Eehhhh, Could Be!

Maybe he's not as rich as he said he was. https://t.co/XTGnKTEtr6

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) March 4, 2024

Wait a minute:

Remitting the $7.3 million award and the $65 million punitive award, as discussed above, would reduce the bond amount to $24.475 million, which would be more than sufficient to secure any minimal risk to Plaintiff," Trump's attorneys wrote in a filing over the weekend. 

Last month, Kaplan declined Trump's initial request for a reduced bond or a delay, but asked for a reply from Carroll's lawyers. In a filing last week, her attorneys argued that the reasoning in Trump's request relief "boils down to nothing more than 'trust me.'" 

Trump's lawyers responded by arguing that Carroll's concern about Trump's limited finances is contradictory, highlighting that at trial her lawyers emphasized Trump's wealth to convince the jury to reach a higher damages award. 

"Plaintiff's current position -- that President Trump's ability to satisfy a judgment of $83.3 million is in doubt -- is 'clearly inconsistent' with her position barely one month ago that President Trump has $14 billion in assets and can thus easily satisfy an enormous punitive award," defense lawyers wrote. 

While Trump also owes $454 million in his civil fraud case, his defense lawyers argued that judgment is "unlikely to be upheld on appeal" and that the former president has many illiquid assets that could secure the judgment. 

"Having accused President Trump of failing to provide evidence, Plaintiff relies heavily on double-hearsay, speculative news articles alleging facts outside the record to imply that President Trump's financial situation is precarious -- contradicting her own trial evidence," defense lawyers wrote.

This is why the court requires a bond. Trump’s primary argument is that damages are going to be reduced on appeal, so let’s cut out the middleman and reduce them now.

That’s what appeals are for; and what appeal bonds are for.

Now, this attack on Carroll is flat out bizarre. The plaintiff’s post-trial assertions in response to Trump’s request are simply a response to the request. Trump bragged he had the money, but now says he shouldn’t have to pay it. How is she “contradicting her own trial evidence” in a trial that’s over, and on an issue not relevant to the findings of that trial?

Didn’t Trump say, under oath, that that he had $400 million just lying around?

They got nuthin,’ including money.