631
submitted 6 months ago by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 153 points 6 months ago
[-] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 56 points 6 months ago

If you could post this when Trump is sent to rikers for 20 years, that would just be the best

[-] mercano@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

I don’t think Trump, at his age, has the flexibility to sit down in a chair at Riker’s Island.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

I have it all ready.

[-] randompasta@lemmy.today 8 points 6 months ago

Commander Rikers Island

[-] VaultBoyNewVegas@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Nah the track for that has to be celebratory.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 110 points 6 months ago

The former president’s motion for a new trial was denied and his argument deemed ‘entirely without merit’

Seems like they really missed a good headline

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 79 points 6 months ago

so he actually has to pony up the full amount now? no more bond, just pay it?

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 56 points 6 months ago

He can appeal this to the Circuit and then that to SCOTUS. So, closer to exhausting all appeals, but not there yet.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 57 points 6 months ago

I don’t see how SCOTUS would ever agree to take this case, either. That said, I won’t put it past them

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago

They won't, that's just the hierarchy of the appellate process.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Can you actually appeal anything to the SC with enough $$$ or is there a type of denial earlier in the process that then prohibits it?

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Anyone can appeal for cert. Famously, a lot of convicts do from prison. It’s very rare to have it granted, though.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

SCOTUS can take any case they want. But they don’t have all that much time so have to pick and choose until juicy ones.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

The amount of faith you have in SCOTUS is concerning, they've already clearly demonstrated they're not basing opinions on law but who appointed them.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I have no faith in them. Ignoring them doesn’t fix things and pointing out how the world works does not imply faith.

[-] Hugin@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

You can appeal any federal case to scotus or make an argument that a state case should be federal. However scotus decides what cases they hear. So you can appeal but unless you have a good argument they are simply going to decide to not hear the case.

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

And if it's Trump asking?

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 21 points 6 months ago

could the circuit court refuse considering the egregious nature of its current disposition?

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Yup, that's the most likely thing to happen. This court did it.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 6 months ago

It's a New York state civil case. SCOTUS would be going way out of their way to get involved in this one.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] stoly@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

SCOTUS won’t override a state court on matters of state law. The will always defer to the highest court in each state unless there is a federal question involved.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

This is straight up not true.

Here's an example I found after a real quick Google search: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-rules-against-north-carolina-republicans-over-election-law-theory/

The Supremacy Clause gives the US Supreme Court authority to overturn decisions by any lower court, including State Supreme Courts.

The concept of "independent state legislature" doctrine was shot down by SCOTUS back in 2022.

See:

Moore v. Harper

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago

Isn’t this just in regards to the first defamation trial; not the second, $400+ million one?

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 38 points 6 months ago

yep.

hes about to lose that 400m bond fight also, so say bye-bye to that new york property

that said, its just money. there are enough morons in the country for him to grift his way back into the black. doesnt matter how much he loses.

its just so satisfying to see this criminal finally fucking lose something

[-] undercrust@lemmy.ca 30 points 6 months ago

I'm okay with him bankrupting his supporters too

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Yep. Take down the entire party apparatus while you’re at it.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

Didn't he just get a 1B stock payout from Truth Social?

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 16 points 6 months ago

i think its stock only, there are a ton of restrictions like he cant sell immediately.. so maybe no immediate cash out and hopefully in the meantime the price tanks to pennies so it becomes worthless

[-] frezik@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago

And then only if he can find enough suckers to buy it off him. Just him dumping it would tank the stock price.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

No. He doesn’t actually have that value because he can’t touch it for an extended period of time. It’ll bottom out before he can sell.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

And even when that happens, he won't be able to liquidate that much stock at market price.

[-] absentbird@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

The $400m was for tax fraud and deceiving banks.

[-] havocpants@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

This is the 2nd defamation trial (the first being 5 million iirc). The 400+ million one was the NY fraud trial for inflating the value of his properties. It is hard to keep track of them :)

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 28 points 6 months ago

I expect he can still appeal. He is the most unappealing person ever, yet always has another appeal....

[-] azimir@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

If he makes any more motions he might actually lose some weight.

[-] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

I believe the appeal needs to be denied by the second circuit, and then he will have to pony up the cash.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

and then he will have to pony up the cash.

...or E Jean Caroll will be paid by the Chubb Group who issued the bond.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

He already had to post a bond for this appeal— so he ponied up the cash. Carroll just doesn’t get it until all appeals are exhausted.

he ponied up the cash.

No he didn't, Chubb provided a bond.

Now he has to pony up the cash and if he doesn't Chubb will have to pay.

[-] lazylion_ca@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 months ago

Hey!
Donald!
Donald give up your money.

[-] Cabslock@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Heh! Did anyone see the alt-text of the image at the top?

"Blind woman in sunglasses smiling broadly"

AI generated I guess.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
631 points (99.1% liked)

News

23329 readers
2886 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