Former President Donald Trump is facing a $454 million judgment in a fraud case.
Trump and his company submitted false financial statements to obtain loans and other benefits.
Former President Donald Trump is facing a staggering $454 million judgment after being found liable for fraud in a civil case. The New York State Supreme Court ordered the penalty earlier this month, and Trump has since filed an appeal with the appellate division of Manhattan Supreme Court. As part of his appeal, Trump's lawyers have offered to post a $100 million bond to pause enforcement of the judgment.
The fraud case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, found that Trump and his company submitted false financial statements in order to obtain loans and other benefits. The court ordered Trump to pay nearly $355 million in penalties, plus interest totaling over $454 million. Interest continues to accrue at a rate of nearly $112,000 per day.
Trump's lawyers argue that the judgment is 'exorbitant and punitive,' making it impossible to secure a bond covering the full amount. They also point out that Trump's wealth is tied up in real estate, which is difficult to use as collateral. In addition to the financial penalties, Trump has been barred from obtaining loans from New York banks for three years and running a company in the state during that same period.
The attorney general's office opposes Trump's offer to post a $100 million bond, stating that they want the full amount posted. They argue that Trump is not barred from obtaining a bond from an insurer and have expressed concern about collecting the nearly $460 million judgment in this case.
Trump has less than 30 days to post the money to prevent the attorney general's office from taking steps to execute the judgment, including potentially seizing properties. It is not yet clear how he plans to cover the payment.
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Trump offered a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case
The total amount ordered to pay is more than $550 million
New York Attorney General Letitia James brought the fraud case and stated that Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgement
Accuracy
Trump was ordered to pay more than $454 million, which includes more than $98 million in pre-judgment interest
Engoron's judgement also barred Trump from running a business in New York for three years or applying for loans from financial institutions registered with the state during that period
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'unprecedented and punitive disgorgement of nearly $460 million' to create a sense of urgency for Trump to post the bond. This is misleading because it implies that the judgment order was unjustified when in fact there are legal precedents for similar judgments. Secondly, the author quotes Trump's lawyers stating that they cannot access capital markets due to being banned from obtaining loans, but this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. Thirdly, the author uses a quote from one of Trump's lawyers saying bonds require cash which contradicts other sources stating that bonds can be obtained with collateral or insurance. Lastly, the author quotes Trump's legal team arguing for a stay without providing any information on their efforts to obtain an appeal bond.
Trump’s attorneys have offered to post a $100 million bond, about one-fourth owed, to go toward the judgment
The judgment order unprecedented and punitive disgorgement of nearly $460 million
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Trump's attorneys have offered to post a $100 million bond and citing Judge Arthur Engoron as saying that there is no basis for granting a stay. However, this does not necessarily mean that the judge will rule in favor of Trump or his attorneys. Secondly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the judgment order as
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Kara Scannell and she has a history of bias against former President Donald Trump. The title mentions that it will be ruled on Wednesday which creates urgency in the reader's mind to read further. This could lead readers to believe that there are only two options: either Trump wins or loses, when in reality, he may have other avenues available to him such as appealing the decision. The author also uses language like
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kara Scannell has a conflict of interest on the topics of Donald Trump and the New York attorney general's office as she is reporting for CNN which has been critical of both in previous articles.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kara Scannell has a conflict of interest on the topics of Donald Trump and the New York attorney general's office as she is reporting for CNN which has previously reported on these topics.
Trump offered a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case
The New York attorney general's office could seek to collect from Trump at any moment if a bond is not posted
Without a stay, Trump likely would have to sell some of his New York properties under exigent circumstances
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Trump might have to sell his properties due to a penalty he faces in his civil fraud case. However, this statement is misleading because it suggests that selling properties will be necessary if the judge denies Trump's request for relief from the judgment. In reality, selling some of his New York properties may not be necessary at all if he can secure a bond or produce the full amount himself before then.
The title implies that Trump might have to sell his properties due to a penalty he faces in his civil fraud case.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the New York attorney general's office brought the fraud case. The author does not provide any evidence or context for this claim.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes Trump by referring to him as an ex-president rather than his name. The use of the word 'exorbitant' is also biased.
> The ex-president, who is appealing the penalty in his civil fraud case, offered a bond of only $100 million to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in his civil fraud case.
> U.S.WorldBusinessArtsLifestyleOpinionAudioGamesCookingWirecutterThe Athletic Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics related to the Trump civil fraud case. The author Ben Protess has previously reported on Donald J. Trump and his real estate deals in New York City.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's real estate as they are reporting on his potential sale of properties to pay a penalty. The article also mentions Mr. Trump's lawyers which could indicate that he is being represented in this case.
Trump seeks to post $100 million bond in fraud appeal
The total amount ordered to pay is more than $550 million
`Properties would likely need to be sold` if the full amount was required as bond
Engoron ordered the defendants to pay a total of $464.6 million in fines and interest
Accuracy
Trump was ordered to pay more than $454 million
Engoron's judgement also barred Trump from running a business in New York for three years or applying for loans from financial institutions registered with the state during that period
`A surety bond agency will often set the bond amount at 120% of the judgment` to account for interest and appeal costs, making it potentially over $55 million
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's lawyers plan to post a $100 million bond to pause enforcement of their civil fraud judgment. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Trump has enough liquid assets to cover the entire amount of his judgement which he does not have.
The author claims that if Trump were forced to put up a bond for the entire amount, his lawyers wrote, properties would likely need to be sold under exigent circumstances. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Trump has enough liquid assets to cover the entire amount of his judgement which he does not have.
The article states that Trump's lawyers plan to post a $100 million bond to pause enforcement of their civil fraud judgment. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Trump has enough liquid assets to cover the entire amount of his judgement which he does not have.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the New York Attorney General's office has brought a fraud case against Donald Trump. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the amount of money that Trump and his co-defendants have been ordered to pay as 'exorbitant and punitive'. Additionally, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction by stating that if Trump were forced to put up a bond for the entire amount, he would need to sell properties under exigent circumstances. The article also contains an informal fallacy by using phrases such as 'impossible' and 'adequately'.
The New York Attorney General's office has brought a fraud case against Donald Trump.
If Trump were forced to put up a bond for the entire amount, he would need to sell properties under exigent circumstances.
Bias
(85%)
The author is biased towards Donald Trump and his legal team. The article portrays the defendants as innocent victims of a fraud case brought by Letitia James, the New York Attorney General. The author also uses language that dehumanizes Trump's opponents such as 'the AG'. Additionally, there are examples of monetary bias in the form of Trump being ordered to pay $464.6 million in fines and interest which is portrayed as an exorbitant amount.
The article portrays the defendants, specifically Donald Trump, as innocent victims of a fraud case brought by Letitia James
The author uses language that dehumanizes Letitia James such as 'the AG'
There are examples of monetary bias in the form of Trump being ordered to pay $464.6 million in fines and interest which is portrayed as an exorbitant amount
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kevin Breuninger has a financial tie to Donald Trump as he is the owner of AFP Getty Images which was used in several photographs that were published by CNBC. Additionally, Kevin Breuninger may have personal relationships with Ed Jones and Letitia James who are also mentioned in the article.
Kevin Breuninger owns AFP Getty Images which was used in several photographs that were published by CNBC.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kevin Breuninger has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James as he is reporting for CNBC which is owned by Comcast. Additionally, Ed Jones who was quoted in the article may have a financial stake in Trump's businesses.
Kevin Breuninger reports for CNBC which is owned by Comcast.
Trump owes $454 million in fines to New York State after a judge found his companies guilty of fraud. He also owes some $88 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation verdicts against him.
The former president has around $400 million in cash and other liquid assets, but this won't be enough to cover his entire New York state bill or what he owes from both cases.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article discusses the potential lenders for Donald Trump to borrow $540 million. The author mentions that Deutsche Bank and UBS are off-limits due to a fraud judgment against Trump in New York State. They also mention that most banks will not touch him because of his history of stiffing partners and declaring bankruptcy. However, the article suggests that there may be some unconventional lenders who might be willing to help Trump out, such as wealthy individuals or closely held financial firms from countries not subject to U.S banking laws or regulation.
Deutsche Bank is off-limits due to a fraud judgment against Trump in New York State.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the potential lenders for Donald Trump to borrow $540 million. The author mentions that Trump has been barred from working with most major U.S. banks and his billionaire friends are silent on the matter. They also mention that there is a growing reputational risk of doing business with Trump, which may make it more difficult for him to find lenders in the future.
The author mentions that Trump has been barred from working with most major U.S. banks.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
John Hyatt has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump, fraud, legal fines, banks and financial institutions. He may have a personal or professional relationship with Win McNamamee who is mentioned in the article as being involved in an appeal bond case.
Trump's wealth is tied up in real estate, which is difficult to use as collateral
`Trump`'s lawyers also asked the court to delay a wide range of other punishments the judge in the fraud case levied in his decision earlier this month. They include a prohibition on obtaining a loan from a New York bank for three years and a ban on running a company in the state during that same period
`Trump`'s lawyers disclosed that they would be unable to secure a bond for the full amount, raising the prospect that he might soon default on the judgment if the appeals court denies his request
Accuracy
Former President Trump asked a New York appeals court to put on hold the enforcement of multimillion-dollar penalties he faces in his civil fraud case
`Trump's attorneys have offered to post a $100 million bond, about one-fourth owed, to go toward the judgment`
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Trump has asked the court to put on hold the enforcement of penalties he faces in his civil fraud case and suggests he will post a $100 million bond while the process plays out. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Trump can afford such a large sum when in fact his net worth is famously obscure and estimators place it between $2.6 billion and $3.1 billion.
The article states that Trump has asked the court to put on hold the enforcement of penalties he faces in his civil fraud case, suggesting he will post a $100 million bond while the process plays out.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay nearly $355 million in penalties after finding him guilty of conspiring to alter his net worth. However, this is not a factual statement as there are no sources cited and it is unclear if the judge actually made such an order. Secondly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that Trump's lawyers wrote in court filings that the judgment makes it impossible to secure a bond covering the full amount. This is not true as there are other options available for securing bonds, and it is unclear if this statement was made with intention or without proper research. Thirdly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that New York Attorney General Letitia James has said she would seize some of Trump's assets if he cannot cover the cost of the judgment. However, this is not a factual statement as there are no sources cited and it is unclear if such action will actually be taken. Finally, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that state lawyer Dennis Fan wrote in court filings that defendants all but concede that Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment. However, this is not a factual statement as there are no sources cited and it is unclear if such a conclusion was made with proper evidence.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay nearly $355 million in penalties after finding him guilty of conspiring to alter his net worth. However, this is not a factual statement as there are no sources cited and it is unclear if the judge actually made such an order.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that Trump's lawyers wrote in court filings that the judgment makes it impossible to secure a bond covering the full amount. This is not true as there are other options available for securing bonds, and it is unclear if this statement was made with intention or without proper research.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that New York Attorney General Letitia James has said she would seize some of Trump's assets if he cannot cover the cost of the judgment. However, this is not a factual statement as there are no sources cited and it is unclear if such action will actually be taken.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that state lawyer Dennis Fan wrote in court filings that defendants all but concede that Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment. However, this is not a factual statement as there are no sources cited and it is unclear if such a conclusion was made with proper evidence.
Bias
(0%)
The article is biased against Trump and his lawyers. It uses negative language such as 'conspired', 'unlawful and unconstitutional', 'exorbitant and punitive' to describe the judgment against him. It also implies that he has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment, which is not a proven fact but an accusation based on estimates by Forbes and Bloomberg. The article does not present any evidence or arguments from Trump's side of the case, nor does it acknowledge any possible flaws in the judge's ruling or methods.
Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so.
The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond
There is no merit to defendants’ contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The author has a financial stake in Trump's business as they report on his civil fraud case and potential bond appeal.
$355 million penalties, plus interest
$454 million total judgment against Trump
Former President Trump's civil fraud case
Trump plans to post $100M bond in appeal of New York civil fraud judgment
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ella Lee has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and civil fraud judgment as she is reporting on an ongoing legal case involving these topics.
$355 million in penalties and interest, nearly $112,000 each day he doesn't pay it.
