There is a big lawsuit because of efforts to dilute the holdings of the two guys who built the site. That would surely slow it all down, wouldn't it?aggiehawg said:
Is the Truth Social deal dead? Isn't his stock worth 118 million under that deal?
$1.8 billionaggiehawg said:
Is the Truth Social deal dead? Isn't his stock worth 118 million under that deal?
A $455 million penalty generated by only two people -- a Democrat attorney general who literally pledged she would get Donald Trump and a Democrat judge who literally said he wasn't going to listen to what Donald Trump had to say -- in a transaction that had zero victims is the very definition of being "out to get Trump."Antoninus said:Because Chubb is a publicly-traded company and some shareholders were unhappy?RogerFurlong said:
But why did they write the letter?
Look, you people are utterly convinced that the entire world is "out to get" Trump, and nothing anyone can say or show you will change your minds. The level of martyrdom is truly impressive. It is what it is.
Thank you Hawg. That's the reason I started this thread - all the COME AND TAKE IT rhetoric is just noise when the state can literally come and take it as it appears we're headed towards.aggiehawg said:Under Pennzoil I don't think there is a valid 8th amendment claim and that was billions in bonding requirements.Quote:
Hopefully the appeals court will see the complete lack of logic in demanding an amount of money that violates the Eighth Amendment to appeal an unreasonable ruling that violates the Eighth Amendment.
To be clear, Trump can still appeal but he lacks the ability to forestall collection efforts during that time frame in the absence of the approved bond amount.
Trump's deadline for doing so is March 25, unless the appeals court agrees to either stop the judgment or allow him to post a bond for a smaller amount.fc2112 said:
BTW - do we know the date at which the State of New York can start seizing Trump's properties.
You underestimate the TDS of Letitia James.GenericAggie said:
This won't be like people are projecting. They won't show up with chains and locks. We're very far from that.
GenericAggie said:
This won't be like people are projecting. They won't show up with chains and locks. We're very far from that.
She belongs in Federal PMITA prison.Reality Check said:You underestimate the TDS of Letitia James.GenericAggie said:
This won't be like people are projecting. They won't show up with chains and locks. We're very far from that.
We're about seven days away from chains and locks. And if her actions are deemed illegal or inappropriate later, she'll deal with that fallout. It's all about inflicting maximum pain upon the former president while she can. If you don't believe it, look back at her campaign rhetoric.
He doesn't actually pay HER, personally. Let's not forget that a jury decided Trump's guilt, not the judge.CSTXAg92 said:
1) He shouldn't pay
2) If does pay anything, he should pay her lyin' ass in pennies
lol, classic "liberals know so much that isn't so". There was no jury in this case.Opalka said:He doesn't actually pay HER, personally. Let's not forget that a jury decided Trump's guilt, not the judge.CSTXAg92 said:
1) He shouldn't pay
2) If does pay anything, he should pay her lyin' ass in pennies
Wut??Opalka said:He doesn't actually pay HER, personally. Let's not forget that a jury decided Trump's guilt, not the judge.CSTXAg92 said:
1) He shouldn't pay
2) If does pay anything, he should pay her lyin' ass in pennies
I believe he is talking about Jean Carroll. She is the lyin ass here. Hard to keep up with so many! (Jean, Fani, Letitia, Stormy)VegasAg86 said:lol, classic "liberals know so much that isn't so". There was no jury in this case.Opalka said:He doesn't actually pay HER, personally. Let's not forget that a jury decided Trump's guilt, not the judge.CSTXAg92 said:
1) He shouldn't pay
2) If does pay anything, he should pay her lyin' ass in pennies
Hopefully this is outrageous enough to get people to the polls and get Trump reelected.Reality Check said:A $455 million penalty generated by only two people -- a Democrat attorney general who literally pledged she would get Donald Trump and a Democrat judge who literally said he wasn't going to listen to what Donald Trump had to say -- in a transaction that had zero victims is the very definition of being "out to get Trump."Antoninus said:Because Chubb is a publicly-traded company and some shareholders were unhappy?RogerFurlong said:
But why did they write the letter?
Look, you people are utterly convinced that the entire world is "out to get" Trump, and nothing anyone can say or show you will change your minds. The level of martyrdom is truly impressive. It is what it is.
And if an appeals court of three Democrats determines an "excessive fine" must be paid in order to appeal an "excessive fine" on Eighth Amendment grounds that specifically prohibit "excessive fines," that's going to total FIVE partisans engaged in this scheme to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the former president as a result of zero tangible misconduct.
PA24 said:
It's just a trap.
NEW: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary slams AG Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron seizing Donald Trump's assets 'like in Venezuela or Cuba' during heated CNN shouting match.
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 19, 2024
"This may be great for the attorney general, but this is not good for America."
"Forget about Trump. You… pic.twitter.com/yzb6YhPKfc
shiftyandquick said:
1. He misrepresented his assets (and not by a little bit) in order to get himself a better interest rate, in order to convey that the risk was less than it really was.
2. The better interest rate made a ton of money for him. I saw one source that said it was more than $170 million in his pocket.
3. The misrepresentation of his assets was a crime (against the law).
4. The penalty handed out by the judge was for "disgorgement" of his ill-gotten gains, i.e. how much money he made + interest (+penalty?).
Anything I am missing?
shiftyandquick said:
1. He misrepresented his assets (and not by a little bit) in order to get himself a better interest rate, in order to convey that the risk was less than it really was.
2. The better interest rate made a ton of money for him. I saw one source that said it was more than $170 million in his pocket.
3. The misrepresentation of his assets was a crime (against the law).
4. The penalty handed out by the judge was for "disgorgement" of his ill-gotten gains, i.e. how much money he made + interest (+penalty?).
Anything I am missing?
1. The due diligence in this private transaction is the responsibility of the lender. When you at that level you dealing with the smartest people in the world so far as risk assessment, and those people were satisfied with what they saw from Trump.shiftyandquick said:
1. He misrepresented his assets (and not by a little bit) in order to get himself a better interest rate, in order to convey that the risk was less than it really was.
2. The better interest rate made a ton of money for him. I saw one source that said it was more than $170 million in his pocket.
3. The misrepresentation of his assets was a crime (against the law).
4. The penalty handed out by the judge was for "disgorgement" of his ill-gotten gains, i.e. how much money he made + interest (+penalty?).
Anything I am missing?
Let's not forget that a jury decided O.J. was not guilty, not the judge.Opalka said:He doesn't actually pay HER, personally. Let's not forget that a jury decided Trump's guilt, not the judge.CSTXAg92 said:
1) He shouldn't pay
2) If does pay anything, he should pay her lyin' ass in pennies
Keep fighting the good fight, Hawg, but these folks don't care about the facts. Interferes with the self-pity party.aggiehawg said:
Stop talking about juries. There was no jury in this case because the law didn't allow for one. Bench trial only.
The jury claim was made by a leftist who is celebrating the decision, no self-pity involved.Antoninus said:Keep fighting the good fight, Hawg, but these folks don't care about the facts. Interferes with the self-pity party.aggiehawg said:
Stop talking about juries. There was no jury in this case because the law didn't allow for one. Bench trial only.
