|
He's not even immune to the consequences. He still has to deal with them. People are acting like this is a reduction in the judgement, and not the bond to allow a stay on the judgement while appeals (which are not going to take particularly long) go through. Yeah it sucks that he might be able to pay the bond and thus not lose everything he owns instantly, but that means he's out even more money when he loses on appeal.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Kchama posted:He's not even immune to the consequences. He still has to deal with them. People are acting like this is a reduction in the judgement, and not the bond to allow a stay on the judgement while appeals (which are not going to take particularly long) go through. Yeah it sucks that he might be able to pay the bond and thus not lose everything he owns instantly, but that means he's out even more money when he loses on appeal. To be honest I'm not sure he doesn't believe this isn't a reduction of the actual judgement given his statements and posts for the last year or two. Guy's disappeared up his own rear end on remembering the difference between spin and reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:snip Source that quote please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 04:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You're familiar with the quote about how if the penalty for something is a fine, then that penalty only exists for those who can't pay it? That is a hyperbolic argument, to the extent you’re suggesting a 5% chance (“nat 1”) of a charged rich person losing at trial, and the incentives for prosecutors to outgun a real celebrity’s legal team are significant and we can see them at play in those cases. If you’re talking anecdotes, for every OJ I can show you a Martha Stewart. Most of the rich rear end in a top hat white collar crime stuff depends on not being caught in the first place, not “I’ll get Dershowitz and beat the charge.” I’ll grant you that there’s not much that the US system will do about Justin Bieber speeding. That’s bad of course but it’s at least fixable in that we could easily adopt a Finnish model and scale the fine to the offender’s wealth. One of the easiest things out sclerotic political system could fix but yes it’s damning that we don’t. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Mar 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
You could also scale fines to ability to pay, like they do in some parts of Europe Like, I remember reading about how Jeff Bezos destroyed traffic for years in his neighborhood while doing some construction project because even though the cops issued 500+ tickets it was just pocket change. Whereas if the tickets were a million a pop, he might stop parking dump trucks on his street all the time
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 05:02
|
|
|
Kchama posted:He's not even immune to the consequences. He still has to deal with them. People are acting like this is a reduction in the judgement, and not the bond to allow a stay on the judgement while appeals (which are not going to take particularly long) go through. Yeah it sucks that he might be able to pay the bond and thus not lose everything he owns instantly, but that means he's out even more money when he loses on appeal. Its not the amount reduced, its that he was granted this waiver in the first place because Hieronymous Alloy posted:Exactly. There's no legal reason cited in the opinion for giving trump this waiver, because nobody else ever gets such a waiver, regardless of how annoying their conviction might be for them. Donny keeps getting special privileges no one else gets because ??? He's not even rich
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 05:50
|
|
|
This has been an interesting conversation, and made me reflect about some research on different interventions that we can do to reduce crime. This is a little off-topic but law enforcement is just one strategy we can use to reduce crime. You can also start afterschool programs, build collective efficacy in neighborhoods, promote legit economic opportunities, etc. All these strategies are pretty effective and give you at least some bang for your buck, reducing crime and making neighborhood safer. Hilariously one very expensive intervention you can do that has zero effect on crime is increased policing. The fact that these law enforcement interventions don't change the behavior of high-power individuals who can afford to throw lots of money at the system isn't surprising, of course. Whats really surprising though is even for people with no money our system often fails to provide deterrent effects for those that we would most want to deter. Prison is seen as horrible by law-abiding citizens, so the deterrent effect for them is very real. But of course, we don't really need to deter people who weren't going to commit crimes anyway. But ask the people who are most likely to commit crimes - your hard-core gangsters, people who rob drug dealers- and they will say prison is really not that bad. A bit boring maybe and without some of the pleasures that you get on the outside, but largely tolerable and not something you really need to take any effort to actively avoid. Give them the option to do a six-month treatment program, followed by release or else face a solid two years inside and a great majority will choose to do the time. Because the treatment program involves work, accountability, activities, thinking and talking. It's a major drag. The fact that they don't see it as worth it to avoid the prison sentence tells us a lot about how scared they are of prison or how awful it will be. So prison is not really a deterrent for the people we most want to deter. But it sure as hell is for your average person. put a low level drug dealer or user in prison and watch their life crumble. In the final ironic twist, these people then leave prison with greater antisocial tendencies than when they went in because they learn from the hard-core offenders who are hanging out, enjoying their sentence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 05:52
|
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:I'm expecting a Blues Brothers situation, but with more Nazis. It’s the hit tv show blues clues but all the paw prints are cleverly placed swastiskas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 11:08
|
|
|
Shifting gears a bit from our justice system... - The now publicly traded Trump Media & Technology Group begins trading today under ticker symbol DJT. - On paper at least, Trump's stake is worth somewhere around ~$5 billion, this will change rapidly as the stock price bounces around, he can also be awarded additional shares if certain performance targets are met (lol). - Currently, he cannot sell any shares for 6 months under a so called 'lock-up period'. BUT, the board of the company can agree to release him from the lock-up period. The board is made up of Trump loyalists including Donald Jr., Devin Nunes (who will also be CEO), and other greatest hits from his administration. - If they do release him from the lock-up, there's a good chance that will tank the stock (especially if he tries dumping shares quickly), this could invite lawsuits from other shareholders who would contend the board was not acting in the interests of shareholders other than Trump. This could lead to injunctions and other fun stuff. - Speaking of lawsuits, since this is Trump, there is already a lawsuit involved which basically boils down to the grifters who concocted this scheme fighting over their share of the money because their grift was far more successful than anyone could imagine. - By every reasonable metric, DJT (the stock) should be worth very little. Truth Social loses money, though it will get a $275 million injection from going public, which will keep it in business for a little while yet. Ultimately its share price will depend on its status as a meme stock, and whether Donald can/does dump his shares. This all would've been far more interesting/funny if the New York Court of Appeals hadn't reduced the bond. Trump would've been potentially more desperate for cash. As is, I am looking forward to seeing how everyone involved balances their loyalty to Trump with their natural inclination to grift. There are likely to be moments here when those two forces are in opposition to one another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 11:24
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Source that quote please. It's Reinhold Niebuhr
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 11:28
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Then why have a justice system at all? If fines are only a deterent to those who can't afford them, and incareration doesn't work because the threat isn't real, then why not say "once you hit $x you get the DLC that makes you immune from all consequences and we won't even bother trying to stop you"? I know everyone's going to come in here and say that's how it is already, but I'm saying why bother with performance theater? That's basically where I am, yes, for these and other reasons. I don't use the term "justice system" any more, I prefer the term "legal system". It does still serve the purpose of discouraging vigilantism, and most offenders aren't infinitely wealthy so many are convicted. yronic heroism posted:That is a hyperbolic argument, to the extent you’re suggesting a 5% chance (“nat 1”) of a charged rich person losing at trial, and the incentives for prosecutors to outgun a real celebrity’s legal team are significant and we can see them at play in those cases. If you’re talking anecdotes, for every OJ I can show you a Martha Stewart. Most of the rich rear end in a top hat white collar crime stuff depends on not being caught in the first place, not “I’ll get Dershowitz and beat the charge.” I’ll grant you that there’s not much that the US system will do about Justin Bieber speeding. That’s bad of course but it’s at least fixable in that we could easily adopt a Finnish model and scale the fine to the offender’s wealth. One of the easiest things out sclerotic political system could fix but yes it’s damning that we don’t. Sure, nobody wants to be or plans on being on trial, and yeah, the actual odds of a meaningful conviction for something are not as low as 5% -- assuming fully competent, fully resourced legal teams on both sides any given case is probably somewhere around a 33% chance of conviction, at a rough guess, with most of the prosecution's disadvantage lying in the odds that the cops probably hosed up the case somewhere in a way that will help the defendant (e.g., Mark Fuhrman). If someone does lots of crimes their odds of getting convicted for something can start to approach certainty even if they are very wealthy (e.g., Bill Cosby). Most crime committed by rich people is functionally different kinds of speeding ticket for them, though. How often are corporations assessed fines smaller than the profit they made from the crime(s)? (My more substantive critique of the legal system is that I don't really believe that the human brain is responsible enough for making the choices it makes that a punishment model makes any sense; functionally speaking we're all incompetent to stand trial. The Clean Air Act did more to reduce crime, by banning leaded gasoline, than any crime bill ever has. If that's the case, and it is, how can we continue to justify or defend the notion that people are responsible for their actions to the point that imposing decades of incarceration can be just? We can't. But that's a side topic, separate to the question of whether the system as we have it can function, even theoretically, under capitalism) Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Mar 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 11:37
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Its not the amount reduced, its that he was granted this waiver in the first place because People get it reduced all the time. It's not a special privilege for Trump. Like, it's very common for bail/bonds to get reduced because the accused obviously can't pay it. Pretending that this is a special thing that has only been done for Trump or rich people is extremely silly. I mean the really funny part is that it is proof that he really is out of liquid funds. He had to prove he couldn't afford 500m, and instead could only afford 150m (if that). Kchama fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Mar 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 11:45
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:It's Reinhold Niebuhr Specifically this one https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo12091283.html "The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defense"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 11:54
|
|
|
Kchama posted:People get it reduced all the time. It's not a special privilege for Trump. Like, it's very common for bail/bonds to get reduced because the accused obviously can't pay it. Pretending that this is a special thing that has only been done for Trump or rich people is extremely silly. It's important here to distinguish between pretrial bonds and appeal bonds. Getting a criminal pretrial bind reduced is pretty common, yes. Getting an appeal bond reduced is not. Going by the arguments posted above it appears Trump's situation doesn't meet the standard for it either (as he's facing only a monetary penalty which NY black letter precedent says is never irreparable harm). Again, the red flag here is that the appellate court granting Trump clemency here didn't show their work and explain the legal reasoning behind their ruling. They just flopped out their dick onto the table like a gavel and ruled. If they had a justifiable rationale other than "tromp" they would have stated it. They didn't forget.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 12:55
|
|
|
Does this appellate court usually show their work? Think there’s a tendency here to make assumption about how things should work and assume that since it didn’t work like that, something is unusual. Like I saw Popehat linked to this on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mitchellepner.bsky.social/post/3kojsawd7jk2l quote:Yes. Decisions on motions are almost NEVER accompanied with a reasoned decision. smackfu fucked around with this message at 13:19 on Mar 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 13:09
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Does this appellate court usually show their work? Think there’s a tendency here to make assumption about how things should work and assume that since it didn’t work like that, something is unusual.  in my state and my practice that isn't true, there's always *something* justifying the decision, even if it's a one-line cite. I'll defer to the people who practice in that court I guess but seems pretty dumb if that's the standard practice. edit: yeah it's true that often there won't be a full opinion but there's always *something*, a line or two justifying the decision with citations. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Mar 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
Even if it's not normal to "show their work", this is pretty far from a normal situation. They have to know the kind of heat they're going to get in something this high profile. Even from just a purely cover-your-rear end point of view, if there was something they could hold up to deflect criticism I imagine they would want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 14:18
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Even if it's not normal to "show their work", this is pretty far from a normal situation. They have to know the kind of heat they're going to get in something this high profile. Even from just a purely cover-your-rear end point of view, if there was something they could hold up to deflect criticism I imagine they would want to. From that bsky thread it sounds like the new York appellate court just never shows their work if they can avoid it. Which seems like systematic judicial cowardice but again that's not evidence of corruption in this particular case then
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 14:20
|
|
|
If a pollster can claim that pursing TRump for his crimes will be a 'slam dunk' for his re-election, I want to see the polling of the rest of us who are just...sick of his poo poo, from the endless effluvia of his tweets to the appearance* of coddling by the courts and other public institutions of law. *I'm being diplomatic here
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 14:22
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Source that quote please. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defenders
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 14:25
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Specifically this one https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo12091283.html TY all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:
This is why people are mad. This is not a consideration 99% of the time. Whether someone, even pre trial, is going to lose their job because they can’t make bail doesn’t matter. And that will have a much larger impact on their life than Trump losing some buildings. Why does it matter for the ultra rich only?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:From that bsky thread it sounds like the new York appellate court just never shows their work if they can avoid it. Which seems like systematic judicial cowardice but again There’s a whole other conversation to be had on regulating judicial behavior. It’s pretty clear that judges have imagined themselves to be beyond standardization of practice. There is no reason for each courtroom to be a special snowflake of unique practices. Things like “showing your work” and when and where to apply certain rules or analysis techniques can absolutely be mandated and enforced even with “for life” positions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:39
|
|
|
I regret to inform you that $DJT is currently 40% over its opening price. Will it hold, who knows, but any hopes of it immediately cratering will have to wait until the market stops being irrational (lol).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:This is why people are mad. This is not a consideration 99% of the time. Whether someone, even pre trial, is going to lose their job because they can’t make bail doesn’t matter. And that will have a much larger impact on their life than Trump losing some buildings. Why does it matter for the ultra rich only? Oh, agreed, the use of bail is evil for non-violent offenses. Likewise the whole bail bond industry. This is a civil case, so comparing civil and criminal cases is just going to confuse things. As the NY Bar Association guide says, the court could have set the undertaking (the supersedeas bond) to a lower amount. Trump apparently couldn't get anyone to issue a bond, and while he's a piece of poo poo, the court accepted that he simply couldn't come up with half a billion dollars. Since even pieces of poo poo have rights, the court reasonably came up with a lower bond amount that's still huge and that Trump can meet. Sorry, angry crew, $175M is still a fuckton of scratch. And the point is, if he loses, his assets will still be right there to seize. Not like 40 Wall Street can flee to Venezuela. I mean I assume he's going to lose on appeal, so the end is basically the same. Forcing him to fire-sale assets he'll never get back actually is irreparable harm. Forcing him to put up money isn't the issue - it's the fire-sale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/billionaires-sought-help-fund-trump-bond-civil-fraud-case-sources-say-2024-03-26/ why'd they bother lowering the bond, his mates were going to help pay it anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:46
|
|
|
dpkg chopra posted:I regret to inform you that $DJT is currently 40% over its opening price. As soon as we hear news that trump is going to get a waiver and be able to sell his shares early all hell will break loose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
cr0y posted:As soon as we hear news that trump is going to get a waiver and be able to sell his shares early all hell will break loose. But who could turn down the opportunity to buy shares directly from the man himself?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:05
|
|
|
Oil! posted:But who could turn down the opportunity to buy shares directly from the man himself? The funniest part is the people on the board who can let him sell early also likely have substantial holdings and they are all Trump loyalists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:10
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:This is why people are mad. This is not a consideration 99% of the time. Whether someone, even pre trial, is going to lose their job because they can’t make bail doesn’t matter. And that will have a much larger impact on their life than Trump losing some buildings. Why does it matter for the ultra rich only? This varies wildly court by court but I used to work with public defenders and quite often judges would take these kind of things into consideration. You just don't hear about every time someone's bail is reduced so they don't lose their job at Wal-Mart, it should be way more codified and not up to whatever whims of the judge but it certainly does happen often enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:This varies wildly court by court but I used to work with public defenders and quite often judges would take these kind of things into consideration. You just don't hear about every time someone's bail is reduced so they don't lose their job at Wal-Mart, it should be way more codified and not up to whatever whims of the judge but it certainly does happen often enough. I mean, it does, but also it often doesn't. I've seen bail denied in cases where people were seeking bail so they could get cancer treatment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, it does, but also it often doesn't. I've seen bail denied in cases where people were seeking bail so they could get cancer treatment. Yeah its random and it shouldn't be but its not some magical thing that only happens to rich like people are pretending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
dpkg chopra posted:I regret to inform you that $DJT is currently 40% over its opening price. The volume of trades looks pretty small. A few thousand shares trading hands isn’t a real valuation. It’s just speculation. When someone tries to move a million shares all at once is when you would see price collapse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
I think the less funny outcome is that the stock will essentially become a proxy for Trump’s reelection chances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
Finally, PredictIt has merged with the actual stock market
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
We’re going to see a novel new case in a few years to determine if stock manipulation to drive the price higher by big players counts as an in-kind campaign donation or not. So we got that going for us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
selec posted:We’re going to see a novel new case in a few years to determine if stock manipulation to drive the price higher by big players counts as an in-kind campaign donation or not. So we got that going for us. https://images.app.goo.gl/vmTrg9UtdKHFAeMC6
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
dpkg chopra posted:I regret to inform you that $DJT is currently 40% over its opening price. On Friday I thought "you can't just take the price of a stock today, issue five times the number of outstanding shares tomorrow, and expect the price to stay the same", and I guess I was right in a very monkey's-paw kind of way. $DJT's current price gives an implied market cap of almost $10 billion, which is similar to Duolingo and American Airlines, and ~1 billion less than Reddit. (those other three companies all have revenues that are between 130x and 13,000x that of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., because TM&TG is basically a company that has no underlying business. the only thing within it that resembles a "business" is a lovely website with no users and no revenue that is absolutely nowhere near any semblance of profitability whatsoever. none a that poo poo matters because this is basically a Trump cryptocurrency but on the real markets.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean everyone except for the most insane true believers knows this stock is a zero in the long run. But, it's too attractive of a target, and sucks in people to trade purely adversarial to other traders. You know the old forum rule, "don't touch the poop?" That's basically how it goes with this stuff. We all know it's poop, but, unless someone has poop-handling expertise in capital markets, they're likely to just end up getting their hands gross.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Oh, so it's crypto.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 19:17
|
|
