March 26, 2024

"No matter how much one disapproves of Mr. Trump, or wishes that his presidential ambitions fail, every defendant deserves due process, including recourse to appeal...."

"Seeking appeal should not be effectively impossible, or expensive to the point of imposing vast and irreparable harm, particularly when a defendant has a colorable argument before appellate judges, as Mr. Trump appears to have...."

That's the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.
Even billionaires tend not to have hundreds of millions of dollars in cash on hand. Liquidating properties to free up money cannot happen overnight. Forcing a quick asset offload, even just to pay collateral or fees, can create a fire-sale situation in which sellers get less money than their property is worth. If Ms. James seized his assets, and the appeals court subsequently cut or eliminated Mr. Trump’s penalty, the damage would be irreversible; the price to repurchase prized properties would likely end up higher than what he sold them for, if they were even available.... 
As Post columnist Ruth Marcus points out, New York’s system, in which defendants in civil cases must post bond equal to the judgment against them before appealing that judgment, makes it harder to challenge rulings more likely to be unjust. The larger the penalty, the more likely it is to be excessive — and, yet, the harder to raise the cash. Whatever else this chapter in the Trump legal drama shows, it is that New York should revisit its laws on how much a person or entity must put up pending appeal for a civil judgment."

The commenters over there are — as you would expect — outraged. 

54 comments:

Butkus51 said...

When dishonest people say it, what does it really mean?

gspencer said...

"Seeking appeal should not be effectively impossible, or expensive to the point of imposing vast and irreparable harm . . ."

Written & delivered by the WP with the least amount of sincerity possible.

MadisonMan said...

I *almost* want to subscribe for a day just to see the reactions to the Editorial.
But then I think the reality wouldn't be as good as what I can imagine.

Psota said...

The rule is not that you post a bond as a condition of appeal. Posting a bond is to prevent enforcement of the judgment.

The AG could take the high road and announce that she will not enforce judgment while the appeal is pending. But she's not doing that. She's gleefully announcing that she plans to seize his properties and sell them.

Temujin said...

The great thing about New York is that they can force a civil defendant to post a bond equal to an outrageous amount dreamed up by a judge who is less than expert in real estate values for commercial properties. At the same time outlawing money bail for 'non-violent' felonies. Cannot keep criminals in jail awaiting trial, cannot even make them post bond. But those who create hundreds of jobs, pay large taxes to the state and city, create the architectural face of the city, those people you can harangue out of business.

All the while, thousands of illegal immigrants call it home, as New York is a sanctuary city, and is hosting the thousands of illegals in what used to be hotels around the city. They're watching the whole spectacle from the 23rd floor.

It's almost as if the entire media has received new instructions all at once, their glee from a few days ago has turned into a 'let's be careful about what can we are opening here', as they see Trump's poll numbers increase proportionately to the increase in light is shown on Leticia James, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg and their prosecutions of Trump.

"We have him now" is turning into 'Doh!'.

Carol said...

Haha, Bezos weighs in...

AlbertAnonymous said...

So the WAPO editorial board comes out with this daring contrarian take ONLY AFTER the appeals court drastically reduces the amount required for appeal?

Brave. Stunning and Brave. Courageous of the WaPo editors. Wow.

Putzes

WisRich said...

Dose of reality hitting the WaPo.

Amexpat said...

The commenters over there are — as you would expect — outraged.

I think most of the commenters here view this as fundamental common sense and are pleasantly surprised that the Post is espousing it.

iowan2 said...

Does the 8th amendment fail to make a cameo appearance the WAPO OPED?

Why is the Constitution of the United States, persona non grata?

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the people FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

WAPO is offering an opinion. But its not an opinion. It is a fact cribbed from the Constitution, without attribution.

But if that ray of light seeps into the conversation, it illuminates how corrupt the DNC and their propaganda arm MSM, are in all their operations.

Over at Turley, he is examining the DNC operation to use lawfare, denying 3rd party candidates ballot access.
Yes you are right. The DNC has discovered you must deny democracy, to save democracy.

Kevin said...

Where was this before the reduction?

Darury said...

I read the first couple dozen comments over at WaPo. Other than feeling like I need a shower, those people have a severe disconnect with reality. The few voices of reason that point out that NY is an outlier with no cap on bond amounts are quickly shouted down.

Iman said...

How generous of them.

Howard said...

Bezos and the Billionaire Brotherhood

Cappy said...

How very white of them to recognize the 8th Amendment.

Sebastian said...

"The commenters over there are — as you would expect — outraged"

Outraged that such blatantly unjust laws should be applied so unjustly?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Well their commenters are stupid, unlike yours Althouse. I do wonder if this the old "even a stopped clock" adage come to life for WaPo. Or is it another crack, one actual journalists do in fact question, in the fa├žade of respectability that the DNC Media Complex has attempted to erect around the Left's lawfare actions?

Let's recap: crumbling in Georgia (malfeasance and improper application of RICO), crumbling in NYC (crazy application of "consumer protection" laws combined with state appeal rules that appear to violate more than one of Trump's rights under the Bill of Rights), crumbling in Florida (judge questioning the selective prosecution facially evident in Jack Smith's jihad against Trump even though Biden has no operable defense and no executive privilege for alleged crimes both he and Trump committed). Let's add in the crazy Bragg case too (about to crumble because their star witness is a convicted AND freshly accused perjurer who the judge is wobbly about allowing in, there is no underlying felony to tie their novel theory of "election interference" to the Stormy Daniels NDA, and Stormy has claimed under oath she didn't even have sex with DJT).

Wince said...

A moment of clarity from WaPo.

DanTheMan said...

Bernie Madoff stole billions. His bond was $10 million dollars for a long list of criminal offenses.

Trump's bond was 40x that for a case where nobody lost money.

A blind man can see what's going on here. It's a warning to any other person contemplating running as a R for President.

"Nice fortune you got there... it's a shame if something was to happen to it..."

gilbar said...

makes you (makes ME) wonder.. How many millions could Jeff Bezos come up with in a month's time?
If he sold half a Billion dollars worth of Amazon stock; how would That affect share price?

I Suppose he could sell the Washington Post? THAT would bring in Tens of dollars (maybe?)

How is posting a bond for appeal NOT bail? How is half a BILLION NOT excessive?
Silly me! i KEEP thinking that we live in a Constitutional government; Not a fascist dictatorship

gilbar said...

when you've lost Jeff Bezos and the WaPoo.. You've lost the extreme left..

Or HAVE YOU?
Let's ask Robert Cook! Robert? is the WaPoo a left wing paper?

Enigma said...

New York's moneymen have spoken. The puppet DAs had their day in the sun, but they are way out of their depth and the show trials are making the moneymen nervous.

By moneymen I mean the associates of New Yorker Michael Bloomberg (billionaire, owner of stock traders, political activist, and 2020 presidential candidate) and New Yorker Jamie Dimon (the billionaire who banks for the government, and who took a knee in prayer because "black lives matter"). They each have many more billions of assets tied up in New York than Trump, and they surely know Senator Chuck Schumer's private phone number. These manipulative oligarchs pretended to be Democrats to triangulate between the Occupy Wall St. left and Trump, but now risk being hoisted on their own petards. Bloomberg is hated by many New Yorkers and would be the next in line after Trump.

Retrenchment in progress. The anti-Trump DAs are also set up to be the fall guys / fall gals / fall theys for their decisions in charging Trump.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

LOL - the corrupt lying liar who lie Castro-like Putin-like left are edging back from the abyss?

Another old lawyer said...

Temujin beat me to the point. Better said than I would have, of course.

Michael said...

I don’t take the WP but I do read the NYT and the commenters there are a mean and bloodthirsty lot. Also dim. Innumerate.

hombre said...

Sanity from WaPo? What happened? Is James after Bezos?

deepelemblues said...

WisRich said...
Dose of reality hitting the WaPo.

3/26/24, 8:45 AM


Dose of reality that if this nonsense stands Trumps numbers are gonna go up again and Biden can't afford that happening even once

Dave Begley said...

They threw Trump a bone. So what?

hombre said...

Darury: "I read the first couple dozen comments over at WaPo. Other than feeling like I need a shower, those people have a severe disconnect with reality."

It's like that with nearly* all lefty sites. I hit Drudge to get the other side and end up at Mediaite, Raw Story and Yahoo news regularly. Not only are the commenters nasty and delusional, there appears to be little chance that they have the tools to think their way out of it.

*"Nearly" is a concession to reasonableness. Actually, I haven't found any that are sane including the NYT. That is why I keep saying, "We're toast."

jaydub said...

All of the arguments made by the WP editorial board against the draconian process allowed by NY state were known to both the DA and the judge; however, the state players in this travesty were not predisposed to justice or fairness. They had two objectives: Trump's financial ruin and his humiliation. Both should be disbarred, but I will be satisfied with the economic fallout destroying NYC's tax base which is far more likely. Given remote work policies there was already no good reason for the financial sector to physically remain in NYC, and now there is every reason to relocate to less tyrannical climes.

Money Manger said...

@gilbar:
Bezos sold $8.52 billion of Amazon stock over a few days in February. Barely moved the share price.

Hassayamper said...

The commenters over there are — as you would expect — outraged.

Indeed. Today's Democrats hold an utterly amoral, instrumentalist view that every institution of society is nothing more than a weapon to be employed for the political gain of their party, along with the constantly increasing empowerment and aggrandizement of the governments that their corrupt, lazy union thugs control under Republican and Democrat presidents alike. They are Stalinists who are completely devoid of any principle except the seizure and exercise of power. They are the greatest menace this country has ever faced. There is scarcely any price that would be too costly to pay in order to ensure that they are never again allowed to hold any position of power or influence in our country.

I *almost* want to subscribe for a day just to see the reactions to the Editorial. But then I think the reality wouldn't be as good as what I can imagine.

You can get a pretty good flavor of it by checking any politics forum on Reddit.

Patrick Henry was right! said...

Am I the only one who thinks $175 million is still a crazy high number for an appeal bond??? NY has gotten so crazy that mere crazy now seems normal???

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Temujin for president.

Joe Smith said...

The Washington Post?

WTF did I just read?

I haven't even had a drink this morning...

PM said...

Sudden realization:
Dear God, the courts could do that to me. Or to Daddy.

Narayanan said...

Michael said...
I don’t take the WP but I do read the NYT and the commenters there are a mean and bloodthirsty lot. Also dim.
=============
can bloodthirst be quenched without bloodbath to quaff?

TRISTRAM said...

‘Bloody, hell! What have we done?!’
- WP Editorial Board

‘If you sticke me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.’
- Obi Wan Trump (apochyphal)

Joe Smith said...

'Bezos sold $8.52 billion of Amazon stock over a few days in February.'

I heard he was having a dinner party for 6 and wanted ribeye and a decent Napa Cab.

Shit's expensive these days...

Breezy said...

The left weaponizes time itself. So many of these cases are outrageous at the outset. However, knowing that the judicial or congressional processes are unabashedly long and tedious, the left whips an evil narrative string to inflict damage to the opposition until it is finally forced to let it go years later when the courts get a say. So WaPo is simply signaling its time to let it go. Their op-ed arguments were obvious from the get-go.

tommyesq said...

Note that in addition to reducing the amount, the Appellate Court also removed the restrictions on Trump serving as an officer or director of a NY corporation, Trump from applying for loans from NY banks, and barring Trump's kids from serving as officers or directors. Those appeared to have been put in place to ensure that Trump could not come up with the bond.

Rory said...

"Actually, I haven't found any that are sane including the NYT. That is why I keep saying, "We're toast.""

This is why I think we have to divide the country up. The hope for a peaceful division is that they're so deluded they'll think themselves lucky to be separating from the bumpkins.

Richard Dolan said...

It is not true that "New York’s system [is that] defendants in civil cases must post bond equal to the judgment against them before appealing that judgment ..." No bond is required to take an appeal. A bond is required only if a defendant-appellant wants an automatic stay of the enforcement of the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal (CPLR 5519(a)). A defendant-appellant can also seek a stay of the judgment without posting a bond (CPLR 5519(c)), by applying for a court order granting that relief -- which is what Trump did and on which he was partially successful in the Appellate Division. There is nothing unusual about NY law in that regard. For example, the federal rule is the same -- FRCP Rule 62 provides for an automatic stay if a bond is posted and approved by the court or if the court grants a stay even though no bond is posted.

Don't rely on WaPo for anything, even when its editorial board is saying something you might otherwise be inclined to agree with.

rehajm said...

...they proclaim, after the fact.

Mind your own business said...

Shocking that WaPo would actually show some integrity.

My guess is that they are looking ahead and beginning to fear the tactics they've supported in the past are going to be used against them.

Jupiter said...

"No matter how much one disapproves of Mr. Trump ...."

Really? WaPo is openly admitting that they are not even on speaking terms with half of the country?

traditionalguy said...

This piece is pure defense to Kevin OLeary’s bombshell seen all over the world. Pretend we have a legal system that will protect investors from forfeiture of their property at a King’s whim. Just pretend. Maybe some of the world will believe it.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Patrick Henry was right! said...
Am I the only one who thinks $175 million is still a crazy high number for an appeal bond??? NY has gotten so crazy that mere crazy now seems normal???

Oberlin ended up paying Gibson Bakery $36 million after all their appeals failed / ran out. IIRC, they had to have a "appeal bond" for roughly that size in order to appeal the initial judgement.

So while I think the NY case is insane and total crap, I do not find the idea of "appeal bonds" inherently corrupt

Mason G said...

"The hope for a peaceful division is that they're so deluded they'll think themselves lucky to be separating from the bumpkins."

If they thought that, they wouldn't be so insistent on controlling the lives and businesses of the bumpkins right now. No, they know (well, the least deluded among them, anyway) that dependency runs in one direction. If The Swamp disappeared tomorrow, the way that flyover country would find out is when they suddenly weren't being hassled to no end in running their lives.

Meanwhile, if progressive shithole cities were somehow cut off from what the deplorables produce, they'd be reduced to eating rats in less than a month. Many of them know this, too, even if they won't admit it- to themselves or to anyone else.

readering said...

There have been a number of posts on this issue, and I have commented before so some of this is repetitive. I have experience trying to collect on a nine-figure judgment across multiple jurisdictions. And was briefly involved in defending against collection of the 11-figure judgment against the then 5th biggest corporation in the country. I disagree with the WAPO editorial that there is something uniquely a problem in NY. This is the way civil judgments and appeals work throughout the country. I have mentioned before Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (1987). Read that for more than you ever want to know about how things work in Texas. And read all six opinions across the ideological spectrum to see the justices wrestling with how to deal with the issue of a huge judgment debtor trying to stave off execution of a huge judgment while it appeals a seemingly unprecedented state court civil verdict. The only principle they agreed on was, Tough, Texaco.

I have said before I have not read the NY trial opinion and have no opinion on the merits except that NY appellate courts take pride in NY as the commercial law capital and can be expected to do the right thing. Well, now I do have opinion. I think the major reduction in the bond requirement reflects the panel's concern with the amount of damages awarded. Because otherwise there is plenty of support from cases around the country for enforcing the statute, as the US Supreme Court allowed in 1987 with Texas law in Penzoil against Texaco. (They had the benefit of knowing the decision of the intermediate appellate court when they ruled.)

Regardless of the law, it seems to me the NY AG was foolish in the way she bragged about going after Trump assets while his appeal was pending. The state is an unsecured creditor of Trump. It has a legitimate interest in making itself a secured creditor ahead of others who might become secured creditors while the appeal is pending. But that's it. The state is fortunate that its judgment debtor is heavily invested in in-state real estate that can't be moved anywhere. The state should be patient and act like it's confident. Jean Carroll is 81 and should hope to enjoy the fruit of her wins before she dies, assuming she is affirmed. NY State is not in that situation.

I don't read WaPo comments, but I can understand if a common comment was that the appellate division treated Trump special. They did. But I think it's because the NYAG made a spectacle of herself, gratuitously. Trump has made a spectacle of himself, but he's a private citizen, and that's what he does. Different standards for State Attorney Generals, I should hope.


mikee said...

The WP realizes this dog of a case is a non-winner for stopping Trump from running. So, drop this steaming blivet and get moving on to the next case, and the next, and the next, because surely one case will stick, one charge will result in a conviction and result in at least a bit of jail time, enough to prevent him running, or better, even prevent him taking office.

Let's not lose sight of the goal here and start celebrating the failure of one horrible case that never should have been brought, which will be overturned on appeal. The goal is to STOP TRUMP, and since this one isn't getting it done, move on to all the others. This one did its best, costing a lot of money and preventing some campaign expenditures. Si se puede, lawfare warriors of the left!

Leland said...

What Temujin said, also Richard Dolan, and repeating myself in other comments; not everyone is going to sign up to this economic suicide pact made by James and Engoron.

Narayanan said...

This is why I think we have to divide the country up.
=================
so raise your hands for '2StateSolution' ?!

Rusty said...

Dave Begley said...
"They threw Trump a bone. So what?"

Dave. All I know is that the if I was heavily invested in NYC real estate I'd be working like hell to divest and get the hell out the minute that verdict dropped.
Apparently it's already happening. Some big hitters are moving stakes to Florida and Texas.
Money goes where it's best treated.