Sidebar

Trump deeds and misdeeds VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
TIDE-HSV

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
85,155
41,444
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Go Bama said:
Evidently, $83.3 million had no effect. Billionaires have so much money, that you can take $83 million from them and they don't even care. Trump hasn't even felt it.

According to Forbes, Trump is worth $2.6 billion. $83.3 million is .32% of his total wealth. IOW, if Trump was worth exactly $1,000,000 his fine would equate to $3200. It's a mosquito bite.

Still, if the judge had fined him $2.6 billion, Trump still wouldn't be able to keep his pie hole shut.
Click to expand...
Cash on hand is a different story...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jon, dtgreg, Go Bama and 1 other person
Jon

Jon

Suspended
Feb 22, 2002
16,142
14,321
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg, Go Bama and 92tide
Bamaro

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
27,303
12,082
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Trump cannot line up full bond in New York fraud case, offers to post $100 million

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Donald Trump is unable to post a full bond while he appeals a $454.2 million judgment that a judge imposed in New York state's civil fraud case against him, and wants instead to secure a $100 million bond, his lawyers said on Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Chukker Veteran, dtgreg, Jon and 1 other person
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
31,739
40,117
362
Mountainous Northern California



Former President Donald Trump must come up with the full bond amount to cover the $454 million verdict in the civil fraud trial, an appeals court judge ruled Wednesday.

The judge, however, lifted a ban on Trump’s ability to obtain loans from a New York bank, which could allow him to obtain the necessary funds.

The court also denied Trump’s request to delay his obligation to post $454 million until his appeal of the civil fraud verdict is over.
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: dtgreg, 92tide, Jon and 1 other person
crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
65,266
73,516
462
crimsonaudio.net
The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether Donald Trump may claim immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case, adding another explosive appeal from the former president to its docket and further delaying his federal trial.

The court agreed to expedite the case and hear arguments the week of April 22.

The move puts the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination on track for another high-stakes date with the high court, which earlier this month heard arguments in a separate case questioning whether Trump disqualified himself from running for a second term under the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection ban.”
Click to expand...
Supreme Court to decide Trump immunity claim, further delaying election subversion trial
 
  • Smash Keyboard
  • Like
Reactions: dtgreg and 92tide
jthomas666

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
23,537
12,284
287
61
Birmingham & Warner Robins
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Chukker Veteran, Bama75&80, dtgreg and 1 other person
Bamaro

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
27,303
12,082
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
'The fix is in'. A republican packed 6 & 3 Supreme Court effectively granted trump immunity by agreeing to decide whether trumps election interference was an 'official presidential act'. The delay will push this until after the election and grant trump defacto immunity (if he wins the election) that he wouldn't otherwise have. Three votes to delay this were cast by trumps own appointees. :oops:
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: JDCrimson and NationalTitles18
CrimsonNagus

CrimsonNagus

Hall of Fame
Jun 6, 2007
8,896
7,078
212
45
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
How is it even a question of imunity? No president has ever been above the law which is why Nixon was pardoned. Nothing in our history even hints at a president having imunity while in office, that's a stupid thing to even suggest. There is nothing "unclear in law" about it, the SCOTUS have overstepped their bounds.

This case more than anything illegitimizes the SCOTUS. They serve no purpose now but to be a bully for the controlling party. There is no legal reason whatsoever to take this case, it's just a delay tactic to help their Lord and Savior, Trump.

Honestly, even though it would go nowhere, Democrats in the Senate should introduce articles of impeachment for all the SCOTUS justices (since no justice has publicly dissented this discission). They can no longer be trusted to uphold the constitution and protect this country so they should be removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chukker Veteran, UAllday, Bamaro and 3 others
AWRTR

AWRTR

Suspended
Oct 18, 2022
2,743
3,945
187
CrimsonNagus said:
How is it even a question of imunity? No president has ever been above the law which is why Nixon was pardoned. Nothing in our history even hints at a president having imunity while in office, that's a stupid thing to even suggest. There is nothing "unclear in law" about it, the SCOTUS have overstepped their bounds.

This case more than anything illegitimizes the SCOTUS. They serve no purpose now but to be a bully for the controlling party. There is no legal reason whatsoever to take this case, it's just a delay tactic to help their Lord and Savior, Trump.

Honestly, even though it would go nowhere, Democrats in the Senate should introduce articles of impeachment for all the SCOTUS justices (since no justice has publicly dissented this discission). They can no longer be trusted to uphold the constitution and protect this country so they should be removed.
Click to expand...
Understand that I don’t agree with this, but I watched a video where a guy was explaining the rationale. At least this guys main point was that the impeachment process was where a president would be convicted and removed from office or barred from future office holding. That is the only mechanism for dealing with a president if the crime was committed as part of his official duties. If convicted there they were then open to other prosecution. Otherwise it would be after for all with presidents indicted by stat AG’s and local prosecutors for everything under the sun.

 
NationalTitles18

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
31,739
40,117
362
Mountainous Northern California
AWRTR said:
Understand that I don’t agree with this, but I watched a video where a guy was explaining the rationale. At least this guys main point was that the impeachment process was where a president would be convicted and removed from office or barred from future office holding. That is the only mechanism for dealing with a president if the crime was committed as part of his official duties. If convicted there they were then open to other prosecution. Otherwise it would be after for all with presidents indicted by stat AG’s and local prosecutors for everything under the sun.

Click to expand...
No. Not even close. Whether convicted in the Senate or not they are open to prosecution.

Additionally, attempted coups are not part of a president's official duties. Never have been. Never will be.

And no, holding Trump to account for crimes outside the normal course of buiness for the office of the president does not invite malicious prosecution for official duties. That's just a republican fantasy.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Go Bama and 92tide
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!


Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Latest threads

Top Bottom