55 points

Excellent.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

Traitor orange is going down!

permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

He’ll be fined. And that money won’t be real to him. Don’t get excited.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

“He’ll be fine”? Tell that to his super morbidly obese heart trying to pump blood when fryer grease is clogging everything up and his bitch ass stress level is spiking cuz his grift is running it’s course. Anyway.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

No, he’ll be fineD. Like, monetarily.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

🍿🍿🍿🍿🍺🍺🍺🍺

Grab one and enjoy the show!

permalink
report
reply
7 points

🍻

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

What are the chances of jail time? White collar crime like this effects way more people than petty theft, but I’m thinking at most it’ll be a hefty fine. Again, like on most topics, I’m pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation.

permalink
report
reply
46 points
*

It’s a civil case, which means no jail time should he be convicted. It will just be a fine.

That said, it’s possible the verbal attacks against those involved lead to…something. I wouldn’t hold your breath though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

It is also possible to plead the fifth as a defendant in a civil trial, however, a jury (or the judge, in this case) can make “adverse inferences” from that in civil court.

In a criminal case, a defendant who takes the stand has waived their fifth amendment rights. That’s why you don’t hear defendants on the stand in court saying “Fifth, fifth, fifth.” A defendant retains their fifth amendment rights in a criminal trial by refusing to take the stand - as is their right.

What I’m not sure of is whether that also applies in a civil case. Unlike in a criminal trial, in civil court, the plaintiff can call the defendant to the stand. I don’t know if that obliges the defendant to take the stand or not. Also, in civil court, a defendant can only plead the fifth if answering the question could implicate them in criminal matters. The civil matter at hand, all by itself, cannot be “fifthed out of;” if a defendant is on the stand, they must answer questions in relation to the case, again, so long as the answers could not implicate them in crimes.

We know that Trump is on the plaintiff’s witness list. If plaintiff calls Trump to the stand in his civil case, is he obliged to go on the stand? I think he is, because fifth amendment protections do not extend to civil litigation. Then he could plead the fifth if the answer to the specific question posed implicates him in a crime. If that happens, there would surely be a motion from plaintiff’s attorneys for the court to rule on whether fifth amendment protections extend to that question.

But this is a bench trial, where the judge is going to decide the outcome of the case. It would be completely reasonable for the defense to want a different judge to make that fifth amendment call; having the current bench learn about the potential answers to the question of fifth amendment protection would obviously tend to influence the very same bench who is responsible for deciding the case.

I have no idea what’s going to come of all this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I would always prefer holding other people’s breath over my own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

At this point I think I’d be okay with house arrest. Just confining his remaining years on Earth to Mar-a-lago would do wonders for the health of the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Gotta cut off his internet access, too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Give him fake social media with AI that trolls and insults him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Give him a cell phone that only gets 1 bar in a single room… if he stands on a dresser and reaches out at a weird angle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Unfortunately, this case, in a legal sense, is against his corporation, not him.

It’s ruling will likely result in the dissolution of said corporation and the barring of Trump doing business in NYC, just like a similar case did with his charities, from which he stole.

That’s the annoying thing with how corporations are handled in the US.

What Trump did in the charity and this case is criminal fraud. But because it was all nicely wrapped in the form of some corporate entity, it’s a civil case. That shit is fucked up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

He may also lose properties, to be sold to pay for the fines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

It’s a civil trial. The court won’t forcibly take anything from him.

I was defrauded by someone who lied on a house condition report, and the house needed $20k in work to not be condemned. I had paperwork the previous owner left in a closet that showed they were aware of the extent of the damage years before selling the house, but it was not disclosed.

Our attorney said “you can win this case. But you’ll win a $20k judgement. If they don’t pay, you have to sue again for failure to pay. If they die (they were elderly) legally the estate has to post in the local paper a notice. If you catch that notice within a couple of weeks, you will be able to claim $20k from the estate. If you miss this window, you’re SOL.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

maybe, also possible that the sheer expansive scope of what he’s done and to whom may qualify him for something more extreme. I really don’t know, but it will be fun to find out 🍿

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The court has already ruled that Trump committed fraud, that Trump Org should be dissolved, and that properties should be seized. We’ll get more details as to just what that means (likely receivership and then sold), but Trump will lose a lot from this civil case and he won’t have that much recourse. (He can appeal, of course, but there’s no guarantee that would help him.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
200 points

He’s already lost, this trial is only to determine how much it will cost him. I think it’s more that he’s realized how bad his attorneys are, and that he’s going to lose everything.

permalink
report
reply
27 points
*

He’s almost certainly going to appeal whatever verdict he gets, claiming that he had ineffective legal council and that the judge was biased against him. Because the only effective reason you can appeal is if you don’t believe your trial was fair. So he’s basically stacking the “this trial was unfair” deck in his favor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

“My trial was unfair!”

“On what grounds?”

“I made it unfair for myself!”

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Your honor, I object!

And why is that?

Because it’s devastating to my case!

https://youtu.be/St_Abko0Jfs?si=Yb8ma4gk_Aezw_IR

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

💀

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

RBG was too ______ to retire as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
94 points

I hate to be that guy, but you can’t appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Since when has something being legal or not ever stopped Trump from trying it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
79 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This oversight was first reported over two weeks ago, yet he hasn’t mentioned it or taken action in any way. Wonder if that would have an effect on such an appeal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I don’t think it would because it is unlikely this case would have been granted a jury trial anyway due to New York law. There are specific requirements for requesting a civil jury trial in New York, and all the legal analysis I have seen has suggested they would not have met that bar.

Jury Trials are onerous on the public and the judicial system, but are fundamentally necessary as well as guaranteed in criminal proceedings. However, for civil matters that is the exception rather than the rule.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Even if he did appeal, would that delay execution of the resulting court order?

permalink
report
parent
reply
65 points
*

he’s realized how bad his attorneys are

Maybe he should have paid or listened to the first dozen sets of lawyers he went through.

permalink
report
parent
reply
145 points
*

And to think, all he had to do was not run for president of the United States (among many other things) and this probably never would have happened to him.

I mean, I’ve never run for president of the United States, it’s a very easy thing to not do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-43 points

Respectfully, I hope you are wrong.

If not running was all it took not to be prosecuted then, to me, that says this is indeed a political prosecution and not about the rule of law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.

I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Oh no, I agree with you. I was just making a joke. From what I understand he never really wanted to run for president in the first place, and was surprised he won. Honestly his business might have continued as it was, fraud and everything, if he had never done that plus all the other crazy stuff he did.

I’ve very glad he’s getting what’s coming to him. I mean he brought this on himself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points
*

I think they meant not run the first time? As in: he doesn’t run, and therefore doesn’t get elected, so he stays away from the spotlight and can, relatively, quietly live his life with his foot in his mouth at every turn, but nobody cares because he’s a D list celebrity.

And of course, not being the president, he has no access to half of the shit he’s dealing with federally. I feel like the state stuff in NY was a pretty long time coming, but the federal stuff could’ve been avoided had he lost or not ran in 2016.

I don’t even know what a world like that would look like, but I’m sure it would’ve been better than the four years we had of him.

Edit: Mobile, misspelled some things due to autocorrect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

When you run for president, you get the spotlight, but you also get a magnifying glass…

And in THAT mixed metaphor:

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

He might have maybe still been persecuted but the feds and everyone involved would have taken their sweet time investigating potentially a few more years since he’s still an ex president. Officially convicting him makes the office look bad and could potentially turn ugly with the MAGA supporters. Nobody wants jan6 2.0 and they very well might have been happy to let him fade into obscurity if that was deemed the best strategy to avoid civil unrest as a whole. Him putting himself in the spotlight again lit a fire under everyones ass and accelerated things drastically.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

as president he had access to much higher level criming, which is why he is now in the trouble he is in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I think they mean for the first presidency. Had he not run for president and won via the electoral college, he never would’ve been in a position to commit a lot of the crimes he’s in trouble for.

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points
*

Seriously. Had he not ran, or dropped out early, he could have probably started his own fringe news channel and lived a relatively unchanged, trouble free life and probably made some money doing it.

I personally think he expected to lose and wasn’t expecting the Russians to barely tip the scales to eek out an electoral college victory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Same here. There’s a photo of him on election night as his win was being declared. Everyone around him looks happy, but he looks like he was just told he has 2 weeks to live.

Had Trump lost to Hillary, he would have done the whole “they stole the election from me” shtick. He’d have launched Trump Tirade Hour where he’d rant about the latest political topics - criticizing the people in charge and declaring that he’d solve everything so easily.

Of course, like his health care plan, Trump would never give details on HOW he’d fix everything. It would just be “A is doing B to fix complex problem C. That’s the wrong thing to do. If I was in charge, I’d fix the complex problem easily by… whoops, looks like it’s time for a commercial break!” It would really have been the best job for him. It would have fit his skills of being an armchair critic that understands nothing and yet claims to know more than anyone else.

Sadly, he won and did the whole “I know better than anyone else despite not understanding anything” from the most powerful seat on the planet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
110 points
*

He also could have, you know, not crimed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
103 points

Could he, though? Really?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Be reasonable

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

That’s a lot harder to not do. Much easier to not run for president.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

But he wants to look cool in front of his friends.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

I can imagine a world where Trumps publicity presidential run starts spinning out and Jared/Ivanka start pulling strings to make it happen. Jared walked away with untold billions and just walks away unscathed. It’s disgusting, especially when you think of how the GOP will stop at nothing to bury Hunter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They are desperate to show the Dems are just as bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

he’s going to lose everything.

He’s going to send out a new round of “save our country” money-raising emails and every one of his cult members are basically going to bail his ass out of this again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah but surely there must be diminishing returns, or at least there’s a somewhat finite pool to draw from. Like as case after case goes bad why would anyone keep giving him money?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You would think. But it keeps happening. Maybe this will be the final straw?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Just to clarify, that makes it sound like it is political. It is not although I don’t think you meant to imply it was.

Running for president just put him under the microscope like it should. Lots of illegal stuff came out.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 481K

    Comments