Donald Trump is close to the deadline to post bond in his fraud trialāand heās 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 āHARD WORK, TALENT, AND LUCK.ā
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 āimpossibleā to secure a bond covering the full amount of the multimillion-dollar ruling.
Trumpās words will surely help out New York Attorney General Letitia James, who on WednesdayĀ urgedĀ an appeals court to ignore Donald Trumpās latest effort to worm his way out of paying the $464 million disgorgement from his bank fraud trial.
Courts generally consider broad statements like āriggedā and ācorruptā to be opinions, which by themselves are not grounds for libel. Libel requires stating specific false facts.
For example, āThe election was riggedā is an opinion. But āTwo Georgia election workers threw away GOP ballotsā is libel.
Ah OK, thatās why he can keep doing it.
I know what you mean and what youāre intending here but there is no such thing as āfalse facts.ā Itās lies.
It is not. Itās a bool statement - true or false. The election was not rigged, thatās a fact. Stating otherwise is a lie.
āRiggedā is an opinion.
I donāt think it was rigged, but people routinely claim that due to the way the Electoral College works, all presidential elections are āriggedā 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 arenāt going to decide whether itās true that something is āriggedā, they need something more concrete.
What about āoften overturnedā? That seems like a fact that could potentially be proven or disproven.
Especially if the judge has never been overturned, or never/rarely overturned in the context or timeframe of these cases. Assuming that is a false fact for this judge, I donāt know his stats.
Another judge on his cases has been potentially been āoften overturnedā based on percentages of total cases/rulings?
āOftenā is an opinion about something that has happened. Just like āa lotā.
Suppose I said āBoeing aircraft often failā and you havenāt kept up with the news. You can conclude that they have failed, but you wonāt know how many times unless you ask more questions.
What if I say you often get speeding tickets while driving, but youāve never been stopped by the cops for anything, or you got one speeding ticket 10 years ago? If I keep repeating that you āoften get speeding ticketsā and it gets you fired - did I not hurt you with a lie?
Notice Iām not accusing you of speeding. Iām saying you often get ticketed, something that can be verified
Heās not accusing the judge of āoften making wrong or bad decisionsā He is saying āoften overturned decisionsā Has the judge been overturned in these proceedings? Because another federal judge in one of his other cases has been overturned, but heās not posting about that judge being unfair or āoften overturnedā
I feel like thereās a difference, but maybe using āoftenā murks it up just enough. Like using alleged, āitās possibleā, or āpeople sayā to spread rumors.
If you say I often get speeding tickets, thatās the same as saying that Iāve gotten speeding tickets and you think Iāve gotten too many.
The first part is false only if Iāve never gotten one. The second is an opinion.
I would be surprised if any judge never had any part of any decision changed on appeal. Appeals courts exist to modify what judges do, it just goes with the territory. Engoron is no different this regard, in fact Trump himself was partly successful in appealing one of his orders.