Every time I read about Judge Cannon's so-called decision-making (or non-decision-making), I immediately think of a couple of remarks attributed to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsbm.1960.0014, p. 186):
o "[A] friend showed [Pauli] the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly 'It is not even wrong.'" (Some accounts report Pauli's response as "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." or "This paper is so bad it is not even wrong." <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli>)
o "When [Soviet physicist Lev] Landau, after a long argument [with Pauli] in Zurich, pleaded for an admission that not everything he had said was complete nonsense, Pauli replied, 'Oh, no. Far from it. What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.'"
Someday, maybe one of Pauli's critiques will find its way into a response to one of Judge Cannon's orders.
Appropriate comments. When and sense of reasoned argument leaks our of discourse, it is important and vital to call it out as non-sense, or as in the second quote, so confused and wrong that we can't even call it nonsense. Thanks for bringing in the wit of Wolfgang Pauli.
It is exhausting to do the work for Trumpist defenders, to articulate what they must have meant if they were voicing a point of view with good faith and in a reasonable world. Sometimes we have to say, "I'm right with you, I don't understand what you are saying either."
I read Simon Rosenberg’s interview. Thanks for providing it, Robert. I liked what he said about the polls and how some Dems are shaking in their boots. The bottom line is that the R’s are trying to take everything away from us and we are not going to let that happen. The abortion issue is what is leading our charge. Alito, in his infinite wisdom (I say that laughingly), fired all of us up. Not only him but Trump’s nasty and bizarre statements, his delay tactics, and now the surety bond not being accepted. I hope Judge Marchan has bodyguards because I really really want him to send Trump to jail!
I was reading yesterday in Thom Hartmann's Substack a discussion of Republicans wanting to stop women from having the right to vote. He is asking whether this argument is getting new traction. I could see why it might be. It seems that they know that this abortion issue and IVF, and impending birth control legislation that they are making to enslave women again or further in some cases, is going to bring women out and not on their side for the most part. https://hartmannreport.com/p/is-the-republican-argument-against-cf9?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
It just reminds us that the Republicans are the party against the people, and the Democrats are the party for the people.
“Doubling down, Republicans — particularly this November, with tens of thousands of “election integrity” volunteers drawn from GOP and militia ranks checking IDs and challenging voters — are going to do everything they can to make it harder for women to vote, particularly in swing states.”
Thanks, Linda! I encourage all to read and share.📣
If you’re able,support VoteRiders whose mission is to make sure no eligible citizen is prevented from casting a ballot due to Voter ID laws. https://www.voteriders.org/about/
Thanks for posting this, Linda. With all the press about women having "electoral power," it got me "fretting" that some women could literally be kept from voting by their husbands and significant others.
Hi Lynell. I was a poll observer in 2022 here in NC. In our state, a voter can request assistance and get someone to help them vote. This happened a few times - an elderly man or woman telling the poll worker when they checked in that they had vision problems and asking if their spouse or child (usually daughter) could help them in the voting booth. Other times married couples asked to be put in adjacent voting booths. But a few times a couple would come in and the husband would "demand" to be next to their spouse and the wife had to be prompted by the poll worker to say it was okay. I always wondered if that was a scenario like you described only they were controlling how their spouse voted NOT if they voted.
I have been wondering though if Trumps polling shortfalls in the primaries are a result of women publicly supporting Trump then voting against him in the voting booth.
I'm hopeful that the vast majority of male trump supporters are arrogantly confident in their right-wing media bubble that their wives, girlfriends and adult children living at home are in full agreement with their world views and that they are actively encouraging them to vote in order to give Trump a bigger margin.
Here's hoping that Florida is now in play. Abortion AND marijuana are on the ballot. Republicans have a million registration advantage, but we can overtake them.
To protect American democracy, reach out to millions of unregistered likely Democrats using a dedicated database using every outreach method possible (phone and text, postcard, email and targeted ad, and in-person too), where new Democratic voters will make the most impact – in the most flippable states and districts.
I got a fundraising email from FT6 right after the announcements from the FL Supreme Court. They mentioned purchasing the data they need to do their magic (i.e., identify unregistered Democrats) in FL.
Daniel, Florida is now in play !!😎 💙 Field Team 6 . We.Can. Do.This!
Floridians, also on the ballot will be whether to “retire” Supreme Court Justices Francis and Sasso. Unfortunately Recuse-Not Canady won’t be on the ballot.
As President Biden works to reduce healthcare costs, MAGA Republicans block Medicaid Expansion making it harder for millions of Americans to get healthcare. Check how your state ranks with this interactive map.
OK, I have been in a flummox all day about that rejected bond, because the news doesn't seem to comport with the actual statute governing such bonds. The statute is New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules - CVP § 2502 which states in relevant part
(a) Surety; form of affidavit. Unless the court orders otherwise, surety shall be:
1. an insurance company authorized to execute the undertaking within the state, OR
2. a NATURAL PERSON except an attorney, who shall execute with the undertaking his affidavit setting forth his full name and address and that he IS DOMICILED WITHIN THE STATE and worth at least the amount specified in the undertaking exclusive of liabilities and of property exempt from application to the satisfaction of a judgment.
(emphasis added) You link to that statute, but it does NOT stand for what you say it stands for. A power of attorney has to be notarized (that's the part about "The undertaking shall be acknowledged in the form required to entitle a deed to be recorded" later on in the statute). It says zippo about surety financial statements as I will explain below.
If this is the wrong statute someone let me know. I glommed onto it from a surety agent's discussion of appeal bonds.
Now, Knight Specialty Insurance Company's own web page says it isn't licensed in NY. And there is nothing in the statute that says this can be corrected by providing financial information. It is CERTAINLY not the case that sureties routinely provide such information to obligees (in this case the court).*** I spent 30+ years as a surety attorney and we NEVER provided financial statements to the obligee.
Nor is Knight Specialty Insurance Company a "natural person" as described in paragraph 2 of the section. The owner is, but I doubt he's domiciled in NY and if he's providing a personal undertaking why is it all being reported as a bond issued by a corporation?
Now the court COULD order an unlicensed surety to cure that defect by providing a financial statement, but no such order was entered on the docket in late afternoon PDT. Nor was the little "have a nice day" missive entered. Maybe they will be soon. It would be REALLY unusual to accept a bond from an unlicensed surety because that surety wouldn't have rates on file, and sureties have to follow their rate filings. A "modest amount" is not a legal premium. Maybe the appellate division made a call to Judge E saying "do this." It would really be bending over backwards for Trump.
Or maybe the surety's website is wrong, and it is licensed, in which case the financials have already been looked at carefully by the Insurance Department. So why ask for more? Maybe the request for financials is to try to get the company licensed? But a court can't do that itself--the Insurance Commissioner has to do it in most states.
Believe me, getting licensed in a state is nothing you can do within a few weeks. I spent the good part of a year getting my first surety client admitted in several states as it expanded. Believe me again, it is a long and tedious process.
None of the "legal analysts" opining on this mention how the statute fits in with their explanation. I will say that Lisa Rubin doesn't seem to be a surety lawyer.
One the other hand, the court might want Trump's financials to be sure he is good for the amount over the bond amount. It doesn't look like the Appellate Division did that, but maybe Barbara Jones knows more about what the Appellate Division required.
'Tis a puzzlement.
____________________________________________
***Sureties do routinely, nay always, attach a power of attorney to the bond, showing that the individual at the surety signing the bond (or at the agent) has the power to execute the bond on behalf of the surety. The idea is that the surety is legally BOUND by the bond and can't wiggle out on authority issues.
It also says “ and worth at least the amount specified in the undertaking exclusive of liabilities and of property exempt from application to the satisfaction of a judgment.” that is what the clerk is asking for.
No. That refers to the possible individual surety. Companies can't act as sureties without a state license, but individuals can. Those individuals have not been vetted by the licensing process, so financial statements are required of THEM. That requirement is in paragraph 2, not paragraph 1.
No, the statute does not require financial statements from corporate sureties. What about "natural person" suggests incorporation? The court may well have ordered one from the surety--but it isn't part of the statute to require one. My conclusion is that without seeing what the court actually ordered, we can't tell. Could be either.
Knight Specialty Insurance Company has a Best Rating of A-. That itself shows the court has no real need to get a separate financial statement.
The critical thing is whether the surety has the reserves to handle this type of claim. The insurance commissioner has that information--or would if the surety was licensed. The court could easily ask the IC in another state. I don't know if the reserves are listed anywhere on the public web. But I'll bet you there are specialized databases that show them. There is nothing private about a company's reserves.
"As Lisa Rubin notes, the court is asking for a financial statement from the surety, not Trump." I don't know what to say when you say "No" to that statement. Are you saying Lisa Rubin's reporting is wrong?
I"m saying I can find no statutory basis for that conclusion. For all the reasons I've given. I have no idea whether Rubin is wrong, but she provides no EVIDENCE for her conclusion. That "Have a Nice Day" doesn't say WHAT financial statement is missing. Normally I wouldn't worry about this--except for the fact that the statute does not require one. Some reports say it is "routine" for sureties to provide such statements with bonds. It definitely is not.
Under the statute, the surety has to be licensed in New York. THAT is routine for issuing a bond in any state. What I want to know is WHY the court wanted a financial statement and HOW that cures the lack of license, if indeed it is lacking.
Moreover it could be that Trump made inconsistent statements or lied about his assets when he filed his "in forma pauperis" petition when he asked to have the bond reduced.
Wow, that was excellent, thanks Susan. It also occurs to me that, the bond apparently having been rejected, and the deadline for posting said bond having passed, the State of NY should be able to begin the process of collecting. What am I missing?
Well, he did POST a bond. Depends on how material the corrections are, I guess. Things like failing to print his name on his power of attorney wouldn't be. That financial statement thing still confuses me. No idea why it was required. I just checked the docket--nothing new there yet. The only note is "Returned for Correction."
Israeli actions are becoming the big elephant that needs to be addressed. Dropping a bomb on humitarian aid workers who had abided by all Israeli instructions including informing them of their exact route is beyond depravity.
A couple of quick thoughts on polling. As I've stated in earlier comments, I'm a data and polling nerd. I was a part-time staffer on a couple of campaigns in the eighties and nineties, and I worked directly with the data and polling strategy folks. Since then, I've been an amateur observer of everything data-oriented regarding campaigns. It dovetails with my baseball fandom, where, most seasons, I literally have spreadsheets for all thirty teams. It's from the latter obsession where I first encountered Nate Silver’s work and became a fan. Silver later moved into politics, and I followed him in that space as well. I started becoming disillusioned with his data interpretation during the 2020 election. He paid too much attention to outlier polling and stubbornly clung to outdated models. 2022 brought more of the same, and now, in 2024, I consider Silver and others of his ilk unreliable. Silver’s former website 538, now part of ABC News with Silver no longer involved, has become a poorly equipped aggregator that relies too heavily on partisan-funded polling. Other aggregators have fallen into the same trap.
All that long-winded background aside, I've often bristled at the “ignore the polls” message, paying more attention to who is funding the polls and examing methodology. I’ve found Simon Rosenberg to be essential for that. Rather than ignoring the polls, I've opted to look deeper into them. All that being said, if reading polls in any way affects your motivation or actions in fighting for democracy, then by all means, IGNORE THE POLLS! If, on the other hand, deep dives into data make you more motivated as it does me, then listen to Rosenberg and make The Hopium Chronicles a daily read. One thing for sure, though, do not put stock into polls funded by Rupert Murdoch and overseen by a top pollster for Trump’s super PAC! Not only is it suspect on the merits, but it bucks all the more significant trends that we’re seeing in more reliable polls. It’s crap. Pay it no heed.
I love data, I love what we can learn from it, and as I opened with it, I am a nerd for this stuff. You don't have to be, but I do urge you to read The Hopium Chronicles and at least learn to recognize bad data and why many discount it. That act alone should give you motivation and justifiable hope.
Dean, thanks from a fellow data nerd. I spent my career working with policymakers on environmental issues. Silver’s 538 was the gold standard - for a brief moment in time.
Now, who is funding the polls and their methodology is the critical point. I’m the granddaughter of a professor of Sociology out of the U of Chicago. Perspective and methodology are key. A good pollster tries hard not to inject opinion into the questions. So many “polls” these days do just the opposite- they are designed to inject a point of view and lead to the conclusion most valued by the pollsters. Total garbage.
Yes to Rosenberg’s Hopium Chronicles. Yes, Rosenberg has a perspective but he also has developed a system that more accurately measures actual views of potential voters. Heartily recommend subscribing.
Simon is a must for me. He has kept me sane and motivated me when I am ready to quit. I never miss one of his events. As Simon says, “ Do more. Worry less.”
The Hubbell's visits to groups around the country are so inspirational and effective at showing us citizens working hard, in the trenches, to defend democracy.
Jack Smith is out of patience, and we are all out of patience. Sooner or later, some judge is going to have to put His Heinous in jail. Everyone's terrified of violence in that case because his ignorant hordes might get upset. I'm sorry, but it's time to put him in jail with adequate security and let the chips fall where they may.
"And to be clear, whatever we thought when we joined, we are lifetime members. There is no going back, no quitting. The battle to preserve democracy will outlast us."
This statement really resonates with me. In 2020, I had just joined my local Swing Left Chapter when Covid hit. I spent the spring and summer writing Vote Forward letters and postcards, and the fall up until the election phone banking and getting involved with Voter Protection.
After Biden was decared the winner, I felt for a brief minute that we had won and breathed a sigh of relief. That was before I realized how craven the GOP members of the House and Senate were -- and how deep the MAGA rot went!
Didn’t the whole Stormy Daniels thing happen before Trump was even elected in 2016? So how could Presidential immunity possibly apply? He wasn’t President.
One aspect about polls never mentioned is what I call “priming” the respondents. Surely each cohort of 1000 or so used to calculate plus-minus proportions have heard about previous polls and thus primed to respond in one direction or the other. That can also explain a shift in sentiment. I am a public health physician used to examining data.
What a great crowd! Seeing so many fans of Today's Edition and its author and managing editor put a big smile on my face. I am in complete agreement about Talking Points Memo. I've been subscribing for years and Josh Marshall's analysis is always worth reading. I went out in the rain (and thunder!) last night to see a performance of "Suffs," the Shaina Taub musical about the suffragists. If you are in NYC, go see it. I learned some history about Alice Paul, Inez Milholland, and the other women who fought for women's right to vote. It's a powerful reminder of the sacrifices they and others throughout our history have made to secure the right to vote. It's also a paean to the power of organizing and activism.
Judge Loose Cannon drank Trump's Kool-Aid.The quicker Judge Loose CQannon is excoriated by the 11 Circuit,, removed, recused, impeached, etc., the more likely we will keep our democracy after the November election. She is an embarrassment to all lawyers who sat through law school classes listening to professors praise judges as the keepers and protectors of the law.
Totally agree. Yet, I keep seeing (but can no longer read in entirety) her name mentioned as a SCOTUS nominee. I don’t know what to say except that, even if it’s a far-fetched, insane idea, how can it even be written about? As if there isn’t enough to make a person violently ill.
You speak of Trump’s thwarting the gag order of Judge Merchan, which he increasingly doing. But please realize he is doing that for one purpose- he wants to get arrested and put in jail, even if only for one day, so he can proclaim “persecution”, “unfairness”, “violation of his 1st amendment rights” and have his followers rally around him and try to persuade uncommitted people to his victimization.
Whether Trump wants to be in jail isn't relevant to the question of whether he should be in jail. He should be. Will he try to market that to his advantage? Of course! But that is no excuse for giving him a different standard of justice.
Every time I read about Judge Cannon's so-called decision-making (or non-decision-making), I immediately think of a couple of remarks attributed to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rsbm.1960.0014, p. 186):
o "[A] friend showed [Pauli] the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly 'It is not even wrong.'" (Some accounts report Pauli's response as "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." or "This paper is so bad it is not even wrong." <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli>)
o "When [Soviet physicist Lev] Landau, after a long argument [with Pauli] in Zurich, pleaded for an admission that not everything he had said was complete nonsense, Pauli replied, 'Oh, no. Far from it. What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.'"
Someday, maybe one of Pauli's critiques will find its way into a response to one of Judge Cannon's orders.
Both Pauli and Landau won the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Appropriate comments. When and sense of reasoned argument leaks our of discourse, it is important and vital to call it out as non-sense, or as in the second quote, so confused and wrong that we can't even call it nonsense. Thanks for bringing in the wit of Wolfgang Pauli.
It is exhausting to do the work for Trumpist defenders, to articulate what they must have meant if they were voicing a point of view with good faith and in a reasonable world. Sometimes we have to say, "I'm right with you, I don't understand what you are saying either."
I read Simon Rosenberg’s interview. Thanks for providing it, Robert. I liked what he said about the polls and how some Dems are shaking in their boots. The bottom line is that the R’s are trying to take everything away from us and we are not going to let that happen. The abortion issue is what is leading our charge. Alito, in his infinite wisdom (I say that laughingly), fired all of us up. Not only him but Trump’s nasty and bizarre statements, his delay tactics, and now the surety bond not being accepted. I hope Judge Marchan has bodyguards because I really really want him to send Trump to jail!
I was reading yesterday in Thom Hartmann's Substack a discussion of Republicans wanting to stop women from having the right to vote. He is asking whether this argument is getting new traction. I could see why it might be. It seems that they know that this abortion issue and IVF, and impending birth control legislation that they are making to enslave women again or further in some cases, is going to bring women out and not on their side for the most part. https://hartmannreport.com/p/is-the-republican-argument-against-cf9?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
It just reminds us that the Republicans are the party against the people, and the Democrats are the party for the people.
“Doubling down, Republicans — particularly this November, with tens of thousands of “election integrity” volunteers drawn from GOP and militia ranks checking IDs and challenging voters — are going to do everything they can to make it harder for women to vote, particularly in swing states.”
Thanks, Linda! I encourage all to read and share.📣
If you’re able,support VoteRiders whose mission is to make sure no eligible citizen is prevented from casting a ballot due to Voter ID laws. https://www.voteriders.org/about/
Thanks for posting this, Linda. With all the press about women having "electoral power," it got me "fretting" that some women could literally be kept from voting by their husbands and significant others.
Hi Lynell. I was a poll observer in 2022 here in NC. In our state, a voter can request assistance and get someone to help them vote. This happened a few times - an elderly man or woman telling the poll worker when they checked in that they had vision problems and asking if their spouse or child (usually daughter) could help them in the voting booth. Other times married couples asked to be put in adjacent voting booths. But a few times a couple would come in and the husband would "demand" to be next to their spouse and the wife had to be prompted by the poll worker to say it was okay. I always wondered if that was a scenario like you described only they were controlling how their spouse voted NOT if they voted.
I have been wondering though if Trumps polling shortfalls in the primaries are a result of women publicly supporting Trump then voting against him in the voting booth.
I'm hopeful that the vast majority of male trump supporters are arrogantly confident in their right-wing media bubble that their wives, girlfriends and adult children living at home are in full agreement with their world views and that they are actively encouraging them to vote in order to give Trump a bigger margin.
I like your final "hopeful," Cheryl! I'll quit frettin' and go with that.
Here's hoping that Florida is now in play. Abortion AND marijuana are on the ballot. Republicans have a million registration advantage, but we can overtake them.
To protect American democracy, reach out to millions of unregistered likely Democrats using a dedicated database using every outreach method possible (phone and text, postcard, email and targeted ad, and in-person too), where new Democratic voters will make the most impact – in the most flippable states and districts.
https://www.fieldteam6.org/actions
I got a fundraising email from FT6 right after the announcements from the FL Supreme Court. They mentioned purchasing the data they need to do their magic (i.e., identify unregistered Democrats) in FL.
Daniel, Florida is now in play !!😎 💙 Field Team 6 . We.Can. Do.This!
Floridians, also on the ballot will be whether to “retire” Supreme Court Justices Francis and Sasso. Unfortunately Recuse-Not Canady won’t be on the ballot.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2024/04/03/florida-supreme-court-justices-merit-retention-abortion-maxwell/?share=ormorohmr4rexltjisto
Daniel are they working on getting rid of Scott too? I sure hope.
The bogus polls only make us work harder to prove the polls are bogus.
Follow the money and people behind Knight Insurance and Trump's dubious bail bond with this interactive map.
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/04/03/trumps-bonds-don-hankey-greg-garrabrants-chubb-insurance-axos-bank-knight-insurancefollow-the-money/
As President Biden works to reduce healthcare costs, MAGA Republicans block Medicaid Expansion making it harder for millions of Americans to get healthcare. Check how your state ranks with this interactive map.
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/02/14/maga-republicans-block-medicaid-expansion-denying-healthcare-to-millions-of-americans/
OK, I have been in a flummox all day about that rejected bond, because the news doesn't seem to comport with the actual statute governing such bonds. The statute is New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules - CVP § 2502 which states in relevant part
(a) Surety; form of affidavit. Unless the court orders otherwise, surety shall be:
1. an insurance company authorized to execute the undertaking within the state, OR
2. a NATURAL PERSON except an attorney, who shall execute with the undertaking his affidavit setting forth his full name and address and that he IS DOMICILED WITHIN THE STATE and worth at least the amount specified in the undertaking exclusive of liabilities and of property exempt from application to the satisfaction of a judgment.
(emphasis added) You link to that statute, but it does NOT stand for what you say it stands for. A power of attorney has to be notarized (that's the part about "The undertaking shall be acknowledged in the form required to entitle a deed to be recorded" later on in the statute). It says zippo about surety financial statements as I will explain below.
If this is the wrong statute someone let me know. I glommed onto it from a surety agent's discussion of appeal bonds.
Now, Knight Specialty Insurance Company's own web page says it isn't licensed in NY. And there is nothing in the statute that says this can be corrected by providing financial information. It is CERTAINLY not the case that sureties routinely provide such information to obligees (in this case the court).*** I spent 30+ years as a surety attorney and we NEVER provided financial statements to the obligee.
Nor is Knight Specialty Insurance Company a "natural person" as described in paragraph 2 of the section. The owner is, but I doubt he's domiciled in NY and if he's providing a personal undertaking why is it all being reported as a bond issued by a corporation?
Now the court COULD order an unlicensed surety to cure that defect by providing a financial statement, but no such order was entered on the docket in late afternoon PDT. Nor was the little "have a nice day" missive entered. Maybe they will be soon. It would be REALLY unusual to accept a bond from an unlicensed surety because that surety wouldn't have rates on file, and sureties have to follow their rate filings. A "modest amount" is not a legal premium. Maybe the appellate division made a call to Judge E saying "do this." It would really be bending over backwards for Trump.
Or maybe the surety's website is wrong, and it is licensed, in which case the financials have already been looked at carefully by the Insurance Department. So why ask for more? Maybe the request for financials is to try to get the company licensed? But a court can't do that itself--the Insurance Commissioner has to do it in most states.
Believe me, getting licensed in a state is nothing you can do within a few weeks. I spent the good part of a year getting my first surety client admitted in several states as it expanded. Believe me again, it is a long and tedious process.
None of the "legal analysts" opining on this mention how the statute fits in with their explanation. I will say that Lisa Rubin doesn't seem to be a surety lawyer.
One the other hand, the court might want Trump's financials to be sure he is good for the amount over the bond amount. It doesn't look like the Appellate Division did that, but maybe Barbara Jones knows more about what the Appellate Division required.
'Tis a puzzlement.
____________________________________________
***Sureties do routinely, nay always, attach a power of attorney to the bond, showing that the individual at the surety signing the bond (or at the agent) has the power to execute the bond on behalf of the surety. The idea is that the surety is legally BOUND by the bond and can't wiggle out on authority issues.
It also says “ and worth at least the amount specified in the undertaking exclusive of liabilities and of property exempt from application to the satisfaction of a judgment.” that is what the clerk is asking for.
No. That refers to the possible individual surety. Companies can't act as sureties without a state license, but individuals can. Those individuals have not been vetted by the licensing process, so financial statements are required of THEM. That requirement is in paragraph 2, not paragraph 1.
Correct. As Lisa Rubin notes, the court is asking for a financial statement from the surety, not Trump.
No, the statute does not require financial statements from corporate sureties. What about "natural person" suggests incorporation? The court may well have ordered one from the surety--but it isn't part of the statute to require one. My conclusion is that without seeing what the court actually ordered, we can't tell. Could be either.
Knight Specialty Insurance Company has a Best Rating of A-. That itself shows the court has no real need to get a separate financial statement.
The critical thing is whether the surety has the reserves to handle this type of claim. The insurance commissioner has that information--or would if the surety was licensed. The court could easily ask the IC in another state. I don't know if the reserves are listed anywhere on the public web. But I'll bet you there are specialized databases that show them. There is nothing private about a company's reserves.
"As Lisa Rubin notes, the court is asking for a financial statement from the surety, not Trump." I don't know what to say when you say "No" to that statement. Are you saying Lisa Rubin's reporting is wrong?
I"m saying I can find no statutory basis for that conclusion. For all the reasons I've given. I have no idea whether Rubin is wrong, but she provides no EVIDENCE for her conclusion. That "Have a Nice Day" doesn't say WHAT financial statement is missing. Normally I wouldn't worry about this--except for the fact that the statute does not require one. Some reports say it is "routine" for sureties to provide such statements with bonds. It definitely is not.
Under the statute, the surety has to be licensed in New York. THAT is routine for issuing a bond in any state. What I want to know is WHY the court wanted a financial statement and HOW that cures the lack of license, if indeed it is lacking.
Moreover it could be that Trump made inconsistent statements or lied about his assets when he filed his "in forma pauperis" petition when he asked to have the bond reduced.
that seems WAY more likely than a surety accidentally leaving off a financial statement that I've never seen required.
What—-Trump lie? I’d be shocked. NOT.
So interesting! I hope your questions can be answered.
Susan, Thanks for adding this explanation.
I just wish it explained something! Way more questions than answers.
Isn't it always that way? Especially as regards Treacherous-treasonous-traitorous-trantruming-Trump!
Thanks for the analysis and like everything Trump he can’t be trusted and this could be another con.
Wow, that was excellent, thanks Susan. It also occurs to me that, the bond apparently having been rejected, and the deadline for posting said bond having passed, the State of NY should be able to begin the process of collecting. What am I missing?
Well, he did POST a bond. Depends on how material the corrections are, I guess. Things like failing to print his name on his power of attorney wouldn't be. That financial statement thing still confuses me. No idea why it was required. I just checked the docket--nothing new there yet. The only note is "Returned for Correction."
Thanks for keeping on top of this for us.
Thanks. If this confuses you, that goes double for laypeople.
Israeli actions are becoming the big elephant that needs to be addressed. Dropping a bomb on humitarian aid workers who had abided by all Israeli instructions including informing them of their exact route is beyond depravity.
A couple of quick thoughts on polling. As I've stated in earlier comments, I'm a data and polling nerd. I was a part-time staffer on a couple of campaigns in the eighties and nineties, and I worked directly with the data and polling strategy folks. Since then, I've been an amateur observer of everything data-oriented regarding campaigns. It dovetails with my baseball fandom, where, most seasons, I literally have spreadsheets for all thirty teams. It's from the latter obsession where I first encountered Nate Silver’s work and became a fan. Silver later moved into politics, and I followed him in that space as well. I started becoming disillusioned with his data interpretation during the 2020 election. He paid too much attention to outlier polling and stubbornly clung to outdated models. 2022 brought more of the same, and now, in 2024, I consider Silver and others of his ilk unreliable. Silver’s former website 538, now part of ABC News with Silver no longer involved, has become a poorly equipped aggregator that relies too heavily on partisan-funded polling. Other aggregators have fallen into the same trap.
All that long-winded background aside, I've often bristled at the “ignore the polls” message, paying more attention to who is funding the polls and examing methodology. I’ve found Simon Rosenberg to be essential for that. Rather than ignoring the polls, I've opted to look deeper into them. All that being said, if reading polls in any way affects your motivation or actions in fighting for democracy, then by all means, IGNORE THE POLLS! If, on the other hand, deep dives into data make you more motivated as it does me, then listen to Rosenberg and make The Hopium Chronicles a daily read. One thing for sure, though, do not put stock into polls funded by Rupert Murdoch and overseen by a top pollster for Trump’s super PAC! Not only is it suspect on the merits, but it bucks all the more significant trends that we’re seeing in more reliable polls. It’s crap. Pay it no heed.
I love data, I love what we can learn from it, and as I opened with it, I am a nerd for this stuff. You don't have to be, but I do urge you to read The Hopium Chronicles and at least learn to recognize bad data and why many discount it. That act alone should give you motivation and justifiable hope.
Dean, thanks from a fellow data nerd. I spent my career working with policymakers on environmental issues. Silver’s 538 was the gold standard - for a brief moment in time.
Now, who is funding the polls and their methodology is the critical point. I’m the granddaughter of a professor of Sociology out of the U of Chicago. Perspective and methodology are key. A good pollster tries hard not to inject opinion into the questions. So many “polls” these days do just the opposite- they are designed to inject a point of view and lead to the conclusion most valued by the pollsters. Total garbage.
Yes to Rosenberg’s Hopium Chronicles. Yes, Rosenberg has a perspective but he also has developed a system that more accurately measures actual views of potential voters. Heartily recommend subscribing.
Simon is a must for me. He has kept me sane and motivated me when I am ready to quit. I never miss one of his events. As Simon says, “ Do more. Worry less.”
The Hubbell's visits to groups around the country are so inspirational and effective at showing us citizens working hard, in the trenches, to defend democracy.
Jack Smith is out of patience, and we are all out of patience. Sooner or later, some judge is going to have to put His Heinous in jail. Everyone's terrified of violence in that case because his ignorant hordes might get upset. I'm sorry, but it's time to put him in jail with adequate security and let the chips fall where they may.
Don't let our fear of their violence give them the win.
"And to be clear, whatever we thought when we joined, we are lifetime members. There is no going back, no quitting. The battle to preserve democracy will outlast us."
This statement really resonates with me. In 2020, I had just joined my local Swing Left Chapter when Covid hit. I spent the spring and summer writing Vote Forward letters and postcards, and the fall up until the election phone banking and getting involved with Voter Protection.
After Biden was decared the winner, I felt for a brief minute that we had won and breathed a sigh of relief. That was before I realized how craven the GOP members of the House and Senate were -- and how deep the MAGA rot went!
Thanks for this hopeful news, Robert. I'll be putting one foot in front of the other as I stay hunkered down postcarding til November!
Didn’t the whole Stormy Daniels thing happen before Trump was even elected in 2016? So how could Presidential immunity possibly apply? He wasn’t President.
You’re trying to confuse people with facts!
/s
One aspect about polls never mentioned is what I call “priming” the respondents. Surely each cohort of 1000 or so used to calculate plus-minus proportions have heard about previous polls and thus primed to respond in one direction or the other. That can also explain a shift in sentiment. I am a public health physician used to examining data.
Good point. If you read the polls, there are dozens of priming questions before the question of who the respondent will support for president. E.g.,
Do eggs cost too much?
Is the rent too high?
Is gas more expensive than it used to be?
Do you know Joe Biden is 81 years old?
Do you know Trump has won the last three golf championships at his golf resorts?
Who do you support for president?
Bravo Robert and your boss! Right message at the right time. Thanks for your clarity and passion!
What a great crowd! Seeing so many fans of Today's Edition and its author and managing editor put a big smile on my face. I am in complete agreement about Talking Points Memo. I've been subscribing for years and Josh Marshall's analysis is always worth reading. I went out in the rain (and thunder!) last night to see a performance of "Suffs," the Shaina Taub musical about the suffragists. If you are in NYC, go see it. I learned some history about Alice Paul, Inez Milholland, and the other women who fought for women's right to vote. It's a powerful reminder of the sacrifices they and others throughout our history have made to secure the right to vote. It's also a paean to the power of organizing and activism.
Judge Loose Cannon drank Trump's Kool-Aid.The quicker Judge Loose CQannon is excoriated by the 11 Circuit,, removed, recused, impeached, etc., the more likely we will keep our democracy after the November election. She is an embarrassment to all lawyers who sat through law school classes listening to professors praise judges as the keepers and protectors of the law.
Totally agree. Yet, I keep seeing (but can no longer read in entirety) her name mentioned as a SCOTUS nominee. I don’t know what to say except that, even if it’s a far-fetched, insane idea, how can it even be written about? As if there isn’t enough to make a person violently ill.
In Trumpworld, the only qualification is demonstrated loyalty to the Dear Leader.
Robert,
You speak of Trump’s thwarting the gag order of Judge Merchan, which he increasingly doing. But please realize he is doing that for one purpose- he wants to get arrested and put in jail, even if only for one day, so he can proclaim “persecution”, “unfairness”, “violation of his 1st amendment rights” and have his followers rally around him and try to persuade uncommitted people to his victimization.
Another one of his clever ideas.
Whether Trump wants to be in jail isn't relevant to the question of whether he should be in jail. He should be. Will he try to market that to his advantage? Of course! But that is no excuse for giving him a different standard of justice.