this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
433 points (97.4% liked)

politics

23432 readers
2651 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
 

A New York appeals court on Monday reduced the $454 million that former President Donald Trump was required to put up while he appeals his civil fraud case. Now Trump must put up, by April 4, a mere $175 million. The trouble is, he may not get a bond for that amount, either. Should that happen, this act of judicial mercy will end up feeling to Trump like a curse.

The stay deprives Trump of the only argument on which he was gaining any traction at all—that the amount the court required him to put up was excessively high. Four hundred and fifty-four million was indeed an unusually large judgment against a private corporation or individual. (The distinction between Trump and the Trump Organization is paper-thin.) Monday’s appeals court decision doesn’t reduce that judgment, as New York State Attorney General Letitia James pointed out in a written statement. But it does dramatically reduce the amount Trump needs to turn over to the state while he pursues his appeal. It also gives us some hint that the appeals court may reduce Judge Arthur Engoron’s $454 million judgment to, well, $175 million.

(page 2) 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Then the court will lower it again for him.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago (4 children)

He's gonna talk his way down to where he ends up paying Jack shit and gets away with this shit once again

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This is a bond for the appeal. The court could decide to make it $0.00 but he still owes the full amount if he loses the appeal.

And even if he paid the full 454mil to appeal, he still gets it back if he wins.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Well that he gets it back if he wins is part of the grounds for the appeal.

If you force someone to liquidate and then he is found not guilty, the harm this has caused can/will outweigh the potential punishment many times over.

So see that separate from the case and the person, that cannot be right.

Don't get me wrong, I feel no sympathy at all for defendant trump, but in general the punishment should be the punishment.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

But as has been established, he shouldn't have had this money in the first place. The fine is based on how much he over inflated the value of his property to get bigger loans. Had he not done so he may well have been bankrupt already.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

In general, the trial judge is presumed to have determined the right punishment.

There are plenty of people in jail who are appealing their punishment. If they win, they will still never get back the time they already served. That harm has been done.

You seem to be suggesting that every defendant is entitled to exhaust all their appeals before any "harm" is done, but such a system is unworkable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

That is actually a good point. Thanks.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

One day I hope to be as broke as Donald Trump; where nearly 200 million dollars “might” be unobtainable.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago

Don't get your hopes up. This guy wriggles through everything. He knows who to buy.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Here’s how I’d see it if I was a billionaire.

You have a chance to throw a few million dollars of chump change to you to get in good with who might be the first fascist dictator of the United States. Then that man owes you a favour, or at least you are on his good side. Seems like a no brainer.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Guess we gotta shop around for another judge to lower it further.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

His net worth just hit $6B due to the pump & dump scheme that is Truth Social.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

None of that is liquid though. He's locked into the holdings for six months while the stock freefalls from the IPO. If the majority stockholder is going to be selling shares during the initial offering you bet your panties that has to be disclosed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But can't he just get a loan for the stock and skip the 6 months AND skip paying taxes too?

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

No, the same agreement that prevents selling shares also prevents using them as collateral.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 114 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That would be the absolute best outcome, because he cannot claim that he's been treated unfairly. The entire ~~justice~~legal system has bent over backwards to be accommodating. In a rational world, with reasonable people, it would matter.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago

That would be the absolute best outcome, because he cannot claim that he’s been treated unfairly.

You mean the thing he has baselessly claimed for the last 10 fucking years?

[–] [email protected] 89 points 1 year ago (5 children)

They will just lower the amount again

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Layaway Don

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Oh shucks, how did this bar get all the way up there?

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yep, I've always known that the rules don't apply to the rich but I had no idea that extends to people pretending to be rich too. Jesus christ I could've been pretending to be rich and doing whatever I want this whole time? Boy is there egg on my face!

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That only works if you come from a rich family though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Great, sound like it won't hurt to raise it back to the $454 mil it should be at.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But he's rich, worth billions, and he's the perfect kind of criminal to bond why would he have issues?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

If life has taught Trump anything, it's that he never has to pay.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

We're all very much hoping so.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›