this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
660 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2438 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 is close to the deadline to post bond in his fraud trial—and he’s screwing himself over even more.

After having reached out to several guarantors and 30 suretors for help posting his $464 million New York bank fraud bond, Donald Trump suddenly wants everyone to know he actually does have the cash.

In a bizarre rant on Friday morning, the man who was found to have defrauded banks and investors by overvaluing himself and the value of his properties claimed that he had accrued the wealth by way of “HARD WORK, TALENT, AND LUCK.”

Trump also admitted he has nearly half a billion dollars in cash.

The confession directly contradicts a filing from his legal team last month arguing that it would be “impossible” to secure a bond covering the full amount of the multimillion-dollar ruling.

Trump’s words will surely help out New York Attorney General Letitia James, who on Wednesday urged an appeals court to ignore Donald Trump’s latest effort to worm his way out of paying the $464 million disgorgement from his bank fraud trial.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What about "often overturned"? That seems like a fact that could potentially be proven or disproven.

Especially if the judge has never been overturned, or never/rarely overturned in the context or timeframe of these cases. Assuming that is a false fact for this judge, I don't know his stats.

Another judge on his cases has been potentially been "often overturned" based on percentages of total cases/rulings?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Often" is an opinion about something that has happened. Just like "a lot".

Suppose I said "Boeing aircraft often fail" and you haven't kept up with the news. You can conclude that they have failed, but you won't know how many times unless you ask more questions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What if I say you often get speeding tickets while driving, but you've never been stopped by the cops for anything, or you got one speeding ticket 10 years ago? If I keep repeating that you "often get speeding tickets" and it gets you fired - did I not hurt you with a lie?

Notice I'm not accusing you of speeding. I'm saying you often get ticketed, something that can be verified

He's not accusing the judge of "often making wrong or bad decisions" He is saying "often overturned decisions" Has the judge been overturned in these proceedings? Because another federal judge in one of his other cases has been overturned, but he's not posting about that judge being unfair or "often overturned"

I feel like there's a difference, but maybe using "often" murks it up just enough. Like using alleged, "it's possible", or "people say" to spread rumors.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

If you say I often get speeding tickets, that's the same as saying that I've gotten speeding tickets and you think I've gotten too many.

The first part is false only if I've never gotten one. The second is an opinion.

I would be surprised if any judge never had any part of any decision changed on appeal. Appeals courts exist to modify what judges do, it just goes with the territory. Engoron is no different this regard, in fact Trump himself was partly successful in appealing one of his orders.