this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
575 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19091 readers
6350 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former President Donald Trump will likely run out of legal defense funds this summer, Bloomberg reported.

In 2023, Trump spent $51.2 million on legal costs and has a further $23.5 million available for lawyers' fees — but that source of money will likely dry up around July, the report said.

The ex-president may now be forced to turn to a few undesirable options to cover his costs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's tiring reading news about him still and there have been no consequences. I'm kind of just resigned to that fact that he might win the election anyways and all his problems will just go away.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He just got fined $350+ million and banned from running his own company for 3 years. He just got hit with an $83 million judgement against him for sexually assaulting a woman.

The consequences have begun.

[–] zeppo 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Once he has to actually pay them vs appealing, I’ll believe it.

[–] Thirdborne 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He can't appeal without bonding the full amount and nobody was willing to bond the 5 million he got hit with last year. Looks a lot like he just has to put up the cash.

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

I can't see him doing this... he's going move money his money to somewhere he thinks the government can't get it and declare bankruptcy.

He's gonna go full Alex Jones.

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

He's already had to put up $5.5 mil that he couldn't weasel out of.

Trump has already deposited $5 million owed to Carroll for the first defamation case into a court-controlled account, along with an additional $500,000 in interest required by New York law. Carroll will not have access to the funds until the appeals process plays out.

He may soon be forced to do the same for the $83.3 million judgment in the second Carroll verdict. Alternatively, he could secure a bond and pay only a portion up front — though that option would come with interest and fees and likely require some form of collateral. Trump would have to find a financial institution willing to front him the money.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-carroll-fines-82d423b8e7a7f9a32470729c5f4410e5

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah $5M for the publicity of an appeal which he'll likely lose, that he'll pay. When it's hundreds of millions, which he may not even have the full amount? He's gonna Alex Jones that shit.

[–] Thirdborne 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He has a monitor overseeing him. Too late for any shenanigans.

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

Right... forgot about that. But I feel like that just limits his shenanigans and hes got a lifetime of experience at shenanigans. I dunno really, but I'm not betting against Trump's crook skills.

[–] Thirdborne 0 points 8 months ago

Regardless. He cannot appeal without putting up the money or a collateralized bond.

[–] stoly 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There’s no appeal here. He has nothing to point to for procedural errors or unconstitutional laws. Plus he has to put up the money before he can do anything.

[–] stoly 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He lost his business empire and has to pay more than $450m. How is that not consequences?

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

He lost his ability to do business in one state, which likely just means he'll do it by proxy

And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he weasels his way out of paying somehow

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

And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he weasels his way out of paying somehow

He has a deadline of 30 days to pay, and in order to appeal he first has to put 110% of the amount owing in escrow.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I'll believe he'll pay when he pays. I see no reason to start thinking he's going to do what he's supposed to, required to, do when that's never been what he's done. I honestly doubt he'll give up that money until it's forcibly pulled from his accounts.

Maybe this time will be different and the rules will actually apply to him. Maybe this time Lucy won't pull that football back. Until that actually happens, forgive me if I'm sceptical that things are going to be different this time around.

[–] stoly 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He won’t. Stop spreading misinformation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

What misinformation am I spreading? That I think something is or isn't going to happen?

I assure you that it is very accurate that I'm prepared to see him find some way to weasel out of this, and I'm not sure how you could possibly know whether or not I think the things I say I think.

Again: I'll believe it when it happens. Not before then. I'm done believing the right thing will happen when it comes to him since it so rarely has.