It is simply a fact that there are very, very few bond companies and insurance companies on the entire planet able to cover the cost of Donald Trump’s appeal in New York.
Under New York law, it is a fact that Trump must post that bond to appeal.
I also happen to know for sure that at least one company has refused to work with Donald Trump because of his politics, which further limits his options.
Due process in the United States requires the ability of a person to appeal a decision from a lower court to a higher court.
New York’s law requires a bond, and because of the unique costs associated with that bond, Trump cannot appeal. That should be a constitutional violation.
I dare say that if it were not Donald Trump but someone else, the progressive left would agree a person should not be impeded from an appeal due to an ability to post a bond.
After all, the left has championed cashless bail.
But the left has always been willing to surrender its convictions to get Trump. The ends justify the means.
In a review of seventy years of similar lawsuits,
“[A]n Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump’s case stands apart: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.”
The left is sacrificing its views of justice to take down Donald Trump. In the process, they set precedents that will be used against them.
Donald Trump deserves the constitutional due process right to file an appeal without being impeded by a bond requirement that is virtually impossible to obtain due to its amount for a case so unique no similar cases in seventy years have been threatened “with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses.”
I would juxtapose this post with Erick's other one today (concerning Marjorie Taylor Greene's motion to vacate the House chair) in arguing that the actions of a few prosecutors no more constitute actions of the left than Greene's constitute acts of the right. Furthermore in regard to those individual prosecutorial decisions, in any case where they win, they would not have been doing their jobs had they not pursued prosecution.
The biggest safeguard that we have against politically motivated prosecutions are juries consisting of ordinary citizens. There having been none in Trump's NY fraud case, his appellate rights are the only check on the whims of just one judge. In sum, I have no problem with the case having been brought against him. (Indeed, I think it deliciously ironic that Trump is now asking people to accept properties as collateral that everyone now knows to be worth less than he says they are worth.). However, fundamental fairness (that is, that there be some safeguard against the whims of just one judge) requires that the bond posting somehow be waived if necessary for Trump to obtain appellate review.
I'm not an expert in the matter, and it's been a while since I was laboring on the lady's plantation, but it seems to me DJT should have a 42 USC sec. 1983 action against quite a number of folks.