Following an appeals court decision that reduced the $454 million bond imposed in his New York fraud case, former President Donald Trump posted the lower amount — much to the dismay of his detractors, of course.
The lower $175 million bond payment means that New York Attorney General Letitia James will now not be permitted to fulfill the leftist fantasy of confiscating Trump’s property in order to sell it off and enrich the state government.
Trump’s legal team had argued that a bond in the original amount of nearly half a billion dollars simply wasn’t obtainable, Axios noted.
Trump wasted little time in celebrating the decision and the payment in a Truth Social post.
Trending:
“Thank you to professor Jonathan Turley for exposing the horrendous decision made by a corrupt New York State Judge, Arthur Engoron, on the “I will get Trump” worst in the Nation A.G., Letitia James, unfair case against me,” Trump wrote. “I just posted a $175,000,000 Bond just for the right to Appeal this travesty of a case, which I won at the Appellate Division, but this Judge refuses to accept- A FIRST.”
“He is a whacked out nut job who just made up a number out of thin air, just like he did on the value of Mar-a-Lago. Businesses won’t enter New York because of this decision, and many are fleeing. Think of it – I had to pay an enormous sum for the right to Appeal the ridiculous decision of a CROOKED Judge and A.G.
“This is Election Interference, and it all comes directly from Joe Biden and the White House,” he argued. “An attack, along with ALL OF THE OTHERS, on his political opponent, ME!”
One can only imagine the disappointment and frustration at liberal news publishers like CNN and The New York Times, both of which had previously gloried in the possibility of Trump’s assets being seized.
Are there political motives behind Trump’s prosecutions?
Last month, the Times gleefully pronounced that Trump was “running out of time to stave off a financial crisis” because of the uncertainty regarding his ability to obtain the original bond.
The outlet noted that James could have magnanimously opted to slow-walk the seizure of portions of Trump’s real estate holdings, but seemed to be holding out hope that she would not pull her punches.
“But if she wanted to take a more aggressive stance, Ms. James could freeze some of Mr. Trump’s bank accounts, which might send the Trump family business into a tailspin,” Kate Christobek and Ben Protess wrote for the Times.
“She could also seek to seize some of his New York properties, and public records show that Ms. James has formally posted the judgment in Westchester County, a preliminary step toward staking a claim to Mr. Trump’s private estate and golf club there,” the two added.
CNN walked its readers — all nine of them — through the steps that in their ultimate daydreams would be taken to seize Trump’s bank accounts first and then other assets.
“Assets, such as buildings, houses, cars, helicopters and his plane, are in play,” CNN’s “law enforcement reporter” Mark Morales drooled around the same time.
“The main focus could be on his bank accounts, which experts say will be easier to take hold of, and properties, which would be more difficult,” he added.
CNN, to its credit — and that’s not a phrase I used about CNN very often (because I rarely have reason to) — later added an editor’s note tamping down on Morales’ enthusiasm by noting the appeals court decision lowering the bond.
The Times didn’t mention the lowering of the bond directly, but did offer a link to “the latest on Trump’s bond in the N.Y. civil fraud case,” which turned out to be a story about the appeals court decision, which the Times called both a “surprise” and “unexpected.”
Which I suppose is fair. Anyone living in the Trump Derangement Syndrome echo chamber — and it’s hard to imagine any employee of the Times living in any other world — should reasonably be expected to be surprised by anything good happening for to the former president.
