552
Appeals Court Bails Trump Out of Having to Post Massive Fraud Bond
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
552 points (98.1% liked)
News
36309 readers
754 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Do these judges have to explain their decision? Is there an opinion published somewhere? I'd love to understand what context brought them to this conclusion, I've never heard of someone gaining leniency because they couldn't afford the fine.
There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"...
The published order is just that. It doesn't explain the why or whatever just "We are reducing the bond amount and not removing the other limitations of the ruling"
“…because Project 2025”
It's actually a pretty liberal court that made the ruling.
Neoliberal club. Fascist conservative club. It's all the same fucking club, and you ain't in it!
You know we're fucked when I'm nostalgic for a time when Republicans were just dumb fucks trying to make their friends rich, rather than dumb fucks trying to destroy our democracy.
Isn't the first one a prerequisite for the second one?
Works in the opposite order too.
I guess there's a problem in that he needs the money in order to appeal.
Like everyone should have some right of appeal, and saying someone can't appeal because they're broke could be used to manipulate the justice system.
He still has to pay the whole amount if he loses the appeal.
The whole point of the bond is to prevent pointless appeals in the court (which I have to assume this will be) and, more importantly, serves as a guarantee the defendant will fulfill their obligations and pay at the end of an appeal failure, which ... trump is absolutely a risk of not paying. And these judges have now effectively cast the guarantee aside.
Perhaps, but do you agree everyone should be able to appeal?
Sure, and frankly there is nothing preventing trump from appealing. However an appeal is not a green light to ignore or discard the lower court's decision in the interim. Specifically outlined in the NY Court website
"Filing a Notice of Appeal does not stop or stay the winning side from taking steps to collect or enforce the judgment from the lower court. To put the collection on hold, you may have to ask the court for a stay. You may have to pay an amount of money equal to the judgment amount, called an undertaking, to the court while the appeal is being decided. "
And further to the point, I'd still like to understand what context he's appealing under that was so compelling. This is a financial case, the facts and accounting figures supporting the judgement will presumably not change, leaving little room for a successful appeal.
Ultimately I'm of the opinion this is a frivolous appeal, and trump will not find the full amount owed at the end of it. By lowering the bond the appeals court has neutered the purpose of securing the bond in the first place, which can only to lead to more delays and difficulties collecting in the future.
It if were you or me or anyone else but trump, you know damn well there'd be ZERO leniency of any kind.
I don't know what sort of incredible powers he has, but he definitely has. Maybe I'm coming around to see him not as a traitor or an idiot anymore, but sort of a superhero with powers I'm just beginning to appreciate. Maybe I will vote for him after all - he simply can't be held down or held responsible, and that's pretty amazing.
Trump is a man who prior to 2015, was a close personal friend of both of the Clintons.
As I understand it, Ivanka is still a close friend of Chelsea Clinton.
He might act like he's not part of the elite power clique. But he's absolutely part of the elite power clique.
The way this shit goes, I'm not going to be surprised if Trump will declare to be ineligible to be judged on the basis of being a sovereign citizen
A sovereign citizen couldnt run for President
Just like someone involved in an insurrection couldn't, right?
I meant because they are trying to be sovereign from the US of their own accord, therefore adjacent to the US political system and not part of it, again, by their own choosing.
Oh, I'm sure he's apt enough in mental gymnastics to come up with some ~~bullshit~~ reason to run for president while also being absolutely independent from the jurisdiction
The sovereign citizens of which there are a surprisingly huge number (I never will know how they got licenses or jobs here since they claim they aren't actually citizens of our country) would definitely support that.