When Donald Trump posted the $91.6 million bond on Friday allowing him to appeal the E. Jean Carroll decision without paying her immediately, it set off an interesting scramble to unpack why Federal Insurance Company—a subsidiary of Chubb Insurance Company—would lend to a notoriously unreliable borrower.

But there was also some fine print in the bond that would have, curiously, given Trump an additional 30 days to come up with the money—as well as another 30 days for FIC to come up with the money if Trump failed to pay. That meant Trump had found a way to unilaterally stall paying up, pending the consent of the court.

It looked like just the latest way Trump had, like Darth Vader before him, altered the deal. And for three days, it seemed as if Trump had gotten away with a minor tweak in court paperwork that would have created a two-month delay in having to pay a cent to the journalist he defamed—even if he lost the rape defamation case on appeal.

But over the weekend, Carroll’s attorney spotted the odd jumble of legalese and pressured Trump’s legal team to give up the ploy for extra time. On Monday, she alerted U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of the new deal. And in a sign of just how interested he is, the judge immediately responded in a handwritten note scribbled over her letter to the court.

“The parties shall submit revised documentation promptly,” the judge wrote back.

75 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
23 points

They also show their chops on the Trump side.

Or rather their lack of chops.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Notable that this judge is also really good at judging.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

While notable, I wouldn’t pay any heed to the method in which the judge delivered this news, as the last line suggests. It’s not unusual for a judge to issue responses and quickly written notes on motions. They’re reading stacks of papers a day and just jotting their shit down and moving on.

permalink
report
reply
-39 points
*

Really? That’s your nitpick? Not the elbow-jab-har-har Darth Vader analogy hur-dur? 🤮

edit: apologies, I just looked at the source. Fuck, I wish there was a way to filter out every post that cites that endless squirt of lukewarm shit called The Daily Beast.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points
*

Yes, my nitpick was correcting the obviously mistaken conclusion drawn from benign facts and not policing jokes. If you prefer to discuss the non-substantive parts of the article, then you can go into a bathroom, take a shit, and have a conversation with opinions that reflect your own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I am stealing that last dig.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-35 points

Aww, aren’t we precious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

On one hand, life’s short & +/-$3m in interest is a lot.

On this other hand:

N. Alex Hanley, an expert in how companies appeal enormous judgments, thinks the potential two-month gap doesn’t sound all that odd, given the immense amount of money in question and the huge players involved.

Yeah, big judgement.

Still, two weeks for impeached president and two weeks for the bond company still sound like enough time.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 388K

    Comments