|
Velocity Raptor posted:Specifically loan fraud. Look, I just want to find 464,000,000 dollars, which is 463,999,999 than we have... Abysmal snipe.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
Caros posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762961167167664586?t=_3Jr_K2IE536qusA-5Fiew&s=19 God loving damnit
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:So... what happens if he can't pay this off? Considering the fraud is about over-valuing of assets, seems a real possibility even if he does sell everything he could come up short since no one has reason to believe anything he owns is actually worth what he claims. Well a barrel of WTI crude oil is $75.83 today. He could sell all his stuff, sell the oil, wash the barrel out real good and wear it. Maybe then he'll have enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
He also might end up working at his favorite restaurant!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:16
|
|
|
mdemone posted:God loving damnit From the sound of it, this is going to push the DC case past November. Georgia could theoretically get to trial before then, though that is probably wishful thinking, and we all know Florida isn't going anywhere. So we pin our hopes on *checks notes* the boring new York case on one gives a poo poo about. Assuming the Supreme Court doesn't have a stroke and give hum crime immunity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
mdemone posted:God loving damnit This 6-3 ruling is gonna be amazing. At least Joe and the Democrats will be able to console themselves with the fact that they resisted the urge to politicize politicize the court maybe forever in a way that's not healthy, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
Caros posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762961167167664586?t=_3Jr_K2IE536qusA-5Fiew&s=19 i mean the only ones i see signing off on agreeing with it is alito and thomas but even then it would mean a dem president could do whatever too. i could see roberts wanting to smother the bullshit in a court case so it has more offcial standing though. i dont see the GOP signing off on trumps "president has total immunity" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
I really wish I were in a line of work were I could agree to expedite my work to just 2 short months from now
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Well a barrel of WTI crude oil is $75.83 today. He could sell all his stuff, sell the oil, wash the barrel out real good and wear it. Maybe then he'll have enough. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
mdemone posted:God loving damnit Hm, let's see what the pundits say
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Well a barrel of WTI crude oil is $75.83 today. He could sell all his stuff, sell the oil, wash the barrel out real good and wear it. Maybe then he'll have enough. You don't get the barrel with the crude, just the crude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Caros posted:From the sound of it, this is going to push the DC case past November. Georgia could theoretically get to trial before then, though that is probably wishful thinking, and we all know Florida isn't going anywhere. Can't the 14th amendment case be re-filed to decide whether Trump is allowed to appear on the general election ballot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean the only ones i see signing off on agreeing with it is alito and thomas but even then it would mean a dem president could do whatever too. i could see roberts wanting to smother the bullshit in a court case so it has more offcial standing though. i dont see the GOP signing off on trumps "president has total immunity" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:27
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean the only ones i see signing off on agreeing with it is alito and thomas but even then it would mean a dem president could do whatever too. i could see roberts wanting to smother the bullshit in a court case so it has more offcial standing though. i dont see the GOP signing off on trumps "president has total immunity" bullshit. He's gonna get away with it OP
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Can't the 14th amendment case be re-filed to decide whether Trump is allowed to appear on the general election ballot? I mean they could. But in a 6-3 ruling...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:I mean they could. But in a 6-3 ruling... "In a 6-3 ruling, we find that REPUBLICAN presidents have full and total immunity for ALL actions they do, both as president and while running for office.  "
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:40
|
|
|
B B posted:This 6-3 ruling is gonna be amazing. At least Joe and the Democrats will be able to console themselves with the fact that they resisted the urge to politicize politicize the court maybe forever in a way that's not healthy, though. I'm not sure what you're saying, would it actually be "amazing" as in "good" or "aligns with my worldview" if it is a conservative 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump? Can you explain your reasoning? The second sentence also doesn't seem related to the first, I'm not sure what "Democrats" as a whole or Joe Biden has to do with the Supreme Court as there were no vacancies under a Democratic President while also having control of the Senate? By what method by "politicizing" the supreme court could Democrats have avoided a still entirely hypothetical outcome? I'm confused because you seem to suggest that such an outcome is good but also that Democrats should've done more to stop it, can you explain in detail?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Please let this be the start of the mattering Caros posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762961167167664586?t=_3Jr_K2IE536qusA-5Fiew&s=19 lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
There will plenty of LOLs during the oral arguments too
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not sure what you're saying, would it actually be "amazing" as in "good" or "aligns with my worldview" if it is a conservative 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump? Can you explain your reasoning?  Also there was talk of "packing the court" early on, where they would have expanded the court with x new justices which Dark Brandon would get to appoint all of, and he would clearly choose the leftest leftists ever, surely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean the only ones i see signing off on agreeing with it is alito and thomas but even then it would mean a dem president could do whatever too. i could see roberts wanting to smother the bullshit in a court case so it has more offcial standing though. i dont see the GOP signing off on trumps "president has total immunity" bullshit. Not if they don't issue a ruling until December.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:From the sound of it, this is going to push the DC case past November. This is an extremely good time to mute or block any political pundits (and to an extent even lawfolk) who are making similar statements without hedging. They either don't know enough to know why they're loving up but talking about it anyway or they do know better and are betting you don't. There's only one answer that can be delivered without any softening required: "Nobody knows". Chutkan has already repeatedly made clear that she will not postpone the trial to accommodate Trump's campaigning. That was in the context of a spring start and summer resolution, so she may feel differently about a verdict in October or early November. May. Or she won't. I'm aware of no legal guidelines or precedents mandating that all trials are suspended or postponed after a certain date provided the defendant is a sufficiently credible candidate for a sufficiently important office. Which should be pretty obvious but  at people taking anything related to this being obvious.This delay absolutely could be enough to push the trial past election day. That outcome is more likely than it was yesterday. Some intelligent people (including quoted below) that I do find credible think this makes an election day prior to resolution the most likely outcome. None of that is "going to" and remembering to express that uncertainty is important. Tayter Swift posted:Hm, let's see what the pundits say For the record, Ken's actual thoughts (which were available at the time of that post): quote:Anyway this does make it significantly more likely that Trump can run out the clock and get elected before he gets convicted in federal court. Not certain, but significantly more likely. This is an example of good and responsible punditry. As is the followup: quote:I’m also puzzling over whether the language “conduct alleged to involve official acts” is significant framing or limitation For whatever my nonlawknower opinion is worth, I lean towards the former. It would be unlike this (or most, frankly) courts to leave something like the distinction between official and potentially criminal up to Justice guidelines and policies. Worth even less than the prior statement: I'm betting on a ruling that rejects absolute immunity and imposes some standard for determining what acts are covered by immunity... whether on the ministerial framing discussed during oral arguments on appeal, something broader like Nixon's "outer perimeter", or even something Hatch-centric granting immunity to defendant-as-president but not defendant-as-candidate-while-president
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
Good News! New counsel from Oglaf! (timg'd for language)
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
So, Jean E Carrol must be happy to hear that. Her $88 million is going to come due sooner than NY states $454. Will she be able to get that money before the state fine comes due?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, doesn't that mean Biden can just start assassinating people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:If SCOTUS rules in favor of Trump, doesn't that mean Biden can just start assassinating people? I’m sure the USSC will pull a Bush v. Gore and say it only applies to this specific circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:50
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I think your post is overstating things. It's more likely than it was before, but "more likely" (or the stronger lone "likely") and "is going to" have a wide gulf between them. While nobody 'knows', one can certainly infer. The court is hearing this issue on April 22. The mean time for the court to decide cases in April is 55 days. Yes, they could do a Bush V. Gore, but given that their expedited review on this matter is already putting us into April, that seems really unlikely. Late May is probably possible though June might be more likely. Five months to finish all pre-trial prep and conduct a trial for a former president during election season? It is possible, but so unlikely that I'm confident in my belief that it isn't going to happen. If it does, great, I'm delighted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
Vire posted:While this would be hilarious I don't think this will be his issue. He wants to retain as much cash as possible so that's why he isn't paying because it would empty out every cent of cash he has plus an asset or two and even if he was lying about having 400 million in liquid cash on hand some how with an external appointed court monitor he will have enough plus his assets to cover the bill. There is no way he is that short even if they are overleveraged to gently caress and cause a cascading effect because he doesn't have collateral and or loses a lot of money to taxes. He might be short though. He never had vast amounts of properties. The stuff that he did have tend to be flashy stuff that was very overpaid for and he's sold off quite a bit. He still has property but it may not be half a billion worth especially at fire sale prices. Quite a bit of his stuff is pretty old and not up to modern standards -as obviously trumps to cheap to keep things up to scratch- so that's going to take down the price as well. Edit: the one thing that might get him cash is his truth social thing going public. It by all rights should be worth gently caress all, but sometime tech bro's are known for investing a bunch in worthless crap, and if a foreign country wanted to give trump a bunch of cash that seems like it would be a super easy way for them to do it. Of course I believe he can't sell off his shares for something like six months so that doesn't help him at all here. dr_rat fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:So, Jean E Carrol must be happy to hear that. Her $88 million is going to come due sooner than NY states $454. Will she be able to get that money before the state fine comes due? If the NY court approves the $100mm bond and she snags the money before he's able to post it and suddenly is $88mm short will be the most hilarious thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
Also I assume the reason NY makes you put the bond up front for an appeal is because they know how hard it is to get people to actually pay. As it is notoriously hard to get trump to pay for anything, it would seem stupid not get the money from him upfront. He's like one of the people that rule is specifically designed for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Why would it be harder to get someone to pay after they lose their appeal, than after they lose the initial judgment? I’m not following that part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:10
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Why would it be harder to get someone to pay after they lose their appeal, than after they lose the initial judgment? I’m not following that part. Because if they need to put up the money to appeal they have a reason to put up the money. They can't appeal without it. It's going to be all handled easily, no fuss. After they loose the appeal then the court has much less leverage. Sure in the end they can just seize properties and what not but that's a whole process and the person who lost is going to be doing there best to fight the process the whole time. Cops may need to be called, to take places, maybe need a locksmith to get in. Possible the person may just burn down a place rather than hand it over. When the person who lost is the one just giving it to you all in the first place it's just far, far easier. dr_rat fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Feb 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:17
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Because if they need to put up the money to appeal they have a reason to put up the money. They can't appeal without it. So what if the person doesn’t appeal? I didn’t think most cases qualified for appeal in the first place, but honestly I don’t even really know the details of my own country’s law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:19
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Because if they need to put up the money to appeal they have a reason to put up the money. They can't appeal without it. You can still appeal without putting up the money, paying up just freezes collection activity. It would be hosed up if you couldn't appeal because you couldn't afford to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:20
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So what if the person doesn’t appeal? I didn’t think most cases qualified for appeal in the first place, but honestly I don’t even really know the details of my own country’s law. Then you don't get that leverage and just hope the person isn't a massive rear end in a top hat and is going to compile with the courts. If they're not appealing that probably is a sign that they know they've lost and they're just going to go with the courts verdict.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:You can still appeal without putting up the money, paying up just freezes collection activity. It would be hosed up if you couldn't appeal because you couldn't afford to. But very American.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:21
|
|
|
BDawg posted:I’m sure the USSC will pull a Bush v. Gore and say it only applies to this specific circumstance. "In a 6-3 decision, the court finds that Trump is too dumb to know he doesn't have presidential immunity, therefore he does. Contrasted to this, Biden knows full well he doesn't have presidential immunity, so therefore he does not."
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:26
|
|
|
Ah, the 'ol Catch-22
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
small butter posted:Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case? Bush v. Gore was decided in less than a week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 02:47
|
|