‘Absolute gross miscarriage of justice’: Trump bond lowered by $289 million with more time
Summary
TLDRThe discussion revolves around a recent appeals court decision that has reduced the bond amount for the former president from $465 million to $175 million. The participants express their frustration and disbelief at the court's decision, suggesting that it represents a different and unfair process for the former president. They also touch upon the implications of the ruling, including restrictions on certain defendants' financial activities and the barring of two individuals from serving in financial control for three years.
Takeaways
- 📉 A bond amount of $465 million related to a case involving the former President has been reduced to $175 million by an appeals court.
- 🗣️ The reduction in bond amount was a breaking news update during a discussion.
- 🕒 The former President was given more time to pay a smaller amount, which is seen as a deviation from the usual process.
- 👥 The participants in the discussion expressed frustration and disbelief at the court's decision.
- 🚨 One participant called the process a 'gross miscarriage of justice' and questioned the fairness of the judicial system.
- 🏛️ The Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, was involved in making the decision.
- 🔢 The order detailed that $175 million must be posted within ten days and specified restrictions on certain individuals and corporate defendants.
- 🤔 The reasons behind the reduction from $465 million to $175 million were not provided in the court's order.
- 💭 There was a discussion about the impact of fines on individuals with vastly different financial capabilities.
- 📉 The court's decision was seen as unusual and a departure from the norm, with no clear explanation for the significant reduction.
- 🗣️ The public's trust in the judicial system was questioned, with the participants arguing that New York's residents deserve better.
Q & A
What was the original amount of the bond mentioned in the script?
-The original amount of the bond mentioned in the script was $465 million.
What is the new reduced amount of the bond that the former president has to deal with?
-The new reduced amount of the bond is $175 million.
What does the appeals court's decision entail?
-The appeals court's decision allows the former president to post a smaller bond of $175 million within ten days.
How does David perceive the different treatment of the former president in the legal process?
-David suggests that the former president is receiving a different process, implying that he is being given more time to pay less money compared to what others might experience in similar situations.
What is Tristian's view on the court's decision?
-Tristan finds the decision infuriating and flawed, viewing it as a travesty of justice and a sign that the former president is receiving his own private system of justice.
What does the court's order entail regarding Donald J. Trump and the corporate defendants?
-The court's order bars Donald J. Trump and the corporate defendants from applying for loans in New York for three years.
What are the consequences for Weisselberg and McConney according to the court's order?
-Weisselberg and McConney are permanently barred from serving in any financial control or oversight roles, among other issues.
How does the script describe the typical process for someone who cannot afford to pay a court-ordered amount?
-Typically, individuals who cannot afford to pay a court-ordered amount will plead with the court to reduce the amount, and the court may give them some leeway.
What is the significance of the $1,000 fine example provided in the script?
-The $1,000 fine example is used to illustrate the potential crippling impact of fines on average American households, as compared to the relative insignificance of such a fine for a billionaire.
How does the script characterize the lack of explanation for the reduction of the bond amount?
-The script characterizes the lack of explanation for the bond amount reduction as frustrating and wrong, suggesting that the public deserves better transparency from the judicial system.
Who does Tristan believe the judicial process should serve?
-Tristan believes that the judicial process should serve the people of the State of New York, emphasizing that they deserve better from their judicial system.
Outlines
📉 Reduced Bond for Former President
The paragraph discusses the significant reduction of a bond amount from half a billion dollars to $175 million for the former president. It highlights the breaking news of an appeals court allowing a smaller bond to be posted within ten days. The conversation implies a different legal process for the former president, with expectations of special treatment in court. The speakers express frustration and disbelief at the perceived injustice, suggesting that the normal rules do not apply to this individual.
🤔 Injustice in the Courtroom
This paragraph delves into the disparity between the legal treatment of the average person versus a wealthy individual, such as a billionaire. It contrasts the crippling effect of a $1,000 fine on an average household with the minimal impact of a fine on a billionaire. The discussion criticizes the lack of transparency and explanation in the court's decision to drastically reduce the bond amount. The speakers argue that the public deserves better from the judicial system and that the decision is a miscarriage of justice, emphasizing that the people of the state are the true plaintiffs in such cases.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Fani Willis
💡Half a Billion Dollars Bond
💡Former President
💡Appeals Court
💡Trump
💡Private Court of Justice
💡Capitol
💡Miscarry of Justice
💡Supreme Court of the State of New York
💡Disgorgement
💡CPLR 5519
Highlights
The former president's bond has been reduced from half a billion dollars to $175 million.
This reduction is a result of the appeals court's decision.
The former president is given ten days to post the smaller bond.
The process for the former president is different, as he is given more time to pay less money.
The courtroom process is questioned as being flawed and unfair.
The former president is accused of having his own private system of justice.
The decision is made by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
The bond reduction is ordered to $175 million with no clear explanation provided.
The original bond was $464 million, which has now been reduced.
The enforcement of the judgment is stayed, and disgorgement is ordered to the Attorney General.
Certain defendants are barred from serving in financial control for three years.
Donald J. Trump and corporate defendants are restricted from applying for loans in New York for three years.
The motion to stay enforcement of portions of the judgment is otherwise denied.
The decision to lower the bond from $476 million to $175 million is questioned without explanation.
Courtrooms generally do not reduce the amounts ordered to be paid without a compelling reason.
The significance of fines in relation to the wealth of the person ordered to pay is discussed.
The lack of explanation in the court's decision is criticized as unusual and frustrating.
The public deserves better transparency and justice from the judicial system.
Transcripts
WANT TO VERY QUICKLY AND WE'LL
TALK ABOUT THE FANI WILLIS SOUND
AND MORE IN JUST A MINUTE, BUT
I'M BEING TOLD RIGHT NOW THAT
THE -- THAT BOND, THAT HALF A
BILLION DOLLARS BOND THAT HAD
BEEN SET AND THAT THE FORMER
PRESIDENT HAD TO DEAL WITH TODAY
HAS NOW BEEN REDUCED TO
$175 MILLION
$175 MILLION.
SO THAT 465 MILLION PLUS BOND
THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT OR HAS
NOW BEEN REDUCED AS OF RIGHT
NOW, WE'RE GETTING THIS BREAKING
NEWS.
THIS APPEALS COURT ALLOWING THE
FORMER PRESIDENT TO POST A
SMALLER BOND OF $175 MILLION
WITHIN TEN DAYS.
DAVID, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
>> JOSE, IT TELLS ME SOMETHING
THAT YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT
BEFORE, AND THAT IS THE PLAYBOOK
IS DIFFERENT FOR FORMER
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WE WERE LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT
THIS THE LAST TIME YOU AND I
DISCUSSED THIS CASE.
I EXPECT FOR THEM TO DO
SOMETHING FOR HIM THAT'S
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SEE FOR
EVERYBODY ELSE WHEN THEY GO TO
COURT.
SO HERE HE'S GIVEN MORE TIME TO
PAY LESS MONEY.
THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
>> AND TRISTAN, SO WHAT DOES
THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE IN THE
COURTROOM THERE?
>> DO WE EVEN NEED TO ASK?
HONESTLY, THIS IS SO INFURIATING
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I CARE WHAT
THE PROCESS IS THAT THESE JUDGES
ARE ARRIVING AT.
WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S FLAWED.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT MUCH.
DAVID PUT IT WELL.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR
THIS PERSON.
WE HAVE DECIDED THAT HE GETS HIS
OWN PRIVATE COURT OF JUSTICE.
HE HAS A PRIVATE PLANE.
HE HAS PRIVATE CLUBS THAT HE
LIVES IN.
HE BASICALLY HAS FASHIONED
HIMSELF HIS OWN PRIVATE MILITIA
TO TRY TO TAKE OVER THE CAPITOL.
NOW HE'S GETTING HIS OWN PRIVATE
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY.
IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN FOR ANYBODY
ELSE, ANYBODY ELSE IT WOULD BE
LIKE, SORRY, BUDDY, YOU LOST.
PAY UP.
FOR HIM HE GETS HIS OWN SET OF
RULES.
>> LEGALLY, TRISTAN, HOW IS THAT
DONE?
>> WE JUST SAW IT.
THEY JUST DECIDED THAT THEY
JUST -- YOU KNOW, THE APPELLATE
COURT HAS NOW JUST DECIDED
THEY'RE GOING TO SWOOP IN AND
JUST CHANGE IT, AND THAT'S IT,
AND NOW THE A.G.'S OFFICE CAN
NOW TRY TO GO UP ABOVE THEM, I
BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE DETAILS ARE BECAUSE YOU
JUST TOLD US.
I'M GUESSING THIS IS COMING FROM
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, APPELLATE
DIVISION FIST DEPARTMENT, THAT'S
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT HERE IN
NEW YORK THAT WOULD BE ISSUING A
DECISION HERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A REMEDY
FOR THE A.G.'S OFFICE TO GO UP
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH
IS OUR HIGH COURT HERE IN NEW
YORK AND TRY TO GET THEM TO
BASICALLY COUNTERMAND THIS
ORDER, BUT IN MY VIEW, THIS IS
WITHOUT KNOWING MORE, UNLESS
THERE'S SOME SORT OF OTHER
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE THAT
WE'RE GOING TO LEARN HERE, THIS
APPEARS TO BE AN ABSOLUTE GROSS
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
>> SO LET'S GO INTO IT BECAUSE
I'M GETTING RIGHT NOW AND THIS
LITERALLY IS JUST COMING ACROSS,
SO THIS IS INDEED THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, AND THERE
ARE FIVE PROTECT,ESENT, INCLUDIN
PRESIDING JUDGE DIANE RENWICK,
I'M JUST GETTING IT RIGHT NOW.
WE CAN KIND OF LEARN IT TOGETHER
AS WE SEE IT.
IT SAYS THE APPEALS HAVING BEEN
TAKEN TO THIS COURT FROM AN
ORDER THE SUPREME COURT NEW YORK
COUNTY ENTERED ON FEBRUARY 16th
AND DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS HAVING
MOVED TO CPLR 5519, THE STATE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AND
ENSURING JUDGMENT, UPON READING
AND FILING THE PAPERS WITH
RESPECT TO THE MOTION AND
DELIBERATION T ISIT IS ORDERED T
THE MOTION IS GRANTED THE EXTENT
OF STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF THESE
PORTIONS OF THE JUDGMENT
ORDERING DISGORGEMENT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 464 MILLION,
POSTING WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE
DATE OF THIS ORDER AN
UNDERTAKING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$175 MILLION PERMANENTLY BARRING
DEFENDANTS WEISSELBERG AND
McCONNEY FROM SERVING IN THE
FINANCIAL CONTROL, ET CETERA,
AND ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT
WE HAVE LEARNED SINCE ABOUT
WEISSELBERG AND McCONNEY NOT
BEING ABLE TO SERVE FOR THREE
YEARS.
BARRING DONALD J. TRUMP AND THE
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS FROM
APPLYING FOR LOANS IN NEW YORK
FOR THREE YEARS, ET CETERA.
THIS MOTION IS OTHERWISE DENIED
INCLUDING TO THE EXTENT IT SEEKS
A STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF
PORTIONS OF THE JUDGMENT.
SO IT WAS JUST DECIDED RIGHT
NOW, DAVID, AND IT WAS JUST --
HOW DO THEY COME UP WITH A
NUMBER OF 175 FROM 476,500
MILLION TO $175 MILLION?
HOW DOES -- HOW DOES THIS
HAPPEN?
>> THEY DON'T GIVE US THE
BENEFIT OF THEIR CALCULUS IN
THEIR ORDER, I WAS SITTING HERE
TRIELG
TRYING TO PROCESS THAT MYSELF.
HERE'S SOMETHING I CANNOT STRESS
ENOUGH, EVERY DAY, EVERY
COURTROOM IN AMERICA IF WE GO
THERE AND WE SIT IN THAT
COURTROOM, WE WILL FIND SOMEONE
WHOSE BACK IS REALLY UP AGAINST
A WALL BECAUSE THEY CANNOT
AFFORD TO PAY SOMETHING THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PAY.
AND THEY WILL GENERALLY PLEAD
WITH THE COURT TO REDUCE THE
AMOUNT THEY HAVE TO PAY, AND THE
COURT MAY GIVE THEM SOME LEEWAY,
BUT YOU DO NOT SEE IT HAPPEN
LIKE THIS.
LET'S GO BACK TO THAT FOX NEWS
CLIP.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IT BEING A
LOT OF MONEY.
BUT YOU'RE ALSO SOMEONE WHO HAS
A LOT OF MONEY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO TO
TRY TO PUT IN PERSPECTIVE WHAT
FINES MEAN IN A COURTROOM.
SOMETIMES THEY'LL SAY, YOU TAKE
THE AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD
AND HIT THEM WITH A $1,000 FINE.
THAT MIGHT BE CRIPPLING, THE
RENT MIGHT NOT GET PAID.
THERE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH MONEY
FOR FOOD.
IT A's HUGE
IT'S A HUGE NUMBER.
AND YOU ASK WHAT IS A THOUSAND
DOLLARS PENALTY FOR A
BILLIONAIRE OR SOMEONE WHO OWNS
PROPERTIES WITH TENS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS.
IN THAT CONTEXT, THAT'S THE WAY
YOU HAVE TO INTERPRET WHAT THE
COURT HAS CHOSEN TO DO HERE.
I AGREE WITH TRISTAN, THERE'S NO
LOGIC THAT JUSTIFIES IT AND NO
MORAL AUTHORITY THAT JUSTIFIES
IT.
>> TRISTAN, I'M JUST LOOKING AT
THIS, THIS WAS FILED AT 11:06
A.M., SO WE'RE JUST TALKING
ABOUT 22, 23 MINUTES AGO THAT IT
WAS FILED, AND SO TRISTAN, IS IT
UNUSUAL THAT IT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF A DECISION TAKEN TO
STATEMENT OF A DECISION TAKEN TO
LOWER IT FROM 464-5 TO
$175 MILLION, NO EXPLANATION
GIVEN?
TRISTAN, NO EXPLANATION NORMALLY
GIVEN, TRISTAN, NO NORMAL
EXPLANATION REQUIRED?
>> AN EXPLANATION SHOULD BE
REQUIRED, BUT IT ISN'T HERE, IT
ISN'T GIVEN TO US HERE.
THIS DOESN'T NECESSARILY
SURPRISE ME.
A LOT OF TIME NEW YORK COURTS
GIVE ORDERS THAT ARE SHORT AND
LIGHT ON THEIR -- SHOWING THEIR
WORK SO TO SPEAK, YOU KNOW.
WE'RE NOT REALLY SEEING WHERE
THIS COMES FROM.
A LOT OF TIMES YOU GET VERY
SHORT SUMMARY OPINIONS FROM
COURTS IN NEW YORK.
THE EXCEPTION TO THIS
WONDERFULLY, BECAUSE I THINK IT
WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US
TO SEE, WAS WHAT WE GOT OUT OF
JUDGE ENGORON, WHERE HE ISSUED
THESE LONG AND VERY CAREFULLY
THOUGHT OUT ORDERS EXPLAINING
EXACTLY WHERE HIS ANALYSIS CAME
FROM AND HOW HE ARRIVED AT THE
CONCLUSIONS HE ARRIVED AT.
AND THEN TO HAVE THAT COME FROM
HIM AND HAVE THIS OTHER SET OF
JUDGES JUST SHOW UP AND JUST
SQUISH IT.
THEY JUST DROP A BOMB ON THIS
AND THEY DON'T GIVE US ANY
EXPLANATION AT ALL, YEAH, THAT'S
ENORMOUSLY FRUSTRATING AND I
WOULD SAY IT'S WRONG.
IT JUST SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.
IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN THIS WAY.
WE DESERVE, THE PUBLIC, THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
DESERVE BETTER THAT BE TO HAVE
THIS HAPPEN.
THIS IS -- AND WE HAVE TO
REMEMBER, THAT'S WHO THE
PLAINTIFF IS HERE.
IT'S NOT LETITIA JAMES OR HER
OFFICE OR WHATEVER.
YES, THAT'S -- THEY ARE OUR
PUBLIC SERVANTS DOING THIS ON
OUR BEHALF, BUT THE PLAINTIFF IS
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, AND WE DESERVE BETTER OUT
OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAN TO
HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN
WHERE WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY EVEN
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
BREAKING: Court finally issues ruling on Trump’s request to delay bond
Supreme Court overturns Trump Colorado ballot ban in unanimous ruling
Judge denies Letitia James' effort to reject Trump's $175M bond
BREAKING NEWS: Letitia James Is Big Mad! Wants To CANCEL Donald Trump's Bond!
‘The Five’ reacts to judge fining Trump for violating gag order
Judge Luttig: The Supreme Court just handed a ‘very difficult decision’ to Jack Smith