434

Trump Might Be Too Broke for a $175 Million Bond, Too (newrepublic.com)

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

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A New York appeals court on Monday reduced the $454 million that former President Donald Trump was required to put up while he appeals his civil fraud case. Now Trump must put up, by April 4, a mere $175 million. The trouble is, he may not get a bond for that amount, either. Should that happen, this act of judicial mercy will end up feeling to Trump like a curse.

The stay deprives Trump of the only argument on which he was gaining any traction at all—that the amount the court required him to put up was excessively high. Four hundred and fifty-four million was indeed an unusually large judgment against a private corporation or individual. (The distinction between Trump and the Trump Organization is paper-thin.) Monday’s appeals court decision doesn’t reduce that judgment, as New York State Attorney General Letitia James pointed out in a written statement. But it does dramatically reduce the amount Trump needs to turn over to the state while he pursues his appeal. It also gives us some hint that the appeals court may reduce Judge Arthur Engoron’s $454 million judgment to, well, $175 million.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 7 months ago

There are plenty of people in jail who are appealing their punishment. If they win, they will still never get back the time they already served. That harm has been done.

In many states, there is some variety of recompense for that time, which obviously can't fully repair the damage of being wrongly imprisoned but at least is better than nothing. It's not like the courts have a time machine and can retroactively un-imprison someone.

Also, if they're in prison, then that was a criminal trial, not a civil one. Criminal trials have a much higher standard of evidence (typically unanimous decision of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a group of 12 jurors) as opposed to civil trials (typically a judge thinks it was at least slightly more likely than not). The "typically" is there to account for cases like plea bargains (where the accused pleas guilty to lesser charges in exchange for not being tried for the harsher charges) or where the accused requests a bench trial, that sort of thing.

In this case, the ability to appeal at all is conditional on posting a bond, the purpose of which is to prevent the defendant from essentially spending the funds that should go to damages on lawfare instead. That said, it makes a kind of sense to lower the bond, presuming the plaintiff has slow to liquidate assets that are almost certainly in excess of the value of the damages. If I were the judge, I'd also freeze any and all sale or transfer of any of his real estate until after the appeal to ensure he retains the ability to liquidate said real estate in case he loses the appeal or still cannot pay the damages with liquid assets after any reduction from the appeal.

this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024

434 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2164 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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