201
Somebody was willing to loan that asshat money?
Investigate them.
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
201 points (99.0% liked)
News
23275 readers
3433 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Most people are most familiar with bail bonds, that are normally a 10% deposit. But this:
It wasn't clear what assets Trump was forced to pledge to secure the bond.
Makes it sound like he put up property/assets to the bond company.
Still risky considering trump inflates his prices. But that means it's got to be substantial property.
From the article ...
Neil Pedersen, who owns Pedersen & Sons Surety Bond Agency in New York and is not involved in the case, said Trump almost certainly put up liquid assets as collateral.
"The uncertainty of whether Trump will be elected in 2024 is reason enough to require liquid collateral to secure the bond, because no surety has had to enforce an indemnification agreement against a president," he said.
It's not a one or the other.
But if Trump had the money, he'd post it himself.
And no bondsman would take less than the price from trump.
So like maybe 50/50 or some ratio
Trump had a choice and chose the bond instead.
New York-based attorney, Colleen Kerwick, told Newsweek that Trump could pay the full $83.3 million to the court, which would hold it in reserve while Trump asks Kaplan to lower the amount he must pay Carroll.
Alternatively, Trump could secure a bond and only have to post a small percentage of the award upfront.
I don't know why you keep thinking I'm disagreeing with you...
Cash is an asset. To get the bond he had to put assets up for the bond company. When it's time to pay. If he doesn't, they take the assets he agreed to put up.
Due to him over valuing property, it's likely if property was involved, the bonds company required more than what they would have to pay is, along with cash, stocks and other types of assets.
Considering a lot of the more-recent inflated value comes from him being president and “people pay for that shit”…. Yeah, “risky” is an understatement
There's bigger percents than 100%...
He might have to put up $200 mil in assets, and they keep selling till they hit an amount, likely higher than the judgement.
It's a risky move for everyone. trump likely didn't have any other options.
Not really for Trump, he'll just move what's left of his assets and declare bankruptcy for the fourth time.
He'll keep scamming people till he dies
How bout a future pardon
It wasn't clear what assets Trump was forced to pledge to secure the bond.
Probably his vault filled with 40 million McChickens/McDoubles
Those are pretty expensive nowadays.
Thanks Elon
So..what would be the grounds for appeal? Judge surely followed laws and procedures perfectly. Trump was sufficiently represented. I know it's a delay tactic, but what argument would the make?
"IT'S NOT FAAAAAAAAIIIIIIRR!"
or
"Your Honor, do you really want to live in a world where the President-For-Life can't rape whoever he wants?"
lol
"Your honor, don't you realize that I'm famous so you should let me do it?"
From the article ...
In seeking a new trial, lawyers for Trump said the verdict was tainted by Kaplan's decision to strike Trump's testimony about his state of mind when he disparaged Carroll.
According to the lawyers, Trump's statement that "I just wanted to defend myself, my family, and, frankly, the presidency" was relevant to whether he had acted maliciously, and that excluding it "all but assured" a big punitive damages award.
The lawyers also said Kaplan erred in instructing jurors about the burden of proof needed to show malice.
I missed that, thanks. So they are going on the idea that he wasn't liable for defamation because he didn't KNOWINGLY make a disparaging comment. So, still litigating the original case, which has no bearing here on the second case. The reason the judge didn't allow it is that it is a fact of record that he committed defamation originally. The second trial was only for the second defamation based on the first one. Trump is trying to retry the original lawsuit, which he can't do.
With luck, this gets rejected instantly,
With a normal SCOTUS I think it would. Under the current composition I'm not so sure.
We're in NY state court here. Federal appeals courts don't tell states how to run their own laws and assume that each state's courts understands their laws better. In any case, he's a very long shot away from going into federal court and then would have to raise a federal question to be heard there. He's something like 5 appeals away from SCOTUS if he could ever even get into federal court.
You're right. I just lept over the state's juristiction straight to SCOTUS.
My bad.
Don't worry, SCOTUS demonstrated they are willing to leap over states' jurisdiction by imposing federal power on state primaries used by private political parties, primaries that appoint state based electors to select their candidates for a coming federal election at a private national party meeting, by forcing Trump back onto Colorado's primary. So I expect them to fast track this too.
Authoritarianism centralizing control of power seems to be falling into place as the default state of our political environment, even regardless of government frameworks, political party and local/state/national differences. We are all in trouble folks.
I’m not sure he has a constitutional argument in this case.
Wait, this is trump. I’m not sure he has a valid constitutional argument here.
The argument is not his goal. Denying badness is. There is no end game, but then again, he is an old man, so that is one angle.
Probably to delay until IF he becomes president, he will just pardon himself away from all the lawsuits.
This is a state court. Only the governor can pardon state crimes.
And even if it were a federal court, nobody can pardon a civil lawsuit.
Someone on Mastodon noticed that the judge is giving E. Jean Carroll's attorney's a few days to object to the surety of the bond.
A guy who was just found guilty of inflating the values of his assets may well be trying to use those inflated assets as collateral for his bond. In this case, Chubb is a multi-billion dollar company so they'd be on the hook if he didn't pay, or used inflated assets, so I don't know if her lawyers will have a reason to object. But, it's interesting that they do still have a chance to object.
Say goodbye to that money, Federal.
He'll just claim that Chubb can't collect because he's president (regardless of whether he wins or not, he'll claim he did just like last time). No way they'll get anything from him. He obviously has connections in the company to get that through.
Thanks, Elon
Thank you, Saudis
Fuck you, Elon.
Fuck you, Saudis.
Fuck you, Putin.