“But the Trumpian part is that even though, or perhaps because, it may be part of a Trump scam, Knight now too may be on the hook for $175 million as it won’t automatically get out from underneath its own proffered surety.”

Hankey, a billionaire, has already said that his company will be able to post the money for Trump.

He was reacting to a comment on X by lawyer Dave Kingman, who wrote that Knight will not be able to post the $175 million.

“Understand that Knight Specialty has a problem. This bond cannot be approved. Under the CPLR [Civil Practice Laws and Rules] the surety will remain obligated under the bond until a replacement bond is filed. Trump is unlikely to get a replacement bond. Knight Spec will be liable AND Trump won’t have a stay [on enforcement],” he wrote.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    ·
    9 months ago

    FTA:

    “Thus NY AG James looks to be soon greenlit to execute on her $450 million judgment against Trump as if Trump posted no bond.”

    That was my #1 question in all of this, assuming a bond failure, does she get to go after $175 million in assets or $450 million?

    Now we know…

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      120
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why does this guy get to run for president when he appears to have committed millions of dollars in fraud? Shouldn’t that be jail time for anyone else?

        • DharkStare@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          109
          ·
          9 months ago

          Obama really did open the floodgates on all the racists. I guess I was really naive, but I had no idea there were so many racist everywhere.

          • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            118
            ·
            9 months ago

            As a white guy with a beard in a blue collar industry, I’m shocked at what strangers will just assume I’m cool with hearing out of their mouths. They truly have no shame anymore. It’s fucking wild.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              33
              ·
              9 months ago

              Add tattoos. Yea. People are awful. “I like Alex Jones”. I have never wanted to punch a coworker so much in my life.

              • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                The way I respond is always ‘neutral’ but calling them what they are. So for Alex Jones I might say ‘oh the dude who lied about dead kids?’ the key is to sound neutral and then just disengage if they try to start a conversation about it. ‘yea I don’t care dude’.

                ‘tate? The rapist and woman beater? OK.’ just disengage on that topic. Make it see like you’re stating a fact, because you are and there’s no room for them to argue or engage.

                • GladiusB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  For real. It’s like they completely don’t get that it sounds so bad when you just stick to the facts.

            • Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              ·
              9 months ago

              My colleagues and I are all mechanical or industrial engineers. We travel around the country to project sites. I’ll be on a job site and hear all the trades guys saying the most vile shit. And be completely shocked I tell them to knock it off or I’ll tell the general contractor to get someone else out.

              The part that pisses me off the most though is how often they’re union members.

          • Eldritch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            9 months ago

            We never had a reckoning for slavery, for segregation, redlining, employment discrimination. Or any of the thousands of other racist touchstones of our country. In fact, far too many Americans still blame the victims and their descendants for the struggles they still experience. Too many Americans blame their own struggles on the victims as well. Obama opened no floodgates. These people were always wildly racist. They’d just not had such an opportunity to so vocally and visually demonstrate it.

            My ignorance of just how much it permeated my childhood and young adult years was terrifying. Even colloquial phrases and sayings picked up in my youth were coded with racism. And with how little we promote understanding and learning. It’s easy to see how so many getting called out for it rather than stopping to learn. Just push back and double down self-righteously. America is a wildly racist country, and always has been.

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              It’s to the point where some of them are now trying to find ways to make it worse to call someone racist than being a racist.

          • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            9 months ago

            My favorite is when racists say “We’ve had a black president so we can’t be a nation of racists.”

            Like…somehow having a black president now makes it okay for all of the shit conservatives want to do.

            • lobut@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              9 months ago

              They did it on CNN. I remember some Republican prick saying, “you know why we’re not racist? Obama.”

              It just so happened that the racists got outvoted. Their party really seized upon being racists though.

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Oh, so did that repub vote for Obama, then? I realize that was on tv, but when I hear that IRL, I’ll ask if they voted for Obama. If they did, could they explain why the hell we had the birtherism shit? And why donnie, who is king of the birthers, is the choice of the cons and how did he get into office?

          • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 months ago

            This all goes back to those neighborhood apps where everyone was openly racist. All around the time of BLM. Download anyone of them today to find out how racist your neighbors are.

        • ZagamTheVile@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah but come on. He wore a tan suit once. What did you expect? It’s like we were asking for this.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            And the feet on the desk! And the latte salute!

            Also, also, also! The looooooong form biiiiiirth sertifikate! We never saw it! He is the Kenyan usurper! And The Storm is still coming for Hillary and Obama and Hunter, by gawd.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          This is what I come back to. The right’s crazy was in check somewhat beforehand, but when Obama won it went off the cliff.

          • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Remember when Bush was, what we thought, the lowest we could go? Dude is loveable by current standards.

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I shudder to think what the repug party will manifest after donnie. It should be obvious that donnie did not make the repug party any different; they were always bad and on a trajectory of getting worse. People like Newt and Rush accelerated that for sure, along with platforms like hatriot radio and Faux “News”.

              I doubt they’ll course correct after mainlining someone like donnie for years, they will be chasing that dragon ever after and will never settle for methadone like ronnie raygun or Bush Sr/Jr or Romney or McCain…I imagine at some point donnie himself will be declared “woke” or a “RINO”, especially when I see him claiming he won’t vote for a federal ban on abortion.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I just think they have a better megaphone now, and the liberal (lol) Big Tech seemingly has algorithms that prioritize engagement - and the crazy shit tends to get people angry and therefore, more engaged in, let’s be honest, rehashes of John Birch Society and Protocols of the Elders of Zion levels of horse manure. Let’s face it - there is very little new that’s under the sun, it just gets new packaging.

            They were crazy over the Clintons in the 90s. Hatriot radio didn’t have algorithms though, and neither did USENET/BBSes or the very early web. Going further back, they didn’t have Faux news or even BBSes; they had to stand out on a corner and try to hand out bullshit like Jack Chick tracts or Bircher literature. It’d be nice if they had to revert back to that level of spreading their nonsense.

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I definitely think they were able to be a lot more bold in their dogwhistles. I’d be interested in seeing surveys that had questions that serve as ways to suss out how it waxed and waned over the years…my guess is that their numbers may have actually gone down over the years, but they are more visible/have more influence in relation to their numbers.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think that is indeed true - they got somehow even worse than they were before, but honestly, after Clinton, they would have done the same thing. They’d let a WAB like donnie the vain Manhattanite born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a 2-hour beauty regime get away with nearly anything, because they think he’s a bigly strong businessman and one of them, lol.

          They were spreading all kinds of BS in the 90s about Clinton and thought he should have been executed - and that’s even before these weird freaks found out about the BJ. The fact that he “got away” with a BJ drove them up the wall.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        9 months ago

        Weirdly, it wasn’t a criminal case, purely civil. The criminal side of the case was against the Trump organization and he had a fall guy for that:

        https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/allen-weisselberg-sentencing-trump-organization/index.html

        He served 3 months.

        https://apnews.com/article/trump-weisselberg-jail-tax-evasion-6b4e0bbad6d9c92d792cbbcb785882af

        But they just hit him again:

        https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-weisselberg-perjury-0101a9972cefd1e1fb4ba6d36e69fecb

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I understand the idea was that they can score easily on the civil suit and a criminal complaint is still possible.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        9 months ago

        To actually give an answer, it’s because the Constitution very deliberately does not allow criminal convictions to disqualify someone. This was done because it was, and in plenty of places still is, common practice for a government to simply make up charges and arrest any opposition, thus disqualifying them from running.

        You always have to look at this kind of stuff from the other side. Would you really want a Trump to be able to disqualify an opposing candidate for running a red light once twenty years ago?

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think it’s good that Trump can technically run - but it’s fucking embarrassing that he’s managed to retain so much support.

        • Tyfud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Correct, but I think it’s important to add that this is showing that the other systems of checks and balances that were supposed to be in place for frivolous crimes drummed up in the scenarios you’re mentioning, are supposed to stop someone like trump from running.

          Specifically the RNC and the Electoral college. Both of which have miserably failed in their jobs to prevent a dictator from taking power in the united states. As did our legislative side, fail to convict him on 2 airtight impeachment cases.

          This is because the smaller half of our government (republicans), have completely sold out to trump, and there’s no turning back from them. They’re going to ride this ship into the ground.

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            You’re correct, but the fundamental blame for that does lie with the voters, at the end of the day. No amount of structural protections can protect democracy from voters that do not care about it. At that point, they’re just ink on a page.

            • Tyfud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Agreed.

              Which is why voting is so incredibly difficult to do for the people who are the most exploited and marginalized in this country.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Why does this guy get to run for president when he appears to have committed millions of dollars in fraud? Shouldn’t that be jail time for anyone else?

        Because he was found guilty in a civil trial and not a criminal one. Think of OJ, convicted of civil wrongful death but not murder in a criminal court. Lose money, but don’t go to jail.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Why is fraud against the state considered civil? It seems to be a crime for everyone else

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not sure what answer you’re looking for, but because the attorney general brought a civil case. Perhaps they couldn’t prove criminal fraud, since criminal trials have a higher burden of proof. Perhaps they could satisfy certain elements of criminal fraud, but not all of them. Perhaps they could demonstrate that the actions (actus reus) took place but not the intent (mens rea) required. These would all be questions for the NY AG.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Edit: This article is garbage. Letitia James hasn’t announced shit, this is reporting what some guys on Twitter are talking about. I wouldn’t hold my breath until a better source reports about it.

      The State of New York gets to collect on the entire judgement. That is the amount that the trial court found him liable for and that’s the amount he must pay.

      The bond amount being lowered only means that he needs to post that amount as a guarantee against the judgement in order to stop execution before he appeals. If he loses his appeal, he still needs to pay the full amount of the judgement. Since the bond was no good, it is the same as if he didn’t post anything.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yup it’s all speculation and discussion of what people are saying. Like the Trumpism “Many people are saying”.

        Tried to comment on that but just get downvoted because people see the (wrong) headline and think it’s the truth.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I often go to threads about Newsweek articles to see the discussion, but I never click the articles anymore. They’re a total rag, and seem to have figured out that people on both sides will click an article saying Trump is going to get something that’s coming to him.

  • Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    LoL, no surety, no bond, and now #45 has hooked another criminal (Hankey) into his operation. Go for it, pull them all down.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    yet another post where the title says “Trump To Actually Be Held Responsible For Crimes Committed On Live TV” and the article is just people who ahve nothing to do with either Trump or the law guessing that someone could possibly do something with no idea as to whether anyone will actually do anything. It’s raw speculation and it degrades the platform, but anything that says “Trump Good” or “Trump Bad” will of course get a million upvotes.

    Feels like I’m back on fucking Reddit.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t blame the community, I blame the media. The media needs to generate views to sell eyeballs. They need to keep you clicking and watching by saying that the resolution is just around the corner. If they waited to report on things that actually happened nobody would care.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Feels like I’m back on fucking Reddit.

      DISCLAIMER: This is a complete tangent from comments on the original post, but the original post is likely garbage anyway so I’ll just go with it.

      I don’t know why people think that creating a copy-cat version of Reddit with “federation” will do much of anything to solve the problems with online “communities”.

      The problem with Reddit may have been partially the for-profit corporate part, or the admins, etc but it was definitely not exclusively those things.

      Every single online “community” that has popped up since Web 2.0 has versions of the exact same problems. Maybe they’re difficult to solve inherently, but I am not sure because it seems like everyone just creates the same site structure and I think at least some of it has to do with the structure.

      Is there anyone trying to not make the next Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or Reddit? Someone that’s trying to actually make something different? Like something useful or with a fundamentally better moderation model? Because if so maybe I should waste my time on that instead of these copycat platforms.

      It’s not just “they’re bots” or “they’re Russians” either…because Nextdoor has a pretty stringent verification policy, is based around localities, and it’s still essentially Facebook for NIMBYs.

      • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        To be honest, I find myself reading them more. Their goals are to drive clicks more than political ideals. It’s garbage, but consistent garbage with minimal bias compared to most other options. At least you know where they stand…

  • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    9 months ago

    Screw Trump but this whole article is nothing more than conjecture from two dudes on twitter. When the hell did stuff like this become news?

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    9 months ago

    Looks like there is a real possibility that

    The headline would have been a lot more honest if it had included that part

  • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    9 months ago

    IIRC the judge is giving shithead another 10 days to re-secure the $175M bond so James is no doubt warming up the seizure engines

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Surely Hankey isn’t offering up $175 million on Trump’s behalf out of the goodness of his own heart. This is surely an investment where he can gain privileged access to the Trump administration if he gets into office again, maybe get some lucrative government contracts out of it.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Shit, he offered to put in 475, but while on the call to set it up, trumps lawyers found out they got it lowered to 175, and told Hankey he was no longer needed.

      Then had to go back for the 175 because no one legit would even know that.

      It’s very possible trumps lawyers knew a bond wouldn’t work, but knew by the time that was found out, Hankey was on the hook.

      It’s a lot easier for trump to avoid paying Hankey than the government.

  • Hello_there@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wtf is that user submitted fairness meter at the bottom? Since when do we rely on trolls to provide any reliable metrics about quality of writing?

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Since it was deemed profitable to do so. Every vote is an ad impression and trying to manipulate or correct the value just means even more ad impressions.

      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Look at the site on mobile with no filters and it’s immediately obvious that they are in the enshitification business, not news.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not to mention the going along with the “centrist equals fair” bullshit that media outlet owners and other rich people love to perpetuate🤦

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    He should have gone to his buddy Vince McMahon who for some reason keeps selling stock and now has like a billion dollars in cash. I’m sure it’s Vince’s “fly to a non extradition country” fund when the heat gets too much, but he can lend Trump half

    • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      You mean Don Jr.’s father? I heard his money is tied up in court. I mean, women have been accusing him of rape for decades now… just like Don Sr.!

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Eric Lisann was reacting to a separate comment by another lawyer, Dave Kingman, who wrote that Knight Specialty Insurance will not be able to post the bond for Trump.

    Writing on X, formerly Twitter, one-time federal prosecutor Lisann wrote that Knight Speciality might not be able to post the bond for Trump and will be liable for the full amount because it had given a guarantee to the court.

    “Looks like there is a real possibility that this Don Hankey-owned Knight Specialty Insurance does not itself have liquidity, and did not get from Trump collateral, sufficient to provide legally cognizable assurance that it can pay $175 million on demand in the event of a judgment-affirming appeal,” he said.

    Trump posted a $175 million bond on April 1 in order to prevent the seizure of his assets by New York while he attempts to appeal the civil fraud ruling against him.

    The bond was then rejected by the court’s filing system shortly after it was posted due to missing paperwork, including a “current financial statement.”

    James, whose office led the fraud case against Trump, later raised questions about the “sufficiency” of the bond and noted that the surety backing it, Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC), is not admitted in New York, meaning it’s ineligible to obtain a certificate of qualification from the Department of Financial Services.


    The original article contains 712 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!