778
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump's assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month's judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump's lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount. 

In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a "practical impossibility" for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as "about 30 surety companies" have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.

To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—"a sum he simply does not have," reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TipRing@lemmy.world 156 points 5 months ago

Why would he need to raise the money? He told the court he had $500M in liquid assets.

Could it be that he was being untruthful in his statement to the court? I think there is a word for that.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

He testified to $400M, and he already put up a $100M bond for the other thing. But the whole point of this is that he overvalues things, right? I bet when his people had to get down to the actual state of the accounts and not what DJT feels they are, it was probably only $200M or so that is liquid.

It's not worth going after him again for overstating that in court. It's too easy to skirt around. His punishment will come when the DA starts seizing and auctioning stuff to pay the judgement.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

He put up I believe $2m for the other thing. The rest was covered by the bond company.

So he should still have at least $398m if he claimed 400...

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

That's not quite how it works. When the bond company writes the bond, they don't just take the $2m from the client and then the client is off the hook. They ask the client to put up collateral. So in order for Trump to secure this bond, he would have had to set aside the full amount of the bond and say "If the verdict doesn't get reduced on appeal, I am giving you all this stuff, and not using it for anything else in the meantime".

All Trump is getting for that fee is not actually having to sell those assets now, and have any overage refunded if the appeal gets the verdict reduced. (Given the interest rates right now, the passive income on that kind of cash is not trivial).

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

True, but we were talking only about liquid assets here, I thought. Otherwise, what would the $400m you mentioned be referring to? Or - what specifically did you mean and do you have a source by any chance?

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

A source for which part?

I've read some different things about what those bond companies will take as collateral. They are not likely to take on real estate as collateral. Not only is it a pain to unload, but the properties also likely have existing liens on them, reducing the value that can be recovered. The bond companies are well within their rights to say that they will only accept cash or marketable securities as collateral.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago

With how much Trump is known to fuck contractors I wouldn’t be surprised if the liens are more valuable than the properties themselves.

And it’s the fucking contractors that vote for him ffs.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 16 points 5 months ago

I suspect that trump life is over if he fails to win in November, he will either take it himself or it will be effectively over bc he will be in jail and penny less. To that end he does not care about consequences of some extra crimes in the near term.

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

He's a serial narcissist. Maybe one of the worst in the current world.

No way does he take his own life. That would require having empathy, which he absolutely does not have.

No. trump won't take his own life. He's not committed to any cause like someone like Hitler, nor does he feel backed into a corner.

What he'll do instead is pander/cater to his unhinged base and con them out of what little money they have left.

That's all after he pillages the coffers of the RNC for what he can use there to pay for his legal fees/woes.

It's possible, and I don't want to hope for too much here, but it's possible, that trump maybe legit takes down most of the RNC/republicans if he fails to win in November.

If he wins though, I think we're all pretty fucked. He'll use tax money to pay for that judgement or some shit. He has no morals, ethics, or shame.

[-] Schadrach 2 points 4 months ago

He’ll use tax money to pay for that judgement or some shit.

Can't do that. President doesn't control the purse, both revenues and budget come from Congress. He'd have to get Congress to include paying his legal fees in the budget and manage to pass that budget. Then he could pay for the judgement with tax money.

You know that whole "fiscal cliff" thing that keeps happening? That's a consequence of this - Congress assigns a maximum amount of debt that the President can issue bonds until it is reached to pay for things in the budget (issuing bonds is technically a power of Congress, but they delegate it up to a set value via legislation so that they don't have to bother). Congress also assigns how much money will be spent on each thing (aka the budget). When the President is required to spend more by the budget than there is in tax revenue plus bonds he is allowed to issue, that's the fiscal cliff. It's literally a problem that Congress creates (by creating a budget that spends more than is available in taxes and bonds), that only Congress can fix (typically by raising the amount the President can issue in bonds), but that usually gets blamed on the President.

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

That's good to know, thank you for the detailed explanation.

I'm still concerned he'll do it, and his sycophant supporters will enable him and let him do it because they see this as him being politically persecuted. You're probably right, but if trump wins, nothing is normal, there is no rule of law.

Can’t do that. President doesn’t control the purse

And we'll see how well that statement holds up when it runs up against a candidate who's already been impeached twice, is overleveraged and compromised from foreign assets, who's ON RECORD HAVING SAID HE'D BE A DICTATOR WITH ALL THE POWERS OF A DICTATOR FOR THE FIRST FEW DAYS HE WAS IN OFFICE IN HIS SECOND TERM.

That's how dictatorships start, they ask for the powers for just a few, just a little bit, and then it never gets returned.

So I have low confidence that anything we consider rule of law today will be in effect if trump should win a second term, with all the insane support he's got within the GOP right now that currently controls the lower house.

[-] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Nah, he'll start screaming about rigged elections and try for a coup.

THAT he will do regardless of election outcome

[-] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 15 points 5 months ago

Maybe he was talking in terms of Zimbabwe dollars

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Fat fucker has no clue Zimbabwe is a thing.

Best he can do is Man, Woman, Boat, Plane.

[-] myrrh@ttrpg.network 3 points 4 months ago

...i thought his was person, woman, man, camera, TV?..

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah, you're right, you should be president I guess.

[-] myrrh@ttrpg.network 1 points 4 months ago

...ow; i walked right into that one!..

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

I thought he had claimed he didn't? Do you know where I can find this information?

[-] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago
[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

It's Trump...I'm sure he claimed both and neither.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Lol entirely possible

[-] leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl 2 points 5 months ago

Could it be that he was being untruthful in his statement to the court? I think there is a word for that.

cnn: (from yesterday news) "told fictional stories"

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago

Fuck even liberal media won’t call a spade a spade.

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, everyone's scared of using the L-word because of the legal liabilities involved. And if I was the editor, I would 100% assume trump would attempt to fucking sue my paper for libel if I say anything that gives him an inch.

So that's probably why everyone's scared of saying "Lied", because trump can, will, and has sued people for things like that.

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
778 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18601 readers
5086 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS