Eric Trump says $454m fine imposed on his father ‘doesn’t exist in this country’
‘No one’s ever seen a bond this size’: Eric Trump criticises $454m judgment against his father
Does tomorrow, bud.
Those kids would be really upset right now if they could read laws and judgements.
Edit: can’t spell do the grammar. But I can read.
It wouldn't have been so high if it wasn't based on the fraudulently-inflated valuations of the family's properties. Get fucked Eric.
And I say the $454m is payable to me personally.
...but the legal system doesn't work on dumb assertions, does it?
These people have children of thier own. Think about that for a second.
Robert Durst - $3 billion In 2016. Eventually, the bail was reduced to $5 million and Durst was released on bond.
Kim Freeman - $1 billion In 2021. Eventually, the bail was reduced to $10 million and Freeman was released on bond.
Those are all bail bonds, though, they serve a different purpose. Those bonds are put up to guarantee that someone shows up at their trial, the Court makes them put up the money but then as long as they show up they get it all back.
Trump's bond is for a judgement, and only allows him to appeal without paying the full amount up front. He will eventually owe the full amount, unless the appeals court reduces it.
And the bond people KNOW they aren't getting their money back from Trump.
Still trying to look out for dad. Only dad apparently can't even remember him as a family member. Sucks to be Eric.
That's just his face
Cocaine psychosis, or just stupid?
Yes
Por que no Los dos?
O/
"Of course it has to be paid, you don't get to commit crimes then when you're caught keep the profits from your criminal activities, that would be insane," Eric Trump said. "My father represents the best of us and supports the rule of law. He would never support lesser penalties for the rich and powerful. He's not some clueless landlord trying to avoid paying for his crimes. He represents the sense of justice and order universal laws grant to protect our constitutional rights."
J/k they don't give a shit about justice or anyone that hasn't significantly donated to their criminal enterprise/political cult.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
As a court-imposed deadline ticks down on the former president’s family and their businesses to come up with almost half-a-billion dollars, the 40-year-old executive vice-president of the Trump Organization told Fox News on Sunday that bond issuers laughed when he approached them for that sum.
On Friday, Donald Trump said he has nearly $500m in cash and suggested he could afford bond in the New York case, which resulted in the former president, his company and some of its executives all being found liable for fraudulent business practices.
As soon as Tuesday morning, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, could begin to seize Trump’s assets, including his bank accounts and property.
Business executives, including Shark Tank host and investor Kevin O’Leary, have also questioned the massive judgment and the now-expiring, 30-day deadline to meet it.
From the other side of the New York political spectrum, progressive Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said there was a risk if James decided not to move on Trump’s assets.
Separately, Trump is grappling with more than 80 pending criminal charges across various jurisdictions in connection with efforts to forcibly overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Biden, retaining classified materials after his presidency and hush-money payments.
The original article contains 682 words, the summary contains 206 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It's a disgorgment not a fine. There's a difference.
In 1987, Texaco had to post a bond 22 times the size of the Trump fraud bond. And that was in in 1987 dollars.
Whoah...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/481/1.html
"Appellant obtained a jury verdict of $10.53 billion in its Texas state-court suit alleging that appellee tortiously had induced a third oil company to breach a contract to sell its shares to appellant."