Cool. Cool. When do they start seizing property?
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
110 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19232 readers
3888 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Even if he offered $453m, this is not how it works. There's a judgement on $454m including interest, and that's it, and it increases every day he doesn't pay.
I wonder what the legal arguments was to the courts that would allow/require them to settle for 25 cents on the dollar.
I haven't heard about any legal argument, I frankly don't think they had any.
It's probably a PR stunt, where Trump will claim he offered a GOOD deal, and be all offended when they begin to confiscate because he can't pay.
And his gullible followers will fall for it, and think Trump is the victim.
“The exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment, coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions..."
Please excuse my ignorance but, which of the constitutional amendments guarantees US citizens access to loans?
I just asked Sarah Palin, she says: "All of them."
Deep cut but so very representative of right wing people. They have two modes of supporting their arguments:
-
Rare: drown you in bs arguments (here are 350 made up examples of how the election was stolen) knowing you won't refute each one. You give up, they think they "won". This can come in the form of a 2 hour youtube.
-
Common: "I don't need evidence, I just know", "I'm telling you that most regulations are bad, but can't give you a single example", or "I am ignoring your obvious question because I have never thought deeply about this and can't face that reality ".
My personal favorite is when they link a article that completely contradicts their point and refuse to discuss that.
/rant
Yes, you have your facts, but we have our own facts. 🤡
The way they share facts that contradict their arguments, but somehow interpret them to mean the exact opposite, has been one of the hardest things to deal with in personal conversations. Just makes me want to shake them while yelling “no, that’s not how that works! That’s not how any of that works!”
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Nobody can explain that.
-Bill O'Reilly
Argument from ignorance
Probably the one about frozen peaches that they're always whining about.
Didn't he say he was too rich to pay? Now he's offering to pay but less than 1/4th of the original amount.
Edited: Wrong multi million dollar judgement
~~To clarify: this isn't paying Carroll, this is putting up a 110% bond, then when appeals are done it will be used to pay out and trump gets the extra 10% back.~~
~~He said he's so rich that there's no need for the bond. I think they offered to pay "a fraction" which came out to under $100~~
~~Which the judge denied because they waited till literally the 11th hour to submit it.~~
~~Now when they try to argue he can't come up with the money by the deadline, this will get thrown in his face.~~
~~I don't think they can force him to liquidate property for this because it's civil, but I believe if they force liquidation for the civil judgement, Carroll can go after anything remaining that has been liquidated, and hopefully take it directly instead of it going thru the black hole that is Trump's checkbook.~~
~~It's probably the only way she'll actually get paid.~~
This isn't the Carroll case at all. This is the New York fraud judgement against him.
I don't know if Trump has put up the bond for appealing the second Carroll verdict. He already has $5 million being held for the appeal on the first verdict against him. It's very hard to keep track of the money he owes people for crimes Trump has committed.
Bigly broke
What a loser
This is why he wants to be president. To get a lifeline of his own personal expenses.
oh and to never be held accountable for crime ever again
I guess he just got tired of winning
Go to jail.
This isn’t a criminal case, it’s a civil case. This is the one where they just get to take all his stuff.
Yay! Can't wait. Take it today, it would be more merciful, the longer AG James waits, the more the interest accrues.
Sadly, no. I'd love to see him endig up behind bars, and there are many of the other legal problems that would rightfully put him in the slammer. But not this case.
Just take some of his beloved real estate and auction it off until the full sum is paid. Hopefully, this will break his ego.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York appellate court on Wednesday to halt collection of the former president’s $454m civil fraud judgment while he appeals.
“The exorbitant and punitive amount of the judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond,” Trump’s lawyers Clifford Robert, Alina Habba and Michael Farina wrote.
His lawyers are asking the appellate division of the state’s trial court to decide whether Engoron “committed errors of law and/or fact” and whether he abused his discretion or “acted in excess” of his jurisdiction.
The Republican presidential frontrunner has until 25 March to secure a stay, a legal mechanism pausing collection while he appeals.
Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, maintains that he is worth several billion dollars and testified last year that he had about $400m in cash, in addition to properties and other investments.
In January, a jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3m to writer E Jean Carroll for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s.
The original article contains 561 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
On Wednesday, Judge Anil Singh appeared to have some sympathy for Trump, staying the ban over Trump from taking out loans from New York banks and another ban on him serving as an officer of a New York company, both for the next three years.
Let's grab him by the Trump Tower