is one way to make that happen.

load more comments (35 replies)
[-] krellor@fedia.io 14 points 7 months ago

Maybe it included documents or correspondence from each of the 30 attempts? That would still be absurdly long at over 150 pages of documentation per attempt. But I could see them trying to make a point through the sheer volume of pages.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Synthuir@lemmy.ml 75 points 7 months ago

I wouldn’t normally put this much stock in his assets actually getting flipped, but…

Someone or some company signed me up for Trump fundraising emails recently. The subject line of one from 2(?) days ago read: HANDS OFF TRUMP TOWER, so it sounds like they’re preparing some kind of mobilization/campaign to play the victim now that their options are quickly drying up.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 32 points 7 months ago

I think I'd actually welcome that tactic from the Trump campaign. The base aren't going to change their mind no matter what they hear but I'd be willing to bet a good portion of swing voters will hear about Trump losing his tower and realize that hey, maybe he's actually not a great businessman. It makes him look weak when the only tactic that really works for him is the strongman one.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 30 points 7 months ago

it sounds like they’re preparing some kind of mobilization/campaign to play the victim now that their options are quickly drying up.

Not disagreeing with you, but just wanted to point out that's kind of their thing already.

[-] Synthuir@lemmy.ml 18 points 7 months ago

Oh for sure, the spoiled child is ready for their tantrum du jour.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 71 points 7 months ago

“about 30 surety companies” have refused to accept assets

well yeah they're lending him money to pay off a court judgment against him for lying about what those assets are worth. I wouldn't lend someone money if their collateral was worth anywhere from 10%-1000% of what I lent them and there was no way for me to verify either. Besides, you know if he owes you money it's gonna be years and millions before you can recoup anything at all.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 70 points 7 months ago

Remember he testified that he had that kind of liquidity several times. He is absolutely fucked.

[-] AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 40 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ok guys, i dont want to sound like a conspiricy theorist or anything, but sometimes i get a slight suspicion that he might be lying to make himself look better...

[-] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

No waaay. Why would a guy with a gold toilette have an ego like that?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 57 points 7 months ago

...nearly 5,000-page filing...

Really? They generated more content than the entire Harry Potter series to say "He can't get the money."

Sounds like they're trying to get their own $464M out of the deal.

[-] lledrtx@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

How is that even possible good lord? 5000 pages?

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 32 points 7 months ago

Odds are there are charts, graphs, and other items that are inconsequential to the overall argument. Also could include the full rejection letters.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah I would guess its all of the submitted documents back and forth 30 times. Even just 150 pages each would net 5000 pages.

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 55 points 7 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 43 points 7 months ago

They’re gonna take some of his properties and find lots of other crimes in those closets.

[-] zcd@lemmy.ca 20 points 7 months ago

Crimes and hamburder wrappers

[-] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Crimes and hamburder wrappers

You just named the inevitable trump saga movie.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 41 points 7 months ago
[-] crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 34 points 7 months ago

You love to see it.

[-] LopensLeftArm@sh.itjust.works 22 points 7 months ago
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] CompostMaterial@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

I would love to see Trump Tower rebranded to something like Barack Obama Tower, just to piss him off even more.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Clbull@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

If Trump hadn't riled up his supporters into storming Congress on Jan 6th and hadn't spurred the authorities into forensically investigating him, I wonder how far ahead he'd be of Biden.

[-] ferralcat@monyet.cc 13 points 7 months ago

All those people who told me they voted for him because he was rich and therefore couldn't be bought seem to have gone very quiet.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
776 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4460 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.

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

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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