• Donald Trump has to cut a fat check, and his appeal of the E. Jean Carroll verdict won’t delay that.
  • Within 30 days of the judge’s written judgment, Trump has to turn over either cash or a bond.
  • While he appeals the verdict, Carroll can’t touch that money — but neither can Trump.
  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    10 months ago

    The reason he has to cough up the money is: he has to post bond before he’s allowed to appeal. So either he pays what he owes, or he puts up the money to ensure he pays after the appeal is overturned.

    Ms. Carroll, unfortunately, won’t see that money for probably another year, but at least she can rest assured that Trump is going to lose that appeal. Even if he becomes Supreme Dictator in November, that money is gone.

  • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I bet he can’t even cover the check, since it’s going to escrow and needs to be paid in full.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    He doesn’t have it to hand over. That’s over three times what the judge in his fraud trial said Mar-a-Lago was worth (Trump claimed it was worth $1 billion).

    • teejay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      He doesn’t have it to hand over

      Yes he does. He has to either pay the judgement to her, or put it in escrow if he plans to appeal.

      That’s over three times what the judge in his fraud trial said Mar-a-Lago was worth (Trump claimed it was worth $1 billion).

      I don’t understand this statement. Are you suggesting that the reason you think he doesn’t have to pay is because it’s a lot of money?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        67
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think you misread what I wrote.

        I said “He doesn’t have it to hand over” not “he doesn’t have to hand it over.”

        He doesn’t have it to hand over because he’s not that rich.

        • teejay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          10 months ago

          Shoot, my bad, you’re right. I misread that as “he doesn’t have to hand it over”.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            10 months ago

            No problem. I think I could have been clearer. Chalk it up to the perils of communicating over text with no vocal inflections.

          • qprimed@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            10 months ago

            gonna just point out the collective PTSD we are all suffering. I also initially read it incorrectly and didnt bother re-reading because… well… “its the orange asshole - of course he’s avoiding consequence… again!”

            this puss filled ass boil needs to see jail time.

        • SaintWacko
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          10 months ago

          Wow, yeah, my brain absolutely read “He doesn’t have to hand it over” 😂

        • rab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Even after you clarified here I still had to analyse those sentences for the difference

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I’m not the person you replied to, but I believe the person is saying “he doesn’t have it, so therefore he cannot hand over something he doesn’t have.”

      • sharkaccident@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes he does. He has to either pay the judgement to her, or put it in escrow if he plans to appeal

        No he doesn’t. I hate trump as much as anyone else, but all he has to do is get someone else to post bond (he will still have to provide a percentage to cover). There is a long list of people/companies/countries that would take that gamble assuming he gets reelected.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      He will grift it from his donors, like he always does.

      That’s less than $2 per 2020 Trump voter, and he gets more popular every time a judgment goes against him.

      At some point it will run out but I don’t think this is the last straw.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    What’s to stop Trump doing the same thing that OJ has been doing for 25 years to avoid paying out to the families of the people he murdered in cold blood?

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        OJ declared bankruptcy. If Trump did that he’d be opening up his finances to a ton of scrutiny he doesn’t want. He’d also be admitting to the world that his status as a successful billionaire is pure horseshit.

        • Goodie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          10 months ago

          I do believe he testified recently that he is in good financial standing and has $400m cash. Which means perjury time, baby! Let’s go!

  • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Within 30 days of the judge’s written judgment, Trump has to turn over either cash or a bond.

    This always, always begs the question: “or what?” Over and over we hear of what courts decide people “must” do, but when they are rich and/or powerful or honestly just stubborn enough, it doesn’t seem to have any teeth.

    And I get it, there are a lot of things they can do, but they always seem to scared or complacent to do any of them. It’s getting real old reading about what Trump or Alex Jones or whoever “must” do without seeing them actually suffer consequences for not doing it.

    • Mononon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      In this case, Carroll can start taking possession of his assets herself. She does not seem particularly sheepish about that. For some of these people, they can hide their assets, but Trump’s are publicly known. I can’t say what will happen, but there’s some teeth to this one. And Trump couldn’t argue with the damages amount because he’d risk losing one of his other cases that hinges on his assets’ worth.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Also, I think it would mean she immediately gets the $5m that Trump had to put in escrow (which essentially means the court can dispense this without any action from Trump)

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    A federal jury sitting in Manhattan found that Trump defamed Carroll in 2019 by calling her a liar after she told the world he’d sexually assaulted her.

    Once all post-verdict squabbles are settled, the final legal domino is expected to fall, triggering a payment clock to start ticking.

    A source familiar with the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly, told Business Insider that Trump’s $5.5 million was still there, pending the outcome of his appeal of that first verdict.

    A surety company could make Trump provide an extra 10 percent of collateral, and would require he pay a bond premium of anywhere from $250,000 to $1 million.

    Such a large bond could probably be handled only by one of the surety giants — such as Travelers Insurance, Liberty Mutual, Chubb, or JP Morgan Chase, said the expert, whose employer doesn’t allow press statements.

    Among the penalties the attorney general is hoping for in the upcoming verdict are a payment of $370 million and a five-year ban on Trump applying for loans from any New York-registered financial institution.


    The original article contains 767 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • aelwero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    Fuckin bullshit… If you or I, any normal citizen, wins a punitive judgement, the courts will do absolutely fuck all to collect it for you.

    This should be the standard for ALL damages imposed by ALL courts for * everyone*, not just a special case because it’s everyone’s favorite fucking oompah loompah.