So trump wins partial appeal that he only has to pay 175 million, and has more time to pay it.

[JohnSJ]

10 more days.

more bending over backwards for the insurrectionists.

per CNN

[MineralMan]

1. Link?

Or are you just speculating?

[JohnSJ]

2. No speculation, it is on CNN right now under Breaking news. The link is I am watching on

TV.

[Hugin]

17. I just got a news alert...

Which unlike TSF’s criminal trials seem to go through at the speed of light.

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. It's live on tv right now, just happened.

links and print media no doubt will follow

[JohnSJ]

4. Thanks

[orleans]

30. msnbc is talking/reporting this

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Mossfern]

5. Why does he get preferential treatment?

[iluvtennis]

29. Agree - this ruling seems to deviate from the normal process. DISGUSTING. n/t

[onenote]

83. In a majority of states, the law now caps the amount of supersedeas bond that can be required.

For example, the maximum is $50 million no matter what the size of the judgment. While New York hasn't set a statutory cap, it gives judges discretion to set the required bond at a level than 100 percent of the judgment. I don't have any data, but it wouldn't surprise me if judges in New York frequently set bond levels below the 100 percent level in cases where the amount of the judgment exceeds $100 million.

[onenote]

63. It is well within the court's statutory authority to reduce or even forgo any bond requirement

I know folks are upset about this, but it isn't particularly surprising. It is not uncommon for a court to reduce the amount of the bond required in the case of a sizable judgment. This is the case both when the defendant is an "ordinary" person with limited assets and when the defendant has considerable assets but the judgment is unusually large.

[Yavin4]

72. Because he's a member of a preferential class.

Our courts protect rich people.

[MOMFUDSKI]

6. 2 sets of laws in our country.

There are people with unquestionable power ruling over all of us.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Your headline lies. The bond is reduced, not the total owing, according to CNN as of this writing. . . . nt

[JohnSJ]

13. He absolutely did win with a partial appeal. The amount of the bond was reduced by over 50%, plus

he has 10 more days to get the money

From 464 million to 175 million is a big deal.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. Your headline is misleading. The fine/disgorgement is not reduced

He is not paying a fine of $175 million.

He is putting down a deposit to enable the appeal to go forward. The full amount is due if the appeal fails.

[JohnSJ]

35. If your bond is reduced from 475 million to 175 million, and you have 10 more days to come up

with that amount, plus in the meantime the appeal goes forward which will delay things, I am pretty sure that is considered a win by the trump team.

and that is what CNN was reporting. I didn't make anything up

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. That's not what your headline says. You leave out key word "bond" & fight when you can't pretend it's there. nt

[mchill]

14. Thank you for confirming that

I’m on msnbc and the host was reading and not interpreting. That’s what I thought I heard.

[JohnSJ]

20. I am NOT interpreting anything. It is a partial victory. That is what CNN is reporting. If you

were told your bond was reducted from 475 million to 175 million, plus 10 more days to come up with the money, what would you call it?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. That's not what your headline says. You leave out key word "bond" and then fight when you can't pretend it's there. nt

[Basic LA]

47. That's my reading, too.

It's an outrage. So much winning for this schmuck.

[JohnSJ]

54. The trump team is getting exactly what they want. A significantly reduced bond, 10 days to

come up with the money, probably through the RNC, and a delay while he appeals the case.

[Ocelot II]

76. It's not a victory at all. It changes nothing. Trump is still on the hook for $450+million

whether or not he can obtain an appeal bond within the next 10 days. If he does, the state is assured of being able to collect that amount if (when) he loses his appeal, without having to resort to the complex and slow processes involved in seizing assets to collect at least that amount, and it will still be able to proceed with that process as to the rest of it. If he can't get a bond the situation will be exactly as it was before the temporary stay was granted, and the interest on the judgment will continue to accrue at the rate of $111,000 per day. I can't figure out for the life of me figure out why people are freaking out over this. Trump didn't win a damn thing regarding the ultimate likely outcome of the case.

[JohnSJ]

77. I am not "freaking out", but reporting what both CNN and MSNBC is reporting

[LiberalFighter]

8. The appelate court need to be removed. Special privileges for an asshole.

[Ocelot II]

12. "Remove" a court because it issued a decision you don't like?

[LiberalFighter]

25. In this case. Hell yes. They should be impeached.

[Ocelot II]

37. Oh, come on.

I want to read the reasons they did it before I have hissy fits about it, but FFS we don't impeach judges for handing down rulings we don't like. BTW, Trump is still on the hook for the entire judgment.

[LiberalFighter]

48. As was pointed out elsewhere. State law dictates pay the amount of judgment for the bond.

Why should he be treated better than others?

[onenote]

64. State law expressly allows the the court to reduce or even forego the bond payment requirement.

You seem to think they don't have that authority. They do, as does essentially every court in the country,

[MichMan]

67. Given that the poster is advocating for the entire court to be abolished, I don't think that will resonate

[ProfessorGAC]

74. I Grant That As Fact, But...

...I'd like someone to let us know:
• How often does bond reduction happen? What % of cases?
• How often does such extension get granted? Again, % of cases.
• Would a small business owner who is fined $250k get 10 extra days to put up a $100k bond?
• How can this decision not include the claim, just 2 days ago, that the defendant has the cash?

If this is actually common, then I have no concerns. If this only happens when high profile defendants & huge money is involved, then my concerns still exist

[onenote]

81. I don't know the percentage of cases where the bond is reduced, but wouldn't be surprised if it was substantial

in cases with judgments in excess of $100 million.

Why do I say that? Because the trend in the US over the past 25 years has been to make it easier for defendants to obtain a stay pending appeal, largely by capping the amount of required supersedeas bond. Indeed, the vast majority of states have enacted some sort of supersedeas bond cap. In Florida, for example, its $50 million, no matter how large the judgment. In some jurisdictions, it is as low as $25 million. And these jurisdictions still give courts discretion to set the bond at a lower rate or to forego requiring any bond at all.

So, while New York is one of the few states that hasn't adopted a statutory cap, the law does give the court authority to set a cap at whatever level below a 100 percent of judgment level and I would expect judges, in the current legal environment, to use that authority to set limits comparable to those that would apply in states that have set caps.

And for what its worth, I think James did a poor job opposing Trump's request for the appellate division to reduce the bond requirement. In particular, she argued that the court had no authority to reduce the level, which is just flat out contrary to the statutory language and case law.

[ProfessorGAC]

82. Good Points

If it's common, then my concerns are ameliorated to a degree.
The part about "over $100 million" still sticks in my throat.

[ripcord]

79. Why do you want to impeach 5 democrat judges for following the law?

[dchill]

9. He also gets to be President with far fewer votes.

I'm speculating.

[Hugin]

10. Well...

Fuck.

[BlueKota]

11. What difference does it make?

He is still getting preferential treatment and exactly what he wants more delay. I am sick and tired of people who keep making excuses for a corrupt justice system that keeps granting exceptions to this fucker that would not be avaliable to anyone else. He even admitted he had the money that he just didn't want to pay it.

[JohnSJ]

41. Without a doubt, and that is a win from his perspective.

[Prairie Gates]

15. Lawyers Brigade incoming to explain how this is right and just

[Hugin]

19. Yup...

Apologists abound.

[Prairie Gates]

70. Some people always find a way

[onenote]

66. Don't know if its "right or just". But it is within the court's statutory authority.

[orangecrush]

87. A thousand turd polishers out of work

And they all show up here

[Emile]

16. What's the explanation?

[orangecrush]

90. There was none

The explanation was "fuck the poors"

[Bettie]

18. Remember when we were taught that the United State is a country of laws

and the now laughable idea that, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law?

Yeah, not so much.

Every day it becomes more obvious that the law doesn't really apply to some people....

[triron]

36. Courts are a joke

[LiberalFighter]

21. Why are they even giving him 10 days? At most by Friday.

[multigraincracker]

23. That's just trump change.

I mean Chump change.

[bluestarone]

24. I guess it's still $464 million, BUT

Bond has been reduced to $175 million? Thought State law was state law? I don't get it?

[BlueKota]

28. Laws don't apply to white male elites

[MichMan]

50. Didn't he lose the civil suit in the first place?

[BlueKota]

58. Again what difference does that make

when the courts keep delaying any consequences for him losing or being found guilty? I hope I am wrong but it sure looks like he is never going to have to truly be punished for anything he has done.

[FakeNoose]

75. Yes Chump lost ... now he's shopping for a different judge

That's what an appeal is, getting a different judge that's (hopefully) more sympathetic to your case. There's no guarantee that the original ruling will be changed though. There's no guarantee that the fine will be reduced.

The benefit to Chump is that when he has to pay the fine it will be later, not TODAY. He's hoping it will be LESS that what he owes today.

[triron]

31. Donnie is special.

[bluestarone]

34. Yep.

DEVILS chosen one! Plus i'm sure 10 days from now he will appeal to the SC, then here we go AGAIN!

[iluvtennis]

26. Link to the NY Appeals Court Ruling

https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/Motions_Word/2024/03_Mar/25/PDF/People%20of%20State%20NY%20v%20Trump%20(M-1025).pdf

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[triron]

27. Our so called justice system strikes again. Fuck this .

[limbicnuminousity]

68. May be misspelling it.

More and more it looks like the Just Us system.

[NoMoreRepugs]

32. His astronomical legal bills coupled with the multiple adjustments against him all work to reduce the $$

amount Repugs are able to spend smearing JoeB and assisting other asshat Rethugs - to me that's a WIN.

[Bev54]

33. Sick of the US courts that have totally catered to Trump. They are like the parents that do not have the

will to discipline their child. It is so bloody disheartening to see him treated preferentially. Is the whole damn system corrupt?

[triron]

43. Who is paying them off?

[BlueKota]

49. I think it's more of this "bipartisan appeasement,"

notion that because he was a former President and current Presidental candidate they have to treat him with kid gloves. So much for what I was raised to believe that justice is blind and that we are all equal under the law. That's as big a fucking fairytale as Santa Claus.

[BlueKota]

45. I was never a conspiracy theorist before

but it's beginning to look like it more everyday. These so called justices are more concerned about appearing non partisan that they care more about that than actually upholding the law.

[Freethinker65]

38. Once again Trump screws the little guys. This time New York taxpayers

Trump will get away with a slap on the wrist and (partial) payment of back taxes owed. I also assume Trump will be allowed to skip any interest or penalties owed.

As a side note, we overpaid our quarterly taxes again. Instead of a refund, the IRS and State are applying our overpayments to this year's estimates. We did not receive any interest for our overpayment of just shy of 10K. And, we started paying quarterlies after being assessed a PENALTY a few years back for capital gains income. We paid the penalty and have been sending in quarterlies since.

The fact this US secret stealing, insurrection encouraging, conman gets a delay and ultimately slap on the wrist, once again, is infuriating.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

39. Appeals court rules Trump must pay $175 million bond within 10 days.

Link to tweet

[kairos12]

40. Of course this happens. Nothing ever sticks. Or will stick.

[Goodheart]

46. What this tells me is that the verdict, itself, will be reduced to $175 million.

Just watch.

[BlueKota]

56. You have more faith than I do

I bet the decision will be vacated entirely, and he will never end up paying a dime. It won't even make a difference if there was any actual legitimate reason to grant dismissal or not.

[hatrack]

51. My "Told You So!!" Bell started ringing a few days ago . . .

Same old shit.

He'll never, ever, EVER face the consequences of his actions, because he's so special and different.

He'll keep on waltzing away and getting away with it, because he's Donald, and we're not, so fuck us.

[XanaDUer2]

53. Yup

I knew his ass would be pulled out of the fire

[JohnSJ]

55. I agree

[Rebl2]

52. He doesn't

deserve more time to pay.

[walkingman]

57. The US justice system is rigged in favor of power and money. Period.

[angrychair]

59. Not just bond reduction

But he and his children also get to keep doing business in NY until the appeal is decided.
There is more to that ruling than just about the bond.

[Takket]

60. Our "justice" system is a complete joke

The more lawyers you can hire, the more shit you can get away with. Equal protection my ass.

Drumpf literally just said on truth social last week he HAD THE CASH to pay this with. HE DID NOT NEED A BREAK. Common person gets no breaks, drumpf gets every break, delay, second guess and benefit of the doubt on EARTH.

fuck this bullshit.

[duforsure]

61. Its called bribes blackmail, and threats,

Our judges and justices are actively being corrupted by criminals because of power and greed.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

62. TFG may have to post cash in lieu of bond

Will TFG have to deposit cash?

Link to tweet

[hatrack]

65. Oh, not to worry - I'm sure the next proceeding will get it down to $2,500.00 or so . . .

[JohnSJ]

69. Thanks, but I suspect he will get it from the RNC?

[onenote]

85. Lisa Rubin has acknowledged she misread the order.

In particular, she now admits the order stayed the provision of the judgment limited Trump's ability to borrow from New York financial institutions.

Link to tweet

?lang=en

In addition, she appears to be unaware that the term "undertaking" as used in New York law, is not synonymous with "cash" -- an undertaking can be a bond or other form or surety.

[ForgedCrank]

71. It doesn't

reduce his penalty, the 400+gazillion judgement still stands. this just lowers the bond he has to post, nothing more. if he loses his appeal, he still has to pay all the awarded money. At least this is how I'm reading it.

[JohnSJ]

73. Yes

[usonian]

78. Go to the court and ask them to reduce your bail bond.

Call me if you get it.

(Crickets)

[pecosbob]

80. The court overturned his ban on running a business in NY.

As well as those of his brats. That is disappointing.

[onenote]

84. The court stayed that portion of the judgment from taking effect pending appeal. It did not "overturn" it.

[BlueKota]

91. This is my question.

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2024, 09:44 AM - Edit history (3)

Why would the courts stay parts of judgments, if they are not giving any serious consideration to overturning them or significantly reducing them?
I realize it's a seperate issue from the Supreme Court on the immunity question, but that matter raises similar questions.

Pretty much all the former prosecutors and former Judges said the DC Court gave full & fair consideration to the defendants arguments. That they layed out all the reasons why the claim that a President is granted full immunity in the Constitution is baseless?

So why unless they aren't seriously considering reversing the Court of Appeals ruling would they waste their time and delay trials, which by the way would offer the defendant a chance to still lay out his defense, and have it decided by a jury? Also why the delay in even beginning to even hear the arguments of both sides? Didn't the prosecutors and the defense attorneys already have their cases prepared to make to the D.C Court of Appeals?

Also when 3 of the members were directly appointed by the defendant, and a fourth has a wife, who has direct ties to part of the event the defendant's charges relate to, but refuses to recuse himself, can you blame people for having serious doubts about their willingness to put the law over their party?

Yes we can't say for sure they will grant him full immunity or are delaying it, in hopes that he will win the election, and pardon himself and all the other January 6 defendants. The same could be said of the reverse. No one can guarantee he won't win, or the majority on the SC won't be doing those things to protect him either. In my mind it's always better to accept the worst could happen, do your best to prevent it, and if prevention is impossible, prepare to handle the aftermath. Why is that wrong?

[onenote]

92. Answers:

I'll address your comments about the immunity case first: The issues raised with respect to presidential immunity are novel and significant and, as Smith himself stated when he initially sought to have the Supreme Court hear the case before the court of appeals, the immunity case presents “a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy” and that it is one that “only this Court can definitively resolve.” Moreover, Smith didn't oppose cert being granted when the case came back to the court after the court of appeals decision was released. Finally, it only takes four justices to support cert being granted -- the fact the Court decides to take a case doesn't mean it is going to reverse the decision below. Many lower court decisions are affirmed by the Supreme Court. And in many cases, the reason for taking it isn't necessarily because a justice thinks the outcome is wrong but because they think the reasoning of the lower court should be clarified or limited.

Turning to yesterday's decision to stay not only the bond requirement, but other portions of the order -- the standard typically applied when a stay is sought has four parts: is the party seeking the stay likely to succeed in whole or in part on the merits; will the moving party incur irreparable harm if the stay isn't granted and they prevail on appeal; the extent to which the balance of hardships favors one side or the other; and the extent to which the public interest will be advanced by granting a stay.

In many cases, these four factors are not weighted equally or even individually. Often, if the irreparable harm element favors granting a stay, the stay will be granted. While the appellate decision didn't spell out the reasoning behind the order, my speculation is that they felt that Trump and company would be irreparably harmed if those aspects of the order took effect while the appeal was pending since they can't travel back in time to do the things they would be prevented from doing.

[BlueKota]

93. Thank you!

That definitely clears up my question regarding the stays in the New York case, and as long as the trial is going ahead I have a lot less concern about it now.

I also get that the Supreme Court has to be the ultimate decider on immunity. I guess I am getting stuck on what was in the Declaration which I get is not what laws are based on. None the less it's a fairly clear indication that the founders never intended to have one person be allowed to break any law he chooses without having to face consequences. Yes there is impeachment, but that process has proven beyond flawed as virtually no one of either party is going to vote to remove a President that is a member of their own party.

The court was supposed to be impartial but again how do we trust that when at least two of them clearly have conflicts of interests in multiple cases, but refuse to recuse themselves? We cannot vote them out, President Biden cannot fire them, and the impeachment method for them is as flawed as the Presidental one is. Yes we can vote for people who we believe will uphold the law, but there is no guarantee that the other side won't cheat, and this time the SC won't look the other way. That's why I hope someone has a Plan B.