I would reply to more of your posts if you did not habitually make them multi-long epics that reference and reply to many posters comments in one portmanteau posting. It makes it harder to spot that you have posed a question to me, as it is often lost in a ton of other stuff. And also it makes it harder for me to edit your post (to remove extraneous stuff), especially as I often read this site on a phone.
I think it is a reasonable decision because the courts have decided that there are grounds for an appeal, and once that decision has been made it’s appropriate to set the amount at a level that minimises any chance of Trump fleeing the courts jurisdiction. I do not think it’s sensible to make reasonable appeals impossible. That would be a poor legal setup I think.
( Although it is fair comment that court expenses do make justice impossible for a large number of people. And I certainly wouldn’t have lost sleep if Trump had been forced to post the higher amount)
Last edited by JackDaw; 03-25-2024 at 11:57 AM.
Considering you never replied here, I thought the reason was worse. The reply here wasn't one of the multi-quotes.
Multiquotes are mainly because I don't like seeing a page of posts from one poster that easily could have been combined into one, so I may overcorrect.
In regards to this, Courts do not weigh in on the validity of an appeal at this stage, "While the court, the Appellate Division in Manhattan, did not rule directly on the merits of Mr. Trump’s appeal, its ruling suggests that some of the judges could be sympathetic to Mr. Trump’s case, legal experts said. The $175 million bond is roughly the amount that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued was the maximum penalty he could have possibly owed, a potential sign that the court believes the $454 million judgment was too steep." Personally I've long held the opinion that the penalty for the crime should approach the level of the money that you illegally gained through your crime. At this point fines are considered more a cost of doing business when it comes to larger companies rather than an impediment to business or some sort of rein on their behavior. Look into the logic behind recalls for Auto Parts/Cars or Pharmaceuticals and lawsuits over them if you'd like more details.
BTW I don't think anyone has suggested that Trump will flee rather than pay the fine to this point, but if you've seen that I'd appreciate seeing the point of view.
Last edited by Dalak; 03-25-2024 at 12:13 PM.
If there’s no significant danger of him fleeing (and I agree there’s not) AND the court believes he has reasonable grounds for appeal (clearly it does because the appeal has been allowed) then it seems unfair to make the appeal impossible.
If it was anybody but Trump involved I think most people would regard requiring the posting of a stupendous amount before hearing a case as poor legal practice.
I apologise about the previous pillock remark. I see now how easy it was to misinterpret it..I meant to poke fun at myself rather than at you. (I was suggesting that I should have known better than to waste time by defending Mets on this site, when everyone’s view on him was set in stone years ago.)
The entire reason for the bond in this case is that to appeal the case at all you have to put up the bond, and the appeals court specifically wasn't ruling on the merits of his appeal as I've shown. The appeal wasn't impossible for him, as he just had to make a sale or 2 to those foreign investors that he often brags about helping him with business deals instead of letting the DA do it after seizing the assets. Considering the amount of money he saved in taxes over the years of not paying them, even the original bond doesn't match the crime.
I disagree that this decision was reasonable, strongly.
And thanks for the clarification and the apology!
E: Regarding Mets, the opinions on him have been formed due to his own posts and behavior. Those posts and behavior have been on display for years, and when he's confronted with them he refuses to change far more often than he acknowledges a mistake or that he was wrong. It is a fact that multiple posters have shown this on several occasions (Not just me, or 1-2 others), so I want to make it clear that any reputation he has among posters here has been earned rather than any sort of anti-conservative bias.
Last edited by Dalak; 03-25-2024 at 01:04 PM.
After today’s legal ruling, the inevitable question (at least to me) begs to be asked: If we were dealing with Donald Trump, crooked businessman, conman, grifter, thief and reality show carnival barker, and not Donald Trump, former president and de facto ruler of the Republican Party, would he have enjoyed this remarkable level of leniency from the courts? Or is it just another example of rules being bent, if not broken in favor of privileged billionaires?
Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!
I'm done. I'm not expecting anything to happen to him anymore. The courts go out of their way to give him extra special treatment for no fucking reason. Nothing will ever happen.
Over in the UK, Scott Benton, a Tory MP for Blackpool South, who was accused of selling influence for gambling interests, has resigned.
This will trigger the 13th by-election since Sunak became Prime Minister. Of the previous dozen, the Tories lost 11.
Just call a general election and get it over with.
They won't because from what I have seen it would be a bloodbath. They aren't going to give up power until the last possible moment. If they call an election now the Tories might become a minor party, rather than just the opposition, and I'm sure they'll do everything they can to avoid that.
Dark does not mean deep.