***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at:
PO Box 112
Sioux Center, IA 51250
President Donald J. Trump has filed a powerful response to Racist and Corrupt New York AG Letitia James’ and Democrat Club-controlled Judge Arthur Engoron’s crooked, political Witch Hunt, specifically their Unconstitutional, Illegal bond demand.
Several key excerpts:
- It would be completely illogical—and the definition of an unconstitutional Excessive Fine and a Taking—to require Defendants to sell properties at all, and especially in a “fire sale,” in order to be able to appeal the lawless Supreme Court judgment, as that would cause harm that cannot be repaired once the Defendants do win, as is overwhelmingly likely, on appeal.
- By demanding an undertaking in the full amount of the judgment in order to appeal, the Attorney General and Supreme Court have sought to impose a patently unreasonable, unjust, and unconstitutional (under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions) bond condition, which would cause irreparable harm and foreclose any review of Supreme Court’s deeply flawed decision in this case.
- In short, while attempting to cynically and wrongfully tar the Defendants’ witnesses as “unreliable,” the Attorney General does not actually dispute the truth of a single one of their specific claims. This is unsurprising because these claims are undeniable to those with knowledge of real estate and sureties. See, e.g., Peter Coy, Why Donald Trump Can’t Put Up a Bond, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 18, 2024) (explaining that “insurance regulation” renders sureties unable to post such massive bonds for privately held companies because “the state insurance departments that regulate surety bond companies don’t allow that kind of business”); id. (agreeing with Mr. Giulietti that, “[f]or Trump to have gotten the bond he needs to appeal, he would have needed to post about $1 billion in cash and liquid securities, more than twice the size of the judgment”); The Editors, Letitia James Turns the Screws on Trump, WALL ST. J. (Mar. 18, 2024) (explaining that the unwillingness of sureties to accept real-estate collateral “isn’t surprising,” and that “[i]nsurers may also fear Ms. James’ legal retribution if they provide the bond to Mr. Trump”).
Read the complete filing here.
