this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
374 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3091 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Donald Trump has to cut a fat check, and his appeal of the E. Jean Carroll verdict won't delay that.
  • Within 30 days of the judge's written judgment, Trump has to turn over either cash or a bond.
  • While he appeals the verdict, Carroll can't touch that money — but neither can Trump.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Within 30 days of the judge's written judgment, Trump has to turn over either cash or a bond.

This always, always begs the question: "or what?" Over and over we hear of what courts decide people "must" do, but when they are rich and/or powerful or honestly just stubborn enough, it doesn't seem to have any teeth.

And I get it, there are a lot of things they can do, but they always seem to scared or complacent to do any of them. It's getting real old reading about what Trump or Alex Jones or whoever "must" do without seeing them actually suffer consequences for not doing it.

[–] Mononon@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

In this case, Carroll can start taking possession of his assets herself. She does not seem particularly sheepish about that. For some of these people, they can hide their assets, but Trump's are publicly known. I can't say what will happen, but there's some teeth to this one. And Trump couldn't argue with the damages amount because he'd risk losing one of his other cases that hinges on his assets' worth.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Also, I think it would mean she immediately gets the $5m that Trump had to put in escrow (which essentially means the court can dispense this without any action from Trump)