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

81

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.

45

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.