His problem stems from the fact that he can't get anyone to put up that bond unless he has liquid capital in the full amount as collateral. In other words, since they would have to pay out the judgement when he loses, they don't want to have to wait around while he sold properties in order to pay them back, as he would most likely drag his feet as much as he could doing so. The poetic justice in all of this is that, for decades, Trump has gotten out of lawsuits filed against him by dragging them out to the point where the other party could no longer afford to continue pursuing it. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and he is the one having financial difficulties in continuing his case. Of course, he can still appeal, as the bond was just to stay execution of the judgement during the appeal, and if he were to prevail, he'd get his money back, but I wonder if he will if he can't raise the bond. More likely than not, the appeal is just a stalling tactic to prevent paying the judgement, and that no longer is in play without the bond. He might just drop the appeal and then start falsely claiming that he wasn't allowed to appeal.
The New York attorney general’s office just filed the judgments against Trump in Westchester County, New York. That's significant because Trump has a golf course and mansion in Westchester County, at a place called Seven Springs. This is the first step in state seizure of the property to pay off the judgment. He will have four days to dispute it before they move on to the next step of actually beginning the seizure of the properties. It should be noted the judgment has already been filed in Manhattan, so there's no additional step needed there to begin seizure of his Manhattan properties.
Trump seems to be his own worst enemy in many regards, partly because of who he uses as his lawyers. It seems that while he has complained in filings to the court that he can't get the bond, he doesn't actually post any details of his efforts, and he never even tried to simply offer the deeds of his property in lieu of cash. Courts may much prefer cash but they'd have almost certainly accepted deeds to properties that, valued appropriately, more than covered the amount. And with regard raising a cash bond, while a single provider may have thought it was too rich for them, did Trump even consider using a broker to spread it around the various companies - e.g. 10 individual companies taking 50m each? It would probably be more expensive for him to do so, but them's the breaks. Sure, the companies might simply not want to offer anything on the back of the available security, and it may be that he has tried and exhausted all the means, but his filings just don't seem to detail anything to the court that might convince the court that, yes, it is rather onerous, and that other means (e.g. deeds rather than cash) might suffice.
Of course, he may not be able to put up his properties as collateral if it turns out that he doesn't actually own them as he claims!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If so, would be ironic if him trying to put up collateral for the bond to allow him to appeal the fraud decision actually highlights more fraud!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My guess is that he doesn't do it because the court would accept them as collateral. That would undermine his attempt of getting out of posting the full bond by claiming that he can't. An interesting turn is that the judge has issued an order giving the monitor placed in charge over Trump's fiances even greater power. Trump even has to report to them all details of his attempts to secure the bond. It seems like the judge doesn't trust Trump's word on how hard he's tried to do so.
Also seems that while he's telling the court that he's finding it impossible to raise the necessary bond, due to this and that, he's telling his cult followers on Truth Social that he has 500m in cash, that he's very cash rich, has the funds, etc... all of which will be used by the prosecutor to argue why he shouldn't be given any leeway. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He may have the cash in a month or six, once he's fleeced his investors that, for some reason, are investing in his Truth Social SPAC. But until then, they're coming for his properties!!
This can be partially true. Since any liens against a property would be subtracted from its value for it to used as collateral, or when seized to satisfy the judgement, you have to wonder if that is part of his fear. That people will find out how much he owes against those properties and doesn't own free and clear. It one thing to claim you "own" a 250 million dollar golf course, and another for it to be revealed that you owe 200 million on it.
That's my point, though - in that this would actually be compounding his fraud of overstating his wealth. E.g. he has declared property X at 200m, but if there is an undisclosed lien on it that reduces his equity to 100m, that would be compounding the fraud he was found guilty of. That said, I don't think there will be any identification of such as this would have been pored over as part of the trial... but it does raise the question of why he didn't simply offer his buildings as collateral.
Well, seems the appellate court has helped ol' Donny out with his current financial issues, by giving him 10 days to come up with 175m USD rather than the full 464m. This is still only until the appeal is heard, which is likely to be September at the earliest, but by then he would have likely fleeced the retail investors of Truth Social, giving him the funds he needs so as not to lose his "babies" (his properties) as he has referred to them in a recent TS post. Of course, if he can't even come up with the 175m then the New York AG can go for his properties in 10 days. As for his first criminal case, his lawyer has already pissed off the judge by accusing the prosecution (and him by implication) in judicial impropriety - the delaying of handing over documents - while failing to support the accusations. The trial is due to begin 15th April, so Trump could well be found guilty by the end of May/June.
Related: Jeff Clark's Legal Woes Who remembers Jeff Clark? Jeffrey Clark is a former Trump administration hand, a lawyer intended for an out-of-order ascenscion to Acting Attorney General of the United States. Donald Trump's plan to put Clark in charge of the Department of Justice in January, 2021, was stymied by a threat of mass resignation↱ among senior DoJ officials. Three days. It was three days before the Wednesday Putsch. Clark's intended role was to facilitate the January 6 coup. Anyway, Jeff Clark faces a disciplinary hearing, today. Disbarment is not impossible. Reporter Kyle↱ Cheney↱ described Clark's testimony: CLARK is now on the stand and is pleading many privileges: Fifth Amendment, law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney-client and executive privilege. As Clark continues to assert these privileges, he jokes: "A veritable phalanx of privileges." The thing is, it's really hard to believe that any proper lawyer, especially one with Clark's education and history, wouldn't know he was involved in something foul. But people also need to remember, when arguing the politics of the day, that how something is justified does make a difference. Look at what happens, for instance, to those who undertake such endeavors: John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark are caught up in disciplinary processes; Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis have pleaded guilty to crimes and face potential disbarment. Attorney Stefanie Lambert skipped out on a court hearing in Michigan, but was arrested after she showed up to represent a client in D.C. It's one thing to make the obvious political point, that such legal woes are the wages of Trumpism. But that also works in another direction: The low principles and behavior required to support Trump also drive the politics he represents. As for Trump's legal woes, Clark's most redeeming pathway will be as a witness telling the basic facts of what he has done, which, to be particular, is as a witness against Donald Trump. ____________________ Notes: @kyledcheney. "CLARK is now on the stand and is pleading many privileges: Fifth Amendment, law enforcement, deliberative process, attorney-client and executive privilege". (thread) X. 27 March 2024. Twitter.com. 27 March 2024. https://bit.ly/4ao4AQs Sprunt, Barbara. "Former DOJ officials detail threatening to resign en masse in meeting with Trump". NPR. 23 June 2022. NPR.org. 27 March 2024. https://bit.ly/3TCfLOt
Related: Court Rules for Eastman Disbarment Shortly after Jeffrey Clark took the stand in his own D.C. disciplinary hearing and invoked "a veritable phalanx of privileges" in order to not answer questions, another Trump attorney heard the bell toll in California: A court has ruled that John Eastman should be disbarred. Judge Yvette Roland, who presided over months of testimony and argument about the basis of Eastman's fringe legal theories, ruled that the veteran conservative attorney violated ethics rules — and even potentially criminal law — when he advanced Trump's efforts to overturn the election results based on weak or discredited claims of fraud .... .... Roland's 128-page opinion was a lacerating rebuke of Eastman's conduct and his subsequent lack of remorse. She concluded that he made knowingly flimsy claims of fraud and irregularities in legal filings on Trump's behalf, including his brief for Trump in a Supreme Court fight. The judge walked through Eastman's extensive involvement in Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, from his early lawsuits that failed to gain traction to his bid to solicit GOP state legislatures to send “alternate” electors to Congress, a last-gasp bid to keep Trump in power. At every turn, Roland said, Eastman ignored evidence that was unfavorable to his case and accepted at face value claims of fraud or misconduct aimed at sowing doubt about the election results. “He turned a blind eye to any information that would not support his position of election fraud,” Roland wrote. In all, Roland found Eastman culpable for 10 of 11 charges that state bar investigators brought against him, including misleading courts, lack of candor and, most notably, plotting with Trump to derail the transfer of power. “Eastman conspired with President Trump to obstruct a lawful function of the government of the United States; specifically, by conspiring to disrupt the electoral count on January 6, 2021,” Roland ruled. (Cheney↱) Of note, another court has ruled, in writing, that Donald Trump participated in sedition. ____________________ Notes: Cheney, Kyle. "John Eastman, architect of Trump’s 2020 election plot, should be disbarred, judge rules". Politico. 27 March 2024. Politico.com. 28 March 2024. https://bit.ly/4cCkg4s
Seems that the NY Appeals Court are ready to reduce Trump's fine/penalty/disgorgement in the civil fraud case, and that that is why they reduced his required bond to a mere USD175m. Judge Engoron seems to have miscalculated the disgorgement due to not following a previous Appeals Court ruling regarding statute of limitations - i.e. what transactions could or could not be included in the case. Trump's legal team appealed that the 460+m penalty was c.280m too high as a result, and the new bond level seems to be taking that into account, so one could reasonably expect the Appeals Court to be looking at that level as the more accurate penalty. Would seem that they're entirely happy with the NY statute being used against him, merely the amount of the fine/penalty etc. That's at least if one thinks that they didn't just pull the 175m figure out of their backside. So expect the appeal (c.September 2024) to reduce the amount, and then for Trump to use that as evidence the judge was biased, that he was right, vindicated, and thus not a criminal, and all that other gaslighting he does. But by then he'll probably have another couple of billion dollars of Joe Public's money from his Truth Social listing. I'm also enjoying finding out about his cheating at golf! The only person who cheated more seems to have been Kim Jong-Il, who carded a 38 including 11 holes-in-one, but more impressively it was his first ever round!! So, while it's not about his legal woes, this is somewhat informative as to the mindset that leads to his cheating in the rest of his life:
Tough On Crime Once upon a time, when Donald Trump still presented an image of business success, Democrats were accused of being Reds, and populist Republicans denouncing elitism and complaining that government just didn't work installed a comedy actor in the White House who may or may not have slipped into senility while in office, a common conservative political line had to do with liberals being soft on crime. There's even a Scalia joke in there, somewhere, but a former spy and dynastic scion had succeeded the senile president. Anyway, the short form is that Donald Trump, the real-estate heir and television celebrity turned president, the tough-on-crime Republican, both highlights inequality American justice, and now perpetually plays to get off on a technicality. The irony is a deluge swamping multiple generations, and thus easy to miss. † Steve Mills↱ teases the article from ProPublica: "Did Trump and his lawyers fail to disclose key details about his bond?" And the first thing is, of course they did. This is Trump, these are his lawyers, and this is how it goes. By the time the editor, Mills, asks his question, we can easily presume the answer is yes. The devil, then, is in the detail. Former U.S. Attorney Andrew Weissmann reminds, "the $175 [million] bond has reported issues: the surety company may not be licensed to give bonds in NY & may not have met the NY solvency reqs (can't post more than 10% of its worth so it is solvent to meet the bond requirements)." That is to say, the details include whether the company is allowed to issue such bond in New York, and also whether the company is even financially capable of fulfilling the obligation. And remember, $175 million is reduced bond. And then, per ProPublica↱: His lawyers had told the appellate court it was a "practical impossibility" to get a bond for the full amount of the lower court's judgment, $464 million. All of the 30 or so firms Trump had approached balked, either refusing to take the risk or not wanting to accept real estate as collateral, they said. That made raising the full amount "an impossible bond requirement." But before the judges ruled, the impossible became possible: A billionaire lender approached Trump about providing a bond for the full amount. The lawyers never filed paperwork alerting the appeals court. That failure may have violated ethics rules, legal experts say. ProPublica did have an opportunity to interview Hankey, who said, "I saw that they were rejected by everyone and I said, 'Gee, that doesn't seem like a difficult bond to post.'" And, apparently, there were negotiations on this point, but that's where the detail is as fuzzy as you might expect in these tellings: As negotiations between Hankey and Trump's representatives were underway, the appellate court ruled in Trump's favor, lowering the bond to $175 million. The court did not give an explanation for its ruling. Hankey ended up giving Trump a bond for the lowered amount. It's unclear if Trump lawyer Alina Habba or the rest of his legal team were made aware that Hankey reached out about a deal for the full amount. Trump's legal team did not respond to requests for comment. After ProPublica reached out to Trump's representatives, Hankey called back and revised his account. He said he had heard "indirectly" about ProPublica's subsequent inquiries to Trump's lawyers. In the second conversation, he said that accepting the real estate as collateral would have been complicated and that he wouldn't have been able to "commit" to providing a bond in the full amount "until I evaluate the assets." Legal ethics experts said it would be troubling if Trump's lawyers knew about Hankey's approach and failed to notify the court. The reduced bond is, in its own hazy question; the appeals court didn't give much of a reason for the reduction. Still, who knew what and when not only is a manufactured technicality to hang a hope upon, but underscores, yet again, an important question: Donald Trump does not want to collateralize anything in achieving bond, and while that's understandable, it's also not how these things go. Hankey's statements to ProPublica are on both sides of a line: Either it's not difficult except Trump doesn't want to collateralize assets, or it's not difficult except Trump can't collateralize assets: In his first interview with ProPublica, Hankey said that when he heard Trump was having trouble getting a bond, he reached out to Trump's camp, several days before the bond was reduced, with an offer to help .... .... Hankey told ProPublica that during the talks he came to the conclusion that Trump's "got the liquidity" and was confused why others would have rejected him, speculating that some may have wanted to avoid political backlash: "If you're a public company, maybe you don't want to offend 45% of the population." Hankey said he informed Trump's camp that he was willing to work with them, and "they said they had the collateral." The two sides went over the assets that had to be pledged, and it was up to Trump "if they wanted to do it." (In his second call, Hankey said making a deal would have been "difficult.") But, he said, the deal for the larger amount was dropped during a large Zoom call between the two sides, when Trump's camp got a call informing them that the bond was reduced. Consider what happens next: The appeals court also gave Trump a ten-day extension on the reduced bond; with two days remaining, Trump informed the court that he had secured the reduced $175 million bond. Six days after that, there remain questions of whether that claim to surety is legally and properly true. If this bond collapses, then watch what happens, next: Are those two days tolled or have they expired? What process remains to continue to stall New York from executing the judgment? As it is, the next hearing on the matter is two weeks away. The weird technicality that's buried in the middle of all this can't possibly be real: Every now and then, a public agency excuses itself by acknowledging that something wasn't properly communicated, but those are public agencies, and not private litigants; most people trying to appeal a fraud judgment don't get to make that sort of excuse. That one of his people didn't mention something to another of his people isn't generally sufficient, but the real question will have to do with how much time Trump can waste while the court runs this one to earth. So, c'mon, then, let's do the twist: Per The Independent↱, "Mr Hankey said on Tuesday that his client had provided the full $175m in cash as collateral for the bond." And what stands out is that if Trump had the cash to meet the reduced bond, then he should not need a company like Knight Specialty: KSIC is not regulated by New York state, which means that it is not authorised to issue surety bonds in the Empire State and therefore cannot obtain a certificate from the New York Department of Financial Services, which is customarily part of any bond package. "Defendants or KSIC shall file a motion to justify the surety within 10 days of the service of this notice, failing which the bond shall be without effect, except that the surety shall remain liable on the bond until a new undertaking is given and allowed," the notice read .... .... Earlier on Thursday, key paperwork from the bond filing was rejected and "returned for correction" to Mr Trump's legal team before being swiftly refiled with the requested financial statement from KSIC and two other missing details .... .... Bruce Lederman, an attorney with DL Partners, told CNN on Thursday it was understandable that Ms James should wish to know more about the underwriter's capabilities and pointed out that Mr Trump can ask Judge Engoron to sign off on KSIC. "If they seek court approval of Knight Specialty, I believe that the attorney general will want proof that the company is actually holding the $175m in cash collateral so the bond can be immediately paid if the judgement is affirmed without needing to wait to try to liquidate pledged assets," he said. And if it starts to feel like a soap opera or professional wrestling, where every twist and turn is unnecessarily complicated, that's part of the point. The question we're waiting on need not exist, and in its way ought not. ____________________ Notes: @AWeissmann_. "And the $175 bond has reported issues: the surety company may not be licensed to give bonds in NY & may not have met the NY solvency reqs (can't post more than 10% of its worth so it is solvent to meet the bond requirements). 4/22 hearing scheduled by the court." X. 7 April 2024. Twitter.com. 7 April 2024. https://bit.ly/49qtyxC @smmills1960. "ICYMI: Did Trump and his lawyers fail to disclose key details about his bond? More great reporting from the team of @RobertFaturechi, @JustinElliott & @Amierjeski of @propublica". X. 7 April 2024. Twitter.com. 7 April 2024. https://bit.ly/49mJ7q0 Faturechi, Robert, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski. "Trump’s Lawyers Told the Court That No One Would Give Him a Bond. Then He Got a Lifeline, but They Didn’t Tell the Judges." ProPublica. 5 April 2024. ProPublica.org. 7 April 204. https://bit.ly/3VJxXsd Sommerlad, Joe. "Trump’s $175m fraud bond thrown into doubt as New York attorney general questions insurer". The Independent. 5 April 2024. Independent.co.uk. 7 April 2024. https://bit.ly/4aJqqxJ
NYAG: Just Say No The basic sketch, via The Hill↱: The New York attorney general's office has asked a judge to void the $175 million bond former President Trump secured to put off paying the larger monetary damage award in his civil fraud case. State lawyers said in court filings Friday that the former president and his co-defendants — the Trump Organization and its top executives, including his two eldest sons — failed to prove the surety Trump used to obtain the bond actually has the money to back it. They also say the defendants did not show that "sufficiently secure and ascertainable" collateral backs the bond. Tristan Snell↱, explains: Trump lost a $464M case because he fraudulently overvalued his properties -- from 200% to 3300% Then for the bond, he found an insurer that is illegally taking on a risk far higher than they're allowed to under NY law -- by 1260% It's actually twelve hundred sixty-eight percent, but, yes. Again, The Hill: The company has a total policyholder surplus of just $138 million, the filing says. Under New York state law, companies like Knight can't expose themselves to liabilities — like a bond — or any potential loss greater than 10 percent of their surplus. "Based on KSIC's policyholder surplus in its most recent annual financial statement of $138,441,671, the limitation of loss on any one risk that KSIC is permitted to write is $13.8 million," the lawyers wrote. "The face amount of the bond exceeds this limitation by $161.2 million." Moreover, if there really is $175 million in an account, the state suggests Trump still has access to the money and thus the bond is not sufficiently collateralized, anyway. The whole thing is a mess, but Trump now has another seven days. And I still don't get why↑ Trump needs this specialty house from Los Angeles if he has $175 million sitting in an account. ____________________ Notes: @TristanSnell. "Trump lost a $464M case because he fraudulently overvalued his properties -- from 200% to 3300% Then for the bond, he found an insurer that is illegally taking on a risk far higher than they're allowed to under NY law -- by 1260% Trump literally found the Trump of insurance". X. 19 April 2024. Twitter.com. 19 April 2024. https://bit.ly/3JsSABA Lee, Ella. "NY AG asks Trump civil fraud judge to declare $175M bond 'without effect'". The Hill. 19 April 2024. TheHill.com. 19 April 2024. https://bit.ly/3W4vfh2
The "bond" company tried to show that they were good for the bond by stating that they had c.550m of assets, and equity of 130m... Which means the company is only worth (net book) the 130m, and not the 175m bond value. If they have 550m of assets then they must also have 420m of liabilities that dilute the assets down to the equity value (that's how the balance sheet works!). They also gave details of the bank account with the 175m of Trump's money, but said that there was a clause in the agreement that said that if ever there was less than the necessary amount, Trump would have 2 days to put it back in. Which meant, as you say, he would still seem to have access to it, which means it isn't as strong as required. Trump is gaming the system at every opportunity to draw out the timeframe of having to stump over any money whatsoever. Understandable, but the way he's doing it is really just demonstrating what a shady dealer he really is. You wouldn't buy a 2nd-hand car from him, that's for sure!
Which he won't, so they will sue him, and he will sue them - and he will get to keep the money for five years or so until all the lawsuits settle out. I recall a loan he got from a bank that he didn't repay. He then sued the bank because he said it was irresponsible of them to give him the loan to begin with.
I am curious about the talk that if SCOTUS finds that Trump was immune from culpability when he was president, the ruling would apply to all future presidents. That seems a little narrow . If SCOTUS determines that presidents had absolute immunity in the past and have in the future, then it follows that President Biden has absolute immunity today, and can just assume dictatorship altogether without any repercussion at all! Biden could just put Trump in jail without any trial as Trump has promised to do to his enemies if he is re-elected. I think that would be a solid solution to the Trump problem.
The cynical analysis, of course, is that the Court will hand down its decision in Trump's favor when the majority figures a way around that.
