Trump Admits He Doesn’t Have the Cash!

Bad news and good news. I just heard the bad news, which is that the Supreme Court has decided to hear the Trump immunity claim, which is going to delay the J6 trial, possibly fatally. I’m just hearing this, as I said.

The justices set argument for the week of April 22 to consider a unanimous ruling from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that rejected Trump’s sweeping assertion of immunity from prosecution.

I haven’t digested the details yet. Now for the good news:

The New York Times reports that Trump admits he doesn’t have the cash to post the civil fraud case penalty.

Donald J. Trump offered a New York appeals court on Wednesday a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case, saying that he might need to sell some of his properties unless he gets relief.

An appellate court judge promptly denied Mr. Trump’s emergency request to halt the financial judgment, but the former president is not out of options. Mr. Trump can try again with a panel of five appellate court judges, which will entertain his request next month.

However that panel rules, the request represented a stunning acknowledgment that the former president, who is racing the clock to secure a bond from a company for the full amount if he does not produce the money himself, lacks the resources to do so. …

… In seeking relief, Mr. Trump’s lawyers disclosed that he would be unable to secure a bond for the full $454 million, raising the prospect that he might soon default on the judgment if the full appeals court denies his request.

He’s trying to get a court to delay the judgment that he can’t do business with a financial institution registered in New York, which is pretty much all of them outside of Russia. He also wants more time to get the money together.

The link should get you past the paywall. This was my last gift article for the month for the New York Times, so take advantage. Anyway, the 30-day clock started ticking on February 23, so he’s going to have a hard time selling and closing on properties in time.

Mr. Trump might eventually be able to secure a bigger bond. His stake in Trump Media & Technology Group, his social media company, could be worth up to $4 billion after a long-delayed merger is made final this year.

No way is that crap Truth Social worth anything. But let’s go on … NY Attorney General  Letitia James has already asked the court to deny the request. And if Trump admits he can’t come up with the money, she can start foreclosing before the 30 days are up, the news story says.

In its own filing, Ms. James’s office asked the appeals court to deny Mr. Trump’s request.

“There is no merit to defendants’ contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount,” the attorney general’s office wrote. “Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment.”

I want New York to seize the Westchester golf club and turn it into a public park. It looks like it has a really nice swimming pool.

The Daily Beast says AG James accused Trump of sneaking assets into Florida.

Donald Trump is already trying to dodge the colossal $464 million bank fraud judgment, with the former president attempting on Wednesday to appeal the decision without forking over the cash required to challenge the ruling. 

But as Trump’s lawyers claim he doesn’t have the money to appeal without selling a building, the New York Attorney General claimed Trump is quietly moving his assets to Florida. …

… But when the AG raised objections in court documents to the proposal to put up a reduced amount of collateral, Letitia James drew attention to another matter entirely: Trump appears to be trying to move assets out of her reach.

Dennis Fan, a senior assistant solicitor general at the AG’s office, alerted appellate judges at the state’s First Judicial Department that Trump has sneakily relocated business entities from New York to Florida.

“There is substantial risk that defendants will attempt to evade enforcement of the judgment (or make enforcement more difficult) following appeal,” Fan wrote, noting that “after the court issued its February 16 order, defendants announced for the first time that various Trump Organization entities operating in New York are allegedly now located in Florida.”

“As the court recognized earlier in this case, there is unfortunately a distinct need to ‘ensure that defendants do not dissipate their assets or transfer them out of this jurisdiction,’” he continued.

This is just exhausting.

14 thoughts on “Trump Admits He Doesn’t Have the Cash!

  1. The fact that they took this long to announce they would hear the case and have given almost two months delay until arguments tells me that this court, just like every other GQP controlled entity in this country is thoroughly corrupt. I hear "experts" keep saying no way he wins this case. Really? I say the fact that they are willing to hear it tells me they will decide in Trumps favor and even if they don't the trial is all but impossible before the election. Maybe Putin owns more than a few Supremes as well the whole filthy Republican party. This whole thing stinks of corruption and rot.

  2. It truly pains me to say this:

    But tRUMP has skills – at least when it comes to hiding and moving around his fat ass(ets).*

    He could give the mercury in a broken thermometer a run for its money as far as scattering far and near!

    And if DA James didn't think he'd try to find a way to dodge paying-off on debts, it would speak to the fact that our NY DA has absolutely zero imagination. 

    And that she's not a very good judge of bad character. Or in tRUMP's case, zero character.

    But I know that's not true.

    Which means, she'll go after tRUMP for trying to hide his fat ass(ets) where his debtors couldn't find it.


    *And BSing of course!!!

  3. Just like Bush v Gore in 2000, the sanctimonious Republican Supreme Court put their thumb on the scale, again.

  4. My reaction to the USSC was WTF??!!!  It's not good news but it's not a disaster. (It's a disaster if they agree with Trump.) From what I read, not even Trump expects the Supremes to side with him He's pretty openly asking them to assist in delaying the cases from going to trial. They are hearing the case on an expedited basis – roughly seven weeks from now. There's no guarantee when they will decide but sometime in May seems like a good guess. 

    Trump's lawyer who argued last time was demolished by the appeals court with the Seal Team question. I'm pretty confident some of the questioning will be even MORE aggressive. Questions from Alito and Thomas will try to carve out some excuse to at least partially support Trump. It seems to me that a couple of justices convinced at least two others that there is a Constitutional question somewhere in the prior ruling. 

    The biggest threat I see is Cannon delaying the FL documents trial until August to block Smith from scheduling the J6 trial in the summer, assuming the Supremes affirm the lower court's ruling and remand it back to Chutkin in May. Because Chutkin has to look at the calendar in May, put the trial back on the previous track about six weeks from trial. And the trial will run two or three months. Yes, I think Cannon will schedule to block Chutkin with the intent of allowing a series of motions to continually kick that trial down the road. 

    Nobody knows for sure but Willis may have survived. I think Willis would have deferred to Smith on a start date if the DC J6 case was on track but it's not. The judge in GA can decide to set a trial date (I think) any time he knows that Willis is gonna be there to direct the prosecution. So can Cannon select a date that will block Smith AND Willis?  What happens if the judge in GA sets a date well before the date Cannon sets and the GA trial runs over? Seems to me that Cannon just has to yield and delay her trial start until GA is finished with Trump. (I don't know.)

    Smith knows the DC J6 case is on hold for three months. Does Smith have cause to ask Cannon to be removed for ignorance and bias? Cannon has demonstrated that she does not know federal law and procedure with classified documents. She's deferred to Trump at almost every juncture. Is it obvious from a legal perspective to the point Smith can get the 11th Circuit to pull the plug on Cannon and put in a real judge? If they do, that guarantees the FL documents case can go to trial this summer. A real judge might even coordinate with GA so that BOTH cases would go to a jury before November. 

    If Trump puts up a half-billion in two bonds in the two civil cases in NY, that money is gone forever because Trump won't win the appeals. So Trump has decided NOT to go the route that assures Carroll and NY state get 100% of the damages. Trump has ALWAYS paid pennies on the dollar for any debt. It's usually worked because Trump has cheated people who needed the money (and had to settle.) Carroll is not missing any meals – her fight is not for the bucks. She's getting even with Trump. If Carroll can lay waste to Trump's empire in NY OR get 100 million free and clear, I think she'll lay wast to Trump's empire. The State of NY will benefit from 400 million but the money isn't in the state budget – no programs will suffer for having to wait. So Trump has miscalculated because he thinks he can wave partial payment in front of Carroll and NY state and they will go for it. 

  5. More thoughts along the lines of the legal matters.  I'm not disagreeing with anyone above; just want to share some thoughts that I find running through my head.

    The USSC:  It is somewhat surprising they decided to take the case but the fact that TFG filed a motion for dismissal based on immunity in the FL espionage case kind of forced their hand.  SCOTUS has jurisdiction and duty to deal with matters that come up across two or more lower jurisdictions. If they had refused to take the immunity case, the lower circuit court ruling would only apply in that district. (I learned this from commentary on the evening shows). 
    Okay, so does this mean they are going to be totally corrupt and establish total limitless immunity upon all presidents as a rule of law?  I doubt it. In fact, they reject TFG's request for relief based on double jeopardy with his impeachment acquittal. And they narrowed their own scope in establishing the focus of briefs to be submitted.  Something along the lines of: address the question of whether a POTUS has immunity from culpability for acts taken within the outer bounds of his functional duties as POTUS. And some other words focusing on how lines should be drawn. I don't remember if that part was about "outer bounds" lines or about identifying certain crimes that would qualify for immunity vs others that wouldn't.  At any rate, what I'd like to point out is that (to me at least) they appear to be positioning themselves to hold that actions that are NOT within the outer bounds of federal responsibilities will, of course, not have any immunity protection. It's possible that they just want to make a SCOTUS ruling on the question of whether a sitting president, in the course of doing legitimate presidential things, needs to worry about potential indictment after leaving office. And thus some related guidelines that would allow immunity for some things, but not others (like contracting hits on political opponents).  I'm no Pollyanna; I'm girding myself for the worst case, most corrupt outcome.  But I also think the SCOTUS, behind the curtain, may not be all mini-tRumps. So, I'm also waiting to see where they go with this.
    Thomas and Alito are horrible and incapable of redemption.  But I think the 3 tRump justices are more Corporatist than Maga.  Still my opponents, but not so much Maga.  I could be wrong. Those three justices have their lifetime appointments.  Nobody can fire them. If they don't do TFG's bidding, what can he do about it?
    Who is the real puppeteer when it comes to SCOTUS?  Putin? TFG? The Federalist Society?

    I'm also wondering why we haven't heard a ruling yet on the Colorado disqualification case. As I watch the trajectory of Nikki Haley's campaign (what she says, regardless of Michigan % she got), I wonder if the Federalist Society candidate for POTUS is Haley, while the Putin Party candidate is TFG, and the Maga candidate is also TFG. If you're a Federalist Society member, do you ask yourself "What happens if SCOTUS upholds Colorado's disqualification and makes it national?" Who becomes the R front-runner then?
    A commentator tonight said that Thomas and Alito want to retire, but they need a R POTUS so that their replacements will be Fed Society. TFG was reliable for nominations, but can he win? If TFG gets disqualified, would Haley be a better chance at a Repub POTUS?

    Life has not been fun for that last 7-8 years.    

    • "Okay, so does this mean they are going to be totally corrupt and establish total limitless immunity upon all presidents as a rule of law?"

      The filing by the USSC says they only looking at immunity for the crimes "alleged" in DOJ's J6 case, they will not establish total immunity which is why I believe they will decide in Stumps favor. I gave up assigning one bit of ethics to any GOP'er long ago.

      • Uncle, are you saying that you think SCOTUS is going to give all presidents absolute immunity for anything they do in office? Or do you think they're trying to carve out something that will give TFG immunity in his current cases while denying immunity to Biden and all future Dem presidents?

        Re: SCOTUS & ethics, I'm with you, or at least I'm totally in line with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on the capture of the USSC by the Fed Society, which might as well be called the Oligarch's Party.

        So my despairing self agrees with you, but I think the other side wants us to be demoralized, so for now I'm going to maintain a small bit of myself to give them a circumspect benefit of the doubt, and then watch carefully to see what they actually do. I do think that 5 of them (maybe 6) would dearly like to just declare that the indictments of TFG are invalid. But I think that they realize that lower courts (and the opinions of half of the country) put them in a bit of a sticky spot. To protect TFG they're going to have to look very corrupt, and I'm just not sure that their cost benefit analysis on whether it's worth it for one guy would come come out that way.  There are plenty of other right wingers on their team.

        But I certainly won't be shocked if they save his butt. Either way we need to stay focused on the election, including trying to see if there's any way to hold onto the Senate. 



        • "are you saying that you think SCOTUS is going to give all presidents absolute immunity for anything they do in office"

          No but I think they will carve out whatever they need to give Stump immunity for J6. And like I said even if they don't they already have given him the delay he needs to keep the trial out of the news before the election.

          "To protect TFG they're going to have to look very corrupt"

          Do you think the majority on the court gives a rip about looking corrupt? All you have to do is look at the decisions they made in the last few years, many of them opposite to what many of them testified to in their conformation hearings. The GQP doesn't worry about looking corrupt, they have a right-wing media infrastructure who's full time job is to convince the rubes that they are virtuous and it is our side that corrupt. Just because these "Justices" sit on the supreme court does not mean they any different from any other power hungry GQP'er, they are all to a man or women corrupt. The federalist society and the GQP establishment put these people on the courts for a reason and when payment is due they fork it over. I don't consider this despair, it is just reality, they know that Stump is likely to lose this election (I think he will lose depending on how Biden handles the Border and Bibi) so if they can keep him out of Federal court before the election then well it gives him at least a chance.

          • Yeah, I won't argue with any of that. I think they DO care about how they look to the public but they blame it on media instead taking responsibility for it. Where I may view them a little differently than you is this: I ask myself (regarding the three most recent) "Did these justices, when they graduated from law school and at some point decided to to pursue the judicial path, was their 'dream' to be a GOP operative, or was to have the esteem of being a Supreme Court Justice?" For sure, they have their far right political leanings, but I think it's possible that in the same way TFG is transactional, any one of these three might have looked at the moves made to get into position and then the nominating processes were all a means to an end for his/her own individual ego/self-image. Such a person could easily throw TFG under the bus because he's no longer needed. I'm not betting on it. But I do think they don't view themselves as toadies. They did allow the J6 committee's document subpoenas to hold. They like the way they look in that picture of the justices. They like to wear the robe.  And even if the "emperor has no clothes", they like to wear the robe. If you see my metaphor. 

  6. Maybe I missed it…

    But did anyone ever ask tRUMP the following:

    If it's true that he believes that a president can kill his political opponent and still be granted immunity from prosecution, then the ex-presiDUNCE shouldn't be too pissed-off if President Biden decides to send-in Seal Team Seven to shoot his his fat ass dead down at Merde-DUH-LARDASS, right?!?!?

    And then, give tRUMP the bin Laden treatment:

    Drop the shrouded corpse in the ocean so no deluded MAGA sycophants can hold vigils at "Its"  grave!

    And then, Biden can say to the CJ of the SCOTUS:  "OK, Mister Roberts…  The ball's in your court.  WHAT TCHYA GONNA DO 'BOUT IT, MAN?!?"


  7. I read that the NY appeals court modified the ruling temporarily to allow Trump to try to borrow from NY banks. This does and doesn't make sense. The State of NY stands to gain 450 billion (roughly) when the trial clears appeals. Allowing Trump to go to the NY banks kills a possible appeal that the judgment made it impossible for Trump to comply with the fine. Lifting the ban temporarily allows the banks to assess the risk in issuing a bond, and how much security is justified. If Trump STILL can't get a bond, it's because the banks wanted more collateral than Trump could put up. 

    Carroll is concerned that Trump will default. If Trump defaults on the 9th, she has a three-week head start on the State of NY in putting a lien on Trump Tower. Or whatever. But I dearly would like for her to take Trump Tower and be there when they take the sign off the building. This kind of defeat, a virtual castration, will radically undermine the illusion of Trump as a vehicle of vengeance. IMO, when Micky Mouse had his way with Rhonda Santos, the voters lost confidence. 

    If Trump can't come up with the 450 million next month, the appeal dies. The State of NY can swifrly move in and encumber properties. They have the complete list. Trump may be trying to move assets to FL but Bedminster won't suddenly relocate to Orlando – nor will several other major buildings in NYC. If Trump has pulled some businesses down to FL in violation of the orders of the court, that becomes justification for draconian actions to freeze the assets that NY wants. 

    The question of the week is: Will Willis survive? If she does, the calendar may be clear for GA to set a trial date. Somewhere in the not-too-distant future, a prosecutor has to raise the issue that Trump is a flight risk.

Comments are closed.