Democrats want everything taken away from Trump and it’s just plain sad.
In recent statements, former President Trump raised concerns over the daunting task of meeting a $464 million bond deadline in his ongoing New York civil fraud case. Trump emphasized potential extreme measures, including the possibility of selling properties at discounted “fire sale” rates, to fulfill this financial obligation.
Expressing discontent with Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling against him in the fraud case, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to voice objections to the bond requirement. He criticized the judge’s decision, portraying it as an infringement on his appellate rights and an unprecedented demand.
Trump’s legal team informed the court of the challenges in securing the full bond amount, citing difficulties in finding a Treasury Department-approved surety company willing to underwrite such a high-level bond. They highlighted internal policies of approved companies, which often cap bond issuance at $100 million, further complicating the matter.
A significant hurdle lies in the inability to leverage property as collateral for the bond, given the nature of the Trump Organization’s assets heavily invested in real estate. Despite assertions of the organization’s strong liquidity position, the sheer magnitude of the bond remains practically unattainable.
The former president’s appeal hinges on meeting this bond requirement, a prerequisite for the appeal process to proceed. Trump is contesting Judge Engoron’s earlier ruling, which imposed substantial penalties amounting to nearly $355 million, dealing a significant blow to his family’s business interests in New York.
Trump’s discontent extends beyond financial concerns, with repeated criticisms of the judgment as unconstitutional and un-American. He alleges bias in the judicial process, characterizing it as a politically motivated “Witch Hunt” orchestrated by his adversaries.
In a series of impassioned posts, Trump questioned the feasibility and fairness of the bond size, framing it as an unprecedented and unjust burden on any company, regardless of its success. The former president’s stance underscores the intensity of the legal battle and its broader implications for his business legacy and personal reputation.