Trump bond lowered to $175 million as he appeals civil fraud judgment in New York | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
A New York appeals court has given Donald Trump 10 more days to post his bond as he appeals the civil fraud judgment against him and cut the amount necessary to $175 million

A New York appeals court has given Donald Trump 10 more days to post his bond as he appeals the civil fraud judgment against him and cut the amount necessary to $175 million.

It’s a major lifeline for the former president, who, along with his adult sons and his company, were fined more than $464 million, including interest, after Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and his co-defendants fraudulently inflated the value of his assets.

The ruling staves off the prospect, for now, of New York Attorney General Letitia James seeking to seize the former president’s property to enforce the judgment against him. Trump had been struggling to come up with the means to post a bond of more than $500 million, the total that he would have needed before Monday’s appellate decision.

…

The ruling stated that the $175 million bond will be in place until at least September, meaning James won’t be able to seek to enforce the judgment against Trump until then.

    • @givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      43•7 months ago

      I really shouldn’t take the time to explain because I can already tell from your comment this won’t be productive…

      But:

      The point you missed was how punishment is wildly disproportionate, so in lots of places, a couple ounces of pot would get higher sentences for all those crimes you rattled off.

      And the people who are arrested for a few ounces of pot, rarely have the money for lawyers to get out of it.

      I really didn’t think it would be hard to infer any of that, but man have I been overestimating Lemmy recently. It really feels like the longer this goes on, the more hand holding needs done in comments.

      • @Crackhappy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24•7 months ago

        Thank you for taking the time and effort to explain it, as you’re right, inference is lost on the willfully stupid.

      • AmidFuror
        -2•7 months ago

        I really shouldn’t have to take the time to explain, but the parent comment was poorly written.

        If Trump had a couple ounces of pot he’d have been in jail this whole time.

        What you actually meant (according to your follow-up) was that if it had been someone poor with a couple ounces of pot, that person would have been in jail this whole time. But you wrote Trump, and then someone logically thought, “No, Trump would get away with that too.”

        The fediverse would be better if i) commenters were a bit more careful with their wording or ii) they didn’t pounce on people rudely for misunderstanding them.

        I hope this was productive.

        • @Halosheep@lemm.ee
          10•7 months ago

          Unproductive. Your inability to read intention is not the fault of the original commenter.

      • @NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world
        -6•7 months ago

        You failed to mention that he’d also have to be poor for a weed charge to matter. Fuck inferences, you should be explicit in your explanation. But go ahead and be a total asshole if you want. I’m sure it’s par for the course.