Trump unable to get $464m bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, bamnutsak said:

 

A lot of people say this but, assuming no collusion, I think prices would be closer to market than fire.

 

He made $100 million on the D.C. Post Office property.

 

 

Why would anyone buy something for a market price when they know it has to be sold quickly?

 

[Eric Loh]

14 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Why would anyone buy something for a market price when they know it has to be sold quickly?

 

A term synonymous with the term short sale and can be a whopping 30% to 80% below market value. How nice.

[bamnutsak]

18 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Why would anyone buy something for a market price when they know it has to be sold quickly?

 

 

I merely suggested that the price might be closer to "market" price.

 

Why do people, or REITs, pay the price they do? There is a limited supply of RE, and more than one party may be interested, driving the price up.

 

 

[JonnyF]

29 minutes ago, gargamon said:

You shouldn't comment if you don't understand how it works. To appeal a court decision against you, you need to put up in cash or bond for the total amount plus any interest that would accrue while the appeal goes forward. It makes perfect sense, as it prevents the losers (like Trump) from delaying the payout the courts have already levied against them. 

 

I understand perfectly how it works.😆

 

He needs to match the ludicrous amount that was awarded in order to appeal the decision. If he doesn't have it, he can't appeal. In order words, he needs to be uber wealthy to appeal the crazy decision to make him pay an unworldly sum of $464 million. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

 

I have no doubt that the ridiculous amount awarded was to stop him appealing it. $464 million for inflating assets is insane and clearly designed to wrap him up in the legal cobweb in the build up to the election. 

 

Yet the more this happens, the more popular he is. 😆

 

Maybe you could revert to insulting him and his fanbase? That's sure to work....

 

 

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, Dolf said:

Interesting

 

 

Yes, very interesting!

 

I would suggest O'Leary as a Canadian businessman and citizen would have little experience in US property development and law and would not qualify as an expert in this field.

 

O'Leary is a rightwing Canadian millionaire businessman and TV personality who ran for PM and leader of the Conservative Party in 2017 on a similar platform to Trump, with some even saying that he is a Trump clone.

Kevin O'Leary - Wikipedia

[gargamon]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I understand perfectly how it works.😆

 

He needs to match the ludicrous amount that was awarded in order to appeal the decision. If he doesn't have it, he can't appeal. In order words, he needs to be uber wealthy to appeal the crazy decision to make him pay an unworldly sum of $464 million. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

 

I have no doubt that the ridiculous amount awarded was to stop him appealing it. $464 million for inflating assets is insane and clearly designed to wrap him up in the legal cobweb in the build up to the election. 

 

Yet the more this happens, the more popular he is. 😆

 

Maybe you could revert to insulting him and his fanbase? That's sure to work....

 

 

But Trump said recently, while under oath, that he had over 400 million in cash. You don't think he was lying do you? I feel more indictments coming, perjury for example. 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, gargamon said:

But Trump said recently, while under oath, that he had over 400 million in cash. You don't think he was lying do you? I feel more indictments coming, perjury for example. 

 

Maybe he had $410 million. That's over 400 but still not enough. 

 

Or maybe he doesn't want to put every last cent he has up to appeal such a ridiculous decision. I know I wouldn't want to. Of course, if he had Bill Gates type of money it wouldn't be a problem.

 

Like I said, the best justice money can buy. Trying to ensnare him in legal battles to the point his political ambitions suffer. To deny this is the reality is disingenuous in the extreme. 

 

Won't work though. As the polls are showing. 

[bamnutsak]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Won't work though. As the polls are showing. 

 

So this is a good thing? Right?

 

 

[Berkshire]

Mark Levin--hardcore Trumper--asked on Twitter/X why Republican billionaires weren't coming to Trump's aid.  He got some funny (and truthful) answers....

 

"Why can't the billionaire help himself?"

"Because they won’t get their money back, Mark."

"Maybe because Trump is a terrible credit risk who someday soon will probably spend the rest of his life in prison?"

"Why can’t you, as a Renfield-esque deranged Trump sycophant, pause for a moment and wonder why a man who claims HE is a multi-billionaire who UNDERVALUED all his assets can’t come up with $ himself and constantly begs his brain dead cult members for money?"

"I think it’s an outrage for you to expect others to pony up for Trump. Why should they? He’s a billionaire, right?"

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-levin-gets-schooled-why-010243159.html

[Woof999]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Whatever happens, it is just going to make Trump more popular and garner more votes.

 

Probably true. You cannot fix stupid.

 

Let's make America COVFEFE again.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

So this is a good thing? Right?

 

 

 

Of course it would be a good thing if politicians were not prevented from standing for election due to politically motivated cases and rulings. Or a lack of sufficient funds to appeal ludicrous awards approaching half a billion dollars. I would have thought that was obvious.  

 

Just like Brexit, the will of the people should not be overturned in courts of law (see Gina Miller's attempts if you are not familiar).

 

The electorate should decide. Not judges, lawyers, DA's, political opponents, media etc.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Of course it would be a good thing if politicians were not prevented from standing for election due to politically motivated cases and rulings. Or a lack of sufficient funds to appeal ludicrous awards approaching half a billion dollars. I would have thought that was obvious.  

 

Just like Brexit, the will of the people should not be overturned in courts of law (see Gina Miller's attempts if you are not familiar).

 

The electorate should decide. Not judges, lawyers, DA's, political opponents, media etc.

 

On matters of law it’s the courts that decide.

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Remind me Jonny, who was it who inflated their assets?

 

Quoting only the second half a sentence like that in order to change the underlying meaning is not only unscrupulous tactics, but against forum rules.

 

Come on Chomps, you're better than that. Or at least you used to be. 

[OneMoreFarang]

Obviously, that will motivate Trump even more to become the next president - using any way he can. 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

On matters of law it’s the courts that decide.

 

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.

 

Yes the courts decide. Just like they decided not to allow Move Forward to take power after winning the election in Thailand. Similar standards it seems.  

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Obviously, that will motivate Trump even more to become the next president - using any way he can. 

 

The popular vote is probably not one of them.

[Berkshire]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Obviously, that will motivate Trump even more to become the next president - using any way he can. 

Yeah, Trump's pretty motivated.  His lies are getting more outlandish. 

[Berkshire]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The electorate should decide. Not judges, lawyers, DA's, political opponents, media etc.

 

Yes, the electorate gets to decide who wins an election.  But it's the courts (and the evidence) who gets to decide whether someone has committed a crime.

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.

 

Yes the courts decide. Just like they decided not to allow Move Forward to take power after winning the election in Thailand. Similar standards it seems.  

Different country, different courts, different legal system.

Or did the obvious false equivalence evade you as you made it?

 

 

 

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Different country, different courts, different legal system.

 

Same intent. 

[JonnyF]

22 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Yes, the electorate gets to decide who wins an election.  But it's the courts (and the evidence) who gets to decide whether someone has committed a crime.

 

Just like Thailand. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

Same intent. 

Another ill informed and baseless assertion.

[ozimoron]

Trump:

 

"A bond of the size set by the Democrat Club-controlled Judge, in Corrupt, Racist Letitia James’ unlawful Witch Hunt, is unConstitutional, un-American, unprecedented, and practically impossible for ANY Company, including one as successful as mine.

 

The amount of the penalty wasn't pulled out of a dark place arbitrarily but supported by the evidence produced in court. Trump simply benefited by the amount of the penalty plus a bit for punishment as is usually the case in fraud judgements.

[G_Money]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-weigh-trumps-options-failure-secure-464m-appeal-bond-uncharted-territory
 

Trump will win again in the Supreme Court.

 

8th Amendment.

[Georgealbert]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump winning will be very good news and if revenge occurs I'll be lovin' it.

From not wanting Trump to run at all, last year, I've come full circle and want him to win biggly.

 

Using the "justice system" against a political opponent is unacceptable behaviour and must be punished.

More total nonsense from that empty vacuum chamber. Hope that ignore list is still growing, so you can remand with you mushroom type understanding.

 

You state how good it will be to see Trump elected and get his political revenge on everyone, and then cry that your hero is being victimised, for the crimes he has been found guilty of, by the others using the  justice system. Oh I remember you claimed you did not support trump in the past, just one of his cheer leaders every day.

 

Your only consistency is how inconsistent you are, maybe that comes when you have issues and you talk to yourself and only listen to yourself. 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

Trump is finding out the hard way why billionaires with political enemies and legal vulnerabilities don't run for high political office themselves, but instead have cleaner-handed frontmen run.

[herfiehandbag]

4 hours ago, Dolf said:

Interesting

 

 

Where will it all end?

 

The very rich having to follow the law just like the common herd?

 

Appalling, the end of an American dream!

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

The popular vote is probably not one of them.

Nor last time!

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

Trump is finding out the hard way why billionaires with political enemies and legal vulnerabilities don't run for high political office themselves, but instead have cleaner-handed frontmen run.

How about billionaires should not be above the law and not run their office like his corporation. 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

How about billionaires should not be above the law and not run their office like his corporation. 

That, too.