this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
374 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3051 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
 
  • Donald Trump has to cut a fat check, and his appeal of the E. Jean Carroll verdict won't delay that.
  • Within 30 days of the judge's written judgment, Trump has to turn over either cash or a bond.
  • While he appeals the verdict, Carroll can't touch that money — but neither can Trump.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 54 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The reason he has to cough up the money is: he has to post bond before he's allowed to appeal. So either he pays what he owes, or he puts up the money to ensure he pays after the appeal is overturned.

Ms. Carroll, unfortunately, won't see that money for probably another year, but at least she can rest assured that Trump is going to lose that appeal. Even if he becomes Supreme Dictator in November, that money is gone.

[–] themeatbridge 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

To post a bond that large, someone would need to trust Trump to pay his debts...

[–] Rapidcreek 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think it would be hard for anyone to risk 88 million to post a bond in any case. Trump is going to have to write the check.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)

To put a possible US president in your pocket? Plently of people would smile as they wrote that check.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Lending money to Trump doesn't put him in your pocket because he just doesn't pay his debts and somehow manages to always get away with it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] themeatbridge 9 points 10 months ago

I wonder if he can secure it with rubles...

[–] overzeetop 5 points 10 months ago

If you’ve already put $2B in trust with his son in law, what’s an extra 5% to keep daddy happy. It’s just a down payment for future intelligence.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Call J G Wentworth if thats still a thing.

[–] eltrain123 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

877 cash NOW!!!!

Fuck… advertising works like a muh….

[–] RampantParanoia2365 6 points 10 months ago

...CALL NOW.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 49 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I bet he can't even cover the check, since it's going to escrow and needs to be paid in full.

[–] FlyingSquid 33 points 10 months ago (3 children)

He doesn't have it to hand over. That's over three times what the judge in his fraud trial said Mar-a-Lago was worth (Trump claimed it was worth $1 billion).

[–] teejay 22 points 10 months ago (3 children)

He doesn't have it to hand over

Yes he does. He has to either pay the judgement to her, or put it in escrow if he plans to appeal.

That's over three times what the judge in his fraud trial said Mar-a-Lago was worth (Trump claimed it was worth $1 billion).

I don't understand this statement. Are you suggesting that the reason you think he doesn't have to pay is because it's a lot of money?

[–] FlyingSquid 67 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I think you misread what I wrote.

I said "He doesn’t have it to hand over" not "he doesn't have to hand it over."

He doesn't have it to hand over because he's not that rich.

[–] teejay 38 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Shoot, my bad, you're right. I misread that as "he doesn't have to hand it over".

[–] FlyingSquid 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No problem. I think I could have been clearer. Chalk it up to the perils of communicating over text with no vocal inflections.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I give both of you an A+ in communication. You can now kiss or not up to you two really

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There is a lot of sexual tension between those two.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

gonna just point out the collective PTSD we are all suffering. I also initially read it incorrectly and didnt bother re-reading because... well... "its the orange asshole - of course he's avoiding consequence... again!"

this puss filled ass boil needs to see jail time.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

I misread it as well. Better to just be blunt and say "Trump is broke as fuck"

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Wow, yeah, my brain absolutely read "He doesn't have to hand it over" 😂

[–] FlyingSquid 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I can see how my choice of words could have been confusing.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Mine too. Reading too quickly for that series of words to come out correctly, I guess?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Even after you clarified here I still had to analyse those sentences for the difference

[–] themeatbridge 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not the person you replied to, but I believe the person is saying "he doesn't have it, so therefore he cannot hand over something he doesn't have."

[–] teejay 3 points 10 months ago

Yep, that was my mistake.

[–] sharkaccident 6 points 10 months ago

Yes he does. He has to either pay the judgement to her, or put it in escrow if he plans to appeal

No he doesn't. I hate trump as much as anyone else, but all he has to do is get someone else to post bond (he will still have to provide a percentage to cover). There is a long list of people/companies/countries that would take that gamble assuming he gets reelected.

[–] FenrirIII 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Time for more fundraising!

[–] FlyingSquid 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

Of course he can. He just can't say it's to help him get reelected. Smartest thing for him to do right now is spin up another set of "ai" nft images for his fan base to buy, to "help with the prosecution" he is suffering.

[–] Clent 10 points 10 months ago

He cannot use campaign funds but PACs are not the same thing and Trump has directed much of his fundraising into PACs. The courts have shown zero willingness to address this because a PAC is a corporation and corporation are imaginary people and since the rules don't apply to billionaires, the rules definitely don't matter to imaginary ones.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

He will grift it from his donors, like he always does.

That's less than $2 per 2020 Trump voter, and he gets more popular every time a judgment goes against him.

At some point it will run out but I don't think this is the last straw.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What's to stop Trump doing the same thing that OJ has been doing for 25 years to avoid paying out to the families of the people he murdered in cold blood?

[–] NateNate60 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What did O. J. Simpson do to avoid paying?

[–] IphtashuFitz 38 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

OJ declared bankruptcy. If Trump did that he’d be opening up his finances to a ton of scrutiny he doesn’t want. He’d also be admitting to the world that his status as a successful billionaire is pure horseshit.

[–] Goodie 24 points 10 months ago

I do believe he testified recently that he is in good financial standing and has $400m cash. Which means perjury time, baby! Let's go!

[–] Everythingispenguins 18 points 10 months ago

That is literally one of the reasons requiring the escrow account.

[–] TheDoozer 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Within 30 days of the judge's written judgment, Trump has to turn over either cash or a bond.

This always, always begs the question: "or what?" Over and over we hear of what courts decide people "must" do, but when they are rich and/or powerful or honestly just stubborn enough, it doesn't seem to have any teeth.

And I get it, there are a lot of things they can do, but they always seem to scared or complacent to do any of them. It's getting real old reading about what Trump or Alex Jones or whoever "must" do without seeing them actually suffer consequences for not doing it.

[–] Mononon 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In this case, Carroll can start taking possession of his assets herself. She does not seem particularly sheepish about that. For some of these people, they can hide their assets, but Trump's are publicly known. I can't say what will happen, but there's some teeth to this one. And Trump couldn't argue with the damages amount because he'd risk losing one of his other cases that hinges on his assets' worth.

[–] partial_accumen 4 points 10 months ago

Also, I think it would mean she immediately gets the $5m that Trump had to put in escrow (which essentially means the court can dispense this without any action from Trump)

[–] phoneymouse 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Can you pay rape defamation victim damages out of your campaign fund?

[–] LowtierComputer 6 points 9 months ago

Sure you caaan. And it's only illegal if you get charged and effectively punished!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A federal jury sitting in Manhattan found that Trump defamed Carroll in 2019 by calling her a liar after she told the world he'd sexually assaulted her.

Once all post-verdict squabbles are settled, the final legal domino is expected to fall, triggering a payment clock to start ticking.

A source familiar with the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so publicly, told Business Insider that Trump's $5.5 million was still there, pending the outcome of his appeal of that first verdict.

A surety company could make Trump provide an extra 10 percent of collateral, and would require he pay a bond premium of anywhere from $250,000 to $1 million.

Such a large bond could probably be handled only by one of the surety giants — such as Travelers Insurance, Liberty Mutual, Chubb, or JP Morgan Chase, said the expert, whose employer doesn't allow press statements.

Among the penalties the attorney general is hoping for in the upcoming verdict are a payment of $370 million and a five-year ban on Trump applying for loans from any New York-registered financial institution.


The original article contains 767 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] TropicalDingdong 3 points 10 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›