553
submitted 8 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Donald Trump was supposed to have to post a $464 million bond by Monday or else the state of New York could begin collecting on the massive civil fraud judgment leveled against him earlier this year. An appeals court bailed him out, blocking collection of the judgment and giving the former president 10 days to post a drastically reduced $175 million bond.

The order is a huge win for Trump, whose assets were going to be subject to seizure if he couldn’t post nearly half-a-billion dollars by Monday. His lawyers said last week he wasn’t going to be able to come up with the money after 30 underwriters rejected him. The New York Times has reported that Trump is expected to be able to scrounge the new, reduced $175 million bond

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 265 points 8 months ago

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME

[-] ConditionOverload@lemmy.world 185 points 8 months ago

The legal system is doing EVERYTHING it can to delay literally everything for this man, just so that election time will creep closer and closer and they can just say, "oh it's too close to election time and we can't just cancel a Presidential candidate in the midst of all this".

These exceptions will never be given to any normal citizen of the US, but when it's this rich orange idiot, every rule in existence will bend.

[-] Icalasari@fedia.io 73 points 8 months ago

May Trump and his VP pick both have fatal heart attacks late September/early October

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 43 points 8 months ago

Tomorrow would also work. Or today.

[-] Icalasari@fedia.io 4 points 8 months ago

I aim for Late September so the GoP are in a panic trying to replace him so late in the election season and eat themselves alive

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 22 points 8 months ago

Yep, trump is not the only person on trial here. You can't set a precedent that actually punishes financial fraud to the point where you can't actually profit from it when you're eventually caught.

Trump isn't the only real estate tycoon in NYC who has been fraudulently inflating the value of their assets. It would be uncomfortable for the judges to have to make a similar decision in the future to campaign donors.

[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Tbf the law works both ways. They cannot drop the charges to give him favor in the elections either. After the elections however, if he's the president...

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 44 points 8 months ago

I actually thought something like this was going to happen, since it has happened before, per another comment I read earlier.

Some corporations were told to post billions in appeals bonds, and in the end they were reduced to a fraction of it.

So, while disappointing, I wasn't completely surprised of this event.

[-] borari@sh.itjust.works 14 points 8 months ago

I’m slightly less mad now that I know this has precedent. I’m still fucking furious that the only precedent I’ve heard about is corporations and Trump, since the law should be equally applied regardless of absolute amounts of money and I’m pretty sure that someone living in poverty isn’t going to get the same treatment for a $50k (or whatever is a proportional amount) judgement against them.

[-] mynamesnotrick@lemmy.zip 24 points 8 months ago

FUCKING SHIT. I SWEAR TO FUCK. CANT HE BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FUCKING EVER!?!? JUST THE CLASSIFIED FUCKING DOCUMENTS SITUATION SHOULD OF HAD HIS ASS IN JAIL LIKE DISCORD BRO. FUCK.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

You had to have seen it coming.

What was going to happen, he fails to post bond like any other schmuck and goes to jail?

[-] borari@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago

That wasn’t what was at stake here. Trump was already found guilty, he wasn’t bonding out of pretrial detention he was having to post bond in order to appeal the ruling, which typically requires the person making the appeal to post a bind to make sure they don’t spend all their money fighting on appeal, just to lose the appeal and not have any money left to pay the original judgement.

So my expectation was that yes, he would have to follow the same court rules as everyone else and put up the bond in order to appeal. While I do think we should get rid of requiring pretrial detention bond, I don’t necessarily see an issue with requiring pre-appeal bond. I don’t know, you don’t want to create a situation where you’re means testing the right to appeal, but you don’t want people to indefinitely delay enforcement of judgement against them or to allow them to spend away their ability to pay the judgement on appeals. Maybe forcing either the entirety of the judgement to be paid into a more traditional escrow account, or a payment plan for the judgement to be accepted and that paid into escrow, before an appeal can be started?

Any way you cut it though, I can’t fault this chuckle fuck for playing the court game but I’m fucking incensed the court is enabling it.

[-] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Thanks for explaining more about the shitty us "justice" system

[-] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 months ago

The entire country is captured. Trumps reelection is almost guaranteed at this point.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

Shut up, propagandist. Go back to reddit.

[-] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

Hush urself lil lima bean we all know u work for big bean. Go back to Lima.

this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
553 points (100.0% liked)

News

23376 readers
1883 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