She also could put a lien on one or more of the properties and collect when they get sold.
Didn’t Trump have to post a bond of $5M? If so, that’s how her judgment will be paid when the appeals are over.
In short, cash, but … yes:
Is there any actual footage of Trump’s speech released? I’ve searched Youtube, and I find lots of people talking about it, but no video of the speech itself.
There won’t be. There is no video of the courtroom proceedings in this case. Judge Engoron allowed very limited video of court attendees prior to proceedings getting underway, but that’s it.
There’s this sketch, though. He does not look happy.
I thought that was his happy face.
He’s Putin on a happy face!
I’ve seen that face before…
Thanks for the info.
Most welcome.
I think the only cases likely to be televised are the Georgia State election interference case and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s hush money case.
There is a lot of interest in having the January 6th federal case before Judge Tanya Chutkan televised, but it’s unlikely to happen.
Trump should have called him as a character witness. LOL
Yeah, you and Sammy the Bull are all about fairness and honesty.
I noted that same story in the Pit thread about Trump headlines that sound like they are from The Onion. Why exactly does Trump think this is an endorsement worth cheering about? First, do we assume Sammy the Bull is being honest? But sure, let’s say Sammy is correct and he couldn’t get his hooks into Trump. The article I read said that Sammy was talking about having control over the unions. So all this tells me is that Trump is too cheap to use union labor. Did the mob try to sign Trump up but then find out that he couldn’t afford to pay union rates? Also, which politician in the history of ever has put out a statement to say “look at this gangster who says he never corrupted me! Look how honest I am!” That’s the kind of thing you should put on your resume!
“The Fremen haters and losers will do anything to push their Sardaukar, Sardaukar, Sardaukar hoax. I spoke to the Emperor - he says it wasn’t his forces that attacked the Atreides compound, and I trust him more than I trust Liddle’ Leto Atreides or the radical left Marxists in the Landsraad. MAKE ARRAKIS GREAT AGAIN!”
Parody is all well and good, but some restraint may be advisable.
This site tends to be fairly doctrinaire libertarian, but I find the argument that taking away Trumps right to do business is an unconstitutional bill of attainder persuasive.
Is there precedent for doing this kind of thing, and what is the legal argument against the proposition? I would be interested in hearing the legal arguments .
Also, how is the current Supreme court likely to rule on the question?
My understanding from various readings on this case is tht the laws have been used many times in the past with similar penalties, and none have been argued as unconstitutional - including 2 prior cases against Mr. Trump himself.
I don’t. That article is awful. The fact that it’s on a web site called “reason” is farcical.
Let’s just start with the opening paragraph…
It claims that since no bank accused Trump of fraud, he hasn’t committed fraud. It claims that Trump is being charged with a “victimless crime”. Trump is not charged with any crime yet, so that’s objectively false. It’s also false to say there are no victims. He cheated on his taxes. New York itself was a victim.
He’s not being sentenced with criminal penalties so there is no bill of attainder. This piece doesn’t contain some novel argument so much as a fact-deprived ramble.
In other words, much like the diatribes of the subject of the piece.
Cool, maybe she can have him locked up, instead.