Trump may have trans­gressed, but his $464 mil­lion bond is gross­ly exces­sive

Many of us appalled by for­mer Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump’s life­time of dis­hon­esty may take schaden­freude in the mas­sive finan­cial judg­ments now threat­en­ing his busi­ness empire — but the sizes of those judg­ments, and the bonds per­tain­ing to them, are utter­ly unwar­rant­ed.
Appeals courts should grant tem­po­rary injunc­tions to halt the bond col­lec­tions and delay enforce­ment of the under­ly­ing penal­ties.
Two judg­ments are at issue, but one is par­tic­u­lar­ly press­ing. The first judg­ment, that Trump defamed E. Jean Car­roll, who courts found had cred­i­bly accused him of sex­u­al assault, came with an $83 mil­lion assess­ment against Trump. The sec­ond judg­ment assessed $355 mil­lion in penal­ties against Trump and his asso­ciates for fraud­u­lent­ly claim­ing tax and insur­ance ben­e­fits. This amount, plus inter­est, led to a demand that Trump post bond for $464 mil­lion by Mon­day. The assess­ment is so large as to rep­re­sent an exis­ten­tial threat to Trump’s busi­ness empire. Trump’s lawyers say his assets are not liq­uid enough to post so high a bond. If he fails to post it, New York Attor­ney Gen­er­al Leti­tia James threat­ens to seize Trump’s prop­er­ties and sell them to secure the cash.
Here’s Trump’s catch-22: Trump can appeal the under­ly­ing assess­ment, but the bond pay­ment is due in advance of the …