this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
201 points (92.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43897 readers
929 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Pretty much what the title says. I know he's a former president and has all of his supporters, but what's the official reason? Thanks.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Well the legal system doesn't exist on paper. Laws are not what the legal system operates on. Allegedly, breaking a law is what allows, but doesn't require, the legal system to be involved at all.

So to answer your question, Sam Bankman is a nobody, that no one likes, and caused a very public number of people to lose a lot of money. His case is a slam-dunk, and has no further implications. Trump is a former president who did exactly the same shit that every other former president has done since Washington. So prosecuting him for his crimes now means that the power brokers of the US empire are now potentially open to prosecution. So of course the two aren't going to be comparable.

So there is no "official reason" because officially the judicial system is based on individual discretion.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I was with you until

"Trump is a former president who did exactly the same shit that every other former president has done since Washington."

Every president since Washington has misused campaign funds to pay for silence on an affair, stolen top secret documents, conducted business fraudulently, and plotted multiple attempts to subvert an election?

I must be missing something. If you take that line out I agree with the rest of your comment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Your answer doesn't pass my smell test. Yes they can choose NOT to prosecute because, for instance, presidents are too important, but they DID prosecute and they have to say what law was broken and there are sentencing guidelines. If Trump and Fried were both convicted of murder, I'm pretty sure Trump would not just be fined while Fried was jailed. I don't pretend that Trump will ever face serious consequences but I kind of think there IS a legal reasoning behind the differences in the two cases.

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

I mean, if you want to stay safe in life, maybe don’t make your own last name “Fried”

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

A president in jail would be disastrous for the reputation of America as a country. That's been my theory as to why he will never face any real consequence. It seems like an elephant in the room. One that probably doesn't even split neatly down partisanship.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Not prosecuting a ex-President for literally trying to both violently and by subterfuge overturn a lawful, democratic election while in office by a position that is literally sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution would officially make America a joke.

Other democracies can uphold their own laws even when the highest official of the land violates their oath of office. If we do not, the idea of America as a democracy is officially dead.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Sorry, but the fact he was even elected the first time made America a complete joke to the rest of the world. It is utterly bizarre watching this all unfold, and that after everything that's happened since, Trump still has a good chance of election AGAIN?

Wtf is going on over there?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago

In my opinion, not prosecuting a blatant criminal is a much worse look for the country. You can't undo the past, but you can bring him to justice.

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

Bit of a difference between outright theft and a civil dispute over the value of a property put up for a loan,

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Really? Isn't fraudulently paying less in taxes, stealing from the government? I thought Al Capone went to prison for tax avoidance.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Tax evasion and a dispute over property valuation are not the same thing either. Tac avoidance is legal, think loopholes, evasion is not, but i think you knew that and intentionally used the wrong term.

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

Pretty sure fluxuating your property valuation depending on your need is actually illegal and not just loopholes. But i think you knew that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nobody knows that until sometime after the next three-five appeals. Besides, assessed value is for taxes, real value is for loans.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not federal vs state

It's protected vs sacrificial lamb.

The powerful avoid the mobs by occasionally giving up one of their own to the horde.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If that is the case, why is Trump being tried at all?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Just because the powerful enjoy breaking laws with impunity doesn't mean occasionally people won't try to hold them to account.

In Trump's case even powerful wealthy people think he went too far, and some of them are terrified of the consequences of a second term.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

It's a matter of privilege. Trump had the opportunity to stack the courts in his favor. SBF didn't. The rich rally around Trump because they see him as one of their own. SBF was an interloper. Trump has a rabid fan base willing to commit violence in his name. SBF cloaked himself in effective altruism.

If they both don't rot in jail, then the myth of the social contract in the US will be torn to shreds. I fear what would happen after that.

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

Oh my sweet summer child

The law does not exist

There is a genocide in Gaza that the entire world said stop with a 'non binding resolution '

The law

Does not

Exist. (Unless you're poor lol)

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

they're both terrible people who deserve everything they get but sbf didn't nominate judges to the court who can rule in his favour.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago

Also nobody’s threatening to kill judges who rule against sbf

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Mainly because Trump can start riots with a word and nobody gives a fuck about Sam Bankman Fraud. Obviously the cases are different, but the reason the approach is different is the aforementioned riots and possible civil war.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I was looking for the legal reason.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I understand, but that's the reason. Even though legally he may have defrauded a bunch of people, they can't go after him as hard, because he can set the country on fire with a word. That's why no matter what he does, he seems to get away with it. He's not bulletproof. It's just that if you take a shot and miss, you're gonna kill innocent civilians.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Trump defrauded the state/city/taxpayers while Bankman defrauded rich investors. Also, the aforementioned civil vs criminal cases.

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

Trump defrauded rich investors as well, one of the big cases against him right now is about him using a Forbes article to lie about his net worth to get loans.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 77 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

People keep asking this. I guess it's the new spin the Trump fascists are trying to work.

Why New York state is suing Trump instead of charging him with crimes

James seems to be taking this approach, as opposed to a criminal indictment, because New York law empowers the AG to seek damages caused by fraudulent business behavior as a form of consumer protection. The law doesn’t require the AG to identify a victim or even demonstrate anybody suffered harm. Plus, the burden of proof is lower in civil cases than in criminal ones.

“What makes this statute particularly powerful is that there doesn’t have to be a loss,” Will Thomas, a law professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, told Yahoo Finance. “This statute has been used to disgorge profits illegally gained. The government can be allowed to claw back all of those profits. Provable nature is lower, and you don’t have to prove intent or willfulness.”

A civil suit also prevents James from bumping into the criminal case against Trump’s company that the Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting. Those two offices sometimes work together on criminal cases, as they’re doing on the recent indictment of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. With regard to Trump, however, they seem to be pursuing complementary approaches instead of overlapping ones.

So the answer is: it's easier to win, it's easier to punish Trump & they can still file criminal charges after a successful civil case if more crimes are uncovered.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago

Thank you. That's pretty much what I was looking for.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Trump subscribes to a higher justice tier than Sam does.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Sam didn't spring for the ad-free tier and now has to have his time wasted?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

SBF was a poor who got money through a fluke. Trump was born a rich and therefore the system is set up to protect him. Poors are not allowed to become riches unless they got it from exploiting the poors. Steal from the rich: that's theft. When you steal from the poor: capitalism.

load more comments
view more: next ›