457
Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
457 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2006 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No he can't. The Special Monitor overseeing his assets and watching his books has the authority to start seizing assets until he's satisfied the monetary requirements to appeal, and she can do that right now. And, there's interest running on the meter until he does.
He's gonna pay whether he likes it or not.
Yes he can. Unfortunately. We all get to watch this birth of a dictator unfold in slow motion if Trump wins.
How? Given the powers that the Special Monitor has, how could he possibly avoid paying?
RNC certainly doesn't seem like a likely option right now, and nobody else has ponied up the money.
I always figured the Jan 6 ones were a long shot, but these other two cases are done. He's going to have to pay, and he can't get an appeal unless he pays, thanks to NY law.
That's why it's different from the federal ones.
ETA: and he can't just not pay, because the Special Monitor has a court-ordered obligation to ensure he pays his court debts. She'll just seize his assets, which she has the power to do.
It is different, because he's not the one with the power over his finances. Having a court-appointed Special Monitor who oversees every financial transaction is not remotely the same as just expecting him to pay out of common decency (which he doesn't have). Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
If he becomes dictator, of course it won't matter, but that's a future possibility, not a current reality.
That's called a slippery slope fallacy. This reduction of the bond fucking sucks, but he has 10 days to pay it (and we'll see if he does), and that doesn't ultimately mean he's off the hook.
I get your cynicism, but that does not justify your position that he's going to ultimately escape, unless you are a legal expert and know more than the other legal experts.
It's possible (though not likely) the final amount will be reduced by the appellate court, but Judge Engoron's behavior and judgement was above board. Trump will not escape unscathed, regardless.
This case isn't some goofy reading of the Constitution to justify why churches can revive segregation. It's a standard business fraud case, and the facts speak for themselves.
That being accidentally correct doesn't make you some kind of prophet.
Enjoy your pyrrhic victory in the fascist timeline.
What part of breaking the rules do you not get?
I don't think you understand what the Special Monitor has the power to do, and what role she serves in her monitorship.
I don't think it matters.
We are talking about a motherfucker who openly proposes becoming a dictator. A bastard who already tried to overthrow the federal government. A state appointee moving some paper around would not meaningfully withstand all three branches of the US government making shit up to do The Idiot's bidding.
I mean sure. If you're arguing that it won't matter when he's a dictator, I can agree. But he's not one yet, and he doesn't have the opportunity until November. These state crimes have already been adjudicated, so the clock is ticking on them.
He can pardon himself. And he will.
I thought both were state charges and only federal charges could be pardoned?
That's correct. Only the NY Governor can pardon state crimes in NY
These are state crimes. He can't pardon himself from them.
ETA: I was referring to the conversation context, which is his financial crimes, not the article, which are federal crimes.
You cannot pardon a judgement in a civil case.
okay what has he seized so far? Trump's already stated he's not paying that amount
I don't know what she has seized. But that doesn't mean she hasn't or won't. It just means we don't know.
But it doesn't matter what Trump has said publicly, because he's obligated to pay, and it's not just up to him or his accountants whether he does.
You're operating under the reasonable logic of how this is supposed to work. But nothings gone how it's supposed to work for Trump. He's had a decade of very public crime and been found guilty in several different ways, but has so far not had any consequences enforced. guilty of rape, tax fraud, defamation, campaign finance violations, and bribery, and so far not a penny, much less jail time.
I would argue that the two NY cases have gone exactly as you'd expect. Nothing has happened in them that was particularly unusual. Typical rape case + defamation and a corporate fraud case. All already with judgments.
And as far as collections go, it's not like buying groceries. He doesn't have to pay the full amount all at once (and probably can't). He does have to front the money if he wants to appeal, though, and all he's done is file for one. They won't take it up until he's paid up.
typical rape case???
Yes. The facts and conduct of the trial were typical, ordinary. I was not saying that rape is typical.
How many rape cases have you heard of involving no jail time?
How many rape cases have you heard of that get special, one-time grace periods to revisit 30 years later?
ETA: this was not a criminal rape trial, it was a civil one. Jail time was never an option.
If she hasn't, then she won't. We all know what could and should happen, and we all know none of it has.
And you got your law degree from where, exactly?
She can do that until March 25th, and she will act as soon as she is able to.