this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
155 points (93.8% liked)

politics

19242 readers
2085 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nougat@kbin.social 42 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The meat:

“Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” he huffs. “This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay.”

Only problem with that is that it's not Plaintiff who is requiring a bond pending appeal. It is the United States of America.

[–] laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

What bullshit mental gymnastics of an argument. "I am above the law" is how it reads.

"I'm a great driver, so why are you giving me a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, officer?"

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I thought it was the state of New York, but whatever

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The E. Jean Carroll defamation case was in federal court.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It really is hard to keep track of all of his criminal trials.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Yes, but the E. Jean Carroll case was a civil trial.

In case anyone thought there was any aspect of the law Trump hasn't shit on.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Oh, shit! This article is about the cheap fine!?!?

Donny is in deep shit then.

(I don't think this one is a "fine", bit they other is and I don't know the right words.)

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The legal term for Engoron's ruling (New York state civil fraud judgment) is "undertaking." In the Carroll case (Kaplan, federal defamation), it's "damages," a large portion of which are punitive damages.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago
[–] KillerTofu@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago
[–] charles@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

You missed the other meat about judge Kaplan suffering no fools.