this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024

434 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19239 readers

2601 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

• 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

434

Trump Might Be Too Broke for a $175 Million Bond, Too (newrepublic.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave to c/politics

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A New York appeals court on Monday reduced the $454 million that former President Donald Trump was required to put up while he appeals his civil fraud case. Now Trump must put up, by April 4, a mere $175 million. The trouble is, he may not get a bond for that amount, either. Should that happen, this act of judicial mercy will end up feeling to Trump like a curse.

The stay deprives Trump of the only argument on which he was gaining any traction at all—that the amount the court required him to put up was excessively high. Four hundred and fifty-four million was indeed an unusually large judgment against a private corporation or individual. (The distinction between Trump and the Trump Organization is paper-thin.) Monday’s appeals court decision doesn’t reduce that judgment, as New York State Attorney General Letitia James pointed out in a written statement. But it does dramatically reduce the amount Trump needs to turn over to the state while he pursues his appeal. It also gives us some hint that the appeals court may reduce Judge Arthur Engoron’s $454 million judgment to, well, $175 million.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 137 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

I’m just completely flummoxed as to how judges keep playing right into Trump’s hand on shit like this and then expect the rest of the general public to treat them - and by extension, the entire court system - seriously.

Like, he’s got an obvious, provable, and systematic tendency to straight up not pay for shit, and it’s documented as a matter of public and legal record. It’s not a mystery. It’s not ambiguous. It’s not justifiable beyond “he doesn’t like giving money to people that are not himself”. It’s an unavoidably clear pattern and practice.

something something leopards eating faces

I’m glad he’s probably gonna get fucked on the appeal bond, but jesus tapdancing christ the amount of categorically unjustifiable lifelines he has repeatedly gotten handed to him by the courts is simply indefensible.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 9 months ago

He won't be fucked on the appeal bond, they will lower it and give him 30 more days. Laws are for poor people to obey.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch 27 points 9 months ago

Republicans are good about showing up to every election and vote all the way down the ballot, which helps them pack the courts. They can then do things like this to give their party a better chance at winning an election.

[–] guacupado 8 points 9 months ago

I don't think the judges even expect us to treat them seriously. At this point they're so far above us they don't even care anymore. Trump already put them in there. Short of dying, they aren't going anywhere.

[–] twistypencil 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Please explain the 🐆 part

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago

It’s a frustratingly accurate trope

[–] themeatbridge 114 points 9 months ago (12 children)

That would be the absolute best outcome, because he cannot claim that he's been treated unfairly. The entire ~~justice~~legal system has bent over backwards to be accommodating. In a rational world, with reasonable people, it would matter.

[–] EdibleFriend 89 points 9 months ago (4 children)

They will just lower the amount again

[–] [email protected] 58 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yep, I've always known that the rules don't apply to the rich but I had no idea that extends to people pretending to be rich too. Jesus christ I could've been pretending to be rich and doing whatever I want this whole time? Boy is there egg on my face!

[–] Cruxifux 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That only works if you come from a rich family though.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

Yup, because the first people you need to convince you’re rich, are the bankers. They lend you the money so you can buy the lawyers, suits, ties, and golf courses to convince the rest of the rubes.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's exactly the lesson he learned yesterday. If you bitch and moan and threaten to not pay they money, it'll get reduced. Why not do it again?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Oh shucks, how did this bar get all the way up there?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 55 points 9 months ago

That would be the absolute best outcome, because he cannot claim that he’s been treated unfairly.

You mean the thing he has baselessly claimed for the last 10 fucking years?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago

because he cannot claim that he’s been treated unfairly

lol watch him

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] Son_of_dad 62 points 9 months ago (2 children)

He's gonna talk his way down to where he ends up paying Jack shit and gets away with this shit once again

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

This is a bond for the appeal. The court could decide to make it $0.00 but he still owes the full amount if he loses the appeal.

And even if he paid the full 454mil to appeal, he still gets it back if he wins.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago

if he loses the appeal.

By the time that happens, he might be in the Oval Office again. That means he can just sell a few more state secrets to the Saudis, or straight up just not pay, cause some constitutional crisis and a civil war.

He prefers that to paying.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago

I don't want him to have extra time to hide assets, which he will do. I am also appalled at the double standards of justice, now on display with a giant searchlight pointed towards them.

[–] Badeendje 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

Well that he gets it back if he wins is part of the grounds for the appeal.

If you force someone to liquidate and then he is found not guilty, the harm this has caused can/will outweigh the potential punishment many times over.

So see that separate from the case and the person, that cannot be right.

Don't get me wrong, I feel no sympathy at all for defendant trump, but in general the punishment should be the punishment.

[–] FlowVoid 20 points 9 months ago (7 children)

In general, the trial judge is presumed to have determined the right punishment.

There are plenty of people in jail who are appealing their punishment. If they win, they will still never get back the time they already served. That harm has been done.

You seem to be suggesting that every defendant is entitled to exhaust all their appeals before any "harm" is done, but such a system is unworkable.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

The law is a machine we all pass through. We don’t want to change the machine just because an enemy is passing through it right now.

[–] bartvbl 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

But as has been established, he shouldn't have had this money in the first place. The fine is based on how much he over inflated the value of his property to get bigger loans. Had he not done so he may well have been bankrupt already.

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

True, the whole "victimless crime" stick is nonsense. Because if all the real estate world is lied together like this, the general population pays waaayyyy to much for their real estate and rent in addition to missing out on so much tax revenue.

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

It’s fraud. When money changed hands under false pretenses, harm’s been done. Somebody’s missing money that’s rightfully theirs.

I don’t know anything about this case. Didn’t know there was real estate stuff involved I thought this was the secret documents thing.

But that’s straightforward. Taking money that isn’t rightfully yours is not a victimless crime, in the way that owning pot is a victimless crime.

load more comments (1 replies)

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

The only semi good thing we have is that he's old. He's clearly losing his shit, and broke. It won't be long before he's either six feet under from a McHeartattack or laying in a bed not able to recognize his own family. I hope it's long and painful.

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

I hope it quick and soon.

I'm sick of playing this game. He is a clear threat to democracy and America itself.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Burn_The_Right 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Then the court will lower it again for him.

[–] FenrirIII 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

"That'll be $3.50."

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

God damnit Loch Ness monster!

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

"WITCH HUNT! SO UNFAIR!"

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

I think once they've done it the first time this outcome is pretty much inevitable. The sad thing is that they only have to do it once before it becomes expected of them by Trump's party. To them it's vindication that the system is just out to get them when they say, "We could have charged you what you actually owe but we can also lower it for no reason instead of throwing you in jail"

[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago

Don't get your hopes up. This guy wriggles through everything. He knows who to buy.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Great, sound like it won't hurt to raise it back to the $454 mil it should be at.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But he's rich, worth billions, and he's the perfect kind of criminal to bond why would he have issues?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago

If life has taught Trump anything, it's that he never has to pay.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago

One day I hope to be as broke as Donald Trump; where nearly 200 million dollars “might” be unobtainable.

[–] Nunar 24 points 9 months ago

We're all very much hoping so.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

Guess we gotta shop around for another judge to lower it further.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

His net worth just hit $6B due to the pump & dump scheme that is Truth Social.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (5 children)

None of that is liquid though. He's locked into the holdings for six months while the stock freefalls from the IPO. If the majority stockholder is going to be selling shares during the initial offering you bet your panties that has to be disclosed.

[–] twistypencil 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Unless he gets an exception from the board. Guess which Trump offspring are on the board

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He’s gonna have the money even if he’s cash-poor: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/billionaires-sought-help-fund-trump-bond-civil-fraud-case-sources-say-2024-03-26/

[–] Cruxifux 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Here’s how I’d see it if I was a billionaire.

You have a chance to throw a few million dollars of chump change to you to get in good with who might be the first fascist dictator of the United States. Then that man owes you a favour, or at least you are on his good side. Seems like a no brainer.

[–] baru 8 points 9 months ago

Then that man owes you a favour, or at least you are on his good side.

Trump often doesn't abide by anything. Doesn't pay contractors for example. Just takes, doesn't give. Loads of lawyers did favours for Trump, loads of those lawyers cannot practice anymore. It doesn't sound like a good idea to me to hope that Trump might return a favour.

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

You literally need to have no brain to think Donald will honor a debt or a favor.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments