this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
215 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3575 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 41 points 8 months ago (1 children)

... arguing that he shouldn’t have to put up the money and worrying that he “would be forced to mortgage or sell Great Assets, perhaps at Fire Sale prices, and if and when I win the Appeal, they would be gone.”

One, they've had plenty of time to gracefully liquidate assets necessary to meet this bond. Surely they could have entered into sale contracts that were contingent on the outcome of the civil trial.

Two, at this stage, the value would not simply disappear; it would be put into an escrow for the bond. Should the appeal be successful, that bond amount is returned.

But why would they need to sell these properties in the first place? Why not just use the properties as collateral for loans, and use the loan value for the bond (and then payment of the judgment when the appeal fails)? Because there's already loans out there that use the properties as collateral - and based on the judgment, probably at highly inflated property values. They can't get loans against the properties. This is what Cohen means when he says "leveraged to the hilt."

This all means that even if the properties get sold, there's little to no equity left in them to use as funding for the bond. I'm willing to bet that Trump's panic is not at all about having to pay the bond amount, and has everything to do with the truth of his actual value being revealed.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So, he's desperate because the whole charade is starting to collapse. Interesting.

Kind of like those movie set facades.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Yep ...there's no way he's got 500m or more in equity anywhere even mal.
Rnc coffers are next.