excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,149
- 34,371
- 2,290
Even when trying to be a bit sympathetic to Trump, the left speaks the quiet part out loud. Trump has no rights as they see it.
The quiet part being that Trump deserves to have the system rigged against him and deserves mistreatment.
How evil is that?!?
And how many leftoids feel the same way?
How un-American they indeed are.
The quiet part being that Trump deserves to have the system rigged against him and deserves mistreatment.
How evil is that?!?
And how many leftoids feel the same way?
How un-American they indeed are.
Look, no one more deserves to be mistreated, and no one more deserves a system rigged against him, than Trump.
...
The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid — and that the penalty levied against him was therefore wildly excessive. The conundrum is that the very size of the judgment, and the consequent size of the bond that Trump is required to post, might make him unable to appeal. Trump could pursue his case, but in the meantime, James would be entitled to seize and sell off the former president’s assets.
That can’t be right. It would mean that the more outrageous and disproportionate a damages award is, the harder it is to appeal.
As Trump’s lawyers argued to the state appeals court: “A bond requirement of this enormous magnitude, effectively requiring cash reserves approaching $1 billion, is unprecedented for a private company. Even when it comes to publicly traded companies, courts routinely waive or reduce the bond amount. Enforcing an impossible bond requirement as a condition of appeal would inflict manifest irreparable injury” on Trump.
On the other side of the equation, Trump’s lawyers argue, “waiving the bond requirement will impose no cognizable harm on the Attorney General. The case involves no actual victims and no award of restitution, and she is fully protected by [Trump’s] real-estate holdings.” They have offered to post a $100 million bond.
For her part, James contends that the court lacks the flexibility to modify the bond requirement. And doing so, she says, “would severely harm [the Office of Attorney General] and the public interest by undermining … the fundamental purpose of an appeal bond — i.e., to ensure that prevailing plaintiffs have their monetary award fully secured to guarantee prompt execution if it is affirmed on appeal.”
I’m not convinced. You won’t find me shedding any tears for Trump if the damages award is eventually upheld and he needs to sell properties or liquidate other assets to satisfy it. Couldn’t happen to a shadier guy. But even Trump deserves his day in appeals court. In the end, the rule of law will be on a steadier footing if he has it.
...
The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid — and that the penalty levied against him was therefore wildly excessive. The conundrum is that the very size of the judgment, and the consequent size of the bond that Trump is required to post, might make him unable to appeal. Trump could pursue his case, but in the meantime, James would be entitled to seize and sell off the former president’s assets.
That can’t be right. It would mean that the more outrageous and disproportionate a damages award is, the harder it is to appeal.
As Trump’s lawyers argued to the state appeals court: “A bond requirement of this enormous magnitude, effectively requiring cash reserves approaching $1 billion, is unprecedented for a private company. Even when it comes to publicly traded companies, courts routinely waive or reduce the bond amount. Enforcing an impossible bond requirement as a condition of appeal would inflict manifest irreparable injury” on Trump.
On the other side of the equation, Trump’s lawyers argue, “waiving the bond requirement will impose no cognizable harm on the Attorney General. The case involves no actual victims and no award of restitution, and she is fully protected by [Trump’s] real-estate holdings.” They have offered to post a $100 million bond.
For her part, James contends that the court lacks the flexibility to modify the bond requirement. And doing so, she says, “would severely harm [the Office of Attorney General] and the public interest by undermining … the fundamental purpose of an appeal bond — i.e., to ensure that prevailing plaintiffs have their monetary award fully secured to guarantee prompt execution if it is affirmed on appeal.”
I’m not convinced. You won’t find me shedding any tears for Trump if the damages award is eventually upheld and he needs to sell properties or liquidate other assets to satisfy it. Couldn’t happen to a shadier guy. But even Trump deserves his day in appeals court. In the end, the rule of law will be on a steadier footing if he has it.
