Idiot Trump Confesses He Actually Has the Money to Post Bond - eviltoast

Donald Trump is close to the deadline to post bond in his fraud trial—and he’s screwing himself over even more.

After having reached out to several guarantors and 30 suretors for help posting his $464 million New York bank fraud bond, Donald Trump suddenly wants everyone to know he actually does have the cash.

In a bizarre rant on Friday morning, the man who was found to have defrauded banks and investors by overvaluing himself and the value of his properties claimed that he had accrued the wealth by way of “HARD WORK, TALENT, AND LUCK.”

Trump also admitted he has nearly half a billion dollars in cash.

The confession directly contradicts a filing from his legal team last month arguing that it would be “impossible” to secure a bond covering the full amount of the multimillion-dollar ruling.

Trump’s words will surely help out New York Attorney General Letitia James, who on Wednesday urged an appeals court to ignore Donald Trump’s latest effort to worm his way out of paying the $464 million disgorgement from his bank fraud trial.

  • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Libel requires stating specific false facts

    I know what you mean and what you’re intending here but there is no such thing as “false facts.” It’s lies.

    The election was rigged" is an opinion.

    It is not. It’s a bool statement - true or false. The election was not rigged, that’s a fact. Stating otherwise is a lie.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      “Rigged” is an opinion.

      I don’t think it was rigged, but people routinely claim that due to the way the Electoral College works, all presidential elections are “rigged” in favor of the GOP. Similar claims have been made of recent Democratic primaries. Or that elections are rigged in favor of wealthy candidates, or incumbents.

      Courts aren’t going to decide whether it’s true that something is “rigged”, they need something more concrete.