NY Appeals Court Reduces Trump Bond in Civil Fraud Appeal

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
·
Follow
NEW: A New York appeals court just reduced the amount Donald Trump has to post for his civil fraud bond: $175 million. The court has given him 10 more days to meet the terms of the $454 million civil fraud judgment.
8:26 AM · Mar 25, 2024
934
Reply
Share

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MistyCee

If anyone identifies a non-political reason for this ruling, I'd love to hear it.

I expected a ruling that the district did or did not abuse its discretion, or some sort of assignment of error.

This ruling looks really suspicious with no explanation at all.

snowbelt · 61-69, M

@MistyCee There is no rational basis for what they did, so they did not offer one.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@MistyCee So you are shocked that politics might play a part in the appeal of a case brought by a partisan hack of an AG and decided by a partisan and corrupt judge?

MistyCee

@eli1601 I'm really more shocked about how blatant it seems than the fact that appellate court decisions can be political.

Say whatever you like about the district court judge, but he dotted his i's and crossed his t's.

This appellate decision, on it's surface at least, seems much more Trumpian in nature, made solely based on the outcome for Trump with no regard to facts, or consequences, including opening the door to every judgment debtor with an appeal to stall the process.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@MistyCee 😉 You never disappoint. A corrupt judge makes an obvious political decision based on his (and yours, of course) hatred of Trump and you call the appellate decision political.
Please, never change. 😆

snowbelt · 61-69, M

@eli1601 There is no evidence the judge is corrupt. Your hatred is not evidence. If anything, he has bent over backward to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. The Court of Appeals made a clear political decision to also give Trump favorable treatment that isn't provided to the average citizen. The timing alone indicates that. If there was justification for their ruling, they would have provided it in their brief statement.