Trump's Lawyers Make Huge Mistake During Bond Hearing @StepReactionAgency #donaldtrump
Trump may have secured a minor victory in court on Monday during a bond hearing, but they had to give up everything to secure that victory. Trump's le…
Trump's Lawyers Make Huge Mistake During Bond Hearing @StepReactionAgency #donaldtrump
Trump may have secured a minor victory in court on Monday during a bond hearing, but they had to give up everything to secure that victory. Trump's lead lawyer told the court that even if the bond company can't pay the amount, the court could always just start seizing Trump's assets in New York. The prosecution immediately agreed with that condition, and the judge gaveled it in as official. This was not a smart move by Trump's legal team, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.
*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
The week brought more than just the high-profile Hush Money trial for Donald Trump in Manhattan. While the eyes of the nation are set on Thursday's Supreme Court session, there was another significant hearing earlier in the week before Judge Arthur Eron concerning a bond payment. This payment, facilitated through Knight's Specialty Insurance Company, a venture linked to a close associate of Trump, amounted to $175 million. However, New York Attorney General Letitia James had raised concerns about the transaction, prompting the need for a hearing.
During Monday's proceedings, Trump's legal team made several concessions. Firstly, they agreed to refrain from accessing the funds backing the bond, eliminating any possibility of #Trump using the money for personal gain, which would violate New York law. Additionally, they committed to providing monthly updates on the financial status, ensuring transparency and accountability. However, what truly swayed the judge was an unexpected revelation from Trump's lawyer, Christopher Keese.
In a moment of candid exchange, Keese inadvertently disclosed the extensive real estate assets owned by the defendants in the city, suggesting that even if the bond funds were inaccessible, the court could swiftly seize valuable properties as collateral. This unin..
