3 ms·
Right -- together, they put 3.5% at risk, not 0.28%. [1] A huge distinction to make! Well ... not really. It still seems like a farce. Either lower the bail am
by SilasX 4y ago
Right -- together, they put 3.5% at risk, not 0.28%. [1] A huge distinction to make!
Well ... not really. It still seems like a farce. Either lower the bail amount, or require meaningful proof that the guarantors have access to anywhere near the ostensible figure.
"Your bail is $X, but we'll set requirements that completely ignore $X" seems comedic at best, or special treatment at worst.
(I know, the courts will "come after" the guarantors for the full $250M. It's still irrelevant to the on-the-ground reality.)
[1] 700/250000 = 0.28% . Actual is 700 + 700? (from anons) + 4000 (house) = 8800/250000 = 3.5%.
- balderdash 4y agoBut doesn’t this mean that the people that co-signed his bail have basically risked their entire net worth on an unsecured basis? Unless they are billionaires, this seems like a pretty compelling amount to be at risk for people…
- foxyv 4y agoYes, so a lot of very powerful and wealthy people now have an immense incentive to make sure he gets to court.
- dfxm12 4y agoIt still seems like a farce. The way the US justice system treats the rich vs others really is...