Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

angrychair

(8,758 posts)
31. It is privilege
Tue Mar 26, 2024, 02:41 PM
Mar 26

The number decided on by the court, the $400+ million dollars, is a specific calculation, a claw back amount, it's not arbitrary or compensatory. It represents the real harm to the state.
The $175 million is a 62% reduction is the bond requirement by law for appeal.
If he skips then the state only gets 38% of the claw back it was owed. Most of Trump's properties are heavily leveraged and most commercial property is worth a fraction of what it was worth even a decade ago , if it can be sold at all.
It could require selling off significant properties to muster the entire $500 or so dollar debt.

The other piece that doesn't get nearly enough attention, is that the appeal court also struck the prohibitions around his ability to do business and get loans in the state of New York. As well as for his sons. I personally think that is a much bigger deal.

To me it signals that the Appeals Court may be more sympathetic to trump and his ability to win on appeal.

At the end of the day, my frustration is not with this single incident. Its the accumulation of privilege over the years that goes back decades.

Trump just has this ability to walk between the raindrops and to say it is anything but privilege is an insult to all the poor and disenfranchised that struggle with a justice system that is overtly weighed against them from the beginning.

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #1
People wanted the bond to be a punishment ripcord Mar 26 #3
Correction: he has a right to appeal even if he doesn't post bond. Goodheart Mar 26 #5
We all wanted to see a padlock on Trump Tower yesterday. Too good to be true! LeftInTX Mar 26 #14
+1. important to emphasize that the purpose of the bond is NOT stopdiggin Mar 26 #17
I disagree... Think. Again. Mar 26 #28
Gawker was required to have a full bond in its verdict and thus was forced to go under dsc Mar 26 #4
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #8
Gawker likely had different assets IbogaProject Mar 26 #21
Thank you for posting this common-sense explanation of a situation Ocelot II Mar 26 #2
Recommend. onecaliberal Mar 26 #6
Hmmmm.... that doesn't explain why the Appeals Court reduced the amount of the bond. Goodheart Mar 26 #7
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #12
+1. also quite relevant. and important to how this perceived. stopdiggin Mar 26 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author MichMan Mar 26 #16
it rather does. stopdiggin Mar 26 #13
No, it really doesn't. Goodheart Mar 26 #20
Bingo, gab13by13 Mar 26 #33
The 5 Judge panel that reduced the bond are all Democrats appointed by a Democratic governor MichMan Mar 26 #36
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 30 #38
Why not $189.95? kiri Mar 26 #27
or $465 million? Think. Again. Mar 26 #29
Taking it down to the last millisecond... lame54 Mar 26 #9
Didn't know that the court had to approve every single expenditure including a roll of toilet paper MichMan Mar 26 #10
weighing in with a "thank you" as well stopdiggin Mar 26 #11
Appreciate this levelheadedness Sympthsical Mar 26 #18
No, it is not. OldBaldy1701E Mar 26 #19
Anyone else in this country MorbidButterflyTat Mar 26 #23
"We hold these truths to be self-evident.. OldBaldy1701E Mar 26 #37
"Crucify me if you wish." I can tell you are a fan of hyperbole. emulatorloo Mar 26 #26
Yeah sure. While the special master was supposedly watching the criminal enterprise, trump laundered $40 million. Comfortably_Numb Mar 26 #22
Link? MorbidButterflyTat Mar 26 #25
Here you go. This has been awhile so I thought it was public domain... Comfortably_Numb Mar 26 #32
I'm not understanding yourproblem ripcord Mar 26 #35
Your explantion makes sense of course. totodeinhere Mar 26 #24
The amount was more in line with the reduction that could be expected on appeal Warpy Mar 26 #30
It is privilege angrychair Mar 26 #31
The explanation doesn't make sense gab13by13 Mar 26 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Reducing the Bond was not...»Reply #31