Well... I guess this, as all cases involving Trump now seem to, is going to hinge on whether this is a court that still follows the rule of law, or one of the seemingly growing number that follow the rule of demagoguery, shallow self-interest and corruption.
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
78 points (94.3% liked)
News
23311 readers
4281 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This one is based on what he did before he was elected, so I think the SCOTUS ruling doesn't apply here.
SCOTUS ruling doesn't apply here, they're just commenting on the general trend of people not willing to sentence trump to anything, seemingly.
SCOTUS now rules whatever they want. Lower courts are getting the message.
Right, but at this point, I wouldn't put it past a court to just dream up some other excuse for ruling as their bias/bribes dictate.
Someone put out a signal light on the sky. We need a Teddy T1000 Roosevelt badly, with a very very big stick.
A real man finishes his speech when he's shot
Sorry. Convicted felon pay up asshole.
Not sorry. If you can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime.
He can pay, the problem is that he doesn't want to.
So, the issue is that a lot of the assets he does have, have been used as collateral already.
The loan is still in escrow, afik, but it’s likely he can’t actually liquidate those assets (because collateral.) or use them as collateral for another loan (because banks don’t like to share collateral.)
In short he’s leveraged to his neck on his properties, and may not have the ready cash; if that loan were to go poof for some reason. (Like being illegal. I never did catch what happened with that.)
Can he though?
He might never have been a billionaire at any point, he's always been leveraged to the gills and bleeding money. Plus the fraud, making up fake names to call up Forbes to be declared a billionaire, and the fact he is constantly hustling (while campaigning and terminally old) for a few more million
Most of all, there's the fact that billionaires are only billionaires on paper. Their wealth would shrink massively if they can't time the sell-offs at the right time, most commonly known billionaires could keep the title selling for 10 cents on the dollar, but Trump isn't near that level no matter how you slice it
Mar a Lago is estimated at like 200-300m, his apartment is worth tens of millions, and pretty much everything else he only owns a partial stake in and is likely leveraged even if it could be cleanly sold. And who knows what other debt factors in - he's had a lot of failed projects and a lot of unpaid invoices
None of them are proof, but altogether it doesn't paint the picture of a billionaire - a billion dollars is a truly unthinkable amount of money, and I can't see a showoff like him not collecting things to brag about
I don't think he has it, or if he does it'd be a close thing
And to leave you with a final thought - Trump owns 3 guns, one of which he risked his freedom to hide away. What kind of billionaire both cares about guns enough to break parole (even if the prison risk was very unlikely), but also doesn't have a small armory professionally decorated just to show off?
I doubt he can
It's a big deal to overturn a jury verdict. Let alone this jury verdict.
Can we overturn Trumps presidency? 4 years of bullshit I'd like to forget
The New York court naming scheme is weird.
Very weird. Supreme Court is not the highest court in new york state for anyone confused. Court of appeals is the highest court.
I mean, it kinda makes sense. Especially in this day and age an appeal is the final say, not the court ruling(feels like everything gets appealed). So, this way the place that happens is the highest court in the state. The final ruling is whether the highest non-appeals court did it right, not the original issue.
Or, put another way, if you tell me the highest court in the land has made a decision, I would expect that to be the end of it. But it’s not. From the moment the verdict is read lawyers are preparing an appeal. Therefore, whatever court takes the appeal makes the true final decision. Why not then make that the highest court in the land and better reflect the role?
....Supreme literally means highest. So, no, it doesn't kinda make sense.
Maybe not by name, but by job it does. That’s why it “kinda” makes sense. The court might be Supreme in name but not in duty, whoever got to write up the org chart realized that the appeals court got the final say and was the real top dog.
Because then the supreme court isn't actually supreme (highest in rank or authority).
Which is true in context. It’s a traditional name but it is not the highest authority, if you can make your case the appeals court can overrule them, making them the highest authority.