Trump's NATO comments

[dot]

In the background we have a depiction of every bill that the Trump organization has ever paid. We will call this a "Mountain".

In the foreground we have a depiction of every bill the Trump organization has not paid. We will call this a "mole hill".

By all means, defend stiffing people of the money owed to them for their work. While you're at it, since you want to look big picture, how about you let that mountain come into focus a bit around all the other swindling and shady bs he's done over the years? Trump University? His fake charity? Housing discrimination? And let's not forget how he funneled taxpayer money into his businesses while in office. So if you want the big picture, you have to look at all of it, unless objectivity isn't what you're after. Feel free to admit that too.

[Animal]

[CHEEZY17]

Tom Brady threw some interceptions. Jeez what a horrible quarterback.
Leonardo DaVinci painted over many of his artworks. What an amateur.
Dodgin' Dot is unable to see things on a larger scale. He gets a laser focus on the thing that he thinks makes his point and wont acknowledge anything else. Its the sure sign of a hack.

Yes the evidence is all around all of us in the form of a world wide operation with an estimated 20,000 employees that continues to be fully and consistently operational year after year. Nice job kicking your own ass yet again.

[dot]

Moving goalposts would mean I'm changing the subject to something else. I'm pretty steadfast here. The guy doesn't pay people he owes money to. Fact. He invites our allies to be invaded by hostile parties by the same criteria he himself does. Fact. Now you guys, you're the ones constantly defending this behavior in some way shape or form. You're now devolved to ignoring what he does in favor of a "bigger picture." Well, that bigger picture you want to take into account has loads more detrimental things he's done over the years that you probably didn't think of when you pivoted. So like I said, if you want to defend stiffing people of their earnings, go right ahead. If you want to shift the discussion to everything he does, that was your decision, not mine. And just because it tickles me that you have to argue against yourself, I refer you to page 1.

The irony of the guy making up a story to posture for the marks in the audience telling other countries to "pay their bills" when he has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and is known for not paying his bills is staggering.

that's actually a good point.

Tom Brady threw some interceptions. Jeez what a horrible quarterback.
Leonardo DaVinci painted over many of his artworks. What an amateur.
Dodgin' Dot is unable to see things on a larger scale. He gets a laser focus on the thing that he thinks makes his point and wont acknowledge anything else. Its the sure sign of a hack.

I don't watch football. I don't paint. I just showed how the bigger picture is not helpful to your argument. If all you have is minimizing cheating people out of their justified money, that says more about you than it ever will about me, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Moving goalposts would mean I'm changing the subject to something else. I'm pretty steadfast here. The guy doesn't pay people he owes money to. Fact. He invites our allies to be invaded by hostile parties by the same criteria he himself does. Fact. Now you guys, you're the ones constantly defending this behavior in some way shape or form. You're now devolved to ignoring what he does in favor of a "bigger picture." Well, that bigger picture you want to take into account has loads more detrimental things he's done over the years that you probably didn't think of when you pivoted. So like I said, if you want to defend stiffing people of their earnings, go right ahead. If you want to shift the discussion to everything he does, that was your decision, not mine. And just because it tickles me that you have to argue against yourself, I refer you to page 1.

The irony of the guy making up a story to posture for the marks in the audience telling other countries to "pay their bills" when he has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and is known for not paying his bills is staggering.

that's actually a good point.

Tom Brady threw some interceptions. Jeez what a horrible quarterback.
Leonardo DaVinci painted over many of his artworks. What an amateur.
Dodgin' Dot is unable to see things on a larger scale. He gets a laser focus on the thing that he thinks makes his point and wont acknowledge anything else. Its the sure sign of a hack.

I don't watch football. I don't paint. I just showed how the bigger picture is not helpful to your argument. If all you have is minimizing cheating people out of their justified money, that says more about you than it ever will about me, hack.

Except you willfully dismiss the mountains of bills, employees and suppliers that DO get paid consistently year after year as evidenced by a worldwide operation with an estimated 20,000 employees that continues to be fully and consistently operational year after year. Nice job kicking your own ass yet again.

[Animal]

Moving goalposts would mean I'm changing the subject to something else. I'm pretty steadfast here. The guy doesn't pay people he owes money to. Fact. He invites our allies to be invaded by hostile parties by the same criteria he himself does. Fact. Now you guys, you're the ones constantly defending this behavior in some way shape or form. You're now devolved to ignoring what he does in favor of a "bigger picture." Well, that bigger picture you want to take into account has loads more detrimental things he's done over the years that you probably didn't think of when you pivoted. So like I said, if you want to defend stiffing people of their earnings, go right ahead. If you want to shift the discussion to everything he does, that was your decision, not mine. And just because it tickles me that you have to argue against yourself, I refer you to page 1.

The irony of the guy making up a story to posture for the marks in the audience telling other countries to "pay their bills" when he has filed for bankruptcy multiple times and is known for not paying his bills is staggering.

that's actually a good point.

Tom Brady threw some interceptions. Jeez what a horrible quarterback.
Leonardo DaVinci painted over many of his artworks. What an amateur.
Dodgin' Dot is unable to see things on a larger scale. He gets a laser focus on the thing that he thinks makes his point and wont acknowledge anything else. Its the sure sign of a hack.

I don't watch football. I don't paint. I just showed how the bigger picture is not helpful to your argument. If all you have is minimizing cheating people out of their justified money, that says more about you than it ever will about me, hack.

the good point you make is that it was stupid to call out NATO countries in public in the first place. And then to accuse them of the things that you have done yourself is even more hypocritical. Those two points are valid.

However, like always, you can't help yourself but to carry it too far and start to try to over play your hand. Dummy.

[dot]

Except you willfully dismiss the mountains of bills, employees and suppliers that DO get paid consistently year after year as evidenced by a worldwide operation with an estimated 20,000 employees that continues to be fully and consistently operational year after year. Nice job kicking your own ass yet again.

How does the saying go?

"You see this bar? I built this bar with my bare hands from the finest wood in the county. Gave it more love and care than my own child. But do they call me MacGregor the bar builder? No." Points out the window. "You see that stone wall out there? I built that stone wall with my bare hands. Found every stone, placed them just so through the rain and the cold. But do they call me MacGregor the stone wall builder? No." Points out the window. "You see that pier on the lake out there? I built that pier with my bare hands. Drove the pilings against the tide of the sand, plank by plank. But do they call me MacGregor the pier builder? No. But you fuck one goat ... "

You want to give Trump not just credit for doing what he's supposed to do, but ignore and erase all bad he's ever done based on it. If he followed the law and wasn't a traitorous criminal conman, we wouldn't be here. You wouldn't be making a fool of yourself day after day, but here you are being a disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded hypocritical duped partisan hack.

the good point you make is that it was stupid to call out NATO countries in public in the first place. And then to accuse them of the things that you have done yourself is even more hypocritical. Those two points are valid.

However, like always, you can't help yourself but to carry it too far and start to try to over play your hand. Dummy.

I'm still on the same points I was from page 1. It's y'all that have devolved to defending not paying people what they earn, I'm just countering your stupidity. Dummy.

[Animal]

I'm still on the same points I was from page 1. It's y'all that have devolved to defending not paying people what they earn, I'm just countering your stupidity. Dummy.

No. You are a mommy's boy that hasn't ever had to do any real work and don't understand how bills get paid in the real world. Sometimes people do shitty work or don't finish a job or submit incorrect billings. And then those people turn around and file liens hoping the hassle of the system will prompt them a payment. which works sometimes. it doesn't work on me. and, apparently, it doesn't work on Trump. and the laws around bankruptcy weren't written to protect cheaters and thieves. they were written to resolve financial matters and using that process actually benefits the creditors.

[dot]

No. You are a mommy's boy that hasn't ever had to do any real work and don't understand how bills get paid in the real world.

Lot of words to defend not paying people for just earnings.

Sometimes people do shitty work or don't finish a job or submit incorrect billings.

That's an assumption that you're constructing to defend not paying people for just earnings. Unless, of course, you want to be on the record as taking the word of a proven liar and criminal conman.

And then those people turn around and file liens hoping the hassle of the system will prompt them a payment.

As opposed to not paying people, then suing them to tie them up in legal filings until surrender or even worse bankruptcy? Remember, we're still citing actual incidents here, not hypotheticals. Real people this happened to that you're just dismissing because it's necessary for your narrative.

which works sometimes. it doesn't work on me. and, apparently, it doesn't work on Trump. and the laws around bankruptcy weren't written to protect cheaters and thieves. they were written to resolve financial matters and using that process actually benefits the creditors.

As has been proven, time and time again, just for once, educate yourself on the subject before posting. Now I'm not gonna delve into your own business practices here, as defensive as you have been over "the way things are done" or "the way the real world works" in recent memory. Lord knows the hornet's nest that could be kicked over if someone so wrong about fraud is revealed to be neck deep in it, after all. So I'm going to take it on good faith that you don't routinely stiff contractors who do work for you or deliberately withhold payment for services rendered, but Trump deserves no such good faith basis. His practices are documented. You and the hack keep wanting us to believe nothing is out of the ordinary, that these incidents didn't happen or even worse that they did and they're not worth addressing. It's just the little people that got f'd over. Think really hard about what you're defending by taking this road. Then remember that the person who is known for this behavior and practice, he would let our allies be invaded by hostile forces based on the same thing he does. Instead of small business bankruptcy, that involves loss of lives and unchecked aggression on the world stage. Big picture indeed.

[Animal]

No. You are a mommy's boy that hasn't ever had to do any real work and don't understand how bills get paid in the real world.

Lot of words to defend not paying people for just earnings.

Sometimes people do shitty work or don't finish a job or submit incorrect billings.

That's an assumption that you're constructing to defend not paying people for just earnings. Unless, of course, you want to be on the record as taking the word of a proven liar and criminal conman.

And then those people turn around and file liens hoping the hassle of the system will prompt them a payment.

As opposed to not paying people, then suing them to tie them up in legal filings until surrender or even worse bankruptcy? Remember, we're still citing actual incidents here, not hypotheticals. Real people this happened to that you're just dismissing because it's necessary for your narrative.

which works sometimes. it doesn't work on me. and, apparently, it doesn't work on Trump. and the laws around bankruptcy weren't written to protect cheaters and thieves. they were written to resolve financial matters and using that process actually benefits the creditors.

As has been proven, time and time again, just for once, educate yourself on the subject before posting. Now I'm not gonna delve into your own business practices here, as defensive as you have been over "the way things are done" or "the way the real world works" in recent memory. Lord knows the hornet's nest that could be kicked over if someone so wrong about fraud is revealed to be neck deep in it, after all. So I'm going to take it on good faith that you don't routinely stiff contractors who do work for you or deliberately withhold payment for services rendered, but Trump deserves no such good faith basis. His practices are documented. You and the hack keep wanting us to believe nothing is out of the ordinary, that these incidents didn't happen or even worse that they did and they're not worth addressing. It's just the little people that got f'd over. Think really hard about what you're defending by taking this road. Then remember that the person who is known for this behavior and practice, he would let our allies be invaded by hostile forces based on the same thing he does. Instead of small business bankruptcy, that involves loss of lives and unchecked aggression on the world stage. Big picture indeed.

i have been a contractor all of my life. Its all I do. You are more than welcome to talk to anyone that has done business with me on how I pay bills. dummy. you are also more than welcome to talk to the few people that have tried to get away with shoddy work or not honored their contracts and talk to them about how payment works. Better yet, i have had the same bonding company since the first day I started my business. and they have bonded 99% of the jobs that I have done. Payment, performance, and maintenance bonds. If Chubb is issuing Trump a bond on the case against that lady, then they would certainly know full well his payment risks. Chubb is probably the biggest bonding company in New York and I would bet Trump has done business with them all of his life.

[dot]

i have been a contractor all of my life. Its all I do. You are more than welcome to talk to anyone that has done business with me on how I pay bills. dummy. you are also more than welcome to talk to the few people that have tried to get away with shoddy work or not honored their contracts and talk to them about how payment works.

Mighty defensive of you. As noted, I am not delving into your practices. I'm taking it on good faith that you aren't a crook. Call it a win, you need one.

Better yet, i have had the same bonding company since the first day I started my business. and they have bonded 99% of the jobs that I have done. Payment, performance, and maintenance bonds. If Chubb is issuing Trump a bond on the case against that lady, then they would certainly know full well his payment risks. Chubb is probably the biggest bonding company in New York and I would bet Trump has done business with them all of his life.

I don't think you're on the right thread for this train of thought.

[Animal]

i have been a contractor all of my life. Its all I do. You are more than welcome to talk to anyone that has done business with me on how I pay bills. dummy. you are also more than welcome to talk to the few people that have tried to get away with shoddy work or not honored their contracts and talk to them about how payment works.

Mighty defensive of you. As noted, I am not delving into your practices. I'm taking it on good faith that you aren't a crook. Call it a win, you need one.

Better yet, i have had the same bonding company since the first day I started my business. and they have bonded 99% of the jobs that I have done. Payment, performance, and maintenance bonds. If Chubb is issuing Trump a bond on the case against that lady, then they would certainly know full well his payment risks. Chubb is probably the biggest bonding company in New York and I would bet Trump has done business with them all of his life.

I don't think you're on the right thread for this train of thought.

i am saying that bonding companies, although owned and run by insurance companies, are extremely risk averse. they will not bond a company they feel is the slightest risk for non performance or non payment. and if a company bonded Trump in a court charge, then that would speak volumes on their very meticulous vetting of Trump on his payment history. For a bonding company, you can do 1000 things right and if you do one thing wrong you have to explain it so that they understand. Chubb has a AA rating from S&P and a A++ from Best. They don't bond risky people or companies. If you can't follow this train of thought, then its really no surprise.

[dot]

i am saying that bonding companies, although owned and run by insurance companies, are extremely risk averse. they will not bond a company they feel is the slightest risk for non performance or non payment. and if a company bonded Trump in a court charge, then that would speak volumes on their very meticulous vetting of Trump on his payment history. For a bonding company, you can do 1000 things right and if you do one thing wrong you have to explain it so that they understand. Chubb has a AA rating from S&P and a A++ from Best. They don't bond risky people or companies. If you can't follow this train of thought, then its really no surprise.

You have a flaw in your thinking though. You're thinking Chubb is a small business that Trump can bulldoze with his usual tactics. But let's first dissect how you got to your assumption. First, we'll examine the down to the wire posting of one bond, less than a hundred million. Fraud as he is, it's pretty well assured that even he can sell off assets to satisfy that amount. Now, the collateral wasn't disclosed, so we don't know exactly what he put up for that bond and we may not ever know unless he truly goes on the run to avoid creditors when he loses again. I would also theorize that Chubb took this on due to past ties, the CEO and a favor as noted previously. But next and most importantly, to Chubb getting their money. Trump isn't going to be able to tie them up in litigation like he would for not paying a mom and pop venture their just earnings and can't afford drawn out court cases. Chubb is only bonding him for the Carroll defamation verdict, they're not bonding him (so far) for the fraud verdict. Now I think you'd agree even with your warped sense of reality, less than $100 million is a far cry from $500 million worth of assets. If Trump defaults to them, they have far more power to go after his assets for compensation than Carroll would. They're getting their money after paying Carroll on his behalf, and given he's going to lose, they're going to get it back plus more.

[Animal]

i am saying that bonding companies, although owned and run by insurance companies, are extremely risk averse. they will not bond a company they feel is the slightest risk for non performance or non payment. and if a company bonded Trump in a court charge, then that would speak volumes on their very meticulous vetting of Trump on his payment history. For a bonding company, you can do 1000 things right and if you do one thing wrong you have to explain it so that they understand. Chubb has a AA rating from S&P and a A++ from Best. They don't bond risky people or companies. If you can't follow this train of thought, then its really no surprise.

You have a flaw in your thinking though. You're thinking Chubb is a small business that Trump can bulldoze with his usual tactics. But let's first dissect how you got to your assumption. First, we'll examine the down to the wire posting of one bond, less than a hundred million. Fraud as he is, it's pretty well assured that even he can sell off assets to satisfy that amount. Now, the collateral wasn't disclosed, so we don't know exactly what he put up for that bond and we may not ever know unless he truly goes on the run to avoid creditors when he loses again. I would also theorize that Chubb took this on due to past ties, the CEO and a favor as noted previously. But next and most importantly, to Chubb getting their money. Trump isn't going to be able to tie them up in litigation like he would for not paying a mom and pop venture their just earnings and can't afford drawn out court cases. Chubb is only bonding him for the Carroll defamation verdict, they're not bonding him (so far) for the fraud verdict. Now I think you'd agree even with your warped sense of reality, less than $100 million is a far cry from $500 million worth of assets. If Trump defaults to them, they have far more power to go after his assets for compensation than Carroll would. They're getting their money after paying Carroll on his behalf, and given he's going to lose, they're going to get it back plus more.

there isn't enough time in the day for me to teach you how bonds work. Chubb knows more about Trump's net worth than he does. You can bank on that. Chubb wouldn't go into the deal unless they were completely prepared for the whole thing to go to complete shit, so know that going in. you have to have liquid assets worth much more than the bonding company is going to bat for than they are bonding. the bond is simply a way for the creditor to get a guarantee from a certified company. The bonding company is like a middleman that is completely vetted with a bond rating that the creditor can depend on. For my construction company to get bonds on every job we bid, we have to maintain about 2 times the liquid assets of what the bonding company is bonding at any moment in time. they audit me once a year.

[dot]

there isn't enough time in the day for me to teach you how bonds work.

There's also apparently not enough time in the day for you to educate yourself on the chosen subject of the moment which is why you repeatedly end up on the wrong side of the facts. Or in this case, agreeing with me for the majority of your words.

Chubb knows more about Trump's net worth than he does. You can bank on that. Chubb wouldn't go into the deal unless they were completely prepared for the whole thing to go to complete shit, so know that going in.

I disagree about knowing his net worth better than Trump himself, after all, the guy cooks his books cause he knows he doesn't have what he says he has. But he has enough physical assets that Chubb is going to get their money's worth, which is what I said. Outside of you thinking Chubb knows all the fine details about Trump that he doesn't allow anyone to know, we already agree on Chubb is getting paid one way or the other.

you have to have liquid assets worth much more than the bonding company is going to bat for than they are bonding.

Which again, $100 million is a far easier thing to cough up than $500 million. Trump can pull off the defamation verdict penalty, I have no doubt about that. The murky numbers are when it gets to the fraud trial which is not what this bond is for.

the bond is simply a way for the creditor to get a guarantee from a certified company. The bonding company is like a middleman that is completely vetted with a bond rating that the creditor can depend on.

You do realize all you're doing is repeating back to me what I've already said, right? Sounds like you maybe should've spent that time alluded to earlier to study up so you can "teach" me something I didn't already know and say to you in the quoted post you're responding to.

For my construction company to get bonds on every job we bid, we have to maintain about 2 times the liquid assets of what the bonding company is bonding at any moment in time. they audit me once a year.

You're clearly looking for affirmation after so much hyper defensive posturing with all the fraud talk so:



I'm not trying to get into your business practices, bud. If you're a stand up business owner, good on you. If you're not, I'm not doing an investigation of you. It's not my job. Calm down.

[CHEEZY17]

We've lost track of an important bit of information that we're still waiting on!

How do you feel about the NATO welching, Dodgin' Dot?

[dot]

We've lost track of an important bit of information that we're still waiting on!

How do you feel about inviting NATO allies to be invaded by hostile forces?

.

[CHEEZY17]

We've lost track of an important bit of information that we're still waiting on!

How do you feel about inviting NATO allies to be invaded by hostile forces?

.

I think it would be bad and its clearly a possibility and/or threat which is why those NATO countries should have a robust defense appropriation buttressed by honoring their commitment instead of just relying on the US taxpayers to foot their defense bill. See how easy it is to answer a question? Give it a try!
How do you feel about the NATO welching, Dodgin' Dot?

[dot]

I think it would be bad and its clearly a possibility and/or threat which is why those NATO countries should have a robust defense appropriation buttressed by honoring their commitment instead of just relying on the US taxpayers to foot their defense bill.

Which is all my point has been because it's based on a threat from a hypocrite who did the same thing he's going to throw them under the bus for. And yeah, the NATO allies should all contribute their 2% guideline, but are you willing to invite them to be invaded for it if they can't? Think carefully about what you're trying to say by way of your deflection tactics.

[Animal]

wait. what did i just see?

[CHEEZY17]

I think it would be bad and its clearly a possibility and/or threat which is why those NATO countries should have a robust defense appropriation buttressed by honoring their commitment instead of just relying on the US taxpayers to foot their defense bill.

Which is all my point has been because it's based on a threat from a hypocrite who did the same thing he's going to throw them under the bus for. And yeah, the NATO allies should all contribute their 2% guideline, but are you willing to invite them to be invaded for it if they can't? Think carefully about what you're trying to say by way of your deflection tactics.

Congrats! I fully expected you to dodge and delete again. Good for you!
As I said at the top of thread I think Trumps comments are pure bluster meant to bring attention to the welching. Honestly, if Donny had calmly said "I think these countries need to honor their commitments.", as numerous people have done over the years, it would be a fart in the wind. No one would care and everyone would just go on with the status quo of ignoring the welching. Do I think Russia invades a NATO country? Fuck no. After the trouble hes having with a backwards country like Ukraine he wants no part of the NATO countries with or without the USA. The USA would be there though; just like we always are...if for nothing else but to feed the war machine.

[dot]

Congrats! I fully expected you to dodge and delete again. Good for you!
As I said at the top of thread I think Trumps comments are pure bluster meant to bring attention to the welching. Honestly, if Donny had calmly said "I think these countries need to honor their commitments.", as numerous people have done over the years, it would be a fart in the wind.

But instead he invited NATO allies to be invaded by hostile forces. Just in case you forgot the gravity of what he said in the atmosphere of when he said it:

One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, "Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't pay, you're delinquent,'" He said "Yes, let's say that happened." "No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You've got to pay your bills..."

But you're probably right about one thing. He is pure bluster, the guy lies like he breathes, as there is little doubt he made this story up like he does all the others to posture for the marks in the audience for applause. He's no friend to NATO and the importance of it, more on that shortly.

No one would care and everyone would just go on with the status quo of ignoring the welching. Do I think Russia invades a NATO country? Fuck no.

Under a normal president loyal to democracy and steadfast NATO power? Agreed, no. The problem lies in that Trump was not and would not be a normal president, he's a traitorous criminal conman out for himself alone who would just as soon withdraw from NATO, taking us off the board and thus changing the balance of power in the world.

After the trouble hes having with a backwards country like Ukraine he wants no part of the NATO countries with or without the USA. The USA would be there though; just like we always are...if for nothing else but to feed the war machine.

Putin is having the trouble he's having because of our assisted defense of democracy in Ukraine. That's key to why he's struggled so much. I don't demean the Ukrainian defenses but they are getting our help. Not our direct military might, but supply and munitions aid which is crucial, aid that's being held up by Trump's and your party. Ukraine is also a parallel to exactly what Putin would do if we were no longer a check on Putin's aggression on the other side of the world. So yes, he may not want the full weight of the world against his corrupt and unwarranted aggression, and that will cease to be a factor if your criminal conman idol gets back into office. The guy that says he would negotiate to end the war like it was a business deal, do you honestly trust that he would sit both sides down to talk it out and get Russia to back off without gaining something from Ukraine that they have no rights toward? The guy that doesn't pay justified earnings (money) to the people who work for him is going to stick up the victims in this ongoing attack(lives lost)? I said it before and I'll say it again. Think carefully about what you're trying to say by way of your deflection tactics.

[Animal]

i'm trying to remember. who was President when Putin did not invade Ukraine? and then who was President when he decided to go ahead and do it?

[dot]

i'm trying to remember. who was President when Putin did not invade Ukraine? and then who was President when he decided to go ahead and do it?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/middleea ... index.html

Little more homework for you to educate yourself on, try and draw a parallel to answer the nuance of your question. Unless you don't care and are operating in bad faith.

[dot]

i am saying that bonding companies, although owned and run by insurance companies, are extremely risk averse. they will not bond a company they feel is the slightest risk for non performance or non payment. and if a company bonded Trump in a court charge, then that would speak volumes on their very meticulous vetting of Trump on his payment history. For a bonding company, you can do 1000 things right and if you do one thing wrong you have to explain it so that they understand. Chubb has a AA rating from S&P and a A++ from Best. They don't bond risky people or companies. If you can't follow this train of thought, then its really no surprise.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/12392425 ... fraud-case

Lawyers for former president and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump say coming up with the bond on roughly half a billion dollars while he appeals his New York fraud judgment is a "practical impossibility."

Trump's lawyers say they've approached 30 companies through four brokers and none will accept his real estate holdings as a guarantee on the bond for $454 million and argue the judgment is unconstitutionally high. They filed an affidavit from an insurance broker saying it is "not possible" to find a bond that big. The broker was an expert witness for Trump during the trial.

The trial judge already noted in his decision that this broker was a "close personal friend" of Trump's and had a financial interest in the outcome. A decision could come from the appeals court later this week.

Trump is on the hook for "persistently lying about the value of his assets" in a case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James in 2022. Trump is seeking a reprieve from an appellate court to keep New York from seizing assets.