Trump NY indictment thread

Page 62 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,359
5,112
136
I don't think there should be a legal prohibition from holding office but I think a rational voter would see someone that deeply in debt and decide that someone that compromised shouldn't hold high office.

Trump clearly doesn't have the money to cover these judgments, he said as much to the court, that means these guys have tremendous leverage over him.
There is a vast difference between not having the money and not having the assets.
I don't know how billionaire's operate as I'm not quite there yet (just nine hundred ninety nine million and change to go), but it seems unlikely they would have 400 million in their checking account. They'd be losing twelve million a year to inflation.

The whole deal with a debt cap on presidents would require an in depth financial analyses to determine where they stand. It's not as simple as producing credit card and bank statements.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,435
8,100
136
There is a vast difference between not having the money and not having the assets.
I don't know how billionaire's operate as I'm not quite there yet (just nine hundred ninety nine million and change to go), but it seems unlikely they would have 400 million in their checking account. They'd be losing twelve million a year to inflation.

The whole deal with a debt cap on presidents would require an in depth financial analyses to determine where they stand. It's not as simple as producing credit card and bank statements.
I think that there's an absolute argument to be made that if you are standing for high public offices then a really good look through your finances are in order. I'm not talking specifically about Trump but if you are indebted then that needs to be public just to avoid any conflicts of interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic and hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,985
47,938
136
There is a vast difference between not having the money and not having the assets.
I don't know how billionaire's operate as I'm not quite there yet (just nine hundred ninety nine million and change to go), but it seems unlikely they would have 400 million in their checking account. They'd be losing twelve million a year to inflation.

The whole deal with a debt cap on presidents would require an in depth financial analyses to determine where they stand. It's not as simple as producing credit card and bank statements.
Yes, real estate developers are famously illiquid but also he had tons of time to prepare. If he had the assets he could have sold them in advance to prepare for a judgment that he knew was going against him (because he is guilty to a level that’s almost comical)

Being a bad businessman doesn’t excuse you from judgments. He couldn’t raise the cash because he’s structured things that way.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,859
11,262
136
They're being given the opportunity to refile with the corrections. I don't think this is going to turn into anything big.
Apparently, one of the things he has to provide is a full financial statement and power of attorney. I can't imagine him wanting to do either...but I don't see the court giving him a pass on either...nor looking the other way if he lies in his financial statements.


he New York County Supreme Court document he shared read:

"The court has returned the documents listed below for the following reasons: Please include a current financial statement and Power of Attorney. Additionally, please list the name of the Attorney-in-Fact under the signature line on the Undertaking. Please use the 'Refile Document' link for Doc. No. 1707 to resubmit the corrected filing. Thank you and have a great day."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,088
12,180
146
Apparently, one of the things he has to provide is a full financial statement and power of attorney. I can't imagine him wanting to do either...but I don't see the court giving him a pass on either...nor looking the other way if he lies in his financial statements.

That's actually a really good point, they'll reach an impasse if he's unwilling to provide his financial data which I suspect he will since it'll likely reveal yet more financial criming. Nice hat trick from the judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,671
2,424
126
That's actually a really good point, they'll reach an impasse if he's unwilling to provide his financial data which I suspect he will since it'll likely reveal yet more financial criming. Nice hat trick from the judge.

If his attorneys are at all competent (and given how badly burned he has been on this case and how it goes to his very core being-his money- I strongly assume he now has the best he can hire on this case) this is IMO very big news. I doubt it was an oversight. It goes to the core issues of this case. It will greatly help exposing any recent transfers out of state to avoid creditors (ie the plaintiff). My guess he will outright refuse to give the power of attorney (probably also try to relitigate that issue) and file some sort of bogus full of disclaimers financial data. Stay tuned.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,091
2,162
136
The time to challenge the requirements for the bond should have been right after the new bond was negotiated not the day it is due.

I hope this cancels out the 175 million bond and reverts to the ~460 million bond
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,985
47,938
136
Why would this not be just another ploy to delay things?
Delay what though? The actual case is unaffected by this. Is the idea that Trump's plan is to not post the bond and then... what? It doesn't even matter if Trump becomes president again as NYS will just seize his property anyway.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,859
11,262
136
It's sounding like the paperwork they want is from the bonding agency, not from King Donnie.


"The financial statement that is missing does not seem to be Trump's. Rather, the court appears to be demanding these documents from Knight Specialty Insurance Co. to ensure that the company is sufficiently capitalized and authorized to post the bond," Rubin wrote on Wednesday.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
24,986
4,319
136
Is the idea that Trump's plan is to not post the bond and then... what?

I'm not sure what the what? is, but the article I read said that Trump had not actually given the bonding company ANY of the $175 million, but had put it in an account "pledged" to them. I don't know the technical conditions of an account "pledge", but I sure could envision Trump losing the appeal and the money somehow managing to magically disappear from the account.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,985
47,938
136
I'm not sure what the what? is, but the article I read said that Trump had not actually given the bonding company ANY of the $175 million, but had put it in an account "pledged" to them. I don't know the technical conditions of an account "pledge", but I sure could envision Trump losing the appeal and the money somehow managing to magically disappear from the account.

I mean I wouldn't put it past him to try some shenanigans but if his appeal fails there really isn't much he can do unless he's president and has like the Army invade New York or something. (not entirely implausible)

If the money did disappear from the account then NYS would move to enforce the judgment through property seizures and he can't transfer property out of state without the approval of the court appointed monitor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,859
11,262
136
I mean I wouldn't put it past him to try some shenanigans but if his appeal fails there really isn't much he can do unless he's president and has like the Army invade New York or something. (not entirely implausible)

If the money did disappear from the account then NYS would move to enforce the judgment through property seizures and he can't transfer property out of state without the approval of the court appointed monitor.

Well...you know...unless something happens to the court appointed monitor...because, you know...turrible New York crime...
What I think will be funny is when thwy go to liquidate Trump's properties...and come up WAY short of the fines because those properties are so encumbered by loans/mortgages that there's no "value" left to seize.
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,392
722
126
Odds of any organization willing to bond Trump being financially squared away?

Welp, the owner of the company is apparently worth 9 billion dollars. The question is why would a billionaire business man like that risk $175 million on Trump. You don't become a billionaire by lending people like Trump money. The odds of not getting it back would be pretty damn high. But what I read about him, his 1st business was auto loans to super high risk people at basically loan shark rates when nobody else would loan them money.. You don't get much higher risk that giving $175 to Diaper Don I guess lol.

The paperwork mistake for such a large company seems odd, maybe it was intentional so they could drag this out as long as possible.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
9,916
6,493
136
I'm not sure what the what? is, but the article I read said that Trump had not actually given the bonding company ANY of the $175 million, but had put it in an account "pledged" to them. I don't know the technical conditions of an account "pledge", but I sure could envision Trump losing the appeal and the money somehow managing to magically disappear from the account.


Is Trump trying to pay with Trump bucks again??

If the courts had any sense..

1712267124014.png