342

"But the Trumpian part is that even though, or perhaps because, it may be part of a Trump scam, Knight now too may be on the hook for $175 million as it won't automatically get out from underneath its own proffered surety."

Hankey, a billionaire, has already said that his company will be able to post the money for Trump.

He was reacting to a comment on X by lawyer Dave Kingman, who wrote that Knight will not be able to post the $175 million.

"Understand that Knight Specialty has a problem. This bond cannot be approved. Under the CPLR [Civil Practice Laws and Rules] the surety will remain obligated under the bond until a replacement bond is filed. Trump is unlikely to get a replacement bond. Knight Spec will be liable AND Trump won't have a stay [on enforcement]," he wrote.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 110 points 4 months ago

FTA:

"Thus NY AG James looks to be soon greenlit to execute on her $450 million judgment against Trump as if Trump posted no bond."

That was my #1 question in all of this, assuming a bond failure, does she get to go after $175 million in assets or $450 million?

Now we know...

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 119 points 4 months ago

Why does this guy get to run for president when he appears to have committed millions of dollars in fraud? Shouldn’t that be jail time for anyone else?

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 200 points 4 months ago

Because we elected a black dude and holy shit did that break the right.

[-] DharkStare@lemmy.world 109 points 4 months ago

Obama really did open the floodgates on all the racists. I guess I was really naive, but I had no idea there were so many racist everywhere.

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 118 points 4 months ago

As a white guy with a beard in a blue collar industry, I'm shocked at what strangers will just assume I'm cool with hearing out of their mouths. They truly have no shame anymore. It's fucking wild.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago

Add tattoos. Yea. People are awful. "I like Alex Jones". I have never wanted to punch a coworker so much in my life.

[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The way I respond is always 'neutral' but calling them what they are. So for Alex Jones I might say 'oh the dude who lied about dead kids?' the key is to sound neutral and then just disengage if they try to start a conversation about it. 'yea I don't care dude'.

'tate? The rapist and woman beater? OK.' just disengage on that topic. Make it see like you're stating a fact, because you are and there's no room for them to argue or engage.

[-] GladiusB@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

For real. It's like they completely don't get that it sounds so bad when you just stick to the facts.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 19 points 4 months ago

My colleagues and I are all mechanical or industrial engineers. We travel around the country to project sites. I'll be on a job site and hear all the trades guys saying the most vile shit. And be completely shocked I tell them to knock it off or I'll tell the general contractor to get someone else out.

The part that pisses me off the most though is how often they're union members.

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

We never had a reckoning for slavery, for segregation, redlining, employment discrimination. Or any of the thousands of other racist touchstones of our country. In fact, far too many Americans still blame the victims and their descendants for the struggles they still experience. Too many Americans blame their own struggles on the victims as well. Obama opened no floodgates. These people were always wildly racist. They'd just not had such an opportunity to so vocally and visually demonstrate it.

My ignorance of just how much it permeated my childhood and young adult years was terrifying. Even colloquial phrases and sayings picked up in my youth were coded with racism. And with how little we promote understanding and learning. It's easy to see how so many getting called out for it rather than stopping to learn. Just push back and double down self-righteously. America is a wildly racist country, and always has been.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

My favorite is when racists say "We've had a black president so we can't be a nation of racists."

Like....somehow having a black president now makes it okay for all of the shit conservatives want to do.

[-] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago

"Thanks Obama"

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 months ago

They did it on CNN. I remember some Republican prick saying, "you know why we're not racist? Obama."

It just so happened that the racists got outvoted. Their party really seized upon being racists though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ZagamTheVile@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Yeah but come on. He wore a tan suit once. What did you expect? It's like we were asking for this.

[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

So did Reagan and both Bush’s but “that’s okay”. /s

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Don't forget the terrorist fist jab.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

This is what I come back to. The right's crazy was in check somewhat beforehand, but when Obama won it went off the cliff.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago

Remember when Bush was, what we thought, the lowest we could go? Dude is loveable by current standards.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago
[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

I understand the idea was that they can score easily on the civil suit and a criminal complaint is still possible.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 27 points 4 months ago

To actually give an answer, it's because the Constitution very deliberately does not allow criminal convictions to disqualify someone. This was done because it was, and in plenty of places still is, common practice for a government to simply make up charges and arrest any opposition, thus disqualifying them from running.

You always have to look at this kind of stuff from the other side. Would you really want a Trump to be able to disqualify an opposing candidate for running a red light once twenty years ago?

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago

I think it's good that Trump can technically run - but it's fucking embarrassing that he's managed to retain so much support.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 52 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Edit: This article is garbage. Letitia James hasn't announced shit, this is reporting what some guys on Twitter are talking about. I wouldn't hold my breath until a better source reports about it.

The State of New York gets to collect on the entire judgement. That is the amount that the trial court found him liable for and that's the amount he must pay.

The bond amount being lowered only means that he needs to post that amount as a guarantee against the judgement in order to stop execution before he appeals. If he loses his appeal, he still needs to pay the full amount of the judgement. Since the bond was no good, it is the same as if he didn't post anything.

[-] SFX@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Newsweek articles are often garbage.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 88 points 4 months ago

LoL, no surety, no bond, and now #45 has hooked another criminal (Hankey) into his operation. Go for it, pull them all down.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago

Is he finally draining the swamp?

[-] ATDA@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

They're all clinging to each other trying not to fall off a cliff of their own making... Loving it.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 81 points 4 months ago

yet another post where the title says "Trump To Actually Be Held Responsible For Crimes Committed On Live TV" and the article is just people who ahve nothing to do with either Trump or the law guessing that someone could possibly do something with no idea as to whether anyone will actually do anything. It's raw speculation and it degrades the platform, but anything that says "Trump Good" or "Trump Bad" will of course get a million upvotes.

Feels like I'm back on fucking Reddit.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

I don't blame the community, I blame the media. The media needs to generate views to sell eyeballs. They need to keep you clicking and watching by saying that the resolution is just around the corner. If they waited to report on things that actually happened nobody would care.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Feels like I’m back on fucking Reddit.

DISCLAIMER: This is a complete tangent from comments on the original post, but the original post is likely garbage anyway so I'll just go with it.

I don't know why people think that creating a copy-cat version of Reddit with "federation" will do much of anything to solve the problems with online "communities".

The problem with Reddit may have been partially the for-profit corporate part, or the admins, etc but it was definitely not exclusively those things.

Every single online "community" that has popped up since Web 2.0 has versions of the exact same problems. Maybe they're difficult to solve inherently, but I am not sure because it seems like everyone just creates the same site structure and I think at least some of it has to do with the structure.

Is there anyone trying to not make the next Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or Reddit? Someone that's trying to actually make something different? Like something useful or with a fundamentally better moderation model? Because if so maybe I should waste my time on that instead of these copycat platforms.

It's not just "they're bots" or "they're Russians" either...because Nextdoor has a pretty stringent verification policy, is based around localities, and it's still essentially Facebook for NIMBYs.

[-] Lon3star@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

That article was quite the incoherent circlejerk

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 61 points 4 months ago

Screw Trump but this whole article is nothing more than conjecture from two dudes on twitter. When the hell did stuff like this become news?

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago

When we stopped funding news

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] snooggums@midwest.social 49 points 4 months ago

Trump posted a $175 million bond on April 1 in order to prevent the seizure

April Fools!

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 32 points 4 months ago

Looks like there is a real possibility that

The headline would have been a lot more honest if it had included that part

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

IIRC the judge is giving shithead another 10 days to re-secure the $175M bond so James is no doubt warming up the seizure engines

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 19 points 4 months ago

Seizing properties? Yeah, right. I’ll believe it once it’s already happened.

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Surely Hankey isn't offering up $175 million on Trump's behalf out of the goodness of his own heart. This is surely an investment where he can gain privileged access to the Trump administration if he gets into office again, maybe get some lucrative government contracts out of it.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Shit, he offered to put in 475, but while on the call to set it up, trumps lawyers found out they got it lowered to 175, and told Hankey he was no longer needed.

Then had to go back for the 175 because no one legit would even know that.

It's very possible trumps lawyers knew a bond wouldn't work, but knew by the time that was found out, Hankey was on the hook.

It's a lot easier for trump to avoid paying Hankey than the government.

[-] Hello_there@fedia.io 12 points 4 months ago

Wtf is that user submitted fairness meter at the bottom? Since when do we rely on trolls to provide any reliable metrics about quality of writing?

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Since it was deemed profitable to do so. Every vote is an ad impression and trying to manipulate or correct the value just means even more ad impressions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

He should have gone to his buddy Vince McMahon who for some reason keeps selling stock and now has like a billion dollars in cash. I'm sure it's Vince's "fly to a non extradition country" fund when the heat gets too much, but he can lend Trump half

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 12 points 4 months ago

I love this for both of them.

Everything Trump touches, dies.

[-] tabularasa@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

"News"week is a fucking trainwreck these days. Pointless to look at them any more.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
342 points (86.4% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4380 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS