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.

  • @just_another_person
    link
    31
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Read it again. There is no slanderous or libelous statement, as dumb as it is. Somebody was handling the wording very carefully.

    “OFTEN OVERTURNED” - Haven’t looked into it, but possible fact or subjective to the speaker’s point of view at the very least.

    “POLITICAL HACK JUDGE” - Derogatory at best, and not mentioning the specific names or false allegation.

    “CORRUPT AG CASE” - Again, subjective, and referring the case, not the AG or Judge.

    What a fucking idiot to invite more consternation, but unless you specifically say something like “Judge Tom Smith took bribe money to fuck over my case”, there isn’t a solid argument for Libel or Slander.

    • @Buffalox
      link
      49 months ago

      How is “Corrupt AG” not referring the AG?

      • @dohpaz42
        link
        English
        139 months ago

        Because he said “ corrupt AG case”, not “corrupt AG”.

        • @Beryl
          link
          49 months ago

          English isn’t my first language, but I’d read it more like " the case brought by the corrupt AG" rather than " the corrupt case brought by the AG".

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            Yes, but he gets to decide which version he meant when it suits him to do so.

            In this case, the ambiguity of his terrible wording works in his favour.

        • @just_another_person
          link
          49 months ago

          Exactly. If he had made a corruption allegation against the AG directly, then there is a possible case.

          This shithead spends 24/7 with caretakers carefully wording his every sentence outside of speeches because he just definitively lost a defamation case, TWICE. I’d be surprised if he gets off the leash enough to actually do it again. Terrible lawyers if he does.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            You paint him and his sycophants as pr masterminds suddenly, something they’re certainly not and have never been. You attribute too much intelligence and competence to him and his people.

            • @just_another_person
              link
              1
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              The law is pretty damn clear. Get all bent up if you want, but it’s there for review.