this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
660 points (96.9% liked)

politics

23920 readers
2761 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump is close to the deadline to post bond in his fraud trial—and he’s screwing himself over even more.

After having reached out to several guarantors and 30 suretors for help posting his $464 million New York bank fraud bond, Donald Trump suddenly wants everyone to know he actually does have the cash.

In a bizarre rant on Friday morning, the man who was found to have defrauded banks and investors by overvaluing himself and the value of his properties claimed that he had accrued the wealth by way of “HARD WORK, TALENT, AND LUCK.”

Trump also admitted he has nearly half a billion dollars in cash.

The confession directly contradicts a filing from his legal team last month arguing that it would be “impossible” to secure a bond covering the full amount of the multimillion-dollar ruling.

Trump’s words will surely help out New York Attorney General Letitia James, who on Wednesday urged an appeals court to ignore Donald Trump’s latest effort to worm his way out of paying the $464 million disgorgement from his bank fraud trial.

(page 3) 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 147 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Honestly I don't believe for a second that he actually has the money. I just don't think he can handle people (HIS people) knowing that he's flat fucking broke and at the end of his rope.
Monday we'll find out if Schrodinger's cash was in the box or not.

[–] [email protected] 91 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One story I heard was that his lawyers have to come into the room in pairs, because he'll tell one lawyer Story A and the other one Story B.

He doesn't lie like an adult; he lies like a child.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

This was actual testimony by Michael Cohen in one of the cases he testified in. Either the Trump or case org the stormy Daniels case

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I tried to find a link but my Bing-Fu is weak.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I tried to look, too, but it was from a few years ago, and my results are flooded with articles about more recent Trump lies and lying lawyers, since he does it pretty much constantly.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Heard recently that the Trump run is like a paper bag full of water. One of these days the bag will burst and everything will run out.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How long until they just admit that he's senile, but still tell people to vote for him to be the president?

[–] [email protected] 94 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Quote from Trump on truth social shown in the article:

THE OFTEN OVERTURNED POLITICAL HACK JUDGE ON THE RIGGED AND CORRUPT A.G. CASE

Can they not sue him for libel on this?

Apart from that it's hilarious that he still tries to claim he is paying for his presidential campaign himself.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The burden for libel or slander on a public official is pretty high. It pretty much has to go well past criticizing the government in an unambiguous way because government officials prosecuting people for criticizing them is Bad™

I doubt you'd see anything unless he claimed the judge did some specific act of moral turpitude on a specific occasion.
Yelling at the government about mismanagement and impropriety is just about as close as you can get to what the first amendment is for, in a nutshell.

The fact that he's wrong and a loathsome asshole doesn't change that he's allowed to say it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was more the part of the AG being corrupt.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Courts generally consider broad statements like "rigged" and "corrupt" to be opinions, which by themselves are not grounds for libel. Libel requires stating specific false facts.

For example, "The election was rigged" is an opinion. But "Two Georgia election workers threw away GOP ballots" is libel.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

Ah OK, that's why he can keep doing it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Normal people would have been jailed for contempt of court for far less.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Contempt of court only applies to behavior in the courtroom, or when the judge has issued a specific order.

Trump isn't in the courtroom and was never banned from criticizing the judge or prosecutor, so there is no basis for contempt of court.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trump isn't in the courtroom and was never banned from criticizing the judge or prosecutor

Technically.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Right, because Judge Engoron intentionally left himself and the prosecutor out of his gag order.

Wisely so, because otherwise it would have been overturned. Everyone has a 1st Amendment right to criticize public officials like judges and prosecutors, but staff not so much.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It seems like bad precedent for a judge to sue a participant in the trial for what they're saying about the trial.

He could hold Trump in contempt, but I think he doesn't see the reason to bother with it, since he's already engaged in fucking Trump's world up pretty significantly.

Plus, if he did sue for libel, how would he ever get paid? It's like a never ending cycle.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Plus, if he did sue for libel, how would he ever get paid?

It's hardly even about getting paid at this point, I just want to see them rack up the high score. Left to his own devices I'm very confident that Trump can increase his own punitive damages beyond the actual GDP of the US.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

since he’s already engaged in fucking Trump’s world up pretty significantly.

LOL 😄

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That opens an attack avenue for appeal. Do nothing until he can't appeal it, then you blindside him with libel and take another 100 mill.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Read it again. There is no slanderous or libelous statement, as dumb as it is. Somebody was handling the wording very carefully.

"OFTEN OVERTURNED" - Haven't looked into it, but possible fact or subjective to the speaker's point of view at the very least.

"POLITICAL HACK JUDGE" - Derogatory at best, and not mentioning the specific names or false allegation.

"CORRUPT AG CASE" - Again, subjective, and referring the case, not the AG or Judge.

What a fucking idiot to invite more consternation, but unless you specifically say something like "Judge Tom Smith took bribe money to fuck over my case", there isn't a solid argument for Libel or Slander.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is "Corrupt AG" not referring the AG?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Because he said “ corrupt AG case”, not “corrupt AG”.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

this man lawyered

[–] [email protected] 222 points 1 year ago (11 children)

I mean, yeah, he “admitted” it… but knowing how much of a pathological liar he is, it’s also possible that he just wanted to look “successful” to his captive rubes.

Either way, he is absolutely creating real and serious problems for himself by saying that. And I love that for him.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (7 children)

If his sheep believe it maybe they'll stop giving him money though. Bonus.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›