"$200k bond for Trump—significant and something of an indignity that he has to post something," former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman said.
Dude has millions of runes donating to his campaign/defense fund now. Campaign finance was already a corrupt joke in this country, but he's taken it to a new level.
That was probably true before he became President but I doubt it is anymore. He spent his entire term lining his pockets with as much taxpayer money as possible... And that's not even taking into account the fact that he's been campaigning this entire time to fund his legal defense against the numerous criminal and civil cases against him.
I keep seeing this, so I wanted to clear up some details:
Bail isn’t a penalty, it is an incentive to return for trial (to get your money back). Bail was waived for Trump in previous cases because not only is he constantly followed by Secret Service, he is a high profile person who won’t be able to hide for long anywhere in the world.
Bail is typically a tenth (or less) of what Trump was given for even violent felonies.
You must pay the entire amount to be released on bail, unless you get a bail bond.
A bail bond is when a third party agrees to pay the bail amount if you do not show up for trial. The 10% frequently cited is a fee to the bail bondsman for taking this risk. You still have to provide some kind of collateral to the bondsman to cover the remainder of the bail amount.
You don’t get the 10% back. If you have the cash to cover bail, it makes sense to use it because then you can get it all back.
Trump getting a bail bond would be a public admission that he doesn’t have the cash. He’ll find the cash.
You must pay the entire amount to be released on bail, unless you get a bail bond.
Reporting I've seen is that in the jurisdiction which Trump is charged in Georgia, you only have to post 10% to the court. Presumably, if you then abscond, you are on the hook for the remainder.
EDIT: Reporting I have seen appears to be wrong; parent commenter appears to be correct:
I saw your initial reply and looked into it, edited the above. I think you're right and the reporting is wrong. I've seen wrong reporting on other aspects of this situation, too, so this is not a surprise to me. That's why my initial reply was in reference to "reporting I've seen." I already had my doubts.