309
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave to c/politics

At least one of Trump's four criminal trials is set to begin while the others are now in jeopardy

After five decades of playing fast and loose with the laws of New York, and a plenary of fraud, deception and corruption, legal appeasement seems to be declining and legal accountability seems to be ramping up as the proverbial hens are finally returning home to roost for the former Houdini of white-collar crime, Donald J. Trump.

First, there was the civil judgment of 5 million dollars awarded to the writer E. Jean Carroll by a federal jury of Trump’s peers. Then there was a second judgment of $83.3 million in damages awarded to Carroll by another jury of Trump’s peers for the additional defamatory statements that he continued to make after the first judgment was rendered for denying that he had sexually assaulted Carroll. And then there was the New York civil fraud decision by Judge Arthur Engoron holding Trump and his sons, Eric and Don, Jr. financially liable to the tune of more than $350 million underscoring “the extent of Trump and the Trump Organization’s white-collar malfeasance.” Last week, Judge Engoron turned down a request by Trump’s lawyers to postpone payment.

However, in the case of the historic $454 million judgment, “a figure that is growing by more than $100,000 in interest every day,” Trump sought a stay yesterday in opposition to New York law that requires first forking over the entire amount in damages or putting up a cash bond for the same known in the New York civil court system as an “undertaking.”

Trump also had previously done the same thing with the $83.3 million ruling by a jury in the second E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit. Neither of these appeals should go anywhere and the clock is still ticking in each case and soon time will be up before Carroll’s attorneys and then the New York attorney general Letitia James can start seizing the former president’s assets and property.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

People said conceptually the same thing before he was elected the first time. The pictures of him besides Epstein, the accusations including one by a then-14-year-old girl that he raped her (she was in that photo too, or or at least others at the same party by Epstein), his own rather damning words seeming to support such actions, the fact that he rarely pays his workers, ALL the MANY court cases... we've seen ALL of this before.

And this time is different. The last time, they voted more for not-Hillary, but this time, many people want to vote specifically for him!? Don't underestimate the number of those who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary but who then flipped to vote for Trump in the general election. Will this repeat now, for people upset at Biden's treatment of Israel, or how bad the economy is right now (despite the laws that Republicans passed making it this way, plus genocidally inept handling of the pandemic scenario)? Yes, plus also those who would vote Republican regardless, plus ALSO those who would have voted for Trump personally even if he had run as an independent.

So what if they start taking his properties away? That would simply drive him to spend MORE rather than less time on the campaign trail?

I strongly question this conclusion, especially from a site that just wants people to click so they'll say whatever they can to get that to happen. Best for what purpose - him losing the upcoming election? Well, just like the last time, we'll see.

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
309 points (96.4% liked)

politics

17778 readers
2256 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS