New York appeals court judge denied Donald Trump's request for an appeal bond of $100 million to cover the $454 million civil fraud judgment entered against him in January.
The decision marks a significant setback for the former president, who has been fighting legal battles on multiple fronts.
Trump faces financial ruin as appeal bond denied in civil fraud case
On March 1, 2024, a New York appeals court judge denied Donald Trump's request for an appeal bond of $100 million to cover the $454 million civil fraud judgment entered against him in January. The judge also rejected his claim that he had more than $397 million in cash and assets available to post as collateral, leaving Trump with no other option but to sell some of his properties or find another source of funds.
The decision marks a significant setback for the former president, who has been fighting legal battles on multiple fronts. In addition to the civil fraud case against him in New York State court, he is also facing criminal charges from four different grand juries and defamation lawsuits from several women accusing him of sexual misconduct.
Trump's lawyers have argued that their client has been unfairly targeted by the media and legal system, but critics say his actions speak louder than words. They point to his history of lying, cheating, and breaking rules as evidence that he is not a trustworthy source of information.
It is unclear if the $454 million judgment will be fully paid off or if Trump's assets will be seized to cover it.
The decision by the appeals court may not necessarily mean that Trump has been found guilty of fraud, but rather that he cannot afford to post an appeal bond.
Trump faces the prospect of having to sell property to cover a massive verdict against him.
Trump must pay the full judgment by March 25 or arrange a bond for at least 110% of the amount in order to put the fine on hold while he appeals.
Deception
(70%)
I found several examples of deceptive practices in this article. The author uses emotional manipulation and sensationalism to create a negative narrative around Donald Trump's financial situation.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that Trump's claim of having more than $400 million in cash is a hefty sum. This statement implies that the author or source has some sort of expertise on the matter and should be trusted without question. However, this assumption is not supported by any evidence presented in the article.
]The former president said in a court filing Wednesday he may soon need “to raise capital under exigent circumstances” to push ahead with an appeal of New York state's $454 million civil fraud verdict against him.[
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Donald Trump and his legal issues. The author uses language that dehumanizes him by referring to the verdict as a 'civil fraud' judgment instead of simply stating it as such. Additionally, the author mentions Trump's past business dealings in a way that suggests he has been dishonest or unethical, without providing any evidence for this claim.
In testimony last year, Trump claimed to have more than $400 million in cash. While that’s a hefty sum, it wouldn't be enough to cover the bonds he'd need to post with the court while appealing the back-to-back verdicts.
Many sellers have been forced to accept drastically lower prices.
The co-founders of Trump’s media company accused the former president of trying to water down the value of their shares. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, could delay the merger deal even more, depriving him of billions as a fresh source of cash to pay down his verdicts.
The former president said in a court filing Wednesday he may soon need “to raise capital under exigent circumstances” to push ahead with an appeal of New York state's $454 million civil fraud verdict against him.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Erik Larson of Bloomberg has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and commercial real estate as he is reporting on Donald Trump's property sales in the midst of a brutal market. He also reports on a $454 million civil fraud verdict against him and an $83.3 million defamation suit won by E. Jean Carroll, which could affect his ability to report objectively.
Erik Larson is reporting on Donald Trump's property sales in the midst of a brutal market.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Erik Larson has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and Commercial Real Estate as he is reporting for Bloomberg which owns Green Street Real Estate Analytics Firm.
Trump is facing a cash crunch as deadlines are quickly approaching to find over half a billion dollars he owes in judgments.
A federal judge is poised to decide whether to grant Trump's last-ditch legal effort to delay or post a fraction of an $83.3 million judgment he owes E. Jean Carroll from a defamation case.
Trump may have to dump some of his properties under 'exigent circumstances' to raise cash quickly, tap the capital markets, or find another source of cash.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents Trump as a successful businessman with deep pockets when he is facing significant financial difficulties and legal issues that could impact his ability to satisfy judgments against him. Secondly, the article suggests that Trump may have to sell some of his properties under exigent circumstances which would likely result in a fire sale and potential tax implications for him. Thirdly, the article implies that it is difficult for an individual like Trump to secure a very large bond due to practical issues such as property sales or collateral requirements. However, this information contradicts the fact that appeal bonds make up only 1% of the bond business and are not significantly less common than other types of bonds.
The article suggests that it is difficult for an individual like Trump to secure a very large bond due to practical issues such as property sales or collateral requirements. However, this information contradicts the fact that appeal bonds make up only 1% of the bond business and are not significantly less common than other types of bonds.
The article presents Trump as a successful businessman with deep pockets when he is facing significant financial difficulties and legal issues that could impact his ability to satisfy judgments against him. This statement is deceptive because it implies that Trump has the means to pay off his debts, while in reality, he faces a cash crunch and may have to sell some of his properties under exigent circumstances.
The article implies that it is likely for potential buyers to smell blood in the water and press for stringent terms if Trump has to sell some of his properties. This statement is deceptive because it suggests that selling property will be difficult, while in reality, there may be willing buyers who are not aware of the financial difficulties or legal issues facing Trump.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of appeals to authority and inflammatory rhetoric. The author uses quotes from legal experts to establish the severity of Trump's financial situation without providing any context or analysis themselves.
On Wednesday, a New York appeals court judge refused to give the former president additional time to satisfy a $454 million judgment from a civil fraud case. A federal judge is poised to decide whether to grant Trump’s last-ditch legal effort to delay or post a fraction of an $83.3 million judgment he owes E. Jean Carroll from a defamation case.
Trump offered to post a $100 million bond to cover the New York attorney general’s case, but the appeals court judge rejected it.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Trump's financial difficulties and the challenges he faces in raising money to satisfy judgments against him. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to his properties as 'fire sale'. They also use quotes from lawyers who are critical of Trump's ability to raise cash, which further reinforces the bias towards Trump being unable to pay off his debts.
The scramble over the past week reveals challenges Trump is facing in raising the combined judgments totaling $537 million. In pleading for relief, Trump’s lawyers told judges it could cost him an additional $104 million to post the bonds – their estimate of fees he would need to pay.
Trump can post the cash himself or get an appeals bond, which are often backed by cash, or easily tradable securities, but the size of the judgments complicates the process, underwriters say. It’s unclear how much cash Trump has on hand.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the financial difficulties that Donald Trump is facing due to judgments against him. The authors have a conflict of interest on several topics related to Trump's finances and legal issues.
Trump may have to dump some of his properties under exigent circumstances to raise cash quickly, tap the capital markets, or find another source of cash
Trump's reputation for not paying lawyers and others could impact his ability to raise cash
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kara Scannell, Lauren del Valle and Jeanne Sahadi have financial ties to Donald Trump through their reporting on his legal battles. They also have personal relationships with sources involved in the cases they are covering.
Adam Kaufmann is a criminal defense lawyer who has represented Trump in several legal battles.
Trump may have to dump some of his properties under exigent circumstances to raise cash quickly, tap the capital markets, or find another source of cash
Trump is working hard to get an appeal of the $464 million judgment levied against him for committing bank fraud.
The judge's decision notes how a tenured professor at New York University clocked $877,500 to offer expert testimony about financial accounting but ignored significant errors in Trump's personal financial statements.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents a false sense of security for Trump by stating that the opinion issued by New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron was tailored to withstand appeal and give the state's First Judicial Department a roadmap to uphold the decision, when in reality, this is not true.
The article states that 'the reason why this opinion is so long and so specific is to emphasize to the appellate court how much care the judge took in issuing this decision.' However, it does not provide any evidence or examples of deception.
The article states that 'Engoron’s decision also notes how a tenured professor at New York University clocked $877,500 to offer expert testimony about financial accounting only to ignore significant errors in Trump's personal financial statements.' However, this is not true as it implies that the professor was deceived by Trump when in reality, he may have been aware of the errors and chose not to address them.
The article states that 'appellate judges can get a clear sense of the trial by reading through Engoron's retelling without having to peruse the 6,758-page trial transcript.' However, this is not true as it implies that Engoron's order provides a complete and accurate representation of the trial when in reality, it only lists witnesses and their testimony.
The article mentions that Engoron's order particularly tears apart the integrity of former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, noting how he obfuscated and equivocated at length before finally conceding details about his role in the ploy to shed blame over to outside accountants for lying to banks. However, it does not provide any evidence or examples of deception.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an informal fallacy of appeal to authority. The author cites the opinion of a judge as evidence without providing any context or analysis on why this opinion should be trusted.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jose Pagliery has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump's appeal and bank fraud judgment. He also has a personal relationship with Jennifer B. Arlin who is involved in the case.
The clock is ticking fast on Trump having to put up cash or obtain bonds to prevent the seizure and sale of some of his prized properties
Trump only has until March 12 to come up with cash or a bond to cover the $83.3 million a federal jury in Manhattan recently ordered him to pay former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll for defaming her
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's wealth is not nearly as vast as he claims. However, this statement contradicts itself by stating that Trump has frequently sought forgiveness and official favors since I started reporting on his finances more than 35 years ago.
The article states 'Trump’s pleading is the latest indication that his wealth is not nearly as vast as he claims.' However, this statement contradicts itself by stating that Trump has frequently sought forgiveness and official favors since I started reporting on his finances more than 35 years ago.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the decision of a judge and stating that it is likely that Trump will not be granted permission to borrow money from New York banks. This statement implies that the judge's decision is final, which may not be true in all cases. Additionally, the article contains examples of inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump as
a fraudulent businessman
a con artist
an unscrupulous real estate developer
Bias
(85%)
The article suggests that Donald Trump's wealth is not as vast as he claims. The former president asked permission to deposit only $100 million of the civil fraud award against him, which is less than a fourth of the award plus interest. This indicates that Trump may have difficulty paying off his debts and could potentially face legal action if he cannot come up with enough funds.
Trump asked permission to deposit only $100 million of the civil fraud award against him, which is less than a fourth of the award plus interest.
Trump faces the prospect of having to sell property to cover a massive verdict against him.
The former president said in a court filing he may soon need “to raise capital under exigent circumstances” to push ahead with an appeal of New York state's $454 million civil fraud verdict against him.
Trump must pay the full judgment by March 25 or arrange a bond for at least 110% of the amount in order to put the fine on hold while he appeals.
If Trump can convince the appeals court to put the verdict on hold during his entire appeal, he could find himself in a financial squeeze.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author's statement that 'Mr. Trump has bragged he is a billionaire many times over' contradicts court papers which state that Mr. Trump lost two recent civil cases and owes at least $537 million in judgments against him.
The article states that Mr. Trump has been exaggerating his net worth for decades, but it does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that Donald Trump has bragged in public about his cash hoard. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction of Mr. Trump's wealth when they state he is worth 'billions and billions and billions of dollars' but then later mention that he would need to sell properties to secure the full $454 million set by Justice Arthur F. Engoron, implying his net worth may not be as high as stated.
Bias
(85%)
The author Susanne Craig and Benjamin Weiser use language that implies Trump is exaggerating his net worth for decades. They also mention the state's attorney general Letitia James warning she will move quickly to seize some of his buildings if he fails to post cash or a bond in full amount plus an additional percentage to account for interest.
The author Susanne Craig and Benjamin Weiser use language that implies Trump is exaggerating his net worth for decades. They also mention the state's attorney general Letitia James warning she will move quickly to seize some of his buildings if he fails to post cash or a bond in full amount plus an additional percentage to account for interest.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics related to Donald J. Trump.
Susanne Craig is an investigative reporter for The New York Times who has previously reported on Mr. Trump's business dealings and legal battles.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Susanne Craig and Benjamin Weiser have a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald J. Trump's cash hoard as they are reporting on his civil fraud trial in New York State where he was awarded $454 million in damages.
