Not paying is very on brand for Trump.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
359 points (94.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2329 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The meat:
“Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” he huffs. “This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay.”
Only problem with that is that it's not Plaintiff who is requiring a bond pending appeal. It is the United States of America.
I thought it was the state of New York, but whatever
The E. Jean Carroll defamation case was in federal court.
It really is hard to keep track of all of his criminal trials.
Yes, but the E. Jean Carroll case was a civil trial.
In case anyone thought there was any aspect of the law Trump hasn't shit on.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What bullshit mental gymnastics of an argument. "I am above the law" is how it reads.
"I'm a great driver, so why are you giving me a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, officer?"
load more comments
(1 replies)
So basically what he is saying is that he wants social security (as in GoFundMe, sponsors and such). So we should call him what he is. A socialist. I bet his clan will love that.
You mean the judgement that he has to start paying this week? The one which I'm pretty sure he hasn't even filled a boneless appeal in.
Not to mention he already posted the 5M+ bond to appeal the other Carroll defamation ruling. If he's too rich to have to secure his judgement, why'd he do that?
This waste gets up and complains about the 2 tiered justice system and says he's a victim of it, yet he's trying to create a tier just for himself.
He didn't post a $5M Bond. He put up cash. Makes you wonder if the companies that provide bonds may consider him to risky to bond.
Guaranteed they do
How do you hire a bounty hunter to drag someone into court who is protected by Secret Service agents?
Why are we in a reality where the above question even needs to be asked?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
Largely because of this. Someone took it upon themselves to edit the law, and it wasn't noticed by anyone that cared to actually enforce the law for almost 140 years.
If that law were enforced fully, no one would have immunity from prosecution. Period. End of sentence. Not even a Sitting President. That's why we have a VP, and a chain of Command.
It really smells like "My cash flow is drying up and cannot fill all those obligations". Well, he's the one who was able to lose money with a casino, so that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm too rich to fly to the moon, so I won't do it.
I'm too rich to cure cancer, so i wont do it.
The only thing Trump ever does is contort his reality to protect his ego, so this statement could have been anticipated
If he wants to be a part of the gang then he needs to pay up. He needs to pay his dues.
This is deep post-truth territory.
One of the few billionaires where I don't actually believe "cmon baby I'm good for it"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Donny doesn't seem to understand that the opposite of 'priceless' isn't 'too rich'.
view more: next ›