Well, sort of. He legally does have to do one of two things: -Pay the 83 million; that ends it -Appeal the decision - but if he appeals the decision he has to post either the money (90 million at this point) or a bond. The problem is that he can't just go to a bondsman. For that amount of money he has to get a surety from a bank big enough to cover it - someone like JP Morgan or Liberty. And what bank in their right mind is going to loan Trump ANY money when he has a long history of never paying back loans, and ignoring legal orders to do so? He can also just refuse to pay. At that point, E Jean Carroll can go through the courts to reposess his properties to pay off the loan. Trump won't win that one. I'm sure he will go the appeal route then try to refuse to post the bond. And that will go to court - but the courts may be out of fucks to give at this point, and their answer might well be "post the bond or go to jail." There's another wrinkle in all this. Once a different judge issues his final decision in the New York fraud case, two things may happen: - He may be liable for ANOTHER $370 million in damages that he will have to pay (or bond) - The prosecution has asked for a five-year ban on Trump applying for loans from any New York-registered financial institution. Which, of course, will make it impossible to get a surety from a New York bank, and much harder to get a surety anywhere else. Good entertainment if nothing else.
True, although he'll have to stump up for a bond at least (10% perhaps, with the bondholder stumping up the rest, if he can find one willing) within 30-days of the judge's final statement on the matter (due within a month, I believe, confirming or overriding the jury's decision). The full amount will then sit in escrow until after any appeal process has played out, which may take 1-2 years, but until that time he will, in effect, have a debt on his books for the $83.3m (assuming judge confirms the decision, which is almost guaranteed). Further, from what I've read, any appeal is likely to fail, and may even result in higher damages awarded. The punitive damages are in line with "normal" multiples of the base award, but given that he was compounding the issue with tweets during the trial, an appeals court may increase the award. I guess that might depend on how he behaves with regard Carroll in the meantime. He's seeking a new lawyer team for the appeals process, though, although I'm not sure of the calibre he could currently attract, especially if Alina Habba is any indication of his judgement in that regard. But then there's always the chance that the Supreme Court might rule that he does indeed have the absolute immunity he craves... you know, the kind that would enable him to assassinate anyone he wishes and not face prosecution... and so he will win on appeal as a result. But then even the Orange one must be allowed to dream. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep. I've been hearing for eight years what horrible things are going to happen to him. Some day. I've been hurt before. I'll hold off on any cheering until I actually see him wearing a barrel or an orange jumpsuit.
On Amendment XIV: To Disqualify Trump The short form, from Marc Elias↱: Bending the Constitution to avoid a confrontation with Trump is the antithesis of democratic rule. The Supreme Court would have never desegregated schools if conservative voices could have prevented constitutional decisions they disliked. The longer explanation: On Feb. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in case number 23-719, Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson. A former elected leader of the Republican Party, Anderson is the lead plaintiff in the case seeking to disqualify Trump from the Colorado presidential ballot by virtue of his participation in the events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021. At issue is the proper application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment .... .... For Trump to be disqualified from being president, a court must find that he was (1) “an officer of the United States;” (2) who previously took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” and (3) “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” Additionally, the courts must determine that the provision is self-executing, i.e., it does not require Congress to enact legislation under Section 5 for it to take effect. This is a novel case. Never has a president incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol. Never has a major political party embraced a candidate who has been indicted in state and federal court for conspiring against the peaceful transfer of power. That the Supreme Court needs to hear this case speaks to the complete failure and moral bankruptcy of the GOP. The fact that the case is unusual does not mean that it is difficult. The plain text should win the day. The thing is, we already know two of those points: Trump took the oath, and a court has found he has engaged in insurrection or rebellion. The first enumerated point, regarding the President of the United States as an officer of the United States, is supported by the historical record, and would leave an enormous and potentially fatal weakness in the Constitution if the president is excluded. Additionally, Elias notes the question of a self-executing provision, and the actual juristic history on this point already says yes, and has been executed repeatedly in history, including in relation to the January 6 insurrection. And toward that, there was an interesting moment when ABC News↱ led with the prospect that Trump's disqualification "would mark an unprecedented and controversial development" while reporting a case that will be included as part of the standing precedent against Trump. Of course, even Elias understands the manner of what is unprecedented: While we should take solace in the fact that no prior president has acted as recklessly as Trump, that is not a reason to ignore Section 3 of the 14th Amendment now. There is no exception for former presidents who are renominated. The Constitution does not care about MAGA’s feelings and nor should the Court. And here's the thing about such definitive statements: While Elias is actually a litigating attorney who has spent the last few years wrecking election conspiracism and subversion, i.e., clearly among the opposition to Trump, the actual facts, here, are that straightforward: By contrast, the legal arguments against disqualification require a cramped and nonsensical reading of the provision. For example, some opponents of disqualification argue that the president is not an “officer” of the United States and that when presidents swear to “defend” the U.S. Constitution, that does not mean they will “support” it. Neither of these accord with traditional principles of constitutional interpretation. ("But her emails!") There is a certain degree to which Americans have never settled the difference between defending and supporting the Constitution because it was presupposed that nobody would need to. To the other, it may sound less radical to suggest, as Elias reviews, "that, however misguided Trump’s behavior was on Jan. 6, it did not rise to the level of insurrection or rebellion", but that threshold is already achieved. Part of the process along the along the way includes a court actually finding that Trump conducted himself in a manner reasonably described as insurrection. Elias might be opposition, for instance, but his statement that, "The U.S. Supreme Court has no independent basis to disturb that factual finding", is not only accurate, but has particular meaning: In order for the Supreme Court to find in Trump's favor, they will need to blaze that trail, themselves; the pathway does not exist, but the current majority is already known to invent doctrine on demand, so we'll have to see what they come up with. The question of self-execution, for instance, is itself extraordinary inasmuch as the we already know the answer; Section Three has already been effected without explicit subsequent Congressional legislation. Elias suggests "there is no legal reason supporting" a question he describes as a "convenient dodge". "Tellingly", he suggests, "none of the 14th Amendment’s other, better known, provisions require a separate congressional enactment." And there is also this: Section 3↱ does include a particular requirement for explicit Congressional action, that "Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." Elias continues: To fill in the gaps of these weak legal arguments, a series of pseudo-legal claims have started to take hold. Proponents of keeping Trump on the ballot insist that strict adherence to the disqualification clause would damage democracy. At a minimum it would enrage his supporters and deny Republicans the ability to elect their candidate of choice. At its worst, they argue, disqualifying Trump would entangle the Court in politics and damage its credibility. None of these are objections based on the law or Constitution. And the thing is, what it comes down to is that, once again, we must weigh the Republic itself against how a particular political faction feels. That is to say, Republicans v. Republic, as it happens. Thirty years ago, what "damaged democracy" and "enraged" Republicans was that the courts refused them "the ability to elect" the exclusion they preferred. Since at least the early nineties, conservatives have been upset that they cannot simply vote to banish what offends their religious or personal aesthetics. And their outrage is not simply the result of their own misunderstanding, but depends on misunderstanding. Because, here we come to the short form: "Bending the Constitution to avoid a confrontation with Trump is the antithesis of democratic rule." And as much as that might sound melodramatic, it is also the circumstance before us, and one with long prelude. And if this somehow politicizes the court— As for politicizing the court, we must recognize the difference between the Court deciding cases with political implications and the Court becoming politicized. The Supreme Court routinely decides cases with profound political and electoral consequences. —we might consider how the question arises: "If the goal," Elias explains, "is to prevent the courts from deciding cases with political implications, that ship has sailed." Or, rather, here's the thing about entangling the Supreme Court in politics that could damage its credibility: The way the Court can be nonpolitical in this case is simply to follow the Constitution rather than right-wing social pressure. Applying Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump is a judicial act, not a political one. Ignoring the plain text of the Constitution because the Court fears the consequences would be an act of judicial abdication that will reinforce the belief that the Court is hopelessly political. Which brings us to the looming question. The cynic might wonder what the Supreme Court will come up with to save Trump, but a more direct question is whether this is an issue on which the Court will buckle under the weight of conservative hurt feelings. But this so straightforward that the answer is as plain as the words. Indeed, it is so straightforward that such a question simply should not be. The words out front on the Supreme Court read, "Equal Justice Under Law". As Elias puts it, "Donald Trump is entitled to that inscription as is every other citizen of this country. We should expect and demand nothing less." ____________________ Notes: "14th Amendment". (1868) Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Law.Cornell.edu. 5 February 2024. https://bit.ly/2s1qIvl Elias, Marc. "Disqualifying Trump Is on the Docket". Democracy Docket. 31 January 2024. DemocracyDocket.com. 5 February 2024. https://bit.ly/42vBgV9 Landers, Liz. "Official removed from office under 14th Amendment speaks out as Trump case looms". ABC News. 8 September 2023. ABCNews.Go.com. 5 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3w5QWT6
Indeed. And since he has been tweeting/talking about how she is an insane greedy lying slut even after the end of this trial, the appeals court may just think "well, 83 million was not enough."
Well, unsuprisingly, the DC Court of Appeals has decided (3-0) that Trump does not have presidential immunity with regard the charges of conspiring to overturn Biden's election. Naturally the Orange One has stated that he will appeal to the Supreme Court, and in typical form from him, being the billionnaire he claims to be, he has already sent out a fundraising email to help him with his legal costs. Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68023315
Trump almost can't lose. He appeals and uses up more time. Maybe the court decides that the amount was excessive. If not, he just does more fund raising. If he wins the Presidency, most things are delayed for another 4 years or go away altogether. When that term is over he will be 82 (I think). How long is a specimen like Trump going to live anyway? If he doesn't win, that's the only thing that can hurt him somewhat but he will still be in the public eye and probably still campaigning. Even if he gets convicted of felonies, he will have some type of house arrest more than likely. He will abuse that as well and will still find ways to travel. His kids may inherit less than they would otherwise but they likely have received theirs already (to a large extent). Trump has perfected his grifter role to the point where it's almost impossible to take him down. He seems to have unlimited money, whether that's from his businesses or just from continual "fund raising" at a national level.
The decision, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia↱: PER CURIAM: Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States on November 8, 2016. He was sworn into office at noon on January 20, 2017, and served until his term expired at noon on January 20, 2021. At that moment, President Trump became former President Trump and his successor, Joseph R. Biden, became President and began his own four-year term.U.S.CONST. art. II, §1. Although this sequence is set by the Constitution, id. amend. XX, it did not proceed peacefully. Indeed, from election day 2020 forward, the government alleges that President Trump denied that he had lost his bid for a second term and challenged the election results through litigation, pressure on state and federal officers, the organization of an alternate slate of electorsand other means. His alleged interference in the constitutionally prescribed sequence culminated with a Washington, D.C., rally held on January 6, 2021, the day set by the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. § 15(a), for the Congress to meet in joint session to certify the election results. The rally headlined by President Trump resulted in a march of thousands to the Capitol and the violent breach of the Capitol Building. The breach delayed the congressional proceedings for several hours and it was not until the early morning of January 7th that the 2020 presidential election results were certified, naming Joseph R. Biden as the soon-to-be 46th President. Since then, hundreds of people who breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021,have been prosecuted and imprisoned.And on August 1,2023, in Washington, D.C., former President Trump was charged in a four-count Indictment as a result of his actions challenging the election results and interfering with the sequence set forth in the Constitution for the transfer of power from one President to the next. Former President Trump moved to dismiss the Indictment and the district court denied his motion. Today, we affirm the denial. For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump,with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution. That is to say, it's over by page three. The remainder is the explanation and detail; the Background narrative, for instance, begins on page four, and it is on pages 7-8 that the court spells out Trump's undrelying complaint— Former President Trump filed four motions to dismiss the Indictment, relying on: (1) presidential immunity; (2) constitutional provisions, including the Impeachment Judgment Clause and principles stemming from the Double Jeopardy Clause; (3) statutory grounds; and (4) allegations of selective and vindictive prosecution. —and the way things go, even the course of establishing jurisdiction (pp. 9-18) sees the Court dismantling the Trumpside argument. The short form sees the Court start with an amicus brief by Amercian oversight, arguing against the Court's jurisdiction, address basic history of precedent, and discarding two of AO's three legs in a single paragraph, and paring focus to the third, "whether the denial of immunity is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment". If it took three paragraphs for the Court to answer the third, two of those were given to distinguishing between civil and criminal immunity, and then noting that Trump does not make such a claim. Which leads to one of the funniest words, "Nevertheless," and phrases, "we can exercise jurisdiction for two reasons," we might encounter in such an order. That is, the Court considered and answered the amicus brief challenging jurisdiction by refusing it so hard over the course of three paragraphs that it needed to find another reason to answer the question: Nevertheless, we can exercise jurisdiction for two reasons. First, Midland Asphalt is distinguishable and does not requireimmunity to derive from an explicit textual source. Second, the theories of immunity former President Trump asserts are sufficient to satisfy Midland Asphalt under Circuit precedent. The next three and a half pages review Midland Asphalt. The three pages after that consider Trump's theories of immunity; inasmuch as the Court started its explanation with the amici, R. Stanton Jones and Andrew Tutt did not have a good day. "Accordingly," the three-judge panel explains (18), "we conclude that we have jurisdiction to reach the merits of former President Trump’s appeal." And then things really start to go downhill for Trump. ____________________ Notes: "Opinion Per Curiam". United States of America v. Donald J. Trump (23-3228). United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 6 February 2024. Storage.CourtListener.com. 6 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3SNGQ1Q
When the Drama Gets Even More Total (In a New York Minute) The latest, via Associated Press↱: The judge in Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial is demanding more information after a key witness was reported to be in negotiations to plead guilty to perjury in connection with his testimony in the lawsuit. In an email posted to the trial docket Tuesday, Judge Arthur Engoron asked lawyers in the case to provide him with a letter “detailing anything you know” about the situation involving Allen Weisselberg, the former longtime finance chief at Trump’s company, the Trump Organization. “I do not want to ignore anything in a case of this magnitude,” Engoron wrote, suggesting he may disregard all of Weisselberg’s testimony if he were to admit to lying on the witness stand. Of outstanding note in the email itself↱ is Judge Engoron's suggestion that, "I may also use this as a basis to invoke falsus in uno," and the legal commentariat has yet to recover from the impact; the destruction of Weisselberg as a witness could throw a lot into uncertainty. The emerging chatter should be a fascinating experience, but with responses due tomorrow, the discussion might change before those analyses coalesce. ____________________ Notes: Engoron, Arthur. "People v. Trump, et al., No. 45264/2022 - Request for Letter by 2.7.24". 5 February 2024. s3.DocumentCloud.org. 6 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3uroGKc Sisak, Michael R. "Judge wants answers after report that key witness in Trump fraud trial may plead guilty to perjury". Associated Press. 6 February 2024. APNews.com. 6 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3HM8NRD
GOP have perhaps just shrunk to a new low, with a bill being touted that, if passed, will declare that Congress do not consider Trump to have engaged in insurrection, or supported those who did etc. Not sure how this ties in with what the Supreme Court are majong judgements on, but presumably the GOP think that, if passed, it will have some (considerable) weight in any subsequent decision on the matter. So those who benefit from his insurrection can declare him not an insurrectionist. So that's okay, then. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let's hope the Supreme Court act sensibly, and honestly, rather than politically, in any of their deliberations. Although I don't see it happening, unfortunately.
$365m verdict against the Orange One in the civil case in NY state. Plus interest. That's going to hurt, no matter how he looks at it. Expect the "biased!" "unfair!" "fake trial!" type response from Trump. Then there's all the bans of Trump and his cohort from dealings within NY state, and other restrictions, this is quite a doozy! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Naturally he'll appeal the verdict, but I don't like his chances of success. At least not in the Appeals Court. Should it ever get to the SCOTUS then I guess they might find a way to overturn it. Who knows how incompetent they will be at that stage! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He'll probably be dead by the time the appeals are all finished and the assets already passed on to this kids. Whether they can claw some assets back or not, who knows?
News just in... Trump has effectively admitted that he is broke/insolvent! Or at least he has told the courts that he has so far only raised about 20% of the c.USD500m that he has to stump up as a bond before his appeal process. If he doesn't stump up such a bond within 30 days of the signed judgement then the NY DA will be going in and seizing some of his assets to cover the USD460m bill! He's apparently raised about USD100m (either as cash or as a bond) but, so his lawyers have claimed, “The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond.” His lawyers have earnt their money in one regard, in that they have posted a nearly 1,800 page court filing to explain why he shouldn't have to pay the full amount while his appeals are ongoing. His lawyers have suggested using some of his NY real estate as collateral - but (a) would this be sufficient, and (b) why would they want to accept that, when it has been the subject of the fraudulent valuations that he has been found guilty of? For someone reportedly worth c.USD2.5bn, he has even had the audacity to launch a GoFundMe page, which has apparently raised c.USD450k in just the first 2 days. Why are people so willing to donate money to a multi-billionaire?? No wonder he wants his daughter-in-law, Lara, to help run the Republican National Committee and so utilise whatever funds they still have in their accounts to fund his legal problems. So much for Trump claiming to have plenty of cash and liquid assets available to pay such a fine! sources: https://newrepublic.com/post/179366/donald-trump-struggling-post-new-york-fraud-bond https://www.scmp.com/news/world/uni...bond-new-york-fraud-case-offers-us100-million https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-plans-post-100-million-bond-asks-stay/story?id=107634579 and other random Google-suggested links on the matter
Since, As pointed out in the previous post, he either can't or is not willing to post the bond. If he goes forward with an appeal without posting bond, he will still be required to pay those judgements when they come due. Only by posting a bond can he stay enforcement of the judgements. The reason for this is to prevent a scenario like the one you mentioned from happening. If, by some bizarre chance, he were then to win his appeal, then the funds would be repaid to him(without interest.) This just means that Carrol, for instance, would be wise not to spend the money until after the appeal process. But this isn't really much different than if it had been held in a bond.
It seems that Trump may be holding out for his Truth Social to go public, which I think is scheduled for 22 March when the SPAC has a vote on approving it. At current share price of USD47, and with Trump going to hold c.79 million of them, he's looking at a windfall of a few billion, despite Truth Social only generating pitiful revenues (less than USD 10m a year) and losing multiples of that each year. It's a meme stock, but it will generate him billions, as somehow it'll be valued at c.USD 9 billion. However, normally there is a lock-in/lock-up which means he wouldn't be able to sell his shares for 6 months, but it's thought he is going to push the shareholders to allow him to access the market immediately so that he can dump his shares straight away, and therefore pay his judgements. If he can achieve that - and given his bullying ways and how the whole SPAC was set up for him, for his Truth Social etc then it is likely they would approve waiving the lock-up/in for him - then he will dump a load of the stock almost immediately after the merger, which will immediately reduce the stock price for the rest of the shareholders, which may then never recover back again. He would then be laughing all the way to the bank with c.USD 3billion in change after paying his fees. If it goes as it is suspected he wants it to go, that is. Of course, none of his MAGA supporters that have bought shares will care. It's just a meme stock, and people will get burnt or thrive as per normal market conditions. So it's not so much that he doesn't have the assets, but it's just a timing issue between current liquid cash and his ability to dump the pumped stock of his SPAC. All of this may require him to achieve at least a brief temporary stay, of even a few days, as well. Remains to be seen whether he will achieve that.
Given that Truth Social recently agreed to settle an SEC complaint, and is currently under investigation by multiple agencies, including FBI, DHS, and SEC, the offering is something of a mess right now. It might not be that Trump has particular exposure, but the problem is already disrupting the public offering, and $300 million in operating funds has been held up after the churn rate of a sketchy fundraising operation caught investigators' attention. ____________________ Notes: Boggioni, Tom. "Trump's Truth Social deal is being investigated by 'elite money-laundering team': report". Raw Story. 3 February 2024. RawStory.com. 3 February 2024. https://bit.ly/49PWKi3
UAV v. TMTG The headline from NBC News pretty much sums it up: "Trump Media sued by co-founders ahead of DWAC merger, potential setback for lucrative deal" The detail, per Dan Mangan↱: Former President Donald Trump was accused in a lawsuit Wednesday of trying to "drastically dilute" the value of stock shares in his social media company held by the firm's co-founders, potentially depriving themof hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. The partnership, United Atlantic Ventures alleges that Trump Media & Technology Group engaged in "wrongful 11th hour ... maneuvering" to dilute UAV″s minority stake in the media company, a court filing says. While UAV's lawyer spoke with reporters, CNBC is still waiting for response from TMTG. Attorney Christopher Clark explained, of UAV's Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss, "It's not like they went out and bought a lottery ticket. They actually went out and did the work, they created Truth Social, and now the beneficiary of that, Donald Trump, doesn't want to pay." It seemed nearly perfunctory to add, "Not a unique story, unfortunately." "Former President Donald J. Trump ... is causing TMTG to not only dispute UAV's established right to 8,600,000 shares or 8.6% of TMTG's issued and outstanding stock, but also attempting to drastically dilute UAV's interests in connection with an impending merger," a motion in the Delaware suit says. That motion claims that UAV's current 8.6% stake in Trump's company would be diluted to less than 1% as a result of the TMTG board approving an eight-fold increase in the total number of authorized shares in the firm, from 120 million shares to 1 billion shares. "There is no legitimate business purpose for the Billion Share Authorization or the creation of non-voting stock in the face of the pending Merger, particularly because any unissued TMTG stock will be cancelled in the Merger," the motion by UAV says. "The only plausible reason for TMTG to authorize this massive new block of stock and create non-voting stock is so Trump can dilute UAV and take the lion's share of merger consideration for himself," the motion says. Meanwhile, DWAC, the special purpose acquisition company, explains, in its filing: Although TMTG advised DWAC that it firmly believes that neither UAV nor Mr. Cohen possess any anti-dilution or consent rights with respect to the Business Combination, if such claims involve the issuance of additional shares in connection with the Business Combination and such claims were determined valid, settlement of such claims could have a material adverse effect from a monetary and dilutive impact (both from an economic and voting standpoint) on the Combined Entity and its stockholders," the filing said. That excerpt, though, is not particularly informative, and its claim that UAV doesn't have anti-dilution or consent rights might be accurate or not. That's the thing about public stock for Truth Social: It's Trump, a couple of Apprentice contestants, and the sort of international financiers who trigger multi-agency investigations. Sarcasm says, what could possibly go wrong. ____________________ Notes: Mangan, Dan. "Trump Media sued by co-founders ahead of DWAC merger, potential setback for lucrative deal". NBC News. 29 February 2024. NBCNews.com. 29 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3uSC4qK
On Politics, Rhetoric, and Reality "So the former guy wants to claim 'presidential immunity' for falsifying business records to commit multiple crimes, including campaign finance violations (so he could sleep with a pornstar while his wife was home breastfeeding his infant son), PRIOR to becoming president? Got it." ― Tristan Snell↱ The thing is, Tristan Snell isn't actually a comedian. To the other, if one insists on making a point about political rhetoric, it is also true that the attorney, Mr. Snell, has already prevailed against Donald Trump in court, forcing a $25 million settlement in the Trump University case. But if we wish to pretend his words are somehow a political exaggeration, that's the thing, there's nothing about that summary that isn't true. Here's an analogy: Once upon a time, some guy thought to publish a Bible paraphrase. These are actually a bad idea, in general, but this one was so particularly bad that even the author's own church community rejected it. In the Bible, there is a story, in Genesis, that might leave some wondering who God is talking to (3.22-23). And, honestly, it's a trivial question. But for whatever reason, the paraphrase author transformed the story into a bit about how the fall at Eden was all part of God's plan. What the good doctor (of theology) managed to do is actually kind of impressive: Not only did he change the Bible, as such, but he also managed to do so in a way that fulfilled an oppositional argument. By comparison, God the Racketeer is somehow subtle. Not only might we wonder why Trump needs immunity for things he already did, but the part about wanting presidential immunity for alleged criminal activity that took place before he was president really makes its own point. Maybe Trump supporters feel alienated by yet another rejection, but if the sting of people's derisive laughter bothers those supporters so much, it's worth noting that Donald Trump is writing the jokes. For instance, maybe it might feel, from half a world away, like a subtle point to argue about whether attempting to influence state election officials on one's own behalf is an official duty of office. By contrast, Trump's latest immunity claim would retroactively apply presidential immunity, so that inauguration to the office would be absolution of all prior crimes. It is a facially ridiculous claim. To spell it out: Donald Trump's argument would mean Joe Biden enjoys that same immunity. Even Trump supporters ought to be able to figure out what's wrong with that.
" Trump unable to get $464m bond in New York fraud case, his lawyers say" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68600093 "Oh, but you who philosophize, disgrace and criticize all fears Bury the rag deep in your face for now's the time for your tears"
One of the smaller details, here, is that he testified under oath that he had over $400m cash, even taking the moment to point out how unusual he was compared to other developers for having so much cash. We called it perjury and impeached a president for playing word games with the definitions of words describing sexual acts. It's one thing to wonder how far we've come that we don't care about the appearance of actual perjury; with the $91m to Carroll bonded, Trump should only need about $50-70m bonded to fulfill the New York judgment. So, if Trump didn't commit perjury, where did that $400m go? Flip-side: Imagine, after all this, that perjury about how much cash he had on hand could be his undoing. How silly can we get?
