Legal expert: Trump lawyer begging for “mercy” suggests he’s “having difficulty” coming up with bond
Legal expert: Trump lawyer begging for “mercy” suggests he’s “having difficulty” coming up with bond
The NY Times' Maggie Haberman reported "there is clearly a problem so far in acquiring a bond.”
You're viewing a single thread.
"Requiring President Trump to post a bond or other security before this Court's ruling on his stay motion threatens to impose irreparable injury in the form of substantial costs (which may or may not be recoverable)," the attorneys wrote.
I wish the judge's ruling would simply quote this part and then say, "Yep." And then the legalese indicating the the request is denied.
(Also -- I actually don't agree that him trying to squirm out of paying means anything in particular about whether he has the money. Delaying and avoiding paying big bills and hoping that if he stalls them enough, they'll go away, has been Trump's MO since the 1980s.)
I assume he is unable to come up with enough cash because his liquid cash has been worn down and he can't free up enough from his illiquid funds because that is in properties that he can't sell or securities that are not in the green.
He could put up securities or even property as collateral for an asset back loan to cover the bond, but that comes with other issues.
Wasn't he using campaign money to pay for his legal fees?
Why use your own money when you can use somebody else's?
There is some stuff he couldn't use campaign money on, which ate into his cash reserves.
I honestly don't think he has much cash money available. It seems his best move would be to sell a building that nobody wants to buy, or wash some cash by "selling" sneakers.
He can sell, unless there’s some really hokey contract clause with local/state government regarding continuation of service or whatever.
He doesn’t want to sell, and not at the discount rate a quick sale like this would require. He screwed himself on getting loans even before the judgement blocking financing the penalty, what banker would look at an adjudicated conman, with a history of non-payment even when court ordered, and seriously present half a billy as a good investment for their fund/shareholders?
I think you'd have to be stupid to get involved with Trump financially. Even if he secures a loan with assets a) he's likely inflated the value of those assets, b) who knows how many other loans he's used the assets as collateral for, and c) if you have to repossess Trump assets you know that he will either smear shit on the walls on his way out or will sic his cult on you. Oh and d) if he wins the election, there's a decent chance he's going to alter the deal and you better pray he doesn't alter it further.
His problem is that, as a rich person in the US, he's only used to getting money, not paying any, let alone being made to pay money that he owes.
"Requiring President Trump to post a bond or other security before this Court's ruling on his stay motion threatens to impose irreparable injury in the form of substantial costs (which may or may not be recoverable)," the attorneys wrote.
"We assert that Trump should receive special benefits that no other appellant would ever receive."
He might be cash poor but he has tons of assets he could sell . Didn't see say lard-a-lago is worth 1.8B or something? Put it on the market and prove it. If that were true then selling it would make him a real billionaire overnight.
Does he even fully own it, or any property?
He's not president atm, is he? Why does he call him that then? Call him former president if you need to.
That is historically how you formally address former presidents.
It's a weird thing they do for anybody that held an official title previously (maybe just in America), I've seen it before for Mayors, Governors, Senators, Presidents. It seems like such a confusing thing, like shouldn't they be referred to as "Citizen [[name]]" or something, to indicate the change in position?
Being willing to performatively honor Trump's delusions, e.g. calling him the president because he is happier with that than with being the former president, is a key requirement for him to be happy with your job performance. It is probably the most valuable requirement for working with him, in his mind.
Because God-king has yet to be installed as an official title
I believe in this case not including "former" makes more sense due to it being lawyers speaking on behalf of former President Trump. He may be named as such in court documents as well.
If it was you and I speaking of former President Trump we would use "former". If you were speaking to former President Trump, you would address him directly as President Trump unless you were intending to be "disrespectful".
Used to be normal to call a former POTUS "President".
https://uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/contacting-former-presidents/
OTOH, I'm reading that's not correct. 🤷🏻♂️