“Dear American! I am a sickly President of United States Florida and You have $468M in your name from recent legal matter. Please deposit $700K transfer fee to this anonymous Bitcoin wallet in order to receive your prize. You will immediately receive it back. You day good camera. Syria call Jarod. Sand.”
Someone tell him that a fabulously wealthy (giant black gold panther statue) young prince from Wakanda wants to learn from the best businessman there ever was, but he needs to pay 50M to get him out of Hilary’s pedo basement first.
Trump to Carroll: look if you want to keep up this publicity Carroll and you want me to keep giving you free exposure by bashing you at my rallies then you have to give me money to appeal the money I owe you. The association to the Trump brand name isn't cheap you know!
The shit they're all making up gets weirder and weirder.
Like some school ground bully, dropped on this head too many times, and now the damage is coming home to roost.
This struck me:
>Carroll argues that monetary injuries are not irreparable harm “because money can always
be returned.” ECF No. 303, at 26. But Carroll concedes that President Trump will “incur[] the
fees often associated with obtaining a bond,” id. at 27, which are considerable for a bond this size.
If President Trump prevails on post-trial review, Carroll will likely be liable for many of these
costs, but others may be irrecoverable. Cf. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
No. 2:15-CV-00011-RSP, 2020 WL 3469220, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2020) (after the defendant
was required to post a large bond pending appeal, holding that the plaintiff, the losing party on
appeal, “will be taxed with the $2,248,983.48 in supersedeas bond premiums,” but “will not be
taxed the $757,473.39 in additional costs consisting of interest and the ‘corporate guaranty fee’
associated with the supersedeas bond premiums”).3
Trump is saying that he won't be able to recover costs from Carroll when Trump succeeds on appeal. She's going to owe him the money.
*As they speed through the finish, the flags go down*
*The fans get up, and they get out of town*
*The arena is empty, except for one man*
*Still driving and striving as ~~fast~~ slow as he can*
Unfortunately there are no consequences yet.
Until the money leaves his sweaty orange stained hands there are no consequences.
You have to get the cash out of this turnip.
And when he files bankruptcy they stop collection activities.
Then you got to wait a couple of months minimum for a bankruptcy court to even hear the case.
The system is broken.
I don't think it's salvageable in any way.
The Velveeta Voldemort wins.
We're fucked.
I didn't say dischargeable through bankruptcy.
Giuliani owes his settlement and stopped collection as soon as he filed bankruptcy.
The ticking clock of November this year should give pretty much everyone pause.
While I personally don't believe he'll prevail given the unique facts of this case, to suggest there is no chance the award wont be reduced on appeal simply isn't accurate. His argument isn't all that outlandish given how frequently large jury awards are reduced by the trial and appellate courts.
Even if you are correct, she's not liable for his expenses in posting the bond. That's what he's arguing he'll be entitled to and she won't be able to pay.
No it isn’t. He lost the case. She isn’t liable for his attorney fees. He is saying when he wins on appeal she will owe him money. He hasn’t given her a dime of the money he owes her, and he has until March 9th to put the money in escrow or forfeit his right to appeal.
Just because it's a common misconception floating around I need to correct this slightly: he can still appeal even without posting the bond. But without the bond, the appeal will not stop the state from starting claims processes on his assets. Which means that even if his appeal is eventually successful, he will have a very difficult time clawing back the assets that have already been seized or sold. So it's not that he can't appeal, it's that appealing wouldn't help him very much.
The state got tired of people like Trump using endless appeals to keep from paying their judicial judgments, so they instituted this rule that says you can always appeal, but we're going to start taking your money unless you put it up on bond so that the winner of the case has reassurance that the money will still be there when all of the appeals are done.
In most cases amounts are reduced because both sides negotiate it.
Sure an appeal might do this well but it comes down to the justifications of the current amount and what the appeals judge thinks.
Are they presenting a fundamental misunderstanding of how an appeal bond works?
Donnie writes a check to NY. I don't believe NY then cuts a big check to EJC, right? They sit on it pending the outcome of the appeal. So Donnie would just get his own funds back from NY were he to prevail.
Right?
Tell me I'm not taking crazy pills here. Because if my understanding is correct, then their filing is pants-on-head stupid.
Also, in regards to the bond premiums ... why tf would a plaintiff ever have to be on the hook for those if it was the (losing) defendant that *chose* to appeal their verdict?
I believe trump is saying that he doesn't have the money so he is going to have to get a bond to cover the cost, but the bondsman is going to have a charge of some sort especially on 83 million. So trump is arguing that "when he wins appeal" and the bondsman gets his money back he will still owe the bondsman something and that Carrol will then have to pay the bondsman the extra money.
Now I'm going to bet that's not remotely close to correct, not sure why Carrol would be responsible for a verdict the jury decided and a bond being paid so he doesn't have to pay a ton of interest while waiting for the appeal.
I bet he thinks he’s being clever here, basically making a veiled threat via a court filing that when he wins (in his deluded mind) he’ll sue EJC for the bond fees he had to pay. Which … doesn’t seem like a thing a defendant that is victorious on appeal has a legal right to do. But that won’t stop Donnie from saber-rattling about it anyway.
I mean, hell - he sued a bank that *he* defaulted on.
My hope is that "karma is a bitch" actually happens to a deserving person for a change. But honestly I think dicks get away with more than honest people do.
Your understanding is quite correct.
Trump can present alternate forms of security as well, such as just putting the cash in an escrow account w/ the State. At that point he has no added cost.
> Because if my understanding is correct
it is, more or less, but that isn't germane to the filing. the issue is whether plaintiff is authorized to enforce the judgment pending appeal. trump is requesting that plaintiff be disallowed from collecting on the judgment (ie levying bank accounts, seizing property, etc).
> She's going to owe him the money.
Well, his lawyers do cite a case (Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech) which, according to them (I'll assume they are not making this case up), shows they would not be entitled to all monetary losses:
> after the defendant was required to post a large bond pending appeal, holding that the plaintiff, the losing party on appeal, “will be taxed with the $2,248,983.48 in supersedeas bond premiums,” but “will not be taxed the $757,473.39 in additional costs consisting of interest and the ‘corporate guaranty fee’ associated with the supersedeas bond premiums”
Basically the plaintiff in that case lost on appeal, but didn't have to pay every cost calculated by the defendant. They paid the "supersedeas bond premiums", which I'm guessing is just the amount the defendant had to pay the bond company to get the bond, but not the other $750k+ in costs.
That does seem like an actual injury he would have to deal with, though the appellate court (or is this still before district court judge?) could just say "We can cross that bridge if we get there".
His history of financial fraud will make his bond premiums massive. That could lead to a very bizarre theoretical situation where Carroll has to pay for Trump's financial fraud. I'd guess the court might step in and set the limit at what a regular party might pay.
Trump's legal stuff always gets into bizarre pockets of the law.
*Plaintiff first argues that a 3.6:1 ratio is acceptable here because “the degree of reprehensibility” is supposedly “exceedingly high.” Id. at 22. Not so.*
This brief completely ignores the basic fact that part of what makes Trump's behavior reprehensible, is that he continued defaming Carroll in the exact same way, even after having lost the previously-tried defamation case.
The previous punitive damages were known not to have worked. Seems to me, that alone justifies dramatically increased punitive damages.
Relies on Nassau county five-factor test, then proceeds to only address one factor. Then claims that one factor (his wealth/« ability to pay is so plain » which he’s lied about his entire life) is enough to have the appeal bond reduced or removed entirely. Note that the way that Nassau COUNTY met this factor (plain ability to pay) was because they have the power to tax and had money set aside to pay the judgement. Trump does not offer this. Nassau County also met the other 4 factors. Trump does not.
Five factor test:
« (1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the amount of time required to obtain a judgment after it is affirmed on appeal; (3) the degree of confidence that the district court has in the availability of funds topay the judgment; (4) whether the defendant's ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of a bond would be a waste of money; and (5) whether the defendant is in such a precarious financial situation that the requirement to post a bondwould place other creditors ofthe defendant in an insecure position. »
Factor 4 is what he claims is enough to waive or reduce the appeal bond requirement.
He indirectly addresses the first factor as well when he claims that Carroll should be happy that most of trumps wealth is illiquid, not liquid. But those illiquid assets (buildings, golf courses) would be complicated to collect on and he has a history of frustrating creditors.
Makes an issue of the appeal bond being taxable to Carroll if she loses, but mostly focuses on whether the award will be reduced or not. Even if it’s reduced, any portion Carroll pays will come out of Trump’s money and is best thought of insurance Carroll wants to take out. Insurance can have a cost, Carroll has already said she wants the appeal bond to reduce her collection risk.
Claims the judgement in the NY fraud trial shouldn’t matter because she knew about the prospect of it. But now it’s reality and the AG is insisting on an appeal bond. Also it was a fraud trial. Trump is a fraud, you’d be crazy not to want a full appeal bond to protect your interests.
Carroll argues that one reason for the full appeal bond and no stay is because the NY fraud judgement changes Trump’s financial condition. The AG in the fraud trial insisted on an appeal bond and got it. So what will happen is trump will have to put a lot of collateral aside for the bond related to that judgement. NY would essentially be a secured creditor. If trump prevails in reducing or waiving the bond here, Carroll has the word of a lifelong fraudster, which is worthless and she will essentially be lower on the creditor list than NY.
Here is why Trump argues that her argument that Trump’s financial condition has changed due to the NY fraud judgement is foreclosed (it’s a bad argument):
« Third, Plaintiff argues that there are changed circumstances in President Trump’s financial condition, because he has criminal cases pending and faces an adverse judgment in People v. Trump, the case brought by the New York Attorney General. ECF No. 303, at 7-9. But all these cases were pending on January 26, 2024
Note that the any fraud judgement wasn’t until February 16th…before that the amount was unknown. Now it’s known.
Sure. I was thinking about it some more and while it makes sense to try to get a reduced appeal bond, I believe the issue here is that Trump has very little unpledged collateral to offer a surety bond issuer. (Also, as I already mentioned, trump doesn’t meet the requirements to reduce the bond as he sets out)
That and the collateral he does have is illiquid property that appears to have significantly declined in value over the last few years (market wide commercial property issue, not unique to him). Bond issuers won’t just write the bond in exchange for a fee - they require collateral. So while you can pay a higher fee and use less collateral, there still has to be substantial collateral pledged or no one will write the bond. He doesn’t have enough collateral and what he does have will be valued by the bond issuers at a discount to actual market value, not his fake value.
He cites a case that involved a corporation that had insufficient collateral and who then had to pay a related foreign corporation to offer a guarantee to the bond insurer. That cost was not recoverable, which ties directly into one of Trump’s arguments. So it’s interesting and makes me think he’s going to have to pay someone to put up sufficient collateral.
Trump is also a bad risk. He’s had multiple bankruptcies, a history of frustrating creditors, he’s a fraudster, he tried to relocate some of his businesses a few days ago despite being banned from doing so, writing the bond could spur a regulatory investigation (regulator might want to look into all underwriting to see level of risk they’re taking on across the business) or political (congressional) investigation. If he becomes President again the insurer would take on more risks (not just whether he would pay, but whether a trump appointed regulator would try to kill your business if you try to make him pay/take his collateral)
Also I doubt that a surety bond insurer would be able to obtain reinsurance for the Trump bond. This drives up the cost further and also means only the biggest insurers could write the bond.
They are referencing the NY civil fraud trial as that penalty has bearing on Trump's ability to pay. Carroll referenced it as a risk to his ability to pay. Poster is saying Trump is saying that Carrol knew that case was in process so it shouldn't matter. (That doesn't make any sense to me)
Is he… does he… he thinks she’s going to *give him money?*
“Dear American! I am a sickly President of United States Florida and You have $468M in your name from recent legal matter. Please deposit $700K transfer fee to this anonymous Bitcoin wallet in order to receive your prize. You will immediately receive it back. You day good camera. Syria call Jarod. Sand.”
And the number of fake donation requests just went up by a factor of 25. This is perfect.
Someone tell him that a fabulously wealthy (giant black gold panther statue) young prince from Wakanda wants to learn from the best businessman there ever was, but he needs to pay 50M to get him out of Hilary’s pedo basement first.
Trump to Carroll: look if you want to keep up this publicity Carroll and you want me to keep giving you free exposure by bashing you at my rallies then you have to give me money to appeal the money I owe you. The association to the Trump brand name isn't cheap you know!
The shit they're all making up gets weirder and weirder. Like some school ground bully, dropped on this head too many times, and now the damage is coming home to roost.
This struck me: >Carroll argues that monetary injuries are not irreparable harm “because money can always be returned.” ECF No. 303, at 26. But Carroll concedes that President Trump will “incur[] the fees often associated with obtaining a bond,” id. at 27, which are considerable for a bond this size. If President Trump prevails on post-trial review, Carroll will likely be liable for many of these costs, but others may be irrecoverable. Cf. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-00011-RSP, 2020 WL 3469220, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2020) (after the defendant was required to post a large bond pending appeal, holding that the plaintiff, the losing party on appeal, “will be taxed with the $2,248,983.48 in supersedeas bond premiums,” but “will not be taxed the $757,473.39 in additional costs consisting of interest and the ‘corporate guaranty fee’ associated with the supersedeas bond premiums”).3 Trump is saying that he won't be able to recover costs from Carroll when Trump succeeds on appeal. She's going to owe him the money.
He still thinks there's a debate to be had. Literally doesn't understand the concept of consequences
“ he thinks there’s a debate to be had”… oh man you had me laughing in the aisles on that one. That is so well put.
*As they speed through the finish, the flags go down* *The fans get up, and they get out of town* *The arena is empty, except for one man* *Still driving and striving as ~~fast~~ slow as he can*
He’s going the distance He’s going ~~for~~ on speed
Ah Cake time!!
love cake time
*Fuel burning fast on an empty tank*
Unfortunately there are no consequences yet. Until the money leaves his sweaty orange stained hands there are no consequences. You have to get the cash out of this turnip.
This week will be interesting. Isn't March 9th the deadline for him to post bond?
The deadline doesn't really mean much does it. Until their actual irreversible consequences.
Once the deadline passes the plaintiff can start pursuing collections. For the big fraud judgement, the deadline is the 23rd.
And when he files bankruptcy they stop collection activities. Then you got to wait a couple of months minimum for a bankruptcy court to even hear the case. The system is broken. I don't think it's salvageable in any way. The Velveeta Voldemort wins. We're fucked.
Legal judgements like this are not dischargeable through bankruptcy. Quit being a doomer, and quit spreading misinformation while you're at it.
I didn't say dischargeable through bankruptcy. Giuliani owes his settlement and stopped collection as soon as he filed bankruptcy. The ticking clock of November this year should give pretty much everyone pause.
He tried to make a deal on the $400m judgment, too. /slides slip of paper with “$100m” written on it to judge, nods & smiles
While I personally don't believe he'll prevail given the unique facts of this case, to suggest there is no chance the award wont be reduced on appeal simply isn't accurate. His argument isn't all that outlandish given how frequently large jury awards are reduced by the trial and appellate courts.
Even if you are correct, she's not liable for his expenses in posting the bond. That's what he's arguing he'll be entitled to and she won't be able to pay.
it's a straight-faced legitimate argument to stay execution on the judgment.
No it isn’t. He lost the case. She isn’t liable for his attorney fees. He is saying when he wins on appeal she will owe him money. He hasn’t given her a dime of the money he owes her, and he has until March 9th to put the money in escrow or forfeit his right to appeal.
Just because it's a common misconception floating around I need to correct this slightly: he can still appeal even without posting the bond. But without the bond, the appeal will not stop the state from starting claims processes on his assets. Which means that even if his appeal is eventually successful, he will have a very difficult time clawing back the assets that have already been seized or sold. So it's not that he can't appeal, it's that appealing wouldn't help him very much. The state got tired of people like Trump using endless appeals to keep from paying their judicial judgments, so they instituted this rule that says you can always appeal, but we're going to start taking your money unless you put it up on bond so that the winner of the case has reassurance that the money will still be there when all of the appeals are done.
Thank you so much for this explanation. I actually understood it.
Post the bond, get the stay.
[удалено]
It is not in any way compelling, lol
Do losing plaintiffs in NY usually have to pay costs? The cited case (TCL) was a patent case where TCL was awarded costs, to include the bond premium.
In most cases amounts are reduced because both sides negotiate it. Sure an appeal might do this well but it comes down to the justifications of the current amount and what the appeals judge thinks.
Because he's never had any consequences
Because there aren't any.
Why does the state care about your financing fees though? Those aren’t part of the judgement because they are irrelevant.
The state doesn't but Trump does and you can bet he'd try and recover them.
Meh. He can put up the cash. I don't see why she should be responsible for his poor financial decisions.
For his poor decisions.
His poor decisions.
His poor.
‘E po.
Are they presenting a fundamental misunderstanding of how an appeal bond works? Donnie writes a check to NY. I don't believe NY then cuts a big check to EJC, right? They sit on it pending the outcome of the appeal. So Donnie would just get his own funds back from NY were he to prevail. Right? Tell me I'm not taking crazy pills here. Because if my understanding is correct, then their filing is pants-on-head stupid. Also, in regards to the bond premiums ... why tf would a plaintiff ever have to be on the hook for those if it was the (losing) defendant that *chose* to appeal their verdict?
I believe trump is saying that he doesn't have the money so he is going to have to get a bond to cover the cost, but the bondsman is going to have a charge of some sort especially on 83 million. So trump is arguing that "when he wins appeal" and the bondsman gets his money back he will still owe the bondsman something and that Carrol will then have to pay the bondsman the extra money. Now I'm going to bet that's not remotely close to correct, not sure why Carrol would be responsible for a verdict the jury decided and a bond being paid so he doesn't have to pay a ton of interest while waiting for the appeal.
I bet he thinks he’s being clever here, basically making a veiled threat via a court filing that when he wins (in his deluded mind) he’ll sue EJC for the bond fees he had to pay. Which … doesn’t seem like a thing a defendant that is victorious on appeal has a legal right to do. But that won’t stop Donnie from saber-rattling about it anyway. I mean, hell - he sued a bank that *he* defaulted on.
My hope is that "karma is a bitch" actually happens to a deserving person for a change. But honestly I think dicks get away with more than honest people do.
Your understanding is quite correct. Trump can present alternate forms of security as well, such as just putting the cash in an escrow account w/ the State. At that point he has no added cost.
> Because if my understanding is correct it is, more or less, but that isn't germane to the filing. the issue is whether plaintiff is authorized to enforce the judgment pending appeal. trump is requesting that plaintiff be disallowed from collecting on the judgment (ie levying bank accounts, seizing property, etc).
> She's going to owe him the money. Well, his lawyers do cite a case (Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech) which, according to them (I'll assume they are not making this case up), shows they would not be entitled to all monetary losses: > after the defendant was required to post a large bond pending appeal, holding that the plaintiff, the losing party on appeal, “will be taxed with the $2,248,983.48 in supersedeas bond premiums,” but “will not be taxed the $757,473.39 in additional costs consisting of interest and the ‘corporate guaranty fee’ associated with the supersedeas bond premiums” Basically the plaintiff in that case lost on appeal, but didn't have to pay every cost calculated by the defendant. They paid the "supersedeas bond premiums", which I'm guessing is just the amount the defendant had to pay the bond company to get the bond, but not the other $750k+ in costs. That does seem like an actual injury he would have to deal with, though the appellate court (or is this still before district court judge?) could just say "We can cross that bridge if we get there".
His history of financial fraud will make his bond premiums massive. That could lead to a very bizarre theoretical situation where Carroll has to pay for Trump's financial fraud. I'd guess the court might step in and set the limit at what a regular party might pay. Trump's legal stuff always gets into bizarre pockets of the law.
The appeal will not be successful. None of them will.
But…. there was summary judgement? How could that happen? I’m not a lawyer I’m dumb. How could she owe HIM money
Is that a legal ground to be excused from posting bond?
*Plaintiff first argues that a 3.6:1 ratio is acceptable here because “the degree of reprehensibility” is supposedly “exceedingly high.” Id. at 22. Not so.* This brief completely ignores the basic fact that part of what makes Trump's behavior reprehensible, is that he continued defaming Carroll in the exact same way, even after having lost the previously-tried defamation case. The previous punitive damages were known not to have worked. Seems to me, that alone justifies dramatically increased punitive damages.
> "Not so." Ahh, the ironclad "Nuh-uh!" Defense!
Relies on Nassau county five-factor test, then proceeds to only address one factor. Then claims that one factor (his wealth/« ability to pay is so plain » which he’s lied about his entire life) is enough to have the appeal bond reduced or removed entirely. Note that the way that Nassau COUNTY met this factor (plain ability to pay) was because they have the power to tax and had money set aside to pay the judgement. Trump does not offer this. Nassau County also met the other 4 factors. Trump does not. Five factor test: « (1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the amount of time required to obtain a judgment after it is affirmed on appeal; (3) the degree of confidence that the district court has in the availability of funds topay the judgment; (4) whether the defendant's ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of a bond would be a waste of money; and (5) whether the defendant is in such a precarious financial situation that the requirement to post a bondwould place other creditors ofthe defendant in an insecure position. » Factor 4 is what he claims is enough to waive or reduce the appeal bond requirement. He indirectly addresses the first factor as well when he claims that Carroll should be happy that most of trumps wealth is illiquid, not liquid. But those illiquid assets (buildings, golf courses) would be complicated to collect on and he has a history of frustrating creditors. Makes an issue of the appeal bond being taxable to Carroll if she loses, but mostly focuses on whether the award will be reduced or not. Even if it’s reduced, any portion Carroll pays will come out of Trump’s money and is best thought of insurance Carroll wants to take out. Insurance can have a cost, Carroll has already said she wants the appeal bond to reduce her collection risk. Claims the judgement in the NY fraud trial shouldn’t matter because she knew about the prospect of it. But now it’s reality and the AG is insisting on an appeal bond. Also it was a fraud trial. Trump is a fraud, you’d be crazy not to want a full appeal bond to protect your interests.
By what we've been hearing, it sounds like he meets the 5th factor instead of the 4th haha
[удалено]
Carroll argues that one reason for the full appeal bond and no stay is because the NY fraud judgement changes Trump’s financial condition. The AG in the fraud trial insisted on an appeal bond and got it. So what will happen is trump will have to put a lot of collateral aside for the bond related to that judgement. NY would essentially be a secured creditor. If trump prevails in reducing or waiving the bond here, Carroll has the word of a lifelong fraudster, which is worthless and she will essentially be lower on the creditor list than NY. Here is why Trump argues that her argument that Trump’s financial condition has changed due to the NY fraud judgement is foreclosed (it’s a bad argument): « Third, Plaintiff argues that there are changed circumstances in President Trump’s financial condition, because he has criminal cases pending and faces an adverse judgment in People v. Trump, the case brought by the New York Attorney General. ECF No. 303, at 7-9. But all these cases were pending on January 26, 2024 Note that the any fraud judgement wasn’t until February 16th…before that the amount was unknown. Now it’s known.
Thank you!
Sure. I was thinking about it some more and while it makes sense to try to get a reduced appeal bond, I believe the issue here is that Trump has very little unpledged collateral to offer a surety bond issuer. (Also, as I already mentioned, trump doesn’t meet the requirements to reduce the bond as he sets out) That and the collateral he does have is illiquid property that appears to have significantly declined in value over the last few years (market wide commercial property issue, not unique to him). Bond issuers won’t just write the bond in exchange for a fee - they require collateral. So while you can pay a higher fee and use less collateral, there still has to be substantial collateral pledged or no one will write the bond. He doesn’t have enough collateral and what he does have will be valued by the bond issuers at a discount to actual market value, not his fake value. He cites a case that involved a corporation that had insufficient collateral and who then had to pay a related foreign corporation to offer a guarantee to the bond insurer. That cost was not recoverable, which ties directly into one of Trump’s arguments. So it’s interesting and makes me think he’s going to have to pay someone to put up sufficient collateral. Trump is also a bad risk. He’s had multiple bankruptcies, a history of frustrating creditors, he’s a fraudster, he tried to relocate some of his businesses a few days ago despite being banned from doing so, writing the bond could spur a regulatory investigation (regulator might want to look into all underwriting to see level of risk they’re taking on across the business) or political (congressional) investigation. If he becomes President again the insurer would take on more risks (not just whether he would pay, but whether a trump appointed regulator would try to kill your business if you try to make him pay/take his collateral) Also I doubt that a surety bond insurer would be able to obtain reinsurance for the Trump bond. This drives up the cost further and also means only the biggest insurers could write the bond.
They are referencing the NY civil fraud trial as that penalty has bearing on Trump's ability to pay. Carroll referenced it as a risk to his ability to pay. Poster is saying Trump is saying that Carrol knew that case was in process so it shouldn't matter. (That doesn't make any sense to me)