On March 21, 2024, former President Donald Trump's lawyers continued their fight to keep him from having to post a $454 million bond for his fraud case in New York state. The financial requirement is seen as unjust and unfair by many legal experts and the public alike. In response, Attorney General Letitia James has filed judgments against Trump's assets in Westchester County, including his golf course and Seven Springs estate.
Trump Lawyers Fight $454 Million Bond in Fraud Case; AG Files Judgments Against Trump's Assets
New York, New York state United States of AmericaAG Files Judgments Against Trump's Assets
Trump Lawyers Fight $454 Million Bond in Fraud Case
Confidence
100%
No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication
Sources
76%
NY AG James moves to seize Trump assets in Westchester as $464M plus interest fraud bond deadline looms
New York Post Ryan King Thursday, 21 March 2024 18:39Unique Points
- Trump National Golf Club Westchester
- Seven Springs estate
- $464 million plus interest fraud bond deadline looms
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
Deception (50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's properties may be in jeopardy due to a judgment registered by James' team without providing any specific details about which assets are at risk or why they might be seized. This statement implies that there is evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part, but no such evidence has been presented in the article. Secondly, the author quotes Trump attorney Clifford Robert as stating that Defendants should be forced to dispose of iconic real estate holdings in a fire sale, which is not accurate or fair. This statement implies that James is trying to seize Trump's assets and sell them at a lower price than their actual value, but there is no evidence of this in the article. Finally, the author quotes Robert as stating that some 30 insurance companies won't accept Trump's real estate as collateral, which may be true or false depending on the specific circumstances. However, this statement implies that James has already secured a judgment against Trump and is trying to seize his assets without providing any evidence of wrongdoing or due process.- The article claims that Trump's properties may be in jeopardy due to a judgment registered by James' team. However, no specific details about which assets are at risk or why they might be seized have been provided.
Fallacies (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Bias (85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as a 'crooked judge' who has already been overturned four times on this case (a record!). Additionally, the author implies that Trump is not capable of paying off his debt due to lack of cash flow or insurance companies accepting his real estate as collateral. This suggests a monetary bias against Trump and an assumption that he cannot afford to pay off his debts.- The article refers to former President Donald Trump as a 'crooked judge' who has already been overturned four times on this case (a record!)
- The author implies that Trump is not capable of paying off his debt due to lack of cash flow or insurance companies accepting his real estate as collateral.
Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of New York Attorney General Letitia James as they are reporting on her efforts to seize assets from Trump National Golf Club Westchester. The article also mentions Judge Arthur Engoron who presided over the civil fraud verdict against Trump and his company, which could further compromise the author's objectivity.- The article reports that New York Attorney General Letitia James is moving to seize assets from Trump National Golf Club Westchester. The author does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships with either James or the golf club.
75%
New York Attorney General takes initial step to prepare to seize Trump assets
CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Kara Scannell Thursday, 21 March 2024 14:47Unique Points
- The New York attorney general's office has filed judgments in Westchester County against Donald Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization.
- Judgments have been entered in New York City where some of his properties are located but not in Florida or Cook County, Illinois.
- Trump is trying to raise more cash for both his legal bills and third run for the White House.
- The process of seizing assets would not be quick or easy as it involves sorting out complexly organized properties that are controlled by a trust rather than directly owned by him.
- James has given Trump a deadline of March 25 to post bond on the judgment.
- Because the verdict was handed down in New York City, James doesn't need to enter judgments in the Big Apple, home to Trump Tower, the Trumpt Building on 40 Wall Street and other assets.
- Trump's attorneys contended that it wasn't feasible under certain circumstances presented to cough up $557 million due to interest and appeals costs.
- The state's suggestions include dividing the total among multiple bonds from different underwriters or letting a court hold some of Trump's real estate empire while he appeals.
- Trump has called the bond requirement 'crazy' and argued that if he sells assets, and then wins the appeal, those assets would be forever gone.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
Deception (50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the New York attorney general has filed judgments against Trump's golf course and private estate north of Manhattan. However, this statement is misleading because only one judgment was entered in Westchester County on March 6th, not multiple judgments as stated. Secondly, the article suggests that seizing assets would be a quick and easy process for the attorney general to recover property from Trump's businesses. This is false because it takes time to sort out complex business structures like those owned by Trump and his trust. Thirdly, the article quotes several experts who suggest that seizing assets could spell trouble not only for Trump but also other jurisdictions where he has properties. However, these statements are speculative and lack concrete evidence.- The statement 'New York attorney general files judgments against Trump's golf course and private estate north of Manhattan' is misleading because it implies that multiple judgments were entered when only one was filed in Westchester County on March 6th.
Fallacies (80%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Bias (85%)
The author Kara Scannell demonstrates a clear bias against Donald Trump in this article. The language used by the author to describe Trump's situation is negative and derogatory, such as 'difficulty', 'seize', 'struggling', and 'fire sale'. Additionally, the author repeatedly emphasizes that Trump does not have access to half a billion dollars in cash or stock, implying that he is financially unstable. The author also quotes Nikos Passas who states that this could mean the end of Trump's business in New York and other jurisdictions.- ‘All this is completely undermining the brand, which he uses for the most part for making any kind of money around the world not just the United States. In the end I think this could very much mean the end of Trump business in New York and not only – it could spell trouble in other jurisdictions too.’
- The decision against Trump and the difficulty the former president is having securing a bond while he appeals the verdict strikes directly at Trump’s image as a billionaire
- Trump has structured his business by setting up limited liability companies for nearly every property or asset – over 300 in total – which ultimately are controlled by his trust. ‘They are complexly organized and he is not on paper the owner and therefore a judgment against him would not be executable directly against certain properties.’
- Trump now has four days to satisfy the judgment or sway an appeals court to allow him to post a smaller amount or defer posting the payment until after the appeal. In a new Truth Social on Thursday, Trump said that putting up the money is ‘VERY EXPENSIVE’ and said it was ‘not possible for bonding companies to do in such a high amount.’
Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
48%
Unique Points
None Found At Time Of Publication
Accuracy
- Letitia James is preparing to seize Trump's assets
- The upcoming quarterly refunding update from the US Treasury will provide information on how much bond supply there will be
Deception (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Fallacies (0%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author claims that Letitia James has the power to seize Trump's assets without providing any evidence or context for this claim.- > HomeWatch LiveShowsTopics Join the conversation <br> Log in to comment on videos and join in on the fun. Watch Live TV <br> Watch the live stream of Fox News and full episodes. Reduce eye strain and focus on the content that matters.
Bias (85%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. Firstly, the topic is 'Letitia James', who has a history of targeting Trump's assets and businesses for legal action. This could be seen as a conflict of interest if she were to report on her own actions or those taken against Trump's assets. Secondly, the title mentions that James is preparing to seize Trump's assets, which suggests that there may be financial ties between James and the topic being reported on.- Letitia James has a history of targeting Trump's assets and businesses for legal action.
Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
76%
Trump's lawyers keep fighting $454M fraud appeal bond requirement
The Associated Press News Thursday, 21 March 2024 16:55Unique Points
None Found At Time Of Publication
Accuracy
- Former President Donald Trump's lawyers are fighting a $454 million fraud lawsuit judgment for now
- Trump has been ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron to pay $355 million in penalties, plus interest that already has pushed the total over $454 million and is growing daily
Deception (50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author states that Trump's lawyers are fighting to excuse him from covering a $454 million fraud lawsuit judgment for now. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Trump has been found guilty of fraud and owes money. In reality, he was ordered to pay penalties after being found liable in a civil business fraud trial. Secondly, the article quotes one of Trump's lawyers stating that the financial requirement is 'patently unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional'. This statement is also misleading as it implies that there are no legal grounds for requiring Trump to cover the judgment while he appeals. Finally, the article states that James wants to seize some of Trump's assets if he cannot pay. However, this statement is not accurate as James has stated in previous interviews that she does not intend to take any immediate action against Trump or his company.- The author misleadingly implies that Trump has been found guilty of fraud and owes money when stating 'Trump's lawyers kept pressing an appellate court Thursday to excuse him from covering a $454 million fraud lawsuit judgment for now.'
- One of Trump's lawyers states the financial requirement is 'patently unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional', which implies there are no legal grounds for requiring Trump to cover the judgment while he appeals.
- The article quotes James stating she wants to seize some of Trump's assets if he cannot pay. However, this statement is not accurate as James has stated in previous interviews that she does not intend to take any immediate action against Trump or his company.
Fallacies (85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the financial requirement is unjust and unconstitutional without providing any evidence or reasoning for this claim. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's lawyers as 'presumptive Republican presidential nominee'. This statement is not factual and could be seen as an attempt to sway public opinion rather than provide accurate information. The article also contains a dichotomous depiction of James and her office, stating that she is prepared to seize some of Trump's assets if he cannot pay, but declining to comment on her plans. This creates a false sense of impending doom for Trump without providing any concrete details about what will happen next.- The financial requirement is unjust and unconstitutional
- presumptive Republican presidential nominee
- James is prepared to seize some of Trump's assets if he cannot pay, but declining to comment on her plans.
Bias (85%)
The article is biased towards Donald Trump and his legal team. The author uses language that dehumanizes the judge who ruled against him in a fraud case by calling him 'patently unjust' and 'unconstitutional'. Additionally, the author quotes Clifford Robert as saying that Trump would suffer irreparable harm if he had to cover the $454 million judgment while his appeal is pending. This statement implies that Trump has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing in this case, which contradicts previous statements made by Judge Arthur Engoron and Attorney General Letitia James. The article also presents a one-sided view of the situation without providing context or counterarguments from those who disagree with Trump's legal team.- Clifford Robert, one of Trump's lawyers, quotes saying that he would suffer irreparable harm if he had to cover the $454 million judgment while his appeal is pending.
- The article presents a one-sided view of the situation without providing context or counterarguments from those who disagree with Trump's legal team.
- The author uses language that dehumanizes the judge who ruled against Donald Trump in a fraud case by calling him 'patently unjust' and 'unconstitutional'.
Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
68%
Trump pleads for donations, citing threat of losing Trump Tower, as bond deadline looms
MSNBC News Thursday, 21 March 2024 17:30Unique Points
None Found At Time Of Publication
Accuracy
- Trump has been ordered by Judge Arthur Engoron to pay $355 million in penalties, plus interest that already has pushed the total over $454 million and is growing daily. This does not count money that some co-defendants were ordered to pay.
- The state's suggestions include dividing the total among multiple bonds from different underwriters or letting a court hold some of Trump's real estate empire while he appeals.
Deception (30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Trump's financial woes are a result of his massive legal bills when it is not entirely clear if this is true or not. Secondly, the author uses emotional manipulation by portraying Trump as an underdog who will never surrender despite facing significant challenges. Lastly, there is no evidence to suggest that donations raised from supporters can be used to pay off the civil judgment.- The article implies that Trump's financial woes are a result of his massive legal bills when it is not entirely clear if this is true or not.
Fallacies (75%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that the former president's financial woes are a ploy by Democrats. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as 'insane radical Democrat AG' and 'we will never surrender'. Additionally, there is no evidence provided in the article to support this claim.- As the deadline for Donald Trump to post bond for his $464 million civil fraud judgment inches closer,
Bias (85%)
The author of this article is using language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable. The use of the phrase 'debt-laden' to describe Trump and his financial situation implies a negative judgement on him for having debt.- the debt-laden former president
Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of Publication
Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
None Found At Time Of Publication