Posted on 02/28/2024 10:44:41 AM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s lawyers told a New York appellate court Wednesday that he’s prepared to post a $100 million bond to halt collection of his staggering civil fraud penalty, arguing that provisions of the verdict make it impossible for the former president to secure a bond for the full amount.
Trump’s lawyers floated the offer in court papers asking the state’s mid-level appeals court for an order preventing New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office from enforcing the $454 million judgment while his appeal plays out. Trump would have to post the full amount to pause collection automatically.
The appeals court was expected to hear arguments at an emergency hearing Wednesday.
Trump’s lawyers argued that a provision in Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 ruling banning Trump, his company, and co-defendants from obtaining loans from New York banks for three years prevents them from obtaining a bond covering the full judgment. In all, Trump and his co-defendants owe more than $465 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Hunter who has no role in government ignored a lawful subpoena and Congress did nothing but write nasty letters. They finally negotiated a deal where he will testify I think today is day one. Trump aides Bannon and Navarro objected to dubious subpoenas on the defense that their advice to the POTUS is privileged (which it has historically been) and they are going to the lockup.
GOP will not do what Dems do. Which I think is the principled position to take - but they need to figure out a way to get some credit for it with the public for showing flexibility and patience and now abusing their powers; while at the same time showing how the Democrats routinely behave in vindictive manner, show trials, and have little regard for process and precedent if it suits their news cycle.
I wouldn't count on it for that system. They'll find a way to hang on to it whether it's legal or not.
IMHO, Trump shouldn’t have wasted time appealing within the NYS court system, he should’ve immediately appealed in federal court and asked for a temporary injunction against NY’s collection efforts. This is an 8th Amendment case, and the fact that Judge Eng(m)oron’s ruling doesn’t permit him or his companies to borrow any money (and thus preventing him from getting a bond) is just adding insult to Constitutional injury.
In war you need to get off the high horse of principles and fight dirty to win. You know the left fights dirty and if we don’t do the same you might as well surrender and join the communist party now so you can get on the dole.
I understand that. The moral hazard is you never get back to good principle and governance. It just becomes perpetual vindictiveness.
Though I concede, a lot of the GOP’s problem is the RINO squeamishness; they are in the bag for other interests and don’t want to rock that boat.
Still, I want the government to act in a consistent, legal, logical, fair, and extremely limited manner. Having to play this game, when does it end?
Trump’s team is focused on schedule, including election schedule. If they submitted an 8th Amendment motion and I was a SCOTUS Justice, I would say yes, but I’m not. What if SCOTUS decided not to hear the motion, or scheduled the hearing after November (after a 3 month delay)?
A team of hitmen would be a heck of a lot cheaper. Just sayin’...
I would guess that some Dems are thinking along the same lines. Imagine Haley vs. the Biden gang.
When you put it like that one might the impression that there’s a little money laundering going on. Or, do they call it something else when it’s Democrats?
AP
I don’t believe it.
Democrats?
Money laundering?
Suggesting such a thing could get you jailed.
We could use a little Pinochet action right now to get rid of the communists. Then we will be good for another 50 years.
Dems have a habit of taking out each other, though.
Calling Elon, calling Elon …..
Will Trump be allowed to use campaign money for this obscenity?
I don't trust AP either, but sometimes they tell the truth.
Same story from a dozen other sources. WSJ etc. I wonder if Trump Legal thought SCOTUS needed some proof that Trump was trying to compromise.
Apparently, the DNC stooge-"judge" Anil "Anal" Singh continued the Democrat Party lawfare against President Trump.
I have a feeling we are not getting the whole story. Did you notice that after Trump proposed the $100M bond and it was rejected, SCOTUS just happened to agree to hear Trump’s immunity appeal? Coincidence?
Quick response since I’m on the phone, but an easy fix for this would be limiting donations to constituents. The only people that can donate to a politician are those in that politician’s district. Likewise, companies can only donate where they have a tax nexus.
That’d fix quite a lot of issues!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.