sarcasm?

Some seem to be very invested in shutting down any questions regarding this bond.

The only thing I can remember them being incorrect about is that the SC wouldn't take up the 'immunity' case. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

How about starting with some actual evidence to warrant investigation, rather than just asserting "we know they would...".

Asking questions about a half billion in funding is not a conspiracy theory, it is callled due diligence!

Why the loaded “conspiracy” language?

so it's not a "conspiracy theory" to question the nature of that business, what loans he has from Russian oligarchs and whether he avoids standing by windows on the 20th floor.

and what assets are backing it. For all we know it could be drug dealing, child molesters.

I have no idea what your point is exactly.

dsc stated

He is running for President of the United States! A person who is indebted to a foreign power could not get a basic security clearance. The only reason he can run is that an exception is made for the President, who does not need one.

PLUS . . . once he is declared the "official candidate" of the Republican party, he will start to get security briefings. Which he could/would most certainly use to pay back his foreign backer.

if it's supposed to be sarcasm, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS.

Two days in a row? It's old now.

I don't get why someone would post anything on here that we would have to identify as "sarcasm" or not. A "thingy" should not be necessary. Why not post what you are really thinking and save the sarcastic remarks for discussions you have in person when it can clearly be detected. IMO.

What happed to ;

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2024, 10:57 PM - Edit history (2)

Weissmann and Katyal may be cable personalities but they aren't hacks...they are extremely well respected attorneys...and questioning Greenberg's (Chubbs) largesse on behalf of an adjudicated rapist/tax cheat/91 counts 4 times indicted/traitor to his country/racist/anti-semites (shame on Evan Greenberg) is absolutely the right thing to do...it's not like Trump was taking bribes from foreign countries (Trump Hotels) or entertaining Russian dignitaries in the Oval Office with classified information or loving him some dictators or plotting a coup to stop the transfer of power/shredding the Constitution or stealing top secret documents..oh wait, he did!...I can see why Greenberg (Chubb) would see Trump as a stand-up/sound investment kind of guy...

the price of a cup of coffee.

And I am always interested in what they have to say.

Just like the guy on Youtube who films himself tossing basketballs off a rooftop at a basket 1000 times to get ONE in the hoop.

They do it for clicks and views.

The TV channel has a demographic and the more eyeballs they can get on their programs, the more money they make.

Or we can call it "Performative Political TV Analysis"

And he who pays the piper calls the tune.

ready to sell their reputations for a few clicks.

to all media outlets?

And questioning who is backing the criminal defendant trump's bond is valid as he's a clear and present danger to our democracy. I mean he's already told us he wants to be a dictator, suspend the Constitution...and then there's the 2025 Project, said to have plans for deportation camps.

And let's not forget trump already told Putin (wonder if he/Russian oligarchs have a hand in backing the bond) to do anything he wants to to our NATO allies.

And remember, he's still got to come up with a bond for anther 400 million in a few days.

Calling out those who scold others for questioning the source of cheato's bond. Maybe you got that, but just in case.

Instead of "billion"?

Neil Katyal and Andrew Weissman are both highly respected and well informed contributors to MSNBC. Try Googling them. If they are "spewing crazy shit", it is probably because a lot of crazy shit is happening right now.

I respect these men
And where the money came from is a legitimate question

TFG will be getting Daily Briefing documents soon. President Biden should refuse TFG the courtesy depending on who has financed TFG. Personally I would want to see the financial agreement first then ask more questions.

Read the 2nd paragraph slowly.

Over the past few days there have been numerous posts on the subject. When posters raise questions, legitimate, there are attempts to downplay and actually belittle the questioner.

Didn’t think a sarcasm smiley was needed, when a comment about us posters never having argued in front of the SC.

I think the sarcasm smiley was needed. I usually get sarcasm without one, but in this case, it didn't come across clearly.

And expect to see similar responses to those who constantly are trying to shutdown discussion on this topic, on trump underperforming, on Britt being a batshit crazy liar, as noted down thread, on Garland.

Some seem to think they smarter than the average DUer AND the esteemed Katyal and Weismann.

Hell upthread the two men were defined as “content creators.” Being opened minded I stated I would ponder that opinion. I did, for a short period of time, IMO that is batshit fucking crazy and belittling to two very fine legal minds who have a lifetime of work. To claim they are two guys trying to get YT or TikTok followers is beyond the pale.
So for everyone who felt the need to comment on the lack of sarcasm emoji, I implore you to defend DUers stating opinions against those who attempt to shut down those opinions.

Again the valid reason to shutdown critiques of trump and Repubs are inside the ream of 8 1/2 x 11 copy paper at your local Office Depot, that is fucking sarcasm!

People sometimes check unfamiliar screen names for post numbers.

It’s always best to put in the thingy, because (for example) a lot of people may not have seen the post(s) to which you referred.

Yes, google their backgrounds.

MSNBC has some of the best expert contributors, especially legal minds.

Ever since John Marshall twisted the law to help Aaron Burr get off for the insurrection he led we see fealty to the letter of the law used to deny justice. Marshall made it clear that ‘the letter of the law’ is out of reach of the common man, that it must be interpreted by our betters, and that what we can clearly read in the constitution or see in practice does not necessarily mean the courts agree.

Katyal and Weissman are so steeped in the law that they seem unable—or more likely unwilling—to suppose that the law is not sufficient in these cases and that its likely that justice will not be achieved.

exists is some crazy shit. And as far as I'm concerned, the fact that even one person would even vote for him to be on the board of directors for an HOA, much less President, is some really crazy shit.

I've never gotten used to any of it. In my mind, someone as bizarre as Trump would only exist as a character in a satirical movie. As for his supporters, I had no idea so many people like that existed. It is like Q from Star Trek created them to taunt Captain Picard. I say that having known some really off-the-wall characters.

Meidas Touch Network, for example, and corporate TV less.

The bond's purpose is to ensure that E. Jean Carroll gets her verdict when all appeals are concluded. Did he get the money for the premium or assurances for collateral from a dodgy source? Maybe, but I doubt the bond would have been issued if the insurer felt there was too much risk to it. And the court has to approve it. Are we more concerned about TFG's often-dubious financial connections than whether Carroll gets paid in the end? If she has to chase him herself it will be more expensive and troublesome for her. But now that TFG has defamed her once again, just this weekend, I wonder whether judge will even approve the bond.

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2024, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

It is an extremely valid concern regarding source of funds/collateral.

The RW canned response to the Lewinky scandal was…… fine, it was just a blow job but hiding it makes him vulnerable to blackmail or foreign control!

Why in the FUCK would anyone against trump try to shutdown dialogue about a person who took classified docs, who has a shady life long history of taking money from highly questionable sources, and is days away from being a half billion owed in bond debt?

Always put the opponent on defense, why are some here against that?

in order to find out what her preference is. Maybe it's standard procedure, but I felt when I read it, that if she could find something to hang his robe on, he'd go with her wishes. That bond has probably been analyzed up and down the block by now. The most concerning angle is not that Russian subsidiary, but the connection to Trump's previous administration. But, if there's nothing there, there's nothing there. So, Rump is buds with one of the largest insurers, underwriters in the world. Seems like a smart move for a guy whose whole life is grifting.

Someone wrote about the peril of Rump's twisting up the bond process until there would be nothing there but crumpled paper. I keep going back and forth, which process is most likely to get EJ the money. Kaplan's gotta get paid, too. Now I'm thinking that a tangible building might be safer. But, getting the bond squelched needs some tricky maneuvering, some law behind it, and that's beyond me!

There is the issue of EJ's age and quality of life. If she likes what's going on, then good for her. I don't think this third defamation is just Trump flapping his lips. It's part of some strategy he has to get even. I think part of my disappointment is, I wanted to see Trump lose a building, or two or three, because he treated EJ, and by extension women, so badly. But, he's still screwing around with the judgement.

Now whether the funds are coming from other sources through him, I would believe that as well.

sure Carroll gets paid.

Does that mean the bond should not have been issued, leaving Carroll to try to collect the judgment herself? If he's getting money for any reason from dodgy sources that raise security risks, that should be investigated. But to say the bond was wrongly issued is kind of like saying if you got money illegally you can't be allowed to spend it on anything legitimate.

that the bond date preceded his whiny appeal to the Judge, that he must have had the bond already when he was begging for a three day extension. Popok has lots of experience in law, and I think his eyeballs are trustworthy. He's trained to see these details.

So, what does this mean? If the Judge sees this, can't he conclude that Trump is playing fast and loose with the Court? Isn't this perjury, to tell a Judge you need an extension to do something, when you've already done it? And, does the bond company have any duty to inform the Court?

I dunno. I hate Trump so much.

he can decline to approve it, or he can make TFG re-apply. If TFG already had obtained the bond before he asked for an extension, the fact that he or his idiot lawyer lied to the court doesn't necessarily vitiate the bond, but the judge might want to know why he wanted an extension if he already had the bond. It's doubtful the insurer would have issued it without already having received the premium and a collateral arrangement, so was the extension needed to cement some underlying deal? Or some unrelated reason? It's certainly a fair question, but this judge wasn't born yesterday so it's likely he's aware of the discrepancy and will want to know the answer.

"...to cement some underlying deal..." I didn't think about that. Perhaps the fraud case?

I now would like some documentation on the collateral! Could the Judge order him to submit the collateral list? (This is Kaplan, not Engoron. Sooner or later, Engoron will be involved...)

You don't have to answer. Just musing...

to the insurance company at first and they wouldn't issue the bond at all until he gave them what they wanted. Wouldn't be surprised if he tried to offer overvaluations on whatever collateral was involved - and they caught it.

and he is not above cheating anyone and everyone that gets in his way. I think the overseer in the fraud case should have been notified if he used that property (they have marked all of it) in this EJ bond bid. But, I don't know what those rules are, except that she caught the fact that he transferred $40 million to Florida when he wasn't supposed to do that. So, I would investigate that, whether he encumbered that property for the bond. Or, is that property already tied up in the fraud case, and he can't use it to pledge for the bond?

See, this is where the clean transfer of an appeals bond begins to cloud. And, that's probably why the bond needs to be investigated, or the source of the collateral needs to be amplified. IF, the bond company has given him a bond without any collateral, because the bond company owner is chummy with Trump, quid pro quo, then THAT is of grave concern in terms of a payout for Carroll. Robby Kaplan might even motion for her own 3 day extension to figure this out. What's Trump gonna do about that?

I support EJ's position, and I want her to WIN. Whatever she wants, from attachment to a bond, to Carroll 3. I have heard nothing but good things about Robby Kaplan, how smart she is, so I hope she is investigating out the wazoo each aspect of this. If the bond company has no dog in the hunt, they might refuse to pay, although I'm not sure that they can. But, to me, I hate to say it, something could be afoot. I go back and forth. The bond company could have given him an empty bond in preference to ALL of his New York property in the fraud case. And, I wouldn't be surprised if they are the bond company in that appeal.

But, I am not sure if any of that is illegal. I think that you would have to prove nefarious intent on the part of the guy that was in Trump's administration, and that would be hard to do. So, EJ might be better off taking the original bond. The whole thing is all for her and Robby getting paid.

with individual underwriting decisions for any of the many Chubb subsidiaries. In any event, it seems that his only connection to Trump was his appointment in 2018 to a trade advisory council, the National Committee on United States-China Relations, where he is still its board chair. This is a non-partisan, nonprofit organization, and not part of the government. Greenberg was never a member of TFG's administration, and he seems to have no other connection with him, so the breathless ravings of pundits that this is the smoking gun that "proves" Trump had a corrupt relationship with the insurer that led them to issue the bond, isn't providing any actual smoke.

Evan G. Greenberg is the son of Maurice R. Greenberg, who is an Executive Vice Chair on the council, under his son. They are both Repubs. Maurice has in the past contributed significantly to Repubs, such as Marco Rubio. Not saying it means anything. And, that's all I got!

Katyal and Weissman "spewing crazy" stuff?

I got the sarcasm and it is entirely appropriate. Both are on TV because they are experts in this area and to say, as some do that they only have these points of views because they are grubbing for money, just shows ignorance about them. The poster is linking their expertise to those who daily criticize fellow posters as ignorant because they share Katyal and Weismann's take on things. Those two have a lot of credibility when it comes to these topics.

And in this thread we have multiple responses that make the point!

Posters who attempt to shutdown discussions that are harmful to the opponents.

Saw it in multiple threads yesterday.

Last week it was the same on trump underperforming.
Comments saying the Britt fiasco and lying should be ignored.

What is the purpose, why the defense?

suspicion is a default mode.

Who keep unfairly blaming Putin who is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Just because we think we should ask some questions on any Trump financial transaction.

A man running for president who might be taking large sums of money from our enemies.
Creating a huge national security risk.

I guess he is another stupid, uneducated conspiracy nut.

Although this thread has educated me that “content creator” is now a way to dismiss opinions. I have seen it used thousands of times to explain RW talking heads. First I have seen in used to describe LW commentators, being an open minded person, I will consider that it is a possibility.

Still question why anyone anti trump would be against this line of legitimate questioning. Same with trump electability, Britt craziness, why the need to shutdown the questions.

And to be clear, the question is NOT to you, and I felt the headbang smiley was much more appropriate than sarcasm in the OP.

I am referring to the general pushback elsewhere on DU, not your specific OP comments.

We are being foolish if we do not ask questions about Trump financial transactions.

I loved your OP and had been thinking of doing something similar.
But it would not have been as funny as your OP.

You know it must be something shady. Remember when he met with Putin in Helsinki, and then he had to do some stupid correction the next day, on the word would, which made no sense.

who keep telling us there is nothing to look at as far as this bond and the ones who keep telling us Garland did everything right?

Is it a Venn Diagram if you just see one circle shaded in the same color?

or he could be subject to blackmail !!

or something



✌🏻

The point is that the VOTERS deserve to know who Trump is beholden to financially. That Carroll is assured is right and good, but we’re also dealing with a man who is the front runner for the GOP Presidential nomination. Voters should know how he’s covering this kind of a financial obligation.

FWIW, I got the sarcasm right away, although I do understand some folks need a little help.

Too bad not much of that exists anymore.

Stenographic journalism is more the norm these days unfortunately.

I find it coincidental that Orban is visiting Trump around the sametime Chubbs places his bond. Since Chubbs is an international company…is it possible Orban co-signed for his bond?

The point in my mind is that the American voters have a right to know where the money is coming from or who is backing him. That he can be this opaque in a matter as serious as this is a serious flaw in our electoral system.

He has obfuscated and hidden his financial interests and dealings since he oozed down that gold plated escalator. That a large percentage of our fellow citizens don’t understand or seem to care is mind boggling.

With him “all roads lead to Putin “

I shudder to bring this up as I may be called conspiracy quack.

necessarily mean that the money is his, but could have come through him. He is closely connected to Putin and MBS.

Neil Katyal and Andrew Weissman are smart and seasoned. If you want more of them watch Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNB 10 PM eastern. If you can only watch one show this is one. 👍😊

fanboy and we need to ask hard questions and have differing opinions.
katyal and weissman are very knowledgeable and marc elias rocks- imho~

I do like and respect Katyal and Weissman.

Why are some trying to accuse people of conspiracy theory, when we question the collateralization of a bond that covers one of the most dishonest people on earth, from a company that he has ties to, of which Russia is part of their lucrative business, given his past actions and proven ties to fraud, etc... The company now has their own lawyers representing them in the matter of the bond. Is that normal? I don't know.

attempt to shut down a perspective.

As if everyone needs to see this again...and he/she still doesn't make it clear it's supposed to be sarcasm.

Enough already. It's not that clever.

CALM DOWN

And it was pretty fucking clever.

I am here to help.

Poster admittedly should have noted sarcasm but was still obvious sarcasm to most.

New poster made a clever post.

We saw it yesterday. That's more than enough.

OMG!!!


btw...




p.s.

i liked your post.
(amused by your sarcasm, agree with your point)

I am hoping that the OP is sarcasm. If not, the funding of this bond will be an issue as well the funding of the NY AG civil lawsuit bond. TFG needs to disclose who is backing this bond and who will be backing the next bond which will be close to one-half of a billion dollars. TFG will have to put up 1.1 times the amount owed in the NY AG Civil Lawsuit judgment. ($454 million times 1.1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I refuse to put the sarcasm emoji on the OP.

1. Stubbornness
2. Some, who were those attempting to shut down discussion, obviously understood my original intent.

With that, I offer a compromise…. The following is sarcasm:

Those two dudes in the 2nd video are the ones I referenced, amazing they come across so well, just figured they were fancy liberal elites, turns out they are making a mint posting on YouTube. Hell they may have funded the bond just to create more content!

End of sarcasm.

Neal and Andrew are correct to raise this issue

Link to tweet

Please add that to your original post if it is…

If it isn’t sarcasm….please state that instead….

If you don’t follow this guy you should. He is always ahead of everyone and almost documents too much.
Trump hasn’t paid fully. It’s a bond backed by Chubb. Read Seth.

I understand their credentials, but whenever I get a whiff of their commentary about something, it is not uncommonly at odds with what I'm observing about a situation in real time with my own eyes.

Their job isn't to inform. The job is to get eyeballs. If that requires outrage, so be it. If it means editing objective events in such a way to accommodate viewers' worldview, they'll go with that one.

What they're not going to do is come out and tell anyone, "Yeah, that's fine. Nothing very unusual about it."

Because "That's fine" is the antithesis of drama. And without drama, there are no eyeballs.

People need to stop taking the fact they're lawyers as motivation to accept things as gospel. They may be credentialed lawyers, but they aren't being paid to be lawyers. They're being paid to keep you tuning in.

Those two things have very different priorities.

I would bet the house on these two! welcome to DU.

1. None of us are mind readers.

2. No one here is such a brilliant satirist that they can be absolutely certain of conveying satirical intent in a messageboard post so clearly that no one could possibly miss it.

3. No matter how ridiculous a statement is, there are undoubtedly people in existence who are capable of stating it seriously and/or believing it when someone else states it.

4. Anyone who has been active on the internet for any amount of time should be aware of the pitfalls of communicating in writing. If I say something to you in person, my facial expressions, tone of voice, and general demeanor will provide a plethora of clues as to my intentions, including whether I am joking light-heartedly or being deadly serious. Words displayed on computer screen are sadly lacking in such clues. This makes misinterpretation much, much more likely.

5. Emojis and simple abbreviations such as "/s" are a courtesy we do for our readers, clues we provide to make the task of interpretation easier and less likely to go awry.

6. When I read a post written by someone whose views and writing style I am familiar with, I am likely to need less help of this sort. However, any post we make here is likely to be read by a mix of people, some of whom know us well and some of whom have no experience with our writing style and are therefore at greater risk of misunderstanding. (I, for example, don't know you at all and therefore have no baseline by which to compare your posts to determine if you are being serious or sarcastic. Judging by the replies to this "satirical" post, I have plenty of company here.)

7. When one person misinterprets your intentions, it may well be that one person's fault. When a whole bunch of different people either misinterpret or or can't figure how to interpret your intentions, it's a pretty safe bet that the fault lies elsewhere.

Moral: Using a sarcasm emoji (or /s) can't hurt a thing and has the potential to save a whole bunch of readers from confusion AND save the writer from the frustration of having to repeatedly explain their intentions.

That is all. Tomorrow is another day. Have a nice night.

today. So they seem OK with it.

are among the best knowledgeable most respected lawyers there are. Go somewhere else to spread your sarcasm.

a bit on the radio as I drove to get 4 pints of frozen chocolate custard. No I will not share. I didn't catch the name of the guy he had on but he talked about the financials on this looking weird and most importantly that Chubb and their bond division have never done a situation this big for this type of thing.

I don't give two craps about what anybody promises me on paper. When you go to collect and they say no or say "bankrupt" then see if you can try to pay the bills next month with that piece of paper you have. You may get something eventually after spending a bunch on lawyers etc. and/or waiting a long time.

There are plenty of stories in the financial world about paper promises from crooks and their pals at supposed respected companies. There are also a lot of people who lived through the S&L collapse who found out that thinking you "have money in an account" is not what you have. What you have is a piece of paper and a promise that you exchanged your money for. Most got money eventually but Kroger isn't giving you groceries by letting you talk about "eventually". The credit card company don't give a crap about "eventually".

The point being that cash escrow is way different than a surety bond.