Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It should probably be pointed out that this is just an interim step to consequences. 

Bond or no bond, the plaintiffs (both Carroll and the State of New York) will have whatever of their judgments survives appeal and will be free to collect them. 

Bond is just an extra humiliation for the orange man and makes it that much easier for the plaintiffs to get paid. Carroll, I am reasonably sure, is going to have a nice payday. So should NY, but it may be less than we are currently looking at,and subject to more collections shenanigans because there apparently will be no bond. Because NY isn't paying directly for the collection effort, it should be quite hard on Trump and not so much for the state. Not in the way it would be for a private plaintiff like Carroll and her lawyers. 

Appeals are overall pretty low percentage deals in terms of complete reversal. But a damages haircut is not that remote. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Most owners/developers who've built a track record use other people's money.  But when you are forced to sell in a down market with capital markets tighter than a drum, yes, you are fucked.  And he's going to get fucked badly.

Yeah, I remember when I was liquid and just used money/stock with the bank to buy whatever the fuck I wanted with loans at under 2%.  Those were the days.  At least I'm not Donald Dumbfuck. 

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It should probably be pointed out that this is just an interim step to consequences. 

Bond or no bond, the plaintiffs (both Carroll and the State of New York) will have whatever of their judgments survives appeal and will be free to collect them. 

Bond is just an extra humiliation for the orange man and makes it that much easier for the plaintiffs to get paid. Carroll, I am reasonably sure, is going to have a nice payday. So should NY, but it may be less than we are currently looking at. 

Appeals are overall pretty low percentage deals in terms of complete reversal. But a damages haircut is not that remote. 

Sounds like bond is another instance of him using money other than his to pay his debts when he can’t wriggle out of paying. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Sounds like bond is another instance of him using money other than his to pay his debts when he can’t wriggle out of paying. 

Well. most people at least have to put up cash money in full, plus large fees, to the bonding institution so it's not really OPM. From what we have been reading, it appears Trump can't do much better.  Funky shit like pledging real estate and other illiquid assets ain't working for him. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Sounds like bond is another instance of him using money other than his to pay his debts when he can’t wriggle out of paying. 

no, it guarantees payment and prevents the winner from collecting until the appeals are done. so if he does in fact get a reversal then it also prevents the inconvenience of him having to chase down what was collected (if anything).

James has indicated that she intends to collect starting Monday if he doesn't post the bond (or if the court doesn't stay their ability to enforce in absence of a bond). 

also, as Twice said he's already had to pay significant non-refundable fees to secure the bonds. 

I'm just wanting to see how he reacts if they repo that shitbird plane of his.

  • Haha 1
Posted

The bond normally isn't any kind of loan. It is a fully guaranteed instrument (plus fees) that stands in the place of cash, which is the other way to post a supersedeas bomd. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, The Dog said:

the deadline to secure/post the bond is 3/25.

he's just whining.

Well, I asked because if he had another week why disclose early?  Seems like an unforced error. After this one would think that if the money/backing all of a sudden does show up that at least one intrepid journalist out there might be interested in doing some digging into how all of a sudden that came to be.

Again it is Trump so the term "one would think" may not fucking apply.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's never spent his own money.  He has had real estate daddy gave him and gets money loaned against that real estate - and he inflates the values so he can raise more money.  Well, when all of a sudden you have to sell that real estate you're paying taxes out the ass AND you lose the ability to lend against the real estate you had to sell.  It's a serious ass fucking he's taking - hence his tantrum on whatever the fuck social media platform he uses. 

image.png.3a3f07d5b8405dd0e679ec8dbb89feaa.png

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Well, I asked because if he had another week why disclose early?  Seems like an unforced error. After this one would think that if the money/backing all of a sudden does show up that at least one intrepid journalist out there might be interested in doing some digging into how all of a sudden that came to be.

Again it is Trump so the term "one would think" may not fucking apply.

In theory, the bond can be posted at any time during the pendency of the appeal. 

The normal framework is that you file it within 30 days of the signing of the judgment appealed from,because that is when the appeal itself is due. 

That date also coincides with the 30 days from judgment the plaintiff must wait before attempting attempting to execute on the judgment. 

So in the super ordinary case, 30 days after signing the judgment, 3 things become known:

1. Whether there will be an appeal at all;

2. Whether there will be an appeal bond; and 

3.  Following from the first two, when or whether execution can commence. 

Nothing I saw in the NY rules said the bond (undertaking is their word) must be posted at any particular time during the appeal, but certainly as a practical matter before any serious collection efforts start. 

In this particular case, collection apparently could start on 3/25, so Trump needed a decision before or as soon thereafter as possible. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

The US Supreme Court?? I understand it’s all Calvin ball these days but could someone explain to me exactly how the USSC would have any jurisdiction over this NY civil case ?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

The US Supreme Court?? I understand it’s all Calvin ball these days but could someone explain to me exactly how the USSC would have any jurisdiction over this NY civil case ?

Well, it's Kevin O'Leary, so reality TV.  I suppose the USSC could weigh in on the constitutionality of a lower court's ruling, though.

  • Haha 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

The US Supreme Court?? I understand it’s all Calvin ball these days but could someone explain to me exactly how the USSC would have any jurisdiction over this NY civil case ?

It would not until such time as the highest court of the state enters judgment on a federal constitutional ground. 

There's no shadow docket for cases coming out of the state courts until certiorari is granted. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted

He will be poor, and I don't think his campaign will have much money on hand. The playing field will be even, or will disfavor Biden, due only to dark money PACs "unrelated" to the Trump campaign.

Posted
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Trump's lackeys publicly begging for money for him.  That's beautifully pathetic and screams loser. 

Surely FOX would pay him without batting an eye, especially since paying off a 750 million dollar lawsuit obviously does not bother them in the least. 

Posted

So two quick that I’m sure have been covered but I’m going to ask like I’m 5 (side note, I had a procedure under anesthesia earlier so I am a little foggy anyway):

1. If someone does “loan” him the money to cover the amount of a bond or whatever the cash surety would be, does that have to be disclosed? Even if it’s through a shell company or other type of laundering? Or can MSB, just be “oh, I found my checkbook and here you go…. Buy yourself something nice, Donald” and there’s nothing other than the appearance of impropriety (lol, GQP) to dissuade that?

2. If shitbird posts no bond and has no cash out whatever he can of his assets (wildly generalizing), he has to pay taxes on those gains. But if the government says fuck off and begins collecting via asset seizure/forfeiture, who pays the taxes on those transactions? Are they deducted from the asset value as they would if he’d had to sell things off himself? That’s a lot of tax money. And maybe even more relevant for the EJC verdict because she’s not the state.

Posted
Surely FOX would pay him without batting an eye, especially since paying off a 750 million dollar lawsuit obviously does not bother them in the least. 
Counterpoint: they thrive on outrage at Dem potus wearing tan suits, having completely open borders, having sex to someone they didn't marry etc. It's not as easy to spin their guy doing any of that.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

BROKE ASS BITCH

Damn that won’t get old.

Any true billionaire would be like, “here bitch, here’s the $500mil…” and laugh their way out of all this while flipping every one off.

Instead, Dotard is a broke ass bitch that is begging for money from somewhere 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, ohchaucer said:

So two quick that I’m sure have been covered but I’m going to ask like I’m 5 (side note, I had a procedure under anesthesia earlier so I am a little foggy anyway):

1. If someone does “loan” him the money to cover the amount of a bond or whatever the cash surety would be, does that have to be disclosed? Even if it’s through a shell company or other type of laundering? Or can MSB, just be “oh, I found my checkbook and here you go…. Buy yourself something nice, Donald” and there’s nothing other than the appearance of impropriety (lol, GQP) to dissuade that?

2. If shitbird posts no bond and has no cash out whatever he can of his assets (wildly generalizing), he has to pay taxes on those gains. But if the government says fuck off and begins collecting via asset seizure/forfeiture, who pays the taxes on those transactions? Are they deducted from the asset value as they would if he’d had to sell things off himself? That’s a lot of tax money. And maybe even more relevant for the EJC verdict because she’s not the state.

I don't know the specifics on #1, but as for #2 I can assure you that the government is always going to be the first to get paid in a situation like this, taxes, fines and all.  So when they seize, it won't be just the fine he needs, any tax implications will also have to be resolved before he gets any leftover (hilarious, can't even type it with a laughing) proceeds are his.  

  • Like 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, ohchaucer said:

So two quick that I’m sure have been covered but I’m going to ask like I’m 5 (side note, I had a procedure under anesthesia earlier so I am a little foggy anyway):

1. If someone does “loan” him the money to cover the amount of a bond or whatever the cash surety would be, does that have to be disclosed? Even if it’s through a shell company or other type of laundering? Or can MSB, just be “oh, I found my checkbook and here you go…. Buy yourself something nice, Donald” and there’s nothing other than the appearance of impropriety (lol, GQP) to dissuade that?

2. If shitbird posts no bond and has no cash out whatever he can of his assets (wildly generalizing), he has to pay taxes on those gains. But if the government says fuck off and begins collecting via asset seizure/forfeiture, who pays the taxes on those transactions? Are they deducted from the asset value as they would if he’d had to sell things off himself? That’s a lot of tax money. And maybe even more relevant for the EJC verdict because she’s not the state.

Gifts are taxable, as are forgiven loans.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Goredho said:

Have you ever wondered if Trump is the dildo of consequences that America earned with its post WWII superpower shenanigans?

Would that then make it like a OuroborosIan Dildo of Consequences  or is this some kind of inception-style Dildo of consequence within an dildo of consequence?

  • Drool 1
Posted

full quote:

Trump’s team has sought out wealthy supporters and weighed what assets could be sold, and fast. The presumptive GOP nominee himself has become increasingly concerned about the optics the March 25 deadline could present, especially the prospect that someone whose identity has long been tied to his wealth would confront financial crisis.

  • Haha 6
Posted
Just now, The Dog said:

full quote:

Trump’s team has sought out wealthy supporters and weighed what assets could be sold, and fast. The presumptive GOP nominee himself has become increasingly concerned about the optics the March 25 deadline could present, especially the prospect that someone whose identity has long been tied to his wealth would confront financial crisis.

You fucking think? That's his whole thing. And now not only can he not pay his bills, but he can't get a loan. 

And that's before we even get into the whole 91 felonies, twice impeached, failed coup stuff. Good lord.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

full quote:

Trump’s team has sought out wealthy supporters and weighed what assets could be sold, and fast. The presumptive GOP nominee himself has become increasingly concerned about the optics the March 25 deadline could present, especially the prospect that someone whose identity has long been tied to his wealth would confront financial crisis.

Oh, no.  Destitute Don is getting exposed.  When reality can no longer be held at bay is always a dangerous time when dealing with malignant narcissists and cult leaders.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This article mentions the possibility of a restraining order on spending until he puts up the bond.

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/19/1239524037/heres-what-happens-if-trump-cant-pay-his-454-million-bond

I did see that in the NY statutes.  It sounds super-nasty, in that once a "restraining order" is served on a bank, they can release no funds to the account owner until the judgment creditor files a satisfaction of (the entire) judgment, or voluntarily releases it.

Quite a bit nastier than Texas' garnishment, which only works as to the account balance as of the time it hits, plus anything subsequently deposited.

That could be a major ouchie for orange man.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I don't have the link handy but something else I saw yesterday was that Chubb was discussing how they could put up the bond for this but then bailed when Trump defamed Carroll again. It was unlikely they were going to come to a deal regardless. 

Also, Chubb was the only group that was willing to accept any real estate as collateral (there isn't any in the EJC bond). When Chubb walked away Trump went to whine to the court IMHO.

  • Haha 1
Posted

At this point, it appears that mafia don’s only financial option is to sell out the US to putin and saudi arabia, use Putin’s disinformation expertise during the campaign, and pardon himself from everything if he’s elected.

Nov 5 is kinda important.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
35 minutes ago, The Dog said:

full quote:

Trump’s team has sought out wealthy supporters and weighed what assets could be sold, and fast. The presumptive GOP nominee himself has become increasingly concerned about the optics the March 25 deadline could present, especially the prospect that someone whose identity has long been tied to his wealth would confront financial crisis.


the tax man …

Bangladeshi Getting Ready GIF by GifGari

  • Haha 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, GenXer said:

At this point, it appears that mafia don’s only financial option is to sell out the US to putin and saudi arabia, use Putin’s disinformation expertise during the campaign, and pardon himself from everything if he’s elected.

Nov 5 is kinda important.

The republican nominee is half a billion in debt and is publicly begging for money. It would not surprise me if he announced that he is available for purchase. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

The republican nominee is half a billion in debt and is publicly begging for money. It would not surprise me if he announced that he is available for purchase. 

He's slightly smarter than that.  He won't directly announce he's for sale.  He'll just announce something like the US won't intervene if a NATO ally is attacked when he is President.

1643625266004?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=mOiz

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Oh, no.  Destitute Don is getting exposed.  When reality can no longer be held at bay is always a dangerous time when dealing with malignant narcissists and cult leaders.

 

Hopefully he'll suicide by ODing on his pills. 

 

(I'd rather see him die in prison, but this would be an acceptable alternative.)

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Red Five said:

The republican nominee is half a billion in debt and is publicly begging for money.

 

D.J. Wentworthless: "It's your money, and I need it now!"

 

"I have a crippling judgment, and I need cash now . . . ."

/enCHUBBened

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
Posted
37 minutes ago, GenXer said:

At this point, it appears that mafia don’s only financial option is to sell out the US to putin and saudi arabia, use Putin’s disinformation expertise during the campaign, and pardon himself from everything if he’s elected.

Nov 5 is kinda important.

Not trying to be a dick or anything but ...

200w.gif?cid=6c09b952v94h00eqrr1mez6sa6q

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Surly law-dogs, should this worry anybody or was this expected? https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/20/politics/trump-georgia-appeal-fani-willis/index.html

Quote

CNN — 

A Georgia judge on Wednesday greenlit an effort by former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants to appeal the decision to allow Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to continue to prosecute the 2020 election subversion case there.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who ruled last week against the defendants’ efforts to disqualify Willis, has issued a certificate of immediate review, allowing the case to be revealed by a Georgia Appeals Court.

The issue “is of such importance to the case that immediate review should be had,” McAfee wrote.

The move doesn’t pause the prosecution but allows appeals on the disqualification effort to play out before trial.

It is now up to the Georgia Court of Appeals to review the decision not to disqualify Willis and decide if it wants to take up the case. While McAfee’s ruling last week allowed Willis to stay on the case, it forced the resignation of her top deputy on the case, Nathan Wade.

Trump and his co-defendants have argued that a romantic relationship between Willis and Wade created a conflict of interest that should disqualify the both of them.

Steve Sadow, the lead defense counsel for Trump in the case, called Wednesday’s motion by McAfee “highly significant.”

“The defense is optimistic that appellate review will lead to the case being dismissed and the DA being disqualified,” Sadow said in a statement.

 

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Surly law-dogs, should this worry anybody or was this expected? https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/20/politics/trump-georgia-appeal-fani-willis/index.html

 

The fact that it doesn't stay prosecution is good.  Unless the COA is markedly pro-Trump, I'd expect it to go nowhere fast.  Presumably, this is reviewed by something akin to abuse of discretion and would be a steep hill to get it flipped, even by competent counsel.  It results in Trump's spending money (wherever it comes from) that is not going to his campaign on something that will likely not bear fruit.  I'm good with it.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, dcbc said:

The fact that it doesn't stay prosecution is good.  Unless the COA is markedly pro-Trump, I'd expect it to get knocked down.  Presumably, this is reviewed by something akin to abuse of discretion and would be a steep hill to get it flipped, even by competent counsel.  It results in Trump spending money (wherever it comes from) that is not going to his campaign on something that will likely not bear fruit.  I'm good with it.

Yeah, it feels like firing Wade solved the issue and it won't go anywhere with the COA. 

Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

Yeah, it feels like firing Wade solved the issue and it won't go anywhere with the COA. 

Having the prosecutor removed for impropriety unrelated to the case is one thing.  Having the case dismissed because of it seems like a pipe dream.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

The fact that it doesn't stay prosecution is good.  Unless the COA is markedly pro-Trump, I'd expect it to go nowhere fast.  Presumably, this is reviewed by something akin to abuse of discretion and would be a steep hill to get it flipped, even by competent counsel.  It results in Trump spending money (wherever it comes from) that is not going to his campaign on something that will likely not bear fruit.  I'm good with it.

And it sounds like the judge said this should be done in the quickest manner possible, not like that cunt judge Cannon down in FLA

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

It's not slowing anything down since prosecution may continue.   But I can't imagine it will take long to review.  The whole thing was a red herring. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...