You always toss out facts like that daily beast article (good article, thanks) and then declare that the court should rule on the bond immediately because the other side should lose without a hearing because you read an on-line article and its true. That’s my beef. No one has said that his bond is adequate. So you going on and on and on about how there are no consequences to the suspicious bond is premature. Come back and rant when the court approves the bond and I’ll join you.
Finally, if you rely on articles in magazines and newspapers for what is really going on in any legal case you will find yourself disappointed. Journalists are known for rushing to get articles out. And if they’re not lawyers, they don’t really know what’s going on and often misstate the law - or the facts - or both. I lean towards assuming the Trump camp is telling a lie on anything - but just because I think that doesn’t mean that the justice system needs to immediately leap into action and rule against him because his enemies want a quick conviction. That’s not how this works.
Finally, not disclosing an actual valid offer to fund the appeal bond at a higher amount would be on his lawyers, not Trump. I could offer to do the same thing, but it doesn’t make a difference if I offer, the crucial point would be do the people who issue bonds feel that the person who is the surety have the type of assets that they want. I have no idea about the granular details of the bond search process and the timing and the validity of the surety to meet the bond companies requirements, so until I do, I’m gonna sit back and wait to see what happens.
that is why the court has hearings