Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, firmly in the liberal camp and firmly anti-Trump, expressed worries about the precedent the Trump case could set. From her column this week: “The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid — and that the penalty levied against him was therefore wildly excessive. The conundrum is that the very size of the judgment, and the consequent size of the bond that Trump is required to post, might make him unable to appeal. Trump could pursue his case, but in the meantime, James would be entitled to seize and sell off the former president’s assets. That can’t be right. It would mean that the more outrageous and disproportionate a damages award is, the harder it is to appeal.”
Mar 31, 2024, 8:54 AM
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Progressive commentator Cenk Uygur, also firmly anti-Trump, had a similar view. “To me, putting up all the cash upfront before you appeal the case seems draconian for everyone, not just Trump,” Uygur said on his program The Young Turks. “But what if he wins the appeal? So you made him sell all of his properties to get the collateral, but then he can’t buy them back. … So when his lawyer says ‘irreparable harm,’ in this case, financially speaking, it would be irreparable harm.”
Mar 31, 2024, 8:55 AM