Obviously, Trump and his attorneys must have known for some time that the judgement might involve a sum of this size. They have had ample time to make plans. If any of Trump's claims about the value of his properties are accurate, then it would be necessary to confiscate and sell only a few of them.
One point of evidence here is how much he is fundraising for legal fees. Both directly and indirectly he's begging his supporters for the money, so I really don't think he has it.
I don't think this has any bearing on his getting a bond for the money he owes, partly because, as @Lamb Chopped has said, this is just what he does now, and also because what he's raising from small potatoes supporters is a drop in the bucket. People with the ability to give him enough money to make a real dent in this penalty would have to pay taxes on that money.
It's not really enough but it's not a drop in the bucket either:
$27m in the second half of 2023. I haven't looked in detail but I think for at least the last year, Mr Trump has spent literally zero $ of his own money on lawyers.
His followers claim this is a victimless crime. Really? If banks are spotting him because of falsifying worth, that means they have less to loan to people who are being honest about their value, no?
The Supreme Court has agreed to “expedite” the hearing of Trump’s immunity appeal re election interference. The hearing will start on 22 April.
Am I being cynical in seeing the SCOTUS collaborating with the Trump delay strategy? They could have let the lower court decision stand. I think that date makes it extremely unlikely that the trial of Trump re election interference will start in sufficient time for a verdict before the November election date. Even if the SCOTUS makes a quick decision ruling out the immunity defence (by no means a foregone conclusion.
As Nick once said, SCOTUS needed only four justices to agree to hear the appeal. Since there were five conservative justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, the immunity hearing was more a foregone conclusion. But there were six justices who voted to hear it, so it seems to me this was not a collaboration with Trump. The case does present questions the justices need to answer to establish case law.
Throughout today I have heard commentators all over the place. Some thinking this will place everything on hold until too late. Others saying Garland can continue to prosecute up to inauguration day should Trump win the general election.
It remains to be seen Trump can win the general election. A lot can happen there. There are still two state trails, one of which will begin on 25 March in New York State. The Georgia one may or may not start in July. While Trump has been attacking Biden's health, he should look at his own. Abortion and IVF questions are going to work against the Republicans. Nearly all special elections since the last general election has been lost by Republicans. A number of state Republican parties are severely split.
Did I mention a judge in Illinois has ruled Trump cannot be on that state's ballot due to the 14 amendment? That means three states are now standing up to Trump.
I speculated earlier that SCOTUS might decide to explore and possibly clarify the limits to presidential immunity while in office. In principle that appears reasonable.
The trouble is that they turned down the appeal by Jack Smith in December, only to pick up the baton almost 5 months later. They are supporting the delay strategy in practice.
One could argue that a decision might indeed do something to tie Trump’s hands if indeed he does get into office. Or the hands of any future President.
As to the future of other trials in waiting, who knows? The Fani Willis trial might be able to start in August, provided she survives the attempt to disqualify her, but it’s a huge, sprawling, RICO case involving many defendants as well as Trump. The document case? Judge Cannon can be pretty well relied on to mess that up. That leaves the hush money criminal case which will start in March. Which doesn’t look to be anything like the same level of alleged criminality as the stalled cases.
Looks like the electorate will decide without a clear ruling on Trump’s criminality.
If he can't put the cash together, the court can seize assets. Seems too much to hope for, but if that were streamed on pay per view, I'd watch.
That's what can be done, but what assets does he actually have which can be seized? My suspicion is that there would not be very many; even those held on trust would be held on a trust very difficult to discover and unravel.
And this is why the Supremes should address the question (and why 6 may have voted to hear the appeal). At oral argument, I hope one of the justices ask Trump's attorney: "There is an election coming up. Are you saying that President Biden can engage in criminal activity to interfere with and subvert that election in a bid to hold on to power, and that Joe Biden would not be subject to any risk of criminal punishment for those activities?"
And this is why the Supremes should address the question (and why 6 may have voted to hear the appeal). At oral argument, I hope one of the justices ask Trump's attorney: "There is an election coming up. Are you saying that President Biden can engage in criminal activity to interfere with and subvert that election in a bid to hold on to power, and that Joe Biden would not be subject to any risk of criminal punishment for those activities?"
A later report said five judges likely agreed to the cert. The agreement was unsigned so there is no way to know unless some justices come out with a later dissent.
It was pointed out two of the justices--Thomas and Alito--are getting to the point they do not want to die on the bench. They would have to stay on the bench if Biden wins, but they could officially retire if Trump win. Ruth Ginsburg hung on way beyond her time because she did not want to give Trump her seat. She lost that fight. Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote on Gore v Bush because it would keep her seat on the conservative side.
A later report said five judges likely agreed to the cert. The agreement was unsigned so there is no way to know unless some justices come out with a later dissent.
That wouldn’t necessarily tell you anything. A justice can vote to grant cert and then find themselves on the losing side on the merits and dissent, and a justice can vote to deny cert and then join or concur in the majority opinion. If dissenting votes on the decision to grant cert aren’t reported, which is generally the case, then the only way to really know is if there’s a leak.
I speculated earlier that SCOTUS might decide to explore and possibly clarify the limits to presidential immunity while in office. In principle that appears reasonable.
The trouble is that they turned down the appeal by Jack Smith in December, only to pick up the baton almost 5 months later. They are supporting the delay strategy in practice.
They also took two weeks to issue their one-page grant of certiorari. It can't have taken that long to draft. The schedule is described as "expedited", but the court can move faster when it wants to (e.g. Bush v. Gore was four days from certiorari to hearing arguments, if I remember correctly) so the two month delay here (after the initial two week delay) seems like the SCOTUS majority deciding to interfere in a presidential election again.
And the problem with all this temporizing about the need to decide the boundaries of presidential immunity is that it lends legitimacy to what is, in the narrow legal sense, a frivolous argument. The kind of argument that would, under normal circumstances, get a lawyer sanctioned for trying to advance it in court. But these are apparently not normal circumstances because the rules don't apply to Trump, which is kind of meta because that is also what his lawyers are arguing in this case.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the president being immune from criminal law, nor is there any such tradition in American history. The fact that there isn't legal precedent on this matter is that previous American presidents (mostly) avoided using the powers of their office to commit crimes. Quite frankly, the legal question of "can the American president legitimately use his powers to subvert the Constitution and overthrow the American government?" (the particular crimes Donald Trump is accused of in this case) should not require the Supreme Court to unravel.
Even ‘tho we all watched him do it, he hasn’t yet been convicted of insurrection - so not a surprising ruling, I suppose.
It has to do more with Congress never passing enabling legislation to allow the process of ballot removal. This was an oversight from when the amendment was first adopted.
Even ‘tho we all watched him do it, he hasn’t yet been convicted of insurrection - so not a surprising ruling, I suppose.
It has to do more with Congress never passing enabling legislation to allow the process of ballot removal. This was an oversight from when the amendment was first adopted.
It's only an oversight if those writing the amendment thought it would need enabling legislation. That requirement seems like a post-hoc insertion by those joining the majority opinion, something even one of the conservative justices called out.
Even ‘tho we all watched him do it, he hasn’t yet been convicted of insurrection - so not a surprising ruling, I suppose.
It has to do more with Congress never passing enabling legislation to allow the process of ballot removal. This was an oversight from when the amendment was first adopted.
No, it wasn’t. There was congressionally-enacted enabling legislation dating from soon after the Amendment was adopted and from soon after an 1869 case (written by a Supreme Court justice sitting as a court of appeals judge) holding holding that the insurrection clause could not be enforced without enabling legislation.
From the opinion (p. 10):
Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Sec-
tion 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal office-
holders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Con-
gress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act
authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in
federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative of-
fice—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made
holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3
a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35
Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following
ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique
powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending
that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take
or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1,
2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives
§§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act
of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an
additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That
law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among
other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification
from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12
Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the
books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383.
18 U.S.C. §2383 (cited at the end of the quote just above) says:
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
However, the sections of the Enforcement Act of 1870 that “authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime” were repealed in 1948. My recollection is that the repeal was part of a general recodification of Title 28 (“Judicial Code and the Judiciary”). As I understand it, the repeal of these sections of Enforcement Act of 1870 appears to have been an oversight or was based on an impression that the law was no longer needed so long after the Civil War.
My impression was that Kagan and Jackson at least were very troubled at the thought that there is no uniform standard for states to make decisions on disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether a candidate meets the age requirement is (presumably) a cut-and-dry decision, with little likelihood that states would come to different conclusions. (Though who knows these days.) Citizenship should be similarly easy to answer. (Though the birther conspiracy theories could suggest otherwise.)
But in the case of the Disqualification Clause, they seemed concerned that we could easily end up with decisions all over the map, as it were, with some states finding him disqualified and others not. My impression was that some of the liberal justices find that to be an untenable situation for one of the only two offices elected on a national basis.
One of the things they seemed to focus on was that in the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress provided a mechanism by which the US Attorney General could go to court to seek removal from office of anyone disqualified under the Disqualification Clause, and that, they seemed to assume, would have provided some national consistency. (Of course, I’m not sure how that would work if the Attorney General in question is an appointee of and in the Cabinet of the president whose right to hold office is being challenged.). That provision of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed in the 1940s, as part of a general reorganization of federal statutes.
My impression was that Kagan and Jackson at least were very troubled at the thought that there is no uniform standard for states to make decisions on disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether a candidate meets the age requirement is (presumably) a cut-and-dry decision, with little likelihood that states would come to different conclusions. (Though who knows these days.) Citizenship should be similarly easy to answer. (Though the birther conspiracy theories could suggest otherwise.)
But in the case of the Disqualification Clause, they seemed concerned that we could easily end up with decisions all over the map, as it were, with some states finding him disqualified and others not. My impression was that some of the liberal justices find that to be an untenable situation for one of the only two offices elected on a national basis.
One of the things they seemed to focus on was that in the Enforcement Act of 1870, Congress provided a mechanism by which the US Attorney General could go to court to seek removal from office of anyone disqualified under the Disqualification Clause, and that, they seemed to assume, would have provided some national consistency. (Of course, I’m not sure how that would work if the Attorney General in question is an appointee of and in the Cabinet of the president whose right to hold office is being challenged.). That provision of the Enforcement Act of 1870 was repealed in the 1940s, as part of a general reorganization of federal statutes.
What I do note is the Supreme Court did not address whether Trump committed insurrection. Trump wanted it to address that question. They avoided it. While he may claim this is proof he is innocent, it actually says that has yet to be determined. Of course, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
What I do note is the Supreme Court did not address whether Trump committed insurrection. Trump wanted it to address that question. They avoided it. While he may claim this is proof he is innocent, it actually says that has yet to be determined. Of course, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Every official body that has made a substantive determination on that issue (Colorado District Court, Colorado Supreme Court, Maine Secretary of State, Illinois Circuit Court, the January 6 Committee) has found as a substantive matter that Trump engaged in an insurrection. The presumption of innocence is only applicable to criminal trials, not whether someone is qualified to hold office. Holding political office isn't a right anyone has, it's a privilege granted under the Constitution and restricted in certain ways. As for whether the lack of criminal conviction means he's qualified to serve as president, that's as nonsensical as saying that Barack Obama has never been convicted of serving two previous terms as president, or that Arnold Schwartzenegger has never been convicted of being a naturalized citizen, or that Patrick Mahomes has never been convicted of being younger than 35 years old on January 20, 2025. We typically don't hold the absence of rulings from criminal courts or the lack of enabling legislation to mean that any of them could be elected president in 2024.
An observation on timelines of two of the Trump-related cases recently granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court:
January 3: Trump appeals to U.S. Supreme Court in 14th Amendment case January 5: SCOTUS grants certiorari February 8: SCOTUS hears arguments March 4: Opinion released in most cowardly manner possible the day before Super Tuesday
So that's 36 days from Trump's lawyers filing an appeal to the Supreme Court hearing the case and 61 days from Trump's filing to an opinion being issued.
February 12: Trump files SCOTUS appeal in immunity case February 28: SCOTUS grants certiorari April 22-26: SCOTUS hears oral arguments ???: Opinion released
70-74 days from when Trump filed his appeal the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the legally frivolous case of whether a sitting president is above the law, approximately double the amount of time it took hear arguments in the ballot access case. We don't know when the Supreme Court will release its opinion in the presidential immunity case, but if it's just before their summer recess (typically starting anywhere from late June to mid-July) that would also be about double the time they took to rule on the ballot access case (as measured from date of initial appeal). For some reason the SCOTUS seems to rule much more quickly in cases that help Donald Trump than in cases that will likely harm him.
@Crœsos I agree several courts have determined Trump committed an insurrection, but the Supreme Court did not go that far. They refused to address the question.
Here is an interesting scenario. Say, the Democrats regain the House and keep the Senate. If in the unlikely event Trump does get re-elected, could Congress turn around and refuse to allow him to become the president? After all, the House Select Committee has named him as instigating the insurrection, and the previous house had impeached him for insurrection. While he was not convicted by the Senate, doesn't the impeachment still stand? I think, in the case of impeachment, there is no such law preventing double jeopardy. Impeachment is a political, not criminal, action.
As I understand it, impeachment itself with no conviction following is more in the nature of a disgrace (“congress thought badly enough of you to think they had a real shot at convicting you”) but holds no other weight.
As I understand it, impeachment itself with no conviction following is more in the nature of a disgrace (“congress thought badly enough of you to think they had a real shot at convicting you”) but holds no other weight.
Right. If the comparison is with a criminal proceeding, impeachment is comparable to an indictment.
March 4: Opinion released in most cowardly manner possible the day before Super Tuesday
In what way was the opinion released “in [the] most cowardly manner possible”? It was released in the way opinions are normally announced.
Was it because the opinion was per curiam, without the author being identified? Granted, that’s not the norm, and the challenge of per curiam decisions is that it may not be clear whether the decision is unanimous or whether some justices were in the minority but didn’t note a dissent.
But that’s not the case here. As the per curiam opinion states, “The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.” There were two opinions in addition to the per curiam opinion. Justice Barrett concurred in the judgment and joining in specific portions of the majority decision, meaning she did not join in the remaining part, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson concurred in the judgment only.
So while we may not know who wrote the per curiam opinion, we know that five justices joined it in its entirety and four did not, and we know where the four who did not disagreed with it.
Seems to me the most cowardly manner possible might be a per curiam opinion with nothing else, where we could not be sure where each justice stands.
March 4: Opinion released in most cowardly manner possible the day before Super Tuesday
In what way was the opinion released “in [the] most cowardly manner possible”? It was released in the way opinions are normally announced.
Because instead of being announced from the bench by the author (or whoever is designated to speak for the court in the case of unsigned per curiam opinions) this was released electronically on a day when the court was not in session with only one day's advance notice. (On a Sunday, which is typically a dead news time.)
Was it because the opinion was per curiam, without the author being identified? Granted, that’s not the norm, and the challenge of per curiam decisions is that it may not be clear whether the decision is unanimous or whether some justices were in the minority but didn’t note a dissent.
But that’s not the case here. As the per curiam opinion states, “The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.” There were two opinions in addition to the per curiam opinion. Justice Barrett concurred in the judgment and joining in specific portions of the majority decision, meaning she did not join in the remaining part, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson concurred in the judgment only.
Interestingly the Supreme Court was in such a rush to release the opinion they forgot to erase the metadata. Also very interestingly, that metadata lists Justice Sotomayor as "dissenting in part", without being joined by Justices Kagan or Jackson.
The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to keep Donald Trump on Colorado’s ballot was styled as a unanimous one without any dissents. But the metadata tells a different story. On the page, a separate opinion by the liberal justices is styled as a concurrence in the judgment, authored jointly by the trio. In the metadata of the link to the opinion posted by the court, however, this opinion is styled as an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, authored not by all three justices but by Sonia Sotomayor alone. Even a techphobic reader can discern this incongruity through careful copying and pasting, piercing the facade of unanimity that the conservative justices sought to present.
What happened? Most obviously, the Supreme Court rushed out this opinion and forgot to check the metadata. The court, after all, scheduled the opinion’s release only one day earlier, on Sunday afternoon, evidently to hand it down before Tuesday’s Colorado primary. Moreover, the justices did not take the bench to announce the opinion, as they usually do — probably because they had not all planned to be in D.C. — further proving that it was a last-minute release. The deeper question remains, of course: Why was an opinion originally authored by a lone justice as a partial dissent transformed into a concurrence authored by all three liberals together?
There follows from this some speculation of what turned something that was originally a concurrence in part and dissent in part into something listed as a simple concurrence, and what kind of behind the scenes maneuvering led to Justices Kagan and Jackson throwing their votes in with Sotomayor. Given the way the not-quite-dissenters* phrase things (here, starting at p. 15 for those who are interested) it's pretty clear they're calling out the gross over-reach of the per curiam opinion. This, in fact, seems to be the impetus behind Justice Barrett's two paragraph concurrence (p. 14). In part:
The majority’s choice of a different path leaves the remaining Justices with a choice of how to respond. In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.
Apparently tone policing was much more important than anything substantive Justice Barrett might have to say on this matter. I guess she considers it ruder to point out that five of her colleagues released a pro-insurrection opinion than it is for them to be pro-insurrection in the first place.
*Given the metadata, we can be fairly certain that the bulk of this part of the opinion was written by Sotomayor.
March 4: Opinion released in most cowardly manner possible the day before Super Tuesday
In what way was the opinion released “in [the] most cowardly manner possible”? It was released in the way opinions are normally announced.
Because instead of being announced from the bench by the author (or whoever is designated to speak for the court in the case of unsigned per curiam opinions) this was released electronically on a day when the court was not in session with only one day's advance notice. (On a Sunday, which is typically a dead news time.)
You think it would have been better for them to wait?
As the sources to which you linked indicate, it was clearly rushed, the Court suspended opinion announcements during Covid and only resumed them last month, and all the justices were not in Washington yesterday.
It all indicates sloppiness, haste, discord, and various other things that confirm and reinforce negative opinions of and lack of confidence in the Court. But I don’t see how the most cowardly manner possible fits.
March 4: Opinion released in most cowardly manner possible the day before Super Tuesday
In what way was the opinion released “in [the] most cowardly manner possible”? It was released in the way opinions are normally announced.
Because instead of being announced from the bench by the author (or whoever is designated to speak for the court in the case of unsigned per curiam opinions) this was released electronically on a day when the court was not in session with only one day's advance notice. (On a Sunday, which is typically a dead news time.)
You think it would have been better for them to wait?
I think it would have been better to have announced this stinker from the bench. This has a very Bush v. Gore feel to it, with no one wanting to take "credit" for the opinion rendered.
As the sources to which you linked indicate, it was clearly rushed, the Court suspended opinion announcements during Covid and only resumed them last month, and all the justices were not in Washington yesterday.
If the Justices felt it was so important to release the opinion immediately they could have come back from wherever they are. We know Clarence Thomas has easy access to a private jet. And if you read the article I linked carefully, the Justices resumed announcing opinions from the bench in January 2023, over a year ago. To break with that over an opinion of this importance is cowardly.
It all indicates sloppiness, haste, discord, and various other things that confirm and reinforce negative opinions of and lack of confidence in the Court. But I don’t see how the most cowardly manner possible fits.
This seems just one step short of wrapping the opinion around a brick and throwing it through Jena Griswold's window at midnight. I suppose that would have been the most cowardly manner possible. This sneaking rush that no one wants their name associated with is a close second, though.
Sorry, I misread the date they resumed announcing opinions from the bench.
I still think, though; there’s plenty to validly criticize here without getting into the cowardice of not announcing it from the bench. I simply don’t see what difference that would have made big picture-wise. Cowardly would have been to release a decision in such a way they no one could tell where each justice stood.
We all know he's guilty. Even his own fans know he's guilty, they just think he ought to be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants. No need to prove the obvious!
No, dude is just trying to run out the clock. If he can win the election, he thinks he'll be home free.
I have to admit, if I were the authorities, I'd be watching his plane carefully after (please God) he loses the election by a landslide. He's not the type to suicide, and nothing but flight will hold off the consequences then. Which is finally starting to get through his narcissism, I think.
On a more technical note, what would happen if a candidate (appreciating that the actual vote is for electors) were to die in the few days before an election?
Even if he lost by a landslide his idolatrous supporters and the morally bankrupt GOP leadership will claim electoral fraud and keep the myth going. Some attempted civil war is not out of the question.
Potentially at least he’s that dangerous. And if he loses a close election, even more dangerous.
In my mind, I would think if a leading Democratic candidate would suddenly step down, he or she would endorse another candidate and his primary delegates would transfer to the new candidate. One the other hand, if the leading candidate would die suddenly, the delegates would be released from their pledge to vote their conscience.
Now, if a nominee were suddenly incapacitated for any reason after the Democratic Convention. the party would get behind the vice presidential nominee, and the VP would name a replacement with the approval of the Democratic National Committee.
I would also think a similar process is in place in the other Party.
We all know he's guilty. Even his own fans know he's guilty, they just think he ought to be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants. No need to prove the obvious!
No, dude is just trying to run out the clock. If he can win the election, he thinks he'll be home free.
I have to admit, if I were the authorities, I'd be watching his plane carefully after (please God) he loses the election by a landslide. He's not the type to suicide, and nothing but flight will hold off the consequences then. Which is finally starting to get through his narcissism, I think.
We all know he's guilty. Even his own fans know he's guilty, they just think he ought to be allowed to do whatever the hell he wants. No need to prove the obvious!
No, dude is just trying to run out the clock. If he can win the election, he thinks he'll be home free.
I have to admit, if I were the authorities, I'd be watching his plane carefully after (please God) he loses the election by a landslide. He's not the type to suicide, and nothing but flight will hold off the consequences then. Which is finally starting to get through his narcissism, I think.
He is appealing the judgement in favour of E. Jean Carroll for defamation.
In order to appeal he has to post bond so that when if he loses, the successful litigant (Carroll) receives what is due to her.
He hasn't posted bond. It's been done for him. That begs some particular questions but for me it just shows he's broke.
Trump has given all sorts of estimates of his net worth. Previously he has claimed It's over $10Bn, but the most recent number I can find is from '22 when he said he was worth $9Bn. That makes the maths simple.*
$90m is a LOT of money, let's not kid ourselves but it's peanuts for someone worth multiple billions. In purely proportional terms it would be easily affordable even if he lacked liquidity. (He's also claimed to be very liquid). Proportional comparisons are a bit of a cheat as richer people have far, far more headroom above essential spending. (I.e. someone on minimum wage could not cope with a 5% cut in income, whilst the uber wealthy can loose half and still be comfortable). However, that just further emphasises the point.
$90m is 1% of $9Bn. (A billion being a thousand million, of course).
The median net worth in the USA is $110,000. So, in effect, compared to an average American, Trump has been asked for $1100.
In legal jeapody, that would hurt most people, but it's very achievable.
If Trump was as rich as he claims, he would have paid the bond very easily.
AFZ
*Forbes has put his net worth at $2.7Bn. If that were accurate, he would still be able to make bond. ($3700 bond for average American)
He has to find about half a billion dollars by March 25th for the fraud case. That looks like a big issue. And will tell us more about just how broke he is.
But the question on everyone’s mind is, how did Trump get that money together? He appears to be struggling to post bond in his multiple lawsuits and reportedly only has about $413 million in liquid assets. That’s not nearly enough to cover everything he owes in legal fines.
It turns out that Trump may have called in a major favor: Court records filed Friday show that the bond was guaranteed by the Chubb Corporation, an insurance group. In 2018, Trump appointed Chubb’s CEO Evan Greenberg to a White House advisory committee for trade policy and negotiations.
Donald Trump is fairly notorious for not paying his debts. That means pretty much by definition anyone willing to front Trump the money for his bonds is expecting to be repaid in some non-monetary manner. This seems highly problematic from a national security point of view.
In the NY fraud case, Trump will have to pay anywhere from 1 to 5m to secure the bond from what I am hearing. If he cannot do that the AG will start seizing property. And he is such a nice guy.
Apparently Trump defamed E Jean Carroll yet again a day after posting the bond. Will be be sued again? He could be. If $88m isn't enough to stop him I wonder what might be?
Comments
It's not really enough but it's not a drop in the bucket either:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-campaign-paid-legal-fees-lawyers-millions-rcna136498
$27m in the second half of 2023. I haven't looked in detail but I think for at least the last year, Mr Trump has spent literally zero $ of his own money on lawyers.
AFZ
His followers claim this is a victimless crime. Really? If banks are spotting him because of falsifying worth, that means they have less to loan to people who are being honest about their value, no?
Am I being cynical in seeing the SCOTUS collaborating with the Trump delay strategy? They could have let the lower court decision stand. I think that date makes it extremely unlikely that the trial of Trump re election interference will start in sufficient time for a verdict before the November election date. Even if the SCOTUS makes a quick decision ruling out the immunity defence (by no means a foregone conclusion.
Throughout today I have heard commentators all over the place. Some thinking this will place everything on hold until too late. Others saying Garland can continue to prosecute up to inauguration day should Trump win the general election.
It remains to be seen Trump can win the general election. A lot can happen there. There are still two state trails, one of which will begin on 25 March in New York State. The Georgia one may or may not start in July. While Trump has been attacking Biden's health, he should look at his own. Abortion and IVF questions are going to work against the Republicans. Nearly all special elections since the last general election has been lost by Republicans. A number of state Republican parties are severely split.
Did I mention a judge in Illinois has ruled Trump cannot be on that state's ballot due to the 14 amendment? That means three states are now standing up to Trump.
The trouble is that they turned down the appeal by Jack Smith in December, only to pick up the baton almost 5 months later. They are supporting the delay strategy in practice.
One could argue that a decision might indeed do something to tie Trump’s hands if indeed he does get into office. Or the hands of any future President.
As to the future of other trials in waiting, who knows? The Fani Willis trial might be able to start in August, provided she survives the attempt to disqualify her, but it’s a huge, sprawling, RICO case involving many defendants as well as Trump. The document case? Judge Cannon can be pretty well relied on to mess that up. That leaves the hush money criminal case which will start in March. Which doesn’t look to be anything like the same level of alleged criminality as the stalled cases.
Looks like the electorate will decide without a clear ruling on Trump’s criminality.
That's what can be done, but what assets does he actually have which can be seized? My suspicion is that there would not be very many; even those held on trust would be held on a trust very difficult to discover and unravel.
Hatred eats a person up.
I love that!
It was pointed out two of the justices--Thomas and Alito--are getting to the point they do not want to die on the bench. They would have to stay on the bench if Biden wins, but they could officially retire if Trump win. Ruth Ginsburg hung on way beyond her time because she did not want to give Trump her seat. She lost that fight. Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote on Gore v Bush because it would keep her seat on the conservative side.
They also took two weeks to issue their one-page grant of certiorari. It can't have taken that long to draft. The schedule is described as "expedited", but the court can move faster when it wants to (e.g. Bush v. Gore was four days from certiorari to hearing arguments, if I remember correctly) so the two month delay here (after the initial two week delay) seems like the SCOTUS majority deciding to interfere in a presidential election again.
And the problem with all this temporizing about the need to decide the boundaries of presidential immunity is that it lends legitimacy to what is, in the narrow legal sense, a frivolous argument. The kind of argument that would, under normal circumstances, get a lawyer sanctioned for trying to advance it in court. But these are apparently not normal circumstances because the rules don't apply to Trump, which is kind of meta because that is also what his lawyers are arguing in this case.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the president being immune from criminal law, nor is there any such tradition in American history. The fact that there isn't legal precedent on this matter is that previous American presidents (mostly) avoided using the powers of their office to commit crimes. Quite frankly, the legal question of "can the American president legitimately use his powers to subvert the Constitution and overthrow the American government?" (the particular crimes Donald Trump is accused of in this case) should not require the Supreme Court to unravel.
It has to do more with Congress never passing enabling legislation to allow the process of ballot removal. This was an oversight from when the amendment was first adopted.
It's only an oversight if those writing the amendment thought it would need enabling legislation. That requirement seems like a post-hoc insertion by those joining the majority opinion, something even one of the conservative justices called out.
From the opinion (p. 10):
18 U.S.C. §2383 (cited at the end of the quote just above) says:
However, the sections of the Enforcement Act of 1870 that “authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime” were repealed in 1948. My recollection is that the repeal was part of a general recodification of Title 28 (“Judicial Code and the Judiciary”). As I understand it, the repeal of these sections of Enforcement Act of 1870 appears to have been an oversight or was based on an impression that the law was no longer needed so long after the Civil War.
Nailed it.
Well done, Sir.
Every official body that has made a substantive determination on that issue (Colorado District Court, Colorado Supreme Court, Maine Secretary of State, Illinois Circuit Court, the January 6 Committee) has found as a substantive matter that Trump engaged in an insurrection. The presumption of innocence is only applicable to criminal trials, not whether someone is qualified to hold office. Holding political office isn't a right anyone has, it's a privilege granted under the Constitution and restricted in certain ways. As for whether the lack of criminal conviction means he's qualified to serve as president, that's as nonsensical as saying that Barack Obama has never been convicted of serving two previous terms as president, or that Arnold Schwartzenegger has never been convicted of being a naturalized citizen, or that Patrick Mahomes has never been convicted of being younger than 35 years old on January 20, 2025. We typically don't hold the absence of rulings from criminal courts or the lack of enabling legislation to mean that any of them could be elected president in 2024.
An observation on timelines of two of the Trump-related cases recently granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court:
January 3: Trump appeals to U.S. Supreme Court in 14th Amendment case
January 5: SCOTUS grants certiorari
February 8: SCOTUS hears arguments
March 4: Opinion released in most cowardly manner possible the day before Super Tuesday
So that's 36 days from Trump's lawyers filing an appeal to the Supreme Court hearing the case and 61 days from Trump's filing to an opinion being issued.
February 12: Trump files SCOTUS appeal in immunity case
February 28: SCOTUS grants certiorari
April 22-26: SCOTUS hears oral arguments
???: Opinion released
70-74 days from when Trump filed his appeal the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the legally frivolous case of whether a sitting president is above the law, approximately double the amount of time it took hear arguments in the ballot access case. We don't know when the Supreme Court will release its opinion in the presidential immunity case, but if it's just before their summer recess (typically starting anywhere from late June to mid-July) that would also be about double the time they took to rule on the ballot access case (as measured from date of initial appeal). For some reason the SCOTUS seems to rule much more quickly in cases that help Donald Trump than in cases that will likely harm him.
Here is an interesting scenario. Say, the Democrats regain the House and keep the Senate. If in the unlikely event Trump does get re-elected, could Congress turn around and refuse to allow him to become the president? After all, the House Select Committee has named him as instigating the insurrection, and the previous house had impeached him for insurrection. While he was not convicted by the Senate, doesn't the impeachment still stand? I think, in the case of impeachment, there is no such law preventing double jeopardy. Impeachment is a political, not criminal, action.
In what way was the opinion released “in [the] most cowardly manner possible”? It was released in the way opinions are normally announced.
Was it because the opinion was per curiam, without the author being identified? Granted, that’s not the norm, and the challenge of per curiam decisions is that it may not be clear whether the decision is unanimous or whether some justices were in the minority but didn’t note a dissent.
But that’s not the case here. As the per curiam opinion states, “The judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court therefore cannot stand. All nine Members of the Court agree with that result.” There were two opinions in addition to the per curiam opinion. Justice Barrett concurred in the judgment and joining in specific portions of the majority decision, meaning she did not join in the remaining part, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson concurred in the judgment only.
So while we may not know who wrote the per curiam opinion, we know that five justices joined it in its entirety and four did not, and we know where the four who did not disagreed with it.
Seems to me the most cowardly manner possible might be a per curiam opinion with nothing else, where we could not be sure where each justice stands.
Because instead of being announced from the bench by the author (or whoever is designated to speak for the court in the case of unsigned per curiam opinions) this was released electronically on a day when the court was not in session with only one day's advance notice. (On a Sunday, which is typically a dead news time.)
Interestingly the Supreme Court was in such a rush to release the opinion they forgot to erase the metadata. Also very interestingly, that metadata lists Justice Sotomayor as "dissenting in part", without being joined by Justices Kagan or Jackson.
There follows from this some speculation of what turned something that was originally a concurrence in part and dissent in part into something listed as a simple concurrence, and what kind of behind the scenes maneuvering led to Justices Kagan and Jackson throwing their votes in with Sotomayor. Given the way the not-quite-dissenters* phrase things (here, starting at p. 15 for those who are interested) it's pretty clear they're calling out the gross over-reach of the per curiam opinion. This, in fact, seems to be the impetus behind Justice Barrett's two paragraph concurrence (p. 14). In part:
Apparently tone policing was much more important than anything substantive Justice Barrett might have to say on this matter. I guess she considers it ruder to point out that five of her colleagues released a pro-insurrection opinion than it is for them to be pro-insurrection in the first place.
*Given the metadata, we can be fairly certain that the bulk of this part of the opinion was written by Sotomayor.
As the sources to which you linked indicate, it was clearly rushed, the Court suspended opinion announcements during Covid and only resumed them last month, and all the justices were not in Washington yesterday.
It all indicates sloppiness, haste, discord, and various other things that confirm and reinforce negative opinions of and lack of confidence in the Court. But I don’t see how the most cowardly manner possible fits.
I think it would have been better to have announced this stinker from the bench. This has a very Bush v. Gore feel to it, with no one wanting to take "credit" for the opinion rendered.
If the Justices felt it was so important to release the opinion immediately they could have come back from wherever they are. We know Clarence Thomas has easy access to a private jet. And if you read the article I linked carefully, the Justices resumed announcing opinions from the bench in January 2023, over a year ago. To break with that over an opinion of this importance is cowardly.
This seems just one step short of wrapping the opinion around a brick and throwing it through Jena Griswold's window at midnight. I suppose that would have been the most cowardly manner possible. This sneaking rush that no one wants their name associated with is a close second, though.
I still think, though; there’s plenty to validly criticize here without getting into the cowardice of not announcing it from the bench. I simply don’t see what difference that would have made big picture-wise. Cowardly would have been to release a decision in such a way they no one could tell where each justice stood.
No, dude is just trying to run out the clock. If he can win the election, he thinks he'll be home free.
I have to admit, if I were the authorities, I'd be watching his plane carefully after (please God) he loses the election by a landslide. He's not the type to suicide, and nothing but flight will hold off the consequences then. Which is finally starting to get through his narcissism, I think.
Even if he lost by a landslide his idolatrous supporters and the morally bankrupt GOP leadership will claim electoral fraud and keep the myth going. Some attempted civil war is not out of the question.
Potentially at least he’s that dangerous. And if he loses a close election, even more dangerous.
Now, if a nominee were suddenly incapacitated for any reason after the Democratic Convention. the party would get behind the vice presidential nominee, and the VP would name a replacement with the approval of the Democratic National Committee.
I would also think a similar process is in place in the other Party.
Where would he go?
Israel? Russia? DPRK? Hungary?
He is appealing the judgement in favour of E. Jean Carroll for defamation.
In order to appeal he has to post bond so that when if he loses, the successful litigant (Carroll) receives what is due to her.
He hasn't posted bond. It's been done for him. That begs some particular questions but for me it just shows he's broke.
Trump has given all sorts of estimates of his net worth. Previously he has claimed It's over $10Bn, but the most recent number I can find is from '22 when he said he was worth $9Bn. That makes the maths simple.*
$90m is a LOT of money, let's not kid ourselves but it's peanuts for someone worth multiple billions. In purely proportional terms it would be easily affordable even if he lacked liquidity. (He's also claimed to be very liquid). Proportional comparisons are a bit of a cheat as richer people have far, far more headroom above essential spending. (I.e. someone on minimum wage could not cope with a 5% cut in income, whilst the uber wealthy can loose half and still be comfortable). However, that just further emphasises the point.
$90m is 1% of $9Bn. (A billion being a thousand million, of course).
The median net worth in the USA is $110,000. So, in effect, compared to an average American, Trump has been asked for $1100.
In legal jeapody, that would hurt most people, but it's very achievable.
If Trump was as rich as he claims, he would have paid the bond very easily.
AFZ
*Forbes has put his net worth at $2.7Bn. If that were accurate, he would still be able to make bond. ($3700 bond for average American)
Donald Trump is fairly notorious for not paying his debts. That means pretty much by definition anyone willing to front Trump the money for his bonds is expecting to be repaid in some non-monetary manner. This seems highly problematic from a national security point of view.
Croesos, I’m sure you’re right about cash NOT changing hands.