politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I feel like some people may be mentally damaged or simply lack critical thinking skills. Business is business and this entity obviously already has no qualms doing business with dumpy.
You get a bond like this contingent on other assets existing plus a fee. He owns real estate. This arrangement lets you leverage the equity in that real estate for a fee while someone else's cash on hand is used. Let's be realistic too, there's next to no way he's going to pay the full damages because most sane people wouldn't think any amount of defamation is worth $83m+
Let's pretend worse case scenario happens for dumpy and the 83m judgment is sustained and he exhausts all appeals and has to pay all parties for all damages based on all current lawsuits against him... unless he declares bankruptcy and truly loses it all - a thing that seems to have no hope of ever happening given none of the suits are for more money than he controls in assets... it's all but guaranteed a signed contract will be enforceable should dumpy choose to not pay.
Ultimately it's a secured debt. We'll never know what the terms were from chubb corp.
No, the whole argument of the damages amount was that it needed to be high enough to actually matter to this particular individual. Are you at all familiar with the case? The court agreed it needed to be high enough to be punitive.
I agree other than
Maybe not on its own, but remember that the initial award was far less. Then he did it again. The numbers skyrocketed because of punitive damages: basically, what's an appropriate amount that would stop him (and him specifically) from doing it a third time? If a court were to make me pay, say, everything I have in my savings account I'd think twice about what I do. But my net worth is far less than his is purported to be. With that higher net worth comes higher punitive damages to prevent another occurrence.
First, the court decided the damages after Trump repeatedly disparaged Ms Carroll, even after having been found guilty of doing so previously. If there is a consensus among legal scholars that the amount will be reduced, I have not seen it. This wasn’t some jury awarding an arbitrary high amount to a sympathetic plaintiff.
Second, the other offense that Trump has also been found guilty of is inflating the valuation of his real estate holdings, which again is a behavior he has engaged in repeatedly and has even boasted about. When questioned about his net worth, he stated in court that he declares his worth based on his assessment of his brand as Trump, rather than actual real estate values. He’s on the hook for half a billion dollars for that one.
If the Chubb decision to back this was related to the person’s personal friendship or financial relationship to Trump, then he may be liable to a suit as well, but realistically he’s not putting up his own money. This is a personal friend and confidant of Trump backing Trump’s play. If he accepted the Trump valuation of a property to secure the bond amount, then he’s definitely made himself vulnerable. If it’s based on a realistic valuation, then Chubb is probably off the hook for that.
Trump’s valuations are just straight up bananas, and he has been found guilty of doing exactly that. I’m looking forward to finding out more about this deal.