553
Appeals Court Bails Trump Out of Having to Post Massive Fraud Bond
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
553 points (98.1% liked)
News
23361 readers
3298 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Do these judges have to explain their decision? Is there an opinion published somewhere? I'd love to understand what context brought them to this conclusion, I've never heard of someone gaining leniency because they couldn't afford the fine.
There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"...
The published order is just that. It doesn't explain the why or whatever just "We are reducing the bond amount and not removing the other limitations of the ruling"
“…because Project 2025”
It's actually a pretty liberal court that made the ruling.
Neoliberal club. Fascist conservative club. It's all the same fucking club, and you ain't in it!
You know we're fucked when I'm nostalgic for a time when Republicans were just dumb fucks trying to make their friends rich, rather than dumb fucks trying to destroy our democracy.
Isn't the first one a prerequisite for the second one?
Works in the opposite order too.
I guess there's a problem in that he needs the money in order to appeal.
Like everyone should have some right of appeal, and saying someone can't appeal because they're broke could be used to manipulate the justice system.
He still has to pay the whole amount if he loses the appeal.
The whole point of the bond is to prevent pointless appeals in the court (which I have to assume this will be) and, more importantly, serves as a guarantee the defendant will fulfill their obligations and pay at the end of an appeal failure, which ... trump is absolutely a risk of not paying. And these judges have now effectively cast the guarantee aside.
Perhaps, but do you agree everyone should be able to appeal?
Sure, and frankly there is nothing preventing trump from appealing. However an appeal is not a green light to ignore or discard the lower court's decision in the interim. Specifically outlined in the NY Court website
"Filing a Notice of Appeal does not stop or stay the winning side from taking steps to collect or enforce the judgment from the lower court. To put the collection on hold, you may have to ask the court for a stay. You may have to pay an amount of money equal to the judgment amount, called an undertaking, to the court while the appeal is being decided. "
And further to the point, I'd still like to understand what context he's appealing under that was so compelling. This is a financial case, the facts and accounting figures supporting the judgement will presumably not change, leaving little room for a successful appeal.
Ultimately I'm of the opinion this is a frivolous appeal, and trump will not find the full amount owed at the end of it. By lowering the bond the appeals court has neutered the purpose of securing the bond in the first place, which can only to lead to more delays and difficulties collecting in the future.