KEY POINTS
- Donald Trump should have pledged real estate to the courts if he were “truly unable” to secure a bond, the New York attorney general’s office said.
- Instead, Trump claimed it was “impossible” for him to get a bond using his properties, but did not provide any hard evidence for this, the AG’s office said.
Donald Trump should have pledged real estate he owns as collateral against a $464 million business fraud judgment if he were “truly unable” to secure an appeal bond for that amount, the New York attorney general’s office said in a court filing Wednesday.
Trump also failed to provide evidence supporting his claim this week that it was “impossible” to obtain an appeal bond by using the properties as collateral, a lawyer for AG Letitia James wrote.
“Defendants supply no documentary evidence that demonstrates precisely what real property they offered” to potential insurers," wrote Dennis Fan, senior solicitor general in the AG’s office, in the filing to Manhattan appeals court judges.
Nor did they report “on what terms that property was offered, or precisely why” bond insurers “were unwilling to accept the assets.”
He’s not claiming poverty, he’s claiming that he will win on appeal, but his wealth is all locked up in real estate, and to make the bond in time he would have to quickly sell a lot of assets, and would likely get taken advantage of while doing so.
It doesnt matter and it doesn’t fit trumps typical braggadocios speech, which is why I have no idea why this constantly get misinterpreted.
It’s even more likely that his ownership stake in the real estate holdings has been mortgaged to the hilt and he actually doesn’t have any capital available at all. The most likely reality is that he’s going to have to declare bankruptcy, and is terrified of the public finding out.
It was also testified in a deposition (or similar that would be perjury for lying, maybe not by Trump I can’t recall) that he (or Trump org?) had 400million liquidity, so it shouldn’t be that big of an issue for him to come up with it. Even if he had to deal with the defamation bond. So he (or his lackey) told the courts that they could cover it, I mean a real estate billionaire down 100million should be able to come up with 150million (sorry if math is off, liquidity - defamation bond - tax-fraud bond difference) from non liquid assets without too much work right? I’m sure some bond company would cover it with proper collateral anyways. Hah. These are the chickens coming to roost you orange turd.
That $400 million is, apparently, “operating capital” intended to keep all of his business ventures working, and, without it, everything would cease to function. Which is plausible.
But who really gives a fuck? Certainly not the courts, nor should they. Also, he may not even have that left after getting that ~$90m bond for the E Jean Carrol case (another reason this judge isn’t listening to Trump’s cries for mercy). That bond probably cost twice that after all the fees.
He’s so superfucked.
I bet Nikki is excited.
I honestly don’t think it MATTERS anymore. He could go on and tell the camera, dead on, that “I lied about every last bit of money I own, I lied about how I made that money, I lied about every single thing I ever said.” His cult has a momentum of its own now, it’s arguably far beyond his control - even if he did manage to go up and read off every single lie and WHY it’s a lie, it wouldn’t matter, because his followers would just go “well he was FORCED to say that” or somesuch and that reality would be accepted as gospel. Cults, especially cults of personality, have a nasty habit of gathering momentum far exceeding the object of worship.
“It’s a code, he’s trying to tell us the election was stolen with fraudulent ballots.”
The cult loves having their persecution complex by proxy through Donald. He will say “they are coming after you” and “I am the only one standing in their way.” But, you know, with the weird meandering asides and the accordion hands.
“I only paused my campaign.”
Yeah I’m not speaking to what the truth of the matter, only what he’s claiming. It would be surprising to me that he has nowhere to go for the money, as you say.
It’s just mind numbing to come into every one of these threads and see this nearly exact misinterpretation of what he is saying.
Well, one thing plays into the other— he can’t get a bond because he’d have to put up collateral, and all of these bond companies know he’s up to his cotton-candy bouffant in debt, so all of his properties probably aren’t worth shit, or, at least not worth anything close to what he claims. After all, he was just found liable in this very case for lying for years about that very thing.
How everyone is missing the giant, Raiders of the Lost Ark-style boulder of irony about to crush Trump is what perplexes me.
I can quickly come up with some reasons why they might not want to put up the collateral that have nothing to do with his actual finances: like public backlash, being notorious for not paying back his debts, and being convicted of lying about how much stuff is worth (so not trustworthy in that regard).
It’s just none of this has anything to do with what he’s actually saying. Which is ultimately my point.
And we are both sitting here with our popcorn anxiously awaiting it to all come crashing down. It can’t happen soon enough, IMO.
Those are all other possibilities, I just don’t find them as likely IMO. But they could be. But, either way, my point is that - and I was more explicit about it in another comment - it doesn’t matter what he says, especially to the court. He has the right to appeal and the right to post a bond, but Trump has no right to be able to afford a bond, and if he can’t, tough shit.
And he’s got 4 1/2 days to beg, borrow, or steal it before the People of the State of New York come after his grifting ass.
If he has equity why couldn’t he mortgage it?
Frankly, if I were a mortgage lender, I might be a little hesitant to lend to a guy who is in trouble because he was defrauding real estate lenders.
The speculation is that due to him fraudulently over-valuing his properties (as just proven in court) to borrow more than they are worth against them, he likely has negative equity on those properties. Can’t borrow against equity if you’re underwater on all your mortgages.
I didn’t claim he had equity. I did nothing other than challenge the claim that he’s pleading poverty.