2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

As this is a Federal case, the appeal will not be a repeat trial. Instead, Trump's lawyers will have to argue points of law.

They mostly already have. The appeal brief on the assault trial has already been filed.

 

The appeal of the defamation-only case has been filed but no brief as yet however the appeal will likely follow the motion filed for a new trial in that case as rejeted by Judge Kaplan.

On 3/7/2024 at 2:12 AM, Danderman123 said:

Getting back to the topic, why hasn't Trump posted bond for his appeal?

He has!  Over 90 million 

17 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

But one probable aspect of the second appeal is argument about the size of the verdict.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=140964

 

Are the Courts Likely to Sustain the $65 Million in Punitive Damages Awarded Against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case?

It looks like Round 3 is in the works.

 

I can't believe Trump's stupidity. Can one of you Trump fans explain what is going through his mind?

A question for the experts:

 

Given this is a Federal case, what power would an elected Trump have to stop collection of the verdict? I am assuming that he wouldn't care about the political fallout - what could he possibly do?

 

I am thinking something extreme, like launching a Federal criminal case against Ms. Carroll, which could stymie her, I don't know.

Well the above scenario almost presumes that Trump's chances of being elected President are greater than the chance that he wins on 2 appeals which is something I care NOT to ponder.

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

A question for the experts:

 

Given this is a Federal case, what power would an elected Trump have to stop collection of the verdict? I am assuming that he wouldn't care about the political fallout - what could he possibly do?

 

I am thinking something extreme, like launching a Federal criminal case against Ms. Carroll, which could stymie her, I don't know.

 

I'm not an expert but I play one on the internet.

 

Trump would not have direct power but he could appoint an AG who would stop the prosecution. That might set off a constitutional crisis but Trump could be reasonably assured the SC would step in to save him.

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

I'm not an expert but I play one on the internet.

 

Trump would not have direct power but he could appoint an AG who would stop the prosecution. That might set off a constitutional crisis but Trump could be reasonably assured the SC would step in to save him.

I am talking about the Carroll civil case. What could a president do to upend a Federal civil case?

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

I am talking about the Carroll civil case. What could a president do to upend a Federal civil case?

 

Same thing, the fed prosecutor answers to the AG. Put Bill Barr back in there and it's all over.

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Same thing, the fed prosecutor answers to the AG. Put Bill Barr back in there and it's all over.

What can an Attorney General do to protect Trump against a verdict in a Federal civil trial?

 

As it would seem neither of the 2 civil appeals re: the Carroll cases will be decided before 05 NOV 2024 election day so you can maybe wait on your hypothetical hypotheticals until the results are in.

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

It looks like Round 3 is in the works.

 

I can't believe Trump's stupidity. Can one of you Trump fans explain what is going through his mind?

a/ it keeps him in the public spotlight- any publicity is good publicity in a campaign.

b/ it garners him more support= votes.

c/ he knows that when he wins it all goes away for 4 more years

d/ it makes the opposition seem desperate= less votes.

e/ he enjoys rubbing the opposition's nose in it

f/ he gets to jazz up his base during the campaign rallies with it

 

Pretty much win win for Trump, as long as he wins in November.

21 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

I am thinking something extreme, like launching a Federal criminal case against Ms. Carroll, which could stymie her, I don't know.

I can't understand why Trump has not sued her for false accusations. The onus would be on her to prove that she is telling the truth, and I for one don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth about Trump.

51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

a/ it keeps him in the public spotlight- any publicity is good publicity in a campaign.

b/ it garners him more support= votes.

c/ he knows that when he wins it all goes away for 4 more years

d/ it makes the opposition seem desperate= less votes.

e/ he enjoys rubbing the opposition's nose in it

f/ he gets to jazz up his base during the campaign rallies with it

 

Pretty much win win for Trump, as long as he wins in November.

So far, this 'win win' strategy has resulted in losing half a billion dollars. Let this 'lucky streak' continue in the criminal cases!

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

So far, this 'win win' strategy has resulted in losing half a billion dollars. Let this 'lucky streak' continue in the criminal cases!

This beach guy has no idea about the US elections, period. He can follow Fox News and hate all the way to November 5th.

If you want to know how he will react when Trump loses, I bet he goes back to that echo chamber and joins the crybabies

Here’s a rape victim that doesn’t believe Carroll.  It’s obvious it’s about gaining shopping money.  Love the part about Carroll going to buy her “Dykes on Bikes”lawyer a new motorcycle.  

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nancy-mace-pushes-back-george-stephanopoulos-heated-exchange-trump-support-trying-shame-me

47 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Here’s a rape victim that doesn’t believe Carroll.  It’s obvious it’s about gaining shopping money.  Love the part about Carroll going to buy her “Dykes on Bikes”lawyer a new motorcycle.  

https://www.foxnews.com/media/nancy-mace-pushes-back-george-stephanopoulos-heated-exchange-trump-support-trying-shame-me

Where does Mace say or infer that she doesn't believe Carroll.

Yet, you seem to be accusing Carroll of 'making things up'.

That's settled, 'judges and two separate juries have found Trump liable for rape'.  

3 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Where does Mace say or infer that she doesn't believe Carroll.

"I’m not going to sit here on your show and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim," Mace said. "I’m not going to do that." 

 

BTW The Hill is running the same story with the same quote as above:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4522502-nancy-mace-george-stephanopoulos-trump-endorsement/

Edited March 11, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

If I were Carroll I’d be instructing my lawyers to take a very close look at that Bond to ensure it provides the protection of her court award that it purports to.

 

Voters might want to have a look too, to ensure they are aware of any debts of gratitude the hopeful candidate for the Presidency might owe to any guarantors’ to the bond.

28 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

"I’m not going to sit here on your show and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim," Mace said. "I’m not going to do that." 

Yep, disgraceful gaslighting by Mace.

 

The question was clearly not intended to ‘shame her’.

 

She did however shame herself with her support for self confessed molester of women who is recorded in court records as a rapist.

 

 

Edited March 11, 20242 yr by Chomper Higgot

41 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

"I’m not going to sit here on your show and be asked a question meant to shame me about another potential rape victim," Mace said. "I’m not going to do that." 

 

BTW The Hill is running the same story with the same quote as above:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4522502-nancy-mace-george-stephanopoulos-trump-endorsement/

How is your post relevant to my question? 'Where does Mace say or infer that she doesn't believe Carroll'.

Paradoxically, Mace goes on and tries to shame Carroll without any mention of believing her or not, with:

"And quite frankly, E. Jean Carroll's comments when she did get the judgment," Mace continued.....makes it harder for women to come forward when they make a mockery of rape".

6 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Where does Mace say or infer that she doesn't believe Carroll.

Yet, you seem to be accusing Carroll of 'making things up'.

That's settled, 'judges and two separate juries have found Trump liable for rape'.  

 You’re exactly correct.  Making it up.

1 minute ago, G_Money said:

 You’re exactly correct.  Making it up.

I thought you were 'making it up' but I didn't want to shame you.

13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can't understand why Trump has not sued her for false accusations. The onus would be on her to prove that she is telling the truth, and I for one don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth about Trump.

The onus would be on him to prove she's lying.

“George Stephanopoulos tried to bully me and shame me as a rape survivor over my support for Donald Trump, which is insane to me, because he wasn’t found guilty of rape anywhere,” she said on Fox News’s “The Faulkner Focus.” 

 

“I wasn’t brought on to talk about my own rape. I didn’t agree to any of that. And he shares the speech I gave, impassioned speech five years ago about telling my story for the first time. It’s very difficult for me to watch that speech. It’s painful,” she said.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4524362-nancy-mace-george-stephanopoulos-tried-to-bully-me-during-testy-interview/

On 3/9/2024 at 1:06 PM, Walker88 said:

Right now it is just speculation as to how trump came up with the bond through Chubb. Obviously journalists will try to get a scoop, such as what was pledged, what is the cost, was there a co-signer, etc.

 

In a sense that is moot, because as part of the process of running for a national political office, a full financial disclosure must be submitted, which includes detail as to what outstanding loans or commitments one has and to whom. The public has a right to know to whom any official is beholden.

 

Whether trump likes it or not, this bond---and whatever he does to try to post the $453 million bond for his bank and insurance fraud convictions---will be made public.

The $90+ million was underwritten by Federal Insurance of Indiana founded in 1901.

 

Once the bond has no further objections from team Carroll and is approved by the Court, they have all the information from FIC/Chubb they are going to get.

 

If one were to ask more in depth questions as above, FIC might say that was all handled by Chubb re-insurance subsidiaries in Bermuda or Switzerland or Lloyd's of London..

 

Go ask them.

12 hours ago, LosLobo said:

How is your post relevant to my question? 'Where does Mace say or infer that she doesn't believe Carroll'.

I posted what she did say.

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

The $90+ million was underwritten by Federal Insurance of Indiana founded in 1901.

 

Once the bond has no further objections from team Carroll and is approved by the Court, they have all the information from FIC/Chubb they are going to get.

 

If one were to ask more in depth questions as above, FIC might say that was all handled by Chubb re-insurance subsidiaries in Bermuda or Switzerland or Lloyd's of London..

 

Go ask them.

I very much doubt reinsurance is involved, collateral seems much more likely.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I very much doubt reinsurance is involved, collateral seems much more likely.

Even so. Once the Carroll team and the Judge sign off, I wouldn't expect much more if any further info to be revealed.

Edited March 12, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

She’s Expressing ‘ Serious Concerns'

 

Yeah, must be a bummer thinking she'd get all that loot and then not.

That'd be like winning Lotto and losing the ticket.

 

I feel for her, really I do- just jokin'.