Letitia James gets bad news hidden in Donald Trump's bond
One line buried in the agreement may be cause for concern for James, according to a new report from The Daily Beast, which described the contact as "bizarre" and "shadier than it looks."
The contract includes a line that if the judgment is "affirmed" or the "appeal is dismissed," the defendants in the case "shall pay to Plaintiff...the sum directed to be paid by the Judgment plus interests and costs or any part of it as to which said Judgment is affirmed," without a guarantee the insurance company would pay.
This essentially means that Trump will be required to pay the judgment if he loses the appeal but leaves questions about whether the insurance would pay if he is unable, essentially leaving James in the same position as before Trump secured the bond, according to the report.
It's bad because if he cannot pay at all, then he cannot appeal.
The idea is that you aren't able to use the appeals process as a stalling tactic, so in order to appeal, you must either set aside the money or secure a bond for the amount.
Trump has done neither. His "bond" isn't a bond at all, because the contract states that the insurer will not be responsible for the judgement amount. His application to appeal should be rejected.
This is patently false. He does NOT need to post a bond in order to appeal. He can absolutely appeal without posting a bond. The only purpose of the bond is to stay enforcement on the judgment.