this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2024
423 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19102 readers
4341 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The former president is now highly unlikely to stand trial in the Justice Department's election interference case before November

The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president. The court will hear arguments on April 22 and won’t hand down a decision until June — which means it’s unlikely a trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case will commence before the election. If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

By Wednesday night, Trumpland was celebrating.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] protist@mander.xyz 63 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Of note, this has nothing to do with the $450,000,000 and $83,000,000 bonds he needs to put up very soon

[–] pezhore@lemmy.ml 42 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It doesn't matter. He can hold off on liquidation until November and if he wins, (which would mean there's a strong chance the Senate flips), have his cronies pass a, " lol god emperors don't pay for summary judgements" bill.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 39 points 8 months ago (3 children)

No he can't. The Special Monitor overseeing his assets and watching his books has the authority to start seizing assets until he's satisfied the monetary requirements to appeal, and she can do that right now. And, there's interest running on the meter until he does.

He's gonna pay whether he likes it or not.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yes he can. Unfortunately. We all get to watch this birth of a dictator unfold in slow motion if Trump wins.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

How? Given the powers that the Special Monitor has, how could he possibly avoid paying?

RNC certainly doesn't seem like a likely option right now, and nobody else has ponied up the money.

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

and she can do that right now.

If she hasn't, then she won't. We all know what could and should happen, and we all know none of it has.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago

And you got your law degree from where, exactly?

[–] homesnatch@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

She can do that until March 25th, and she will act as soon as she is able to.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

okay what has he seized so far? Trump's already stated he's not paying that amount

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what she has seized. But that doesn't mean she hasn't or won't. It just means we don't know.

But it doesn't matter what Trump has said publicly, because he's obligated to pay, and it's not just up to him or his accountants whether he does.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're operating under the reasonable logic of how this is supposed to work. But nothings gone how it's supposed to work for Trump. He's had a decade of very public crime and been found guilty in several different ways, but has so far not had any consequences enforced. guilty of rape, tax fraud, defamation, campaign finance violations, and bribery, and so far not a penny, much less jail time.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I would argue that the two NY cases have gone exactly as you'd expect. Nothing has happened in them that was particularly unusual. Typical rape case + defamation and a corporate fraud case. All already with judgments.

And as far as collections go, it's not like buying groceries. He doesn't have to pay the full amount all at once (and probably can't). He does have to front the money if he wants to appeal, though, and all he's done is file for one. They won't take it up until he's paid up.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes. The facts and conduct of the trial were typical, ordinary. I was not saying that rape is typical.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How many rape cases have you heard of involving no jail time?

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

How many rape cases have you heard of that get special, one-time grace periods to revisit 30 years later?

ETA: this was not a criminal rape trial, it was a civil one. Jail time was never an option.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

He wouldn't even need to do that. He would just need to sell a few of those Top Secret documents to MBS, and all of a sudden the Trump Org has another 2 billion worth of business in Saudi Arabia

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 2 points 8 months ago

This judgment has far more frightening implications, if the president is above the law.