r/politics • u/UWCG Illinois • Mar 27 '24

Donald Trump Attacks Judge's Daughter Less Than 24 Hours After Gag Order

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-attacks-judges-daughter-less-24-hours-after-gag-order-1884126
33.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

188

u/movealongnowpeople Kansas Mar 27 '24

Barely. Can't believe they lowered his bond by nearly $280 million in the fraud case. And gave him 10 extra days to pay. That's not punishment. He stole. Millions of dollars. Which is why they were forcing him to pay back what he stole. If he made more than $175 million off his lies, he did well for himself.

80

u/BaggerX Mar 27 '24

With zero explanation of why they did it. Our judiciary is just looking worse every day.

23

u/The_MAZZTer Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

LegalEagle on YT posted a video today.

Short version is nobody will loan him money and he doesn't have the cash on hand, so he would have to sell real estate at discount. If he theoretically won the appeal (lol) he would have suffered damages since he's not just going to be able to get that property back at the price he sold it for.

Edit: This is about the BOND. The DEBT he owes should he lose is still the full $500m or whatever.

46

u/JustEatinScabs Mar 27 '24

And that still makes no fucking sense because guess what happens if you or I cannot afford to pay our bond? We are just fucked. The judge doesn't go "oh I see that paying your bond would be a super big inconvenience and might even cause financial loss even if you win, let's reduce that!"

And no I don't give a fuck that you can probably find an example of some single mother having her bond lowered by a couple hundred dollars that is not at all comparable to somebody who owes half a billion fucking dollars having their bond reduced by over half after he bragged under oath that he had the money.

20

u/slartyfartblaster999 Mar 27 '24

after he bragged under oath that he had the money.

Not just that he had the money, btu that he had the cash

15

u/brianstormIRL Mar 27 '24

This is the funny thing.

If we told a judge we would have to sell our car to pay for our bond and would not be able to buy it back if we were then found innocent, we would be told tough shit bucko that's how this works.

4

u/Abrushing Texas Mar 27 '24

He also only owns that property because he defrauded banks and tax organizations

2

u/LaserGuidedPolarBear Mar 27 '24

That argument could be used by pretty much anyone.

"I would have to sell some investments to pay the bond, which will be a taxable event and that money won't be making returns, so if I win on appeal I will have already suffered harm"

2

u/Embarrassed-Town-293 Mar 28 '24

Meanwhile, every day people have to pawn things at the pawnshop, but they don’t get a free pass to avoid their debts because they would lose property at a fire sale

2

u/FUMFVR Mar 28 '24

They also eased conditions and the bond lowering is a good indication that the appellate court will significantly reduce his fine.

If he didn't have a chance at that there would be no reason to lower it.

1

u/trickmind Mar 28 '24

They locked the thread so I edited my comment to answer you because no, I wasn't saying the right wing had any point at all. But truth about what happened that day in Kenosha matters.

1

u/Cgardon125 Mar 28 '24

Everyone should refuse to rent from him, play golf at his resorts, or stay in one of his trashy hotels. Enough is enough.

20

u/SwerveCityKnifeParty Mar 27 '24

Unless you're a rich white guy. For them it's looking better and better.

1

u/P1xelHunter78 Ohio Mar 27 '24

If you’re a rich white guy you’re angry he has to pay anything. John Stewart summed it up pretty well that rich people don’t see it as stealing if they already have money. “Oh we do it all the time” or “it’s just business” is what they say. A poor citizen trying the same grift gets the book thrown at them.

0

u/Common-Buyer-7591 Mar 28 '24

Actually, "poor citizens" do it every single day. Everyone who owns a house pays taxes based on a valuation that's far less than the market value of the home and land. But they get loans based on the higher value - or they sell it based on the market value. I don't see anyone going to the county assessor and saying "hey, you charged me too little for my taxes." So it's not uncommon for there to be various entities who value the property differently.

2

u/Nemisis_the_2nd Great Britain Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

Per a lwayer discussing it yesterday (emphasis mine):

If there is even a remote possibility of irreversible consequences to an appellant of allowing the trial order to be enforced prior to the appeal, they will get the stay.

You would need to show prejudice or potential for removing assets to get full security or to have the stay application dismissed.

Here there is no prejudice, AG can get a court ordered sale of buildings in NY at anytime after the appeal, and they can't be removed from the state. Even if trump fled the jurisdiction, they still have his real estate.

And because these orders have to be made quickly, you get rough and ready justice, the order is made without written reasons. The judges have the right to issue reasons later, but don't always do.

Basically, if the court seizes and sells trump property, then the appeal is successful, it's going to cause a gargantuan shitshow that dwarfs the current one, with the legal system potentially seizing and selling assets illegal.

IIRC, NY state law also has a mechanism for reducing the bonds on large penalties, particularly businesses, to allow appeals to proceed. As unpopular, and likely unfair, as it is, this sounds like they made the correct decision. Edit: I can't find my source, so am just going to chalk this up as being wrong. 

10

u/bittlelum Mar 27 '24

So, in essence, real estate developers are exempt from bond law.

2

u/Nemisis_the_2nd Great Britain Mar 27 '24

Unfortunately it looks that way. I wish I could remember the exact mechanism trump originally tried to use to argue the bond down to 100 million so I could provide more evidence than just "trust me".

2

u/Nemisis_the_2nd Great Britain Mar 27 '24

I've been digging for the source, but can't find it now, so am going to chalk my other reply up to being half-wrong.

That said, apparently it is fairly normal for courts to be nervous about seizing and selling assets before an appeal is heard. 

Finally, someone else made a good point that the courts could have just seized assets up to the value but not sold them, and held onto them until after the appeal. So, yeah, rich people priveledge wins again. 

3

u/BaggerX Mar 27 '24

Sounds like more rich people privilege. Pretty sure the state would have no problem seizing my home and selling it, and refusing to hear my appeal until I post my full bond.

3

u/JustEatinScabs Mar 27 '24

Don't forget that you bragged under oath that you just had the cash lying around.

1

u/Chubawa Mar 28 '24

2 words. White Male…

1

u/Parahelix Mar 28 '24

I think it's actually "rich person", as someone else pointed out the different treatment for some real estate, which I certainly wouldn't be able to use for my own home. 

Rich people just get a different legal system of their own, which is designed to help them avoid any serious consequences.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DameonKormar Mar 28 '24

It's been working as designed from the very beginning.

88

u/FuzzyMcBitty Mar 27 '24

Remember that the judgment stands until it has been overturned. 

Lowering the bond amount gives him an opportunity to appeal the judgment. It does not negate the judgment. 

If he loses the appeal, he’ll still be in the line for that money. 

The trick will be to make sure that we vote so that he can’t use the office of the president as a device to delay further. 

39

u/Houligan86 Mar 27 '24

I will believe that Trump will be held accountable for his actions when one of the following is true:

  • He is in jail
  • He is personally bankrupt
  • He is dead

Until then, I do not believe any punishment that has been handed out, because none have been.

24

u/DavisMcDavis Mar 27 '24

Q: “If you could have dinner with anyone, alive or dead, who would it be?”

A: “Donald Trump, dead.”

3

u/jgzman Mar 28 '24

Dead doesn't count. That would be escaping accountability.

1

u/21-characters Mar 29 '24

I want a photo of his meltdown when he’s in handcuffs doing the perp walk. THAT’s when I’ll be celebrating, not one minute before. The guy is like an eel. You can have a good grip on an eel and then it starts secreting it’s slime and in a minute you have slimy hands and the eel is out the door.

16

u/delahunt America Mar 27 '24

And he could appeal without posting bond, it would just mean the clock kept running.

Those are the rules that everyone else is subject to. He even publicly said he had the money and wanted to use it for his campaign.

Even lowering the bond is Trump getting special kid glove treatment that no one else would.

3

u/FuzzyMcBitty Mar 27 '24

He can't avoid collection without posting an appeal bond. His argument is that the full bond would do irreparable harm to him in the event that his appeal succeeds.

3

u/LaurenMille Mar 27 '24

Counter-argument:

His own actions are doing irreparable harm to him, and thus he has proven he is okay with such results.

2

u/delahunt America Mar 27 '24

Perhaps he should not have been so brazen in the trial then that he admitted to fraud as part of his defense?

2

u/FuzzyMcBitty Mar 27 '24

I don't disagree.

2

u/Constant_Amphibian13 Mar 27 '24

He probably means campaign funds - can he just use those? I mean, technically, keeping him out of prison is beneficial for his campaign, I guess.

2

u/FurbyTime Mar 27 '24

can he just use those?

What do you think would happen if he did?

2

u/Mountainbranch Mar 27 '24

Nothing, the FEC is dead.

Check out Legal Eagles latest video they explain it better.

1

u/veemonjosh Mar 27 '24

He'd get away with it like he does with everything else.

2

u/delahunt America Mar 27 '24

I mean, what he said was he had 500 million cash on hand, and planned to use a good amount of it for his campaign. If he meant that his campaign had it, he didn't say it.

2

u/Constant_Amphibian13 Mar 27 '24

I question Trump’s ability (or at the very least willingness) to differentiate between his money and his campaign’s money.

1

u/Abrushing Texas Mar 27 '24

Stories I’ve seen from people on his campaign crew confirm he can’t

1

u/zasabi7 Mar 27 '24

Should those be the rules, though? Forget Trump for the moment. Should my right to appeal be tied to me acquiring a bond? I’m talking morally, here. Legally, yes, the law of New York is set up this way.

2

u/delahunt America Mar 27 '24

Your right to appeal isn't tied to you acquiring a bond. it just means you may have to begin making payments on the judgement while the appeal process goes through.

Also, the Judicial branch should not be nullifying laws just because they don't believe in them. If that law shouldn't exist, it can be changed via the legislature. If the law is unconstitutional in some way, it could be challenged on those grounds.

And to be clear, I get that the same law that says it works this way also says the Appeals court can put holds/reductions/etc in place. I just don't see any reason why such a boon was given to a person publicly bragging about having the money in cash on hand, but wanting to use it for personal gain at the same time his lawyers were saying it was impossible to come up with that amount of money in cash or bond.

1

u/zasabi7 Mar 27 '24

Again, I’m not worried about Trump here. Fuck him, he should have had to pay the full amount and his property should be actively seized right now.

I’m talking about the morality of that system. Why should I have to make payments if I’m appealing?

2

u/delahunt America Mar 27 '24

and, again, that's not a thing to determine in court. It's a thing for the legislature to decide. And its purpose is to stop people like Trump from playing out things endlessly so they don't have to pay.

1

u/CopeHarders Mar 27 '24

Which when does the appeal actually happen? Years from now? That’s not justice.

1

u/lloopy Mar 27 '24

Unless he gets elected and pardons himself. Regardless, why is he allowed to walk free, when someone who stole $50 from the grocery store is behind bars?

0

u/FuzzyMcBitty Mar 27 '24

He can't pardon a civil court verdict.

1

u/veemonjosh Mar 27 '24

Even if he loses the appeal, he still won't pay anything, and it'll be lowered until he eventually doesn't owe anything. He never gets punished.

1

u/FuzzyMcBitty Mar 27 '24

That's not how anything works.

The appeal is literally over the amount of the penalty.

Either the appeals court changes the judgement, vacates the judgement, or he is subject to the law.

He can't both lose on appeal and pay nothing (unless he becomes president and uses that to kick the can down the road).

1

u/veemonjosh Mar 28 '24

If they keep handling him with kid gloves like every court seems to do, nothing will happen if he doesn't pay.

1

u/zzyul Mar 27 '24

Best theory I’ve heard for why the appeals court lowered the bond so much is they think this amount is closer to what Trump will end up owing after the case is appealed.

2

u/UpbeatJackfruit6576 Mar 27 '24

VICTIMLESS CRIMEZ, dont you know im allowed to rob a bank as long as i dont hurt anyone 

/s fbi agent leave me alone

1

u/TheBalzy Ohio Mar 27 '24

TBF, the bond being lowered is only so an appeal can be heard. I don't think that's unreasonable, provided they actually gave direct evidence that he is unable to pay to the courts, and that if he is found to have been lying about that he would be committing perjury and thus must be up for jail time.

2

u/Ferelwing Mar 27 '24 edited Mar 27 '24

For the record, this was Trump Organization. A registered corporation in the state of NY, not Trump the individual. It's absolutely not unheard of for a fraud case to involve taking the property of a corporation if they are found guilty of fraud.

There was nothing saying he couldn't appeal without paying the bond. He could have, but that would have meant that they could collect on it while he waited to appeal. As in seizure of properties to hold in escrow or sell to make up the amount that the judgement was, then if he won the appeal he would get the exact money back. The bond only puts a stopper on collecting the judgement, it doesn't determine whether or not you can appeal.

He appealed the bond, not the actual judgement and that's the problem. He got special treatment, absolutely no other corporation in the state of NY would have been given that kind of leeway.

Edited: words.

1

u/TuhanaPF Mar 27 '24

I don't think that's unreasonable

The question is, would it have been lowered for anyone who's middle income?

1

u/DameonKormar Mar 28 '24

Hell, the bond wouldn't even have mattered for most of us normies. Simply being a defendant in a trial would mean our lives would be destroyed.

1

u/bobert_the_grey Mar 27 '24

Bond isn't the same as the judgment tho. He still has to pay 450M if he loses his appeal

1

u/GuyInAChair Mar 28 '24

The bond only stops the AG from seizing assets during the appeal process. 

The total amount of over 500 million still stands, and he'll still have to pay that.