Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
The bond amount is token anyway. Fleeing the country would mean leaving behind orders of magnitude more assets that any bail they could reasonably set.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Sounds like he intends to challenge the RICO laws themselves

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Tbh I assumed that the prosecutor has some quiet deal with the governor and other important Georgia republicans that protects a few people with the right friends in exchange for their tacit protection.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Is there something I’m missing with the hearings about the DC case gag order? It seems like the actual objection is to the effect of the order on Trump’s political campaign. I feel like this idea that politicians (and possible other public figures?) benefit from a high standard of first amendment protection is a pretty dangerous one, given how many outright con men run for office to protect themselves already.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Sorry what is the theory that this is harmful to the defendant? Like, assuming that she did nepotistically bring in an under qualified prosecutor then that’s bad for her office and for justice in general but it outright benefits the defense.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
The filing won’t pull up for me, what is trump requesting here? More time or a waiver for the bond?

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

snorch posted:

Calling it now, he rejected it because he was butthurt by their insultingly low valuations.

And/or they wanted a really iniquitous amount of collateral because they know they have Trump over a barrel.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Yeah I don’t see why some corrupt actor would take this as collateral but not some overvalued properties?

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Jeffery of YassPos??

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Yeah the judge and Bragg are free game because they’re public figures. They’re specifically left out of the gag order.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
The Mueller She Wrote people are obnoxious grifters, don't listen to them.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

Pillowpants posted:

You mean the meidas touch people right? MSW seems pretty decent to me.

They were founded on pretending to have secret anonymous insider information, and continue to misrepresent or exaggerate actual news for attention.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

*can* he sell without board permission, or is it just a federal crime to sell without such permission?

My understanding is that he outright can't unless he gets the board in on it or somehow tricks the DTCC. Like if he tries to transfer the shares they'll basically go "uh, says here that these shares aren't allowed to change hands, do you have proof of permission?"

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
It would be subject to gift tax if the loan is obviously noneconomical but like, I don't think this dude is just giving Trump 175 mil. It probably IS a loan, probably just on favorable terms in terms of interest and timeframe.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Hot tip for doubling your time to find a bond: file an obviously fake one first! Courts hate it!

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Wouldn’t be the first idiot to fling themselves onto a grenade for Trump in exchange for gratitude that will not be forthcoming.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

Randalor posted:

Could he use them as the collateral for the bond? I mean that as an honest question.

He’s specifically prevented from doing so by the same clause that prevents him from selling.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
The question is how will the court respond? Because they they just wag their finger and say “submit a new bond within 10 days” then this is unambiguously a win for Trump: he’ll have scammed himself and extra month to get things in order.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

Xiahou Dun posted:

The whole point of the bond is that it delayed getting his poo poo taken until he appeals in September. (Or whenever).

By what possible metric is this a delay?

It's delaying enforcement if he can't get a real bond.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Trump also has a tendency to run off competent lawyers by trying to get them to risk their careers for him.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Lol I’ve been called for jury duty roughly annually for the last seven years, been dismissed during jury selection thrice, and served once. It’s obnoxious.

I was called once prior to that but these last seven years I’ve been on the quick list or something.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
The list of secret famous goons is highly confidential information known only to Jeff and a few other select admins.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

Nitrousoxide posted:

Yeah, I don't get why you'd use a bond company at that point. It makes some sense when you're securing the bond with otherwise non-liquid assets. But using fully liquid assets to secure a bond just means you're paying extra for no reason.

I guess the real reason is that Trump intended to stiff the government and bond company by transferring out the funds at the last second when they came due, which he can't now.

Yeah the answer is "so he could play stupid games with the money".

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

John Yossarian posted:

Do think Trump will be found gulity for the Stormy Daniels trial? I know being found guilty won't change anything for the chuds, but I hope people still on the fence will wake and vote for Biden this November.

Way too early to know for sure. Depends on how much doubt Trump's legal team can generate.

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Who will rid me of this turbulent poster?

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012

Deteriorata posted:

They're deep into "the ends justify the means" rationalization.

Nah they’re just fascists and don’t care. Evangelicals have been reactionaries playacting at religious revival for a century and a half

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

fool of sound
Oct 10, 2012
Yeah there's no reasonable way to regulate public figures opining on a trial being covered in the media. Unless like, they catch Trump coercing/bribing them to do it. It's not even a socioeconomic or overly-permissive American free speech jurisprudence issue.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply