Trump Lackey Asks Kevin O'Leary Of Shark Tank To Lend Trump 460 Million Dollars, "In Order To Protect America's Name"
John Russell »
Groups »
NEWSMucks »
Discussions » Trump Lackey Asks Kevin O'Leary Of Shark Tank To Lend Trump 460 Million Dollars, "In Order To Protect America's Name"
No it is a fine at least that must be paid BEFORE he can appeal the judgement.
As per New York law. Did you want Trump to be treated differently under the law?
On the flip side of that, as Trump has not been able to obtain a bond for almost $500 million dollars he would need to sell property to raise cash to do so. Having to sell property in a 30 day window is hard enough, he would be selling at 'fire sale' prices in order to move so he would likely take a loss. Now if Trump were to succeed in his appeals, the property is still gone so he's still out all that value.
Is that fair under our laws?
It's been shown that the law that Trump was prosecuted under is unique in the country and it is also the first time this law has every been used against someone who did not break any other law. There were no victims here. Yeah, the DA can call the state of New York and the citizens the victims, but is it really true?
Yes. This law suit has been coming at him for YEARS. It is his own fault that he didn't take steps in case he lost the case.
Really? The New York Attorney General Letitia James was elected to office in 2019. The previous AG's didn't file this suit. Letitia James said during her campaign that she would go after Trump. AG James has taken a law and used it in a fashion that has never been done before in the history of New York. This law has never been used against anyone where there were no victims of the fraud. A judgement of this size has never been issued against an individual or a company for this type of crime.
How could anyone have foreseen that this would have been coming at someone years if this has never been done before?
Does anyone know if there has ever been a higher bond amount imposed on anyone?
Here ya go...
Starting off with the number one highest bail amount in history, a grand total of 3 billion dollars for Robert Durst.
In 2003, Robert Durst found himself in a jail cell with a grand total of 3 billion dollars over his head. The court set his bail this high not only because of the nature of his crimes but also because he was considered a flight risk. He had already jumped bond once before. His bail did not stay at 3 billion for long as the court soon ruled it to be unfair and used as an instrument of oppression.
Durst was the heir of a real estate company that his father built and was convicted of many crimes, one of them being for the murder of Susan Berman. He is also considered a suspect in his wife’s disappearance. Along with these, he has a firearm charge and other violent charges.
50-100 million should have sufficed. If they really want to get paid for a bullshit "verdict" It should be reasonable. This violated the 8th amendment big time. See my article on RBG's decision.
But he doesn't have billions until you liquidate. You do know how worth is figured right? ONLY if one liquidates assets does that worth mean anything. As reported, 30 attempts were turned down to "insure" his compliance
Because everyone knows he never pays his bills and beyond that everyone knows he doesn’t have nearly as much wealth as he pretends. Plus, who knows how much he actually owes on all his properties, cuz you know he doesn’t own a lot of them outright.
Trump is all bullshit and when real money is on the line it is made obvious.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
O'Leary loves money too much to give any of it to trump
Does anyone know if there has ever been a higher bond amount imposed on anyone?
And if Trump can ever afford to make his appeal:
Eighth Amendment
U.S. Constitution - Eighth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
It's not bail, or a fine, or a punishment, it is a judgement...
No it is a fine at least that must be paid BEFORE he can appeal the judgement. In other words, strong arming bullshit to destroy the man.
As per New York law. Did you want Trump to be treated differently under the law?
On the flip side of that, as Trump has not been able to obtain a bond for almost $500 million dollars he would need to sell property to raise cash to do so. Having to sell property in a 30 day window is hard enough, he would be selling at 'fire sale' prices in order to move so he would likely take a loss. Now if Trump were to succeed in his appeals, the property is still gone so he's still out all that value.
Is that fair under our laws?
It's been shown that the law that Trump was prosecuted under is unique in the country and it is also the first time this law has every been used against someone who did not break any other law. There were no victims here. Yeah, the DA can call the state of New York and the citizens the victims, but is it really true?
Yes. This law suit has been coming at him for YEARS. It is his own fault that he didn't take steps in case he lost the case.
Really? The New York Attorney General Letitia James was elected to office in 2019. The previous AG's didn't file this suit. Letitia James said during her campaign that she would go after Trump. AG James has taken a law and used it in a fashion that has never been done before in the history of New York. This law has never been used against anyone where there were no victims of the fraud. A judgement of this size has never been issued against an individual or a company for this type of crime.
How could anyone have foreseen that this would have been coming at someone years if this has never been done before?
5 years ago.
And you ignore everything else in that post. Sigh..
Guess it's ok to ignore the big picture when you get to hammer on Trump.
To most of them that is the big picture.
Nothing else matters.
Here ya go...
This bond imposed on Trump is however, as far as I can find, the highest bond amount ever imposed on a civil issue with no victims.
And he's got that right. $455million FFS
So you feel that white collar criminals should only be fined amounts that they can easily afford?
50-100 million should have sufficed. If they really want to get paid for a bullshit "verdict" It should be reasonable. This violated the 8th amendment big time. See my article on RBG's decision.
Says you, not the people that do it for a living. What is 50 - 100 million to a guy that claims to have 10 billion? Less than 1%.
But he doesn't have billions until you liquidate. You do know how worth is figured right? ONLY if one liquidates assets does that worth mean anything. As reported, 30 attempts were turned down to "insure" his compliance
Because everyone knows he never pays his bills and beyond that everyone knows he doesn’t have nearly as much wealth as he pretends. Plus, who knows how much he actually owes on all his properties, cuz you know he doesn’t own a lot of them outright.
Trump is all bullshit and when real money is on the line it is made obvious.
He said that he had 500 million cash on hand. Did he lie? If so, why?
Trump says he has nearly $500 million in cash but doesn’t want to use it to pay New York judgment
O'Leary is going to give Trump 460 dollars for 5000% of Trump University.
lol yeah right? You think he doesn’t know how crappy of a bet/businessman Trump is? Every e who throws in money with Trump is left holding the bag.