Jump to content

Trump unable to get $464m bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Opinion  Fair’s fair: Trump should be able to appeal the judgment against him

By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post Associate editor

March 19, 2024 at 4:07 p.m. EDT

 

On the topic of Donald Trump’s asserted inability to scrounge the money to post bond and appeal the mega-judgment in his New York civil fraud case, by all means: Let’s enjoy a good chortle at seeing Trump hoisted on the petard of his own braggadocio about his supposedly vast wealth.

 

Then let’s pause and consider: Is it fair to require Trump to post a bond of this magnitude to be able to appeal the judgment against him — $464 million, including interest?

 

Look, no one more deserves to be mistreated, and no one more deserves a system rigged against him, than Trump.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/19/trump-appeal-fraud-judgment-464-million-bond/

 

https://archive.is/SqISL

Her words are contradictory.

She says he should be able to appeal, but goes on to say

"Look, no one more deserves to be mistreated, and no one more deserves a system rigged against him, than Trump."

which is saying that he deserves to be mistreated and deserves a rigged system.

 

Whatever, it's a misuse of the "justice system" for political ends and IMO everyone knows it. Perhaps it will come back to bite them, or at least I hope it does.

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
On 3/20/2024 at 12:08 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not sure if you are referencing the members of the electoral college, or those that elect them.

 

The electoral college is here to stay as it's enshrined inn the constitution and IMO not even one small state will ever vote to replace it with a majority vote.

I was referring to the members of the electoral college.

 

However, IMHO nothing is enshrined for ever, or there would be no amendments to the constitution, and there are many.

  • Like 1
Posted

A post with unattributed content contravening our Community Standards has been removed:

 

27. You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Only post a link, the headline and three sentences from the article. Content in the public domain is limited to the same restrictions.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Actually, no, I didn’t notice that at all.


The vast majority of brain dead liberals wouldn’t notice it either.

 

You’re not the only one.

Edited by G_Money
  • Confused 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I was referring to the members of the electoral college.

 

However, IMHO nothing is enshrined for ever, or there would be no amendments to the constitution, and there are many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment

 

Bills have been introduced in the US Congress on several occasions to amend the US Constitution to abolish or to reduce the power of the Electoral College and to provide for the direct popular election of the US president and vice president. <SKIP>

 

On October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition, and eight were solidly opposed

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
On 3/19/2024 at 12:22 PM, Eric Loh said:

How about billionaires should not be above the law and not run their office like his corporation. 


Referring to the “Big Guy” Biden with his behind the scenes dealings with China and Russia?

 

Why do think they support that fool for President?  Easily manipulated and bribed.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, xylophone said:

An oxymoron twice over in that post.......'the truth" and Fox News, for a start, then "intelligent remarks" and Republicans.

 

Have you been mixing alcohol with your Kool Aid??? 


I see you have also adopted the appropriate nickname for your fellow libertard, ozimoron!

 

Agree with you, for once.

  • Confused 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

It's clear that you haven't been keeping up with current events, but pretty much every allegation against Biden have been debunked.  Zero evidence regarding China/Russia....and whatever.  That's why the House GOP's impeachment efforts have been dead-in-the-water.  Try something more original.


And you believe liberal media.

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, candide said:

Lame deflection, you have nothing!

FD 1023 anyone? 😀


DOJ selective prosecution has worked well under the Biden administration.

 

Payback is going to be a bit—.  And they know it.  

  • Confused 2
Posted
Just now, candide said:

B.S. You have nothing! 😀


I obviously have something.  I keep getting your undivided attention. 😄

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, billd766 said:

I was referring to the members of the electoral college.

 

However, IMHO nothing is enshrined for ever, or there would be no amendments to the constitution, and there are many.

Any change to the constitution has to be approved by a majority of states. No conservative state is going to agree to give up their status afforded by the E C. That would subject them to domination by the coasts forever.

Edited by thaibeachlovers
Posted
2 minutes ago, candide said:

Another conspiracy theory, as usual. That's the typical MAGA m.o. when they have nothing: conspiracy theories and false équivalences! 😀


You have nothing 😁

  • Confused 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Any change to the constitution has to be approved by a majority of states. No small state is going to agree to give up their status afforded by the E C. That would subject them to domination by the coasts forever.

Most of all, Republicans will never vote for it. They surely want to keep their capability to have a GOP president elected with a minority of citizen votes.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Any change to the constitution has to be approved by a majority of states. No small state is going to agree to give up their status afforded by the E C. That would subject them to domination by the coasts forever.

As noted at length in the Wikipedia link above, it's not like it hasn't been tried multiple times before. But maybe the gent in the link to which you replied suggests that maybe no one before has ever thought of it.

 

(Again) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_abolition_amendment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...