Donald Trump has been let off the hook for the full amount of the $454 million bond he was ordered to pay in his business fraud case. An appeals court cut it to $175 million.
This is disappointing for those who enjoy watching Trump squirm, but it's probably reasonable. The court gave no reason for its decision, but more than likely it's because they thought the original penalty was excessive and was likely to be reduced. And since they're the ones who would reduce it, who would know better?
And in other news, Trump NY criminal trial going forward on April 15. Trump whining endlessly about this. Color me shocked.
I see the criminal prosecution as a double edged sword. It will amplify what a sleazy guy he is, but I’m not sure that matters. He is supposedly short on cash for campaigning and the trial will give him free publicity every day and dominate the news. He will likely give speeches after court every day and those will be covered. He will raise lots of money from his rubes. And what if it’s a hung jury or, god forbid, he is found not guilty?
If convicted he will appeal and likely be allowed to remain free during the appeal. Whether or not a conviction would harm him politically I really don’t know. But if he becomes dictator I would not want to be associated with his conviction.
If all the cases were dismissed tomorrow, he would still dominate the news, because the media love the avalanche of clicks and eyeballs that any story about tfg brings on.
Kevin, this is not up to your usual standards.
1. Trump's fine has not been reduced. His bond has been reduced.
2. The reason is because posting bond is supposed to ensure payment. It is not supposed to prevent a defendant from appealing. The size of this bond was going to prevent Trump from appealing.
I think that the reason the appellate court allowed the bond to be a lower amount is because it kept in place the monitoring and control provisions of the judgment. The appellate court could have reasonably believed those would be sufficient to prevent the dissipation of assets while the appeal was pending.
None of this has anything to do with the merits of the appeal (or lack thereof), which the appellate court has not ruled upon.
Do all poor and middle class defendants seeking appeal of civil lawsuits get a 50+% off coupon on their bonds too? Since they're also allegedly unable to pay, we wouldn't want their bonds to keep them from appealing adverse decisions too, right?
The process for getting an appeal bond reduced is well established. I find it difficult to believe that the procedure would exist but never have been used before by any other litigant. I therefore conclude that Trump is by no means the first New York litigant to get his appeal bond reduced.
Trump can appeal regardless of posting a bond or not. The bond just stops collection actions
No, the size of the bond would not prevent Trump from appealing. That's BS. Nonpayment of the bond would allow the appeal to go forward, but it would permit the AG to begin executing on the Orange One's assets.
Yes, but if a number of his properties have been seized and sold at auction, it rather makes the appeal moot. I'm okay with reducing the bondduringhis appeal.
And DWAC is up nearly 40%. It's all just paper to Trump at the moment. But the judges at the appeals court? Someone check their portfolios.
ETA:
I'm not really that cynical about the judges. But about the scheme in general? Yes, I am.
Up nearly 40%? Just more profit for the short sellers.
Trumps Attorney: Your honor my client shoud only have to pay half of the bond based on the legal principle of solo quia [just because].
Judge: Hard to argue with that logic. Affirmed!
One measure for whether this is 'reasonable' or not should turn on whether other defendants are afforded the same latitude.
And his bullshit about this never happening before is just that, bullshit. Others have been forced to put up more.
Anyone who believes this is 'fair' has accepted Don's worldview.
So far, I have not seen anything about other cases in which people have sought reduction of an appeal bond. ARE other defendants afforded the same latitude? Since there is an established process for applying for a reduction in an appeal bond, I have to presume that Trump is not the first person to use the process.
Speaking of other defendants, what is the status re Don Jr. and Eric?
Every defendant with all their assets tied up in their home or other real estate gets a 50+% off coupon on their bonds needed to appeal civil judgements, no?
I don't know the answer to your question but I strongly doubt that "every defendant" is accurate. On the other hand "some defendants" almost certainly IS accurate.
One measure for whether this is 'reasonable' or not should turn on whether other defendants are afforded the same latitude.
AP ran an analysis that claims no bond of the amount in question has been demanded in any previous case where there were no losses or victims. I have no idea whether they're right, but I'd imagine they have fact checkers? So perhaps this appeal decision was reasonable. I admit I had been really looking forward to the specter of Trump Going Through Some Things, but to be honest all I care about is that he loses the election. And it's anybody's guess as to whether a messy, chaotic forced asset sale (or seizure) would really hurt him. Seems to me entirely possible he'd get some sympathy.
The function of an appeal bond is to ensure that the debtor doesn't hide his assets while the appeal process is under way. Trump's assets are mainly real estate, which is difficult to conceal in an account in the Cayman Islands. Further, Trump is under the supervision of a court appointed monitor who presumably would notice if Trump was selling real estate or borrowing large sums of money against it without explanation, and would also notice if he was trying to move large amounts of assets out of the country.
In other words, in this case the court can be reasonably certain that the State of New York's ability to collect on its judgment will not be impaired by reducing the bond amount.
The above is my guess at the court's reasoning. Time pressure in this case means the court made an order without reasons, but the reasons for judgment will follow and then we can all find out why the court chose to make this order.
Headline is inaccurate. I see that same claim being trumpeted all over twitter like it's some big victory for Trump. It isn't.
To me, who hasn't been following very closely, it seems that the smaller amount is a good thing because it will attenuate the appearance that Trump is being unfairly prosecuted.
Politically, Trump's transgressions have only helped him in the polls, and if he doesn't overreach, I see that continuing. The smaller amount will not allow him to cry as loudly about unfairness, because it will (probably) not bankrupt him.
Speaking of overreach, this seems to me a real possibility. I think Trump may have already done that when he calls the Jan 6 rioters hostages. That will be a real gift to Biden's ad-makers, if Democrats are smart enough to capitalize.
Half?!? More hand wavy math from a numbers guy? Even to the Mk I eyeball 175 is clearly less than half of 454. 454 - 175 is 279. 279 is 61% of 464.
It also happens to be a percentage even larger than the 59% support for ACA/Obamacare: https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-everyone-loves-obamacare/
Since that was everyone, I guess this means the bond has all gone away? …
I believe the original judgment was $355 million plus interest. Cutting that in half would be just over $175 million not including interest. I don’t know if the interest is waived or if there is some other reason not to include it.
Perhaps. Of course that is not the starting figure Kevin presents here.
The law, in its majestic equality, reduces $464m mandatory appeals bonds to $175m for the rich and poor alike.
If he had been forced to sell assets to meet the bond and then won the appeal wouldn't the court have thought that was an unrecoverable injury?
No, because he would get his money back.
Alternatively, they gave no opinion because they would have to state whether or not they weighed his complaint that such a bond was impossible to get, even while he appeared to make public claims to the contrary. And if they chose to suggest that they felt the penalty was excessive, they would have been seen as prejudicially biased.
So rather than publicize their step into a pile of shit, they just stated, "we stepped."