Looks like a good reason to reject the bond in its entirety. It's obviously a bad faith attempt to get around the rules.

Am I reading this correctly? Is this article claiming it’s bad for James and her case if Trump can’t pay?

If he can’t pay doesn’t it just go back to being as if he never got the bond in the first place? So, she can just go after his assets?

Why is this bad? Did I miss something or is this the weakest motherfucking spin I’ve ever read?

Yep we already knew this a few days ago. This article just reframed it in the title as a positive for Trump. In all likelihood he's probably going to have to liquefy assets now.

The whole idea of the bond is that it covered the full amount of the judgment and is held in escrow, and would be turned over to the state when Trump loses his appeal. And it's up to the bond issuer to make sure they have collateral enough from Trump to cover that bond (and full judgement ) should they need to pay up.

The bond issuer not having the collateral to even cover the $175m, let alone the nearly $500m that would be due if he loses his appeal is the whole issue James raised with this bond to begin with (well and the fact that they didn't have the right certification to even issue a bond in NY).

EDIT - extra words 😩

deleted by creator

Bad news for James? If anything this makes it look like Trump/his lawyers/bonding co tried to commmit a fraud on the court by trying to slip in terms that actualy negate the whole purpose of a bond.

Let's look more at the bond has been rejected and Knight didn't even include financials. He has until Monday or James goes shopping in Trumpworld with a $175 million dollar kitty.