Trump Bond cut to 175 million from 450million

Trump is betting that by the time that comes around, he can dump his shares and collect on the shorts.

 

No it's not. Further, the bond amount is not "set". In New York, the bond amount is automatically the same as the equitable relief awarded, plus interest. As you have seen, the bond amount can be appealed, and Trump is not obliged to post a bond at all. He can still appeal without one, in which case his assets will be seized.

 

Which isn't any kind of crime.

 

Obviously it ISN'T automatic, because the appeals court lowered it...lol

And yes, the 8th Amendment says it's unconstitutional.

 

So? What's that have to do with anything?

 

Refer to the 8th Amendment.

 

Link?

 

He is not in charge of the capital police and has no say so in what they do nor did he have anything to do with the idiot mob that served the democrats so well and completely ended any legitimate chance to challenge the election.

 

Doesn't matter.

 

But, if you had quoted my whole post you would have noticed I said:

That's dereliction of duty, and failure to uphold his oath of office"

But, as Commander and Chief couldn't he have been Court Martial-ed?

 

Show us "dereliction of duty" in the USC.

And no, a president can't be court martialed.

That's why it isn't dereliction of duty.

 

I can only find articles about the mechanics of "appeal bonds", they all seem to think that "appeal bonds" are legal; none of them address their unconstitutionality.

What I have found is debate whether they should be beyond the means of the appellant, with varied opinions. But, since tRatior tRump claims to be worth many times the amount of the bound, especially the revised bond, it's legality isn't up for debate.

 

Dereliction of duty is a specific offense under United States Code Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 and applies to all branches of the US military. A service member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties. Such incapacitation includes the person falling asleep while on duty requiring wakefulness, his getting drunk or otherwise intoxicated and consequently being unable to perform his duties, shooting himself and thus being unable to perform any duty, or his vacating his post contrary to regulations.

In order to prosecute a service member under Article 92, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the service member knew (or should have reasonably known) his duties and that he was either, through neglect or culpable inefficiency (i.e., being inefficient without just cause), derelict in the performance of those duties.[4]
-Wiki

But, even though tRaitor tRump WAS derelict in his duty, as a Civilian leader, you are correct, he can't be court martial-ed.

 

The president (any president) isn't a member of the United States Armed Forces and isn't subject to the UCMJ.

As the commander in chief, a president can pretty muchdefine what his duty is when it comes to deploying troops.

 

You said unaffordable appeal bonds happen "all the time". Show us some of those times.

 

An example of a bond set in excess of a defendant’s ability to pay is the case of music mogul Suge Knight. He was held on a $25 million bond for running over two men, killing one of them.

 

That's bail, not an appeal bond.

 

Bill, that's no argument. Shame!

 

They do. If someone has insufficient assets to secure a bond—-like fake “billionaire” Donald Trump—-they don’t get a bond. I’ve seen it numerous times. There are also mechanisms in place to reduce or eliminate the requirement of a bond; the Orange Defrauder availed himself of those mechanisms.

 

You weren’t talking about the Metropolitan Police, which your beloved had no authority.

you’re trying to move the goalposts again.

 

He's also blaming the Democrats for the idiot Trumpers' rampage. WTF?

 

If failing to secure the bond, because a person can't afford it, that means that person can't appeal the case, then the bond is unconstitutional.

 

And you claim to be a lawyer? Double shame!

 

Hokay. That's some great "legal analysis", Bill.

 

It is. If you were an actual lawyer, you would know that...lol