- cross-posted to:
- antitrumpalliance
- cross-posted to:
- antitrumpalliance
…
It turns out that Trump may have called in a major favor: Court records filed Friday show that the bond was guaranteed by the Chubb Corporation, an insurance group. In 2018, Trump appointed Chubb’s CEO Evan Greenberg to a White House advisory committee for trade policy and negotiations.
I feel like some people may be mentally damaged or simply lack critical thinking skills. Business is business and this entity obviously already has no qualms doing business with dumpy.
You get a bond like this contingent on other assets existing plus a fee. He owns real estate. This arrangement lets you leverage the equity in that real estate for a fee while someone else’s cash on hand is used. Let’s be realistic too, there’s next to no way he’s going to pay the full damages because most sane people wouldn’t think any amount of defamation is worth $83m+
Let’s pretend worse case scenario happens for dumpy and the 83m judgment is sustained and he exhausts all appeals and has to pay all parties for all damages based on all current lawsuits against him… unless he declares bankruptcy and truly loses it all - a thing that seems to have no hope of ever happening given none of the suits are for more money than he controls in assets… it’s all but guaranteed a signed contract will be enforceable should dumpy choose to not pay.
Ultimately it’s a secured debt. We’ll never know what the terms were from chubb corp.
No, the whole argument of the damages amount was that it needed to be high enough to actually matter to this particular individual. Are you at all familiar with the case? The court agreed it needed to be high enough to be punitive.
I agree other than
Maybe not on its own, but remember that the initial award was far less. Then he did it again. The numbers skyrocketed because of punitive damages: basically, what’s an appropriate amount that would stop him (and him specifically) from doing it a third time? If a court were to make me pay, say, everything I have in my savings account I’d think twice about what I do. But my net worth is far less than his is purported to be. With that higher net worth comes higher punitive damages to prevent another occurrence.
First, the court decided the damages after Trump repeatedly disparaged Ms Carroll, even after having been found guilty of doing so previously. If there is a consensus among legal scholars that the amount will be reduced, I have not seen it. This wasn’t some jury awarding an arbitrary high amount to a sympathetic plaintiff.
Second, the other offense that Trump has also been found guilty of is inflating the valuation of his real estate holdings, which again is a behavior he has engaged in repeatedly and has even boasted about. When questioned about his net worth, he stated in court that he declares his worth based on his assessment of his brand as Trump, rather than actual real estate values. He’s on the hook for half a billion dollars for that one.
If the Chubb decision to back this was related to the person’s personal friendship or financial relationship to Trump, then he may be liable to a suit as well, but realistically he’s not putting up his own money. This is a personal friend and confidant of Trump backing Trump’s play. If he accepted the Trump valuation of a property to secure the bond amount, then he’s definitely made himself vulnerable. If it’s based on a realistic valuation, then Chubb is probably off the hook for that.
Trump’s valuations are just straight up bananas, and he has been found guilty of doing exactly that. I’m looking forward to finding out more about this deal.