All things related to Donald Trump's ever-growing legal woes

He never should have been charges in the first place. A consumer protection law was used that has no business in real-estate. The fines are based in consumer protection cases by the amount the individual was injured. In Trumps case there was no injured party. So zero times any amount is still zero. The Democratic party is more akin to elections in Russia. What's happening in the US today is what happens in Russia. The Democratic party is no longer an American political party they will do anything to destroy the US to stay in power, and they say Trump is a threat to democracy, when they are in all actually destroying democracy.

@JimB: *beep* *bop* *bee*! FALSITIES & LIES! *bee* *beep*!

@JimB: You keep repeating "consumer protection law" as if it's a bad thing. It's a broad regulatory power designed to make it easy to prosecute clear-cut examples of widespread fraud by major companies - which, hey, worked really well here.

It was calculated based on the savings he made through his fraud - essentially putting him back in the position he was in before he used false financial statements to deceive banks and insurance companies. I'm not sure why that sounds unfair to you.

If you think the law has been misapplied, then awesome, really easy to appeal the decision and get it overturned. It won't be, but it's nice for you to hold out hope.

As for your rant about Russia, seriously...Trump literally hung out with Putin ally and fellow dictator Victor Orban earlier this month.

Trump's NSA advisor was convicted for his ties to Russian intelligence agencies. Trump's son-in-law had repeated meetings with Russian bankers and ambassadors. Multiple of Trump's campaign managers have admitted to having close ties to Russian intelligence agents, and at lease one was convicted of being an unregistered foreign agent.

Trump has openly supported Putin's political beliefs and their invasion of Ukraine. Conservative media frequently parrots Russian state propaganda.

As you said, "What's happening in the US today is what happens in Russia."

At what point do you stop and realise that maybe, just maybe, there's a couple of hints that your side is the main one causing that?

Your answer is why the US is in such bad shape right now. You can't be honest with yourself. What lies did I post?

I Russia there is no one election ballots but Putin. That is what Biden is attempting. He is doing everything he can to keep everyone else of the ballot but him. He won't even give secret service protection to Robert Kennedy, and is doing everything he can do to keep him off the ballot. There is and old saying keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It because of the weakness of Biden that Russia invaded the Ukraine and the Chinese are threating Twain. Biden took the sanctions off Iran and gave them their money and as a result Iran funded HAMAs and The Hudie's that are attacking shipping in the Red Sea. Biden doesn't keep our enemies close he just takes money from them though Hunter.

@JimB: You use a bizarre mirror argument where you project the evils, actions & qualities of your side onto the side you oppose. And Trump is somehow the victim. Poor Trump. Aww, little baby, hush. Except he's not little because he's done "great things". Wait, that must make him a great big baby. Shhhh...

Agree Jim

Trump 2024

Biden didn't create secret services regulations. They actually exist. Russia invaded Ukraine because they wanted to do so. Period. Putin wants to recoup the countries lost after the collapse of the cold war. Trump also took Russia's side in the invasion. No way he stops the invasion. Putin was merely waiting for Trump to weaken NATO. After Trump was ousted by Americans with common sense, Putin put his plan into action. Iran did NOT get their money. It's in a Qatar bank and has to be used ONLY for humanitarian efforts and has to be approved.

What rule is that?

When Ross Perou ran in the 1992 presential race he was afforded Secret Service protection. Had Biden been a strong president Russia would not have invaded Ukraine. After the Afghanistan pull out fiasco which proved how inept Biden is, was a green light for Russia, Chiina and North Kroea to do what ever they want. Biden is too old and seniel to stand trial he is too seniel to be president. Our enemies know this. Trump didn't weaken Nato, he wants then to pay their funding conmmient. After the Ukraine war is over who do you think is going to get stuck rebuilding Ukraine, the US.

@JimB: Forgetting that Trump encouraged Putin to invade different countries in Europe recently?

There are federal requirements for who gets the protection and it's not the call of any president. Putin wants trump in office because he can get whatever he wants. That's why Russia spreads misinformation on social media. Trump was laughed at by leaders of other countries. The US was not respected. Authoritarians control Trump.

If you want to talk about mental competence then you certainly CANNOT be advocating for Trump. He doesn't even know who the president is.

There is no funding requirement to be in NATO. The funding you are talking about is spending a determined percentage of their GDP on their own military.

US helps out many countries. Also NATO would help rebuild Ukraine. It's like Trump's base knows nothing about geopolitics but gobbles up partisan soundbites.

Do better Jim.

In this particular case the full amount of the judgment has to be there for an appeal. It's the law Steveo.

What law is that?

If I have to tell you how the law works then I'm disappointed dude.

I'm conflicted about the decision to reduce Trump's bond.

I can't find a copy of the decision of the Appellate Division (maybe they just haven't published it yet), so I don't know why they decided to reduce it.

Still, access to justice is important. If Trump has demonstrated genuine attempts to raise the funds without selling his properties, then perhaps it makes sense to allow the appeal for the lower amount. He shouldn't be punished for making an appeal - and hey, if he loses the appeal, he still pays the full amount plus interest.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced Trump has made genuine attempts to raise the money. He gloated the other day that he had the money and he simply didn't want to pay it. On that basis alone, there shouldn't have been any modification to the bond.

So yes, it'll be very interesting to read the decision when it's published.

You said he played by different rules... then didn't detail what rules... you then deflected to "the law" ... and then didn't detail which law? Did the court violate state or federal law by their court order related to the appeal?

My bad. I thought you read the posts.

seems you're being a little pedantic here...

i doubt the judge violated the law when he gave trump extra time to hand in his homework and lowered the bar for a passing grade. i'm sure the law allows for the court to make decisions like these. the whole argument of a tiered justice system is not that there's literally a second set of laws on the books that you can look up. it's the application of laws.

you know if it was some clown that got hit with a $50K judgement and wasn't able to secure a bond in time that 98% of the time the judge's response would be "sorry about that, but the law is the law, lets empty those bank accounts and sell your property to cover the appeal bond, oh, and you also owe an extra $8K in interest!"

Yes we already know.

@comp_atkins: For what it's worth, there are a few big practical differences between securing $50K for a bond and securing $450 million for a bond. The latter might actually be impossible for Trunp to do - especially when he has been found guilty of fraud, he probably doesn't own much property, he is infamous for never paying his bills, and his prospects of a successful appeal are extremely low.

You have to give him a realistic chance to appeal it, and it's bad form to say "your crimes are too big so you can't afford to appeal" - that just gives Trump more ammunition to pretend the courts are corrupt.

So hey, *maybe* that's the reason the courts modified the standard civil procedure rules this time. I can't see any actual reasons posted, so it's basically either an access to justice argument, or it's simple favouritism by the courts.

I still think it's the wrong decision. Trump was begging for mercy on paper, but he was mocking the courts online, and I think that should have tanked any chance of a good outcome for him.

On the bright side, his track record suggests he'll lose the appeal, and the judgement still stands at $450+ million, so these delays could simply mean that he can lose the next election and then have all of his properties sold off at roughly the same time.

@Planeforger: I don't think people particularly care WHY people like Trump get special accomodations in the legal system, just that they do.

can he post DJT stock as collateral? don't know.

iirc his argument against a fire sale to satisfy the bond was that he'd would suffer "irreparable damage" if forced to liquidate a property potentially at a steep discount. Should the amount be reduced on appeal, it's not like the property would simply be returned. Which I get as a valid argument, but again, if a "regular joe" had their investment property ( using investment property here because iirc the law is different for trying to seize a primary residence ) seized by the court and the judgement is reversed on appeal, that person is also out of luck.

I mean, there's always the possibility of not committing fraud in the first place?

but sounds like fraud is a feature, not a bug with these people....

I did hence why I asked you questions on said posts. For example, did the appeals court violate state or federal law by their court order?

Sometimes getting your usual forumites to exercise any form of critical analysis is like expecting my toddler son not to throw food on the ground. I still try to get him to understand and hope for the best but I still know he's going to do it.

98% seems rather arbitrary, but I'm sure an analyst can dive into and review civil judgements which make it to the appeals court for the state. I couldn't even begin to give an estimate on the succuss rates relative to the "financial worth" of the defendant though. Of course, one of the benefits of seeing through appeals is viability of resources and time, a definite strain on the less fortunate without pro-bono assistance.

I did a quick Google search and found this review blog that's nearly a decade old. I didn't vet the author though, but did highlight an interesting bit for our discussion relative to the Appellate Division which dealt with Trump." Dispositions of civil cases over the period of 2011 to 2013 have been between 50 and 51 percent for affirmances, 15 and 16 percent for reversals, and 11 and 13 percent for modifications." Link. I believe this appeal will be akin to a modification for now. Almost 1/3 of all cases are reversed or modified though, that's a decent chunk if those stats are accurate.

Edit: Axios has the brief order download link in their article here,

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/25/trump-bond-new-york-civil-fraud-trial

@Stevo_the_gamer: The odds look worse if you've read any correspondence from Trump's lawyers about his case, or any descriptions of his lawyers' conduct during the trial, or Trump's own statements about the case.

We don't know on what grounds they'll appeal the case, but team Trump's closing statements were mess of completely ignoring instructions from the judge, introducing new untested arguments, and making personal attacks and irrelevant campaign speeches. None of this helped Trump's case, and if anything, they harmed Trump because the judge specifically warned them beforehand to not do any of those things.

Given how weak and chaotic their arguments were at trial, I wouldn't put money on Trump's lawyers coming up with some brilliant arguments on appeal. Even if they somehow did, I have no confidence they'd be able to rein in their client enough to not sabotage their own appeal.

Keep in mind that one of Trump's main lawyers (who was sanctioned by the courts for making repeated, frivilous arguments) is someone who writes formal emails to the courts entirely in lower-case. It's a small thing, but the legal profession loves style and formality, so his shoddy emails are an immediate red flag and a blunder that you wouldn't expect to see in a high-stakes fraud trial.

The US will have to provide the lions share for the rebuilding of Ukraine like we have to do for every thing else, Nato, the UN or anyother world problem. Maybe you should take a look at the balance sheet on who pays what.

Bernie Madoff bilked millions of people out of several billion dollars and his bond was ten million dollars. Trump cheated no one, no one lost money and his bond was four hunderd and seventy-five million. There is only one explaination it was political. Also the bond amount violates the eight ammendment of the constitution, of course whe do the Democrats ever abide by the constitution.

@JimB: "Trump cheated no one..."

lmao, even Trump would feel offended by that statement. The dude makes a living out of cheating everyone and their mothers.

Jim, you're the last person I'd go to for facts.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Clearly the discussion was trump's appeal being reduced which would not happen with average people. Hence, the special treatment. It's not my fault you don't exercise that critical thinking you're talking about.

Madoff's was charged in criminal court, not a civil suit. It's not the same thing at all. His bond wasn't money held after a judgement was rendered while the case made its way through appeal. Entirely different circumstances.

bond amount is entirely constitutional given trump's net worth.

@comp_atkins: Also went to prison for 150 years

Trump 2024

What would qualify as "average people" and why aren't appeals granted to these "average people?"

You know exactly what that means.

So again, you said Trump played by different rules... then didn't detail what rules... you then deflected to "the law" ... and then didn't detail which law... you sidestepped whether the court violated state or federal law by their court order related to the appeal... and now you can't even define what's "average people" and can't explain why "average people" can't receive appeals?

Can you address anything at this point?

Edit: Clearly not.

@sargentd said:

Trump 2024

Speaking as someone who was around 20 years ago, you're a far right extremist.

@MacaroniMoses said:

@sargentd said:

Trump 2024

Speaking as someone who was around 20 years ago, you're a far right extremist.

How so?

@sargentd: 20 years ago was the Bush Jnr era. Republicans today are *vastly* more radical and far right than they were back then.

To quote Bush about the current state of US politics:

"In the weeks and months following the 9/11 attacks, I was proud to lead an amazing, resilient, united people. When it comes to the unity of America, those days seem distant from our own. A malign force seems at work in our common life that turns every disagreement into an argument, and every argument into a clash of cultures. So much of our politics has become a naked appeal to anger, fear and resentment. That leaves us worried about our nation and our future together."

When the figurehead of the Republican party 20 years ago is saying politics today is too focused on hatred and division, and when the figurehead of the Republican party today's entire policy platform is "**** the Democrats", it's pretty clear that US conservatives have shifted far, far right.

*edit* Sorry, to be fair to the GOP, their platform also includes "**** women's reproductive rights", "**** the LGBTQ+ community", "**** anyone of other religions", and "let Putin do whatever the hell he wants". I think that's a fair assessment pf the MAGA platform.

After 9/11 the entire country was United but it was for War with the middle east after we watched people jump to thier deaths from burning sky scrapers in NYC.

Let's not be revisionists and act like Bush Jr was this big "uniter". The circumstances at the time united dems and repubs because both sides wanted justice for the attack.

Then we got dragged into a 20 year long conflict that had nothing to do with 9/11 so the joke was on us Americans!!!

Democrats are weaponizing the DoJ to stop thier political opponents from being able to run. They are trying to remove their opponent from even appearing on the ballot. The democrat party has become a giant hypocrit calling for "saving democracy" while actively trying to destroy it.

BS. Falling for trump lies magas are. He's running. No one stopping him. But there is also evidence of criminal behavior and corruption from trump. He's not above the law.

It's clear as day and people notice it.

Only die hard democrat partisans will turn thier heads from it in full.

Edit: oh btw, it's going to be the democrats downfall come election time. They did way too much and it's going to bite them in the ***

No only magas believes that. The rest of the country wants him held accountable for breaking the law.

No, they are not trying to destroy it. Many others could run.

Do you believe that Trump would have this shit in his lap had he not pushed his fraud lies and took concerted efforts to steal the 2020 election? The pressure campaigns? The fake elector’s plot? The near firing of the AG and replacement with a loyal sycophant, where the entire DoJ threatened to resign? The threat to enact martial law and seize voting machines? The storming of the Capitol that he sat for three hours on his ass doing nothing to stop the violence?

Had he gracefully conceded power and done none of that, I doubt there’d be nearly as much efforts within our institutions to burden him legally and preclude him from attaining office again, if any at all. Hell, I‘m skeptical he’d be facing any legal troubles whatsoever. Why don’t you ever lay responsibility on Trump for the predicament he finds himself in? He’s placed himself there, no one else.

It baffles me how Trump supporters believe that “protecting democracy” means fighting to put on the ballot an individual who has demonstrated utter contempt and disregard for it, for the institutions that support and protect it, and who has literally, on numerous fronts, taken initiative to subvert it. But hey, if Americans are so short-sighted and stupid as to believe protecting democracy equates to literally voting for its destruction by electing that person, then they will get what they deserve.

Personally, I find doing everything to keep someone like Trump off the ballot is being pro-democracy. You can’t place such a person in the running, much less vote for them, and then claim you support the system of government you are actively casting a ballot to eradicate.

https://thepostmillennial.com/56-of-us-voters-believe-biden-is-trying-to-jail-trump-to-stop-him-mclaughlin-poll#google_vignette

Per apollfrom McLaughlin and Associates, 56 percent of voters polled nationally answered yes to "President Trump has been indicted on a total of 91 counts by supporters of Joe Biden and his Justice Department. If convicted of these charges, do you think that Joe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by putting him in jail?"

No conviction/proof of a crime here or reason.. your response is entirely emotional..

And Trump did concede power.. Biden is president is he not??

"Fake electors plot" what is the crime, who is the victim? Were these "fake" electors used/chosen or denied? Was it illegal to present these electors?? Even if the most obvious outcome was they would be rejected? Where is the conviction of a crime?

He sat on his ass for 3 hours?? Was Trump supposed to fly in like superman and stop the riot himself??? Maybe Nancy Pelosi and the Mayor of DC should have accepted using the National Guard for additional security, (you know the security Trump had already approved of and offered) instead of denying it!!

Ah yes!! Weaponize the justice system to eliminate your political opponent that has the greatest chance of beating you!! This must be some new sort of democracy!! A democracy with an Iron Fist perhaps!!!!

Answer these Sarge:

1) Do you believe that Trump would have this in his lap had he not pushed his fraud lies and took concerted efforts to steal the 2020 election?

2) Do you believe it anti-democratic to keep an anti-democratic candidate off the ballot?

These aren’t rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious about your thinking.

Ok.. let's try

1.) "Pushed his fraud lies" "took concerted efforts to steal the 2020 election"

First of all.. your question starts with the presumption that it's a some sort of fact Trump tried to "Steal" an election. I don't agree with that presumption. As far as "pushed his fraud lies" do you mean questioning election results? Calling for an investigation into the votes? All candidates have the right to question results... so I don't see why this should make it OK to weaponize the DOJ to target him politically, unless your into authoritarian states... think that is "cool". Which I do not.

2.) Who says Trump is "anti democratic" by who's authority is this claim true?? I don't agree with the statement. You will need to elaborate on how Trump is "Anti Democratic."

Thanks for answering.

1) A legitimate questioning of election results is bound by the exhaustion of legitimate venue in coming to the determination of its validity. Trump lost 60 court cases challenging the election. Yet he refused to accept it, and then made repeated illicit attempts outside of that accepted framework to achieve his goals. Corruptly pressuring election officials, scheming to create alternate electors, humoring enacting martial law to seize voting machines, nearly firing the AG at the DoJ to replace with a crony that would do his bidding, asking his VP to go against the Constitution and refuse to validate the electors, and then sitting there watching as violence consumed the Capitol, interrupting a once peaceful democratic process which he did nothing to stop until three hours had passed.

These are not legitimate nor innocuous actions in the contesting of an election, and if you believe they are, I would appreciate an explanation as to how. DoJ is not targeting Trump politically, it is holding him to account for these attempts to corruptly subvert our democratic process after his "questioning" of our election results failed.

2) By the authority of Trump's actions is the claim true. Someone who is pro-democracy honors and acknowledges democratic outcomes within the legitimate allowances of that system, even when they go against one's own interests. Trump didn't, on the contrary he actively took initiative to destroy it illegally when all legal means weren't successful.

If you can explain to me how Trump respects democracy in light of his actions acting against it after all legitimate options were exhausted, then I'm all ears.