There are perhaps other consequences to this verdict.
I believe Trump has 30 days to appeal the verdict, so that will take us up to mid-March and will use Trump's resources.
Having been found civilly liable for persistent fraud in his Trump Organisation, his first criminal case starting on the 25th March involves 34 counts of falsifying business records in the same. A civil liability for persistent fraud does not bode well for the trial outcome of these felony charges.
Further to that, the subject and timing of the alleged felony fraud suggests an element of election interference - Trump didn't want the electorate to know that he had sex with Stormy Daniels around the time of his son's birth in case it lost him votes in 2016.
After this criminal case, Trump may face both a state and a federal trial relating to election interference allegations in 2020.
I realise many people were of the opinion that the DC conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election case should have been the first to be tried and I understand why, but it looks to me like each case is naturally leading into and supporting the next. That can't very well be blamed on a justice department grand plan given it was Team Trump who created the delays in the DC federal case with interlocutry motions and appeals.
Of course, it's still possible for Trump to be a convicted felon before the next election and it's still possible for the DC trial to be over before the same.
A delayed DC trial isn't necessarily in Trump's best interests if it's ongoing at the peak of presidential campaigning (assuming Trump has any money to campaign), but again, he created the delay.
Careful, you are begining to sound like TenofCups.
I'm sorry if I offended you by pointing out how your post looked to me, or what it reminded me of.
Might I point out that you have no idea about people ignoring Tulefell's posts. People may read without commenting, or commenting immediately after reading.
Btw, no one can ask another member to leave this public space.
If someone wishes to analyse one of my comments, I'm big enough and ugly enough to respond as I see fit.
If you read Chat's comment it explains that Trump signed a Deed of Conservation and Preservation on the property.
Having a choice of two possibilities before he legally opted for one doesn't mean he can legally use both options at the same time, particularly after he bindingly opted for one.
Like much of Team Trump's clutching at straws, your argument is frivolous.
It's possible that Trump won't be able to appeal the civil fraud verdict even if he has some non-frivolous basis to do so. Judging by the E. Jean Carroll case, Trump et al will have to deposit the disgorgement amount totalling $364 + interest according to NY civil law before appealing.
As he deposited the full $5M+ to appeal the first E. Jean Carroll case, it's likely he won't be able to access a company to back a 10% bond deposit, particularly given his history of financial fraud and non-payment.
The full amount of $83M+ from the second defamation trial and $364M+ from the civil fraud case wil total in excess of $500M, more than the available $400M cash Trump has stated he has.
That means, in order to appeal both verdicts he must either sell assets which will have to be approved by the independent monitor Barbara Jones, or he'll have to raise the money from other sources.
As to the former, I'm going to hazard a guess that Barbara Jones has an obligation to approve liquidation of assets to cover moneys owed, but not neccesarily for throwing good money after bad. I imagine retired federal judge Barbara Jones has an obligation to manage assets prudently: unless Team Trump can justify realistic grounds for appeal to her, she perhaps can't approve releasing funds for frivolous expenditure.
With respect to the latter, there have been questions hanging over Trump's use of campaign funds for legal fees, plus there's very little left in the coffers for actual campaigning. Without a massive influx of funds from his supporters, many of whom probably struggle to cover their own expenses, something has to give. Trump is now between a rock and a hard place trying to juggle his legal and campaign commitments both financially and with respect to hours in the day.
There's certainly no news yet about Trump appealing the second E. Jean Carroll case, never mind this civil fraud verdict.
That's why I don't think disinformation pantomime posts are the logical, or fun balance to factual information and reasoned discussion in a time of existential crisis.
I'm listening to what Tulefell has to say and I'm grateful for her public contributions.
She is not alone.
If we only discuss our thoughts with people of the same opinions we are never challenged and cannot progress.
By dismissing and undermining the ' slightly interested minority' as irrelevant, you are not only discriminating against that group (along with the other groups you have defined), but you are excuding those potential 'allies' who support Tulefell's contributions and an ethical practise movement.
Trying to isolate Tulefell from others by telling her she is unsupported and alone, trying to tell her what she feels, trying to offer yourself as her saviour, reminds me of how an abusive relationship is manipulated into being.
I'm not sure if you misunderstand the word 'balance', or have just misused it.
This thread is reporting the details with respect to the verdict in the NY civil fraud trial against Trump, his associates and the Trump Organisation.
Relaying information about a recent event is not 'unbalanced' if the intention is to relay information about a recent event.
A youtube short bitchin' about other people, complete with pantomime gnarly facial expressions is the Trumpist '...but what about..?' technique of redirection and obsfucation. I like to keep my Trump-related blogs on topic for this very reason.
If you wish to put the blog topic in some kind of context, maybe you could compare the legal proceedings and outcome with another NY civil fraud case, explaining where you think the similarities, or differences lie with respect to the application of the law.
I would also consider speculation about the potential consequences of the verdict as on topic, such as whether appealing the verdict is a viable option, or how this verdict may impact on Trump's upcoming criminal trials.
The independent monitor isn't permanant, but the two-tiered oversight team including retired judge Barbara Jones was appointed for three years.
By not revoking Trump et al's business licences, Judge Engoron has avoided the dissolution of the Trump Organisation and that particular opportunity to appeal the verdict.
It has been reported that the oversight team would be able to decide if such steps were necessary in the future, however.
Like I said, the Trump Organisation is not expected to last very long. It will more than likely have to be liquidated to pay for fines and lawyers.
Eric a Don jr. are banned from doing business in NY state for two years.
The prosecution had asked for a lifetime ban for Donald Trump and the revocation of business licences, but Judge Engoron ruled that a permanant monitor over the Trump organisation was sufficient.
I suppose the Trump organisation, or Trump's freedom isn't expected to last all that long.
I struck a deal: I'm having the short people over for a slumber party in exchange for some minor DIY tasks (20 minutes work that will make my life much easier.)
I have no idea how much my daughter and son-in-law are going to spend on lunch and whatever else they decide to do, but it's a well-earned break several times over.
I have a couple of days of crafts, cooking and other activities lined up, during which time my youngest grandson will regularly break out into zoomies with the joy of it all. Fortunately, my eldest is very adept at keeping him from hurt, or harm.
I've been up since stupid o'clock as I still have a little preparation left to do. It's going to be a long day ending with a good walk up and down the mountain before bedtime. Getting them out on a cold, dark and possibly rainy night takes a little persuasion/bribery/shameless psychological manipulation, but at least one of them will be asleep before midnight as a result. Over-tired ADHD sibling squabbling into the early hours is best avoided, I find.
"Do minors in Saudi Arabia receive the death penalty?
Saudi Arabia has a history of handing out the death penalty to minors. Reprieve client Abdullah al-Howaiti was 14-years-old when he was arrested, tortured and forced to confess to a crime he could not have committed. He was still a minor when he was handed the death penalty.
A group of UN Legal experts have called on Saudi Arabia to annul Abdullah al-Howaiti’s second death sentence because he did not receive a fair trial. The Special Rapporteurs wrote that “it is inherently cruel to execute children,” and called on Saudi Arabia to “abolish the imposition of the death penalty for juveniles for all crimes, without exception.”
At least 15 child defendants – those who committed ‘alleged’ crimes when they were minors – have been executed since 2013, despite Saudi Arabia announcing they were getting rid of the death penalty for those who committed crimes when they were minors.
In 2021, Mustafa al-Darwish, who was on death row due to an alleged crime committed when he was just 17-years-old, was executed."
"The explosion in the number of executions in Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salman is a crisis the international community cannot continue to ignore. Every data point in this report is a human life taken. The Saudi death penalty machine chews up children, protesters, vulnerable women in domestic service, unwitting drug mules and people whose only ‘crime’ was owning banned books or speaking to foreign journalists. And all while MBS lies to the world that he has reformed the system to reduce the number of people executed."
"...between 2010 and 2021, the types of crimes resulting in executions could be classified into the following groups:
Murder Drugs trafficking, including smuggling s*xual offences Formation of, or membership with, an organised criminal group or proscribed group Kidnapping or false imprisonment accompanied by assault, burglary or robbery Sedition, treason and other state security offences Witchcraft and sorcery
International law requires states that retain the death penalty to limit its application to “the most serious crimes”, widely accepted to mean intentional killing."
In his waffing introduction Tucker instructs his audience twice that Putin is sincere, implying he should be accepted regardless of his opinions. Personally, I'm not that easily manipuated, but of course many a Tucker fan is: Carlson's brand rides on his intense, yet notably affected sincerity.
Tucker's first rambling, repetitious question lasts for a full 50 seconds. He's either an appallingly unskilled interviewer, or it's a deliberate technique, maybe to imply some kind of intelligence, or sincerity. A proficient interviewer has well prepared, precise and incisive questions which is especially important when the content is being translated as it is spoken. I struggled to translate Tucker's gabble into English, so goodness knows what the Russan language reproduction turned out to be.
As for the translation of Putin's monologue, it was like an 11 year old boy's composition homework. I only read the first five minutes of his projected 30 second to a minute history lesson, but it was not presented with the audience in mind. As is typical of naturally self-centered small boys, Putin told the story in a muddled format for the purposes of self-indulence.
How anyone could think that this is a golden opportunity to hear Putin's side of the story after he has wreaked a bloody war on Ukraine and his own citizens, is beyond me. It appears to be little more than two aging narcissists engaged in mutual and public ego masterbation.
I feel like an unwitting voyeur of grubby exhibitionists.
Fukuyama postures that ascending liberal democracy is the end point of our ideological evoluton (because it's fundementally a better system than all the others) regardless of whether totalitarianism rises again.
In other words, we're still heading for stability just as soon as we stop being utter muppets.
Maybe, given the palpable environmental, racial, gender and other paradigm shifts we are experiencing, the rise of totalitarian tantrums is nothing more than the death throes of the pea-brained carnivorous dinosaurs.
I didn't say you accused me of being one of 'his' cronies (who is 'his'?)
I said, or at least implied that making death threats to other members of, and on this site may well get you suspended, or banned if the site owners get wind of it. That's because of the legal position you have dumped them in by making those death threats.
Do you understand, or do I have to make it simpler for you?
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,996)
The Verdict
There are perhaps other consequences to this verdict.I believe Trump has 30 days to appeal the verdict, so that will take us up to mid-March and will use Trump's resources.
Having been found civilly liable for persistent fraud in his Trump Organisation, his first criminal case starting on the 25th March involves 34 counts of falsifying business records in the same. A civil liability for persistent fraud does not bode well for the trial outcome of these felony charges.
Further to that, the subject and timing of the alleged felony fraud suggests an element of election interference - Trump didn't want the electorate to know that he had sex with Stormy Daniels around the time of his son's birth in case it lost him votes in 2016.
After this criminal case, Trump may face both a state and a federal trial relating to election interference allegations in 2020.
I realise many people were of the opinion that the DC conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election case should have been the first to be tried and I understand why, but it looks to me like each case is naturally leading into and supporting the next. That can't very well be blamed on a justice department grand plan given it was Team Trump who created the delays in the DC federal case with interlocutry motions and appeals.
Of course, it's still possible for Trump to be a convicted felon before the next election and it's still possible for the DC trial to be over before the same.
A delayed DC trial isn't necessarily in Trump's best interests if it's ongoing at the peak of presidential campaigning (assuming Trump has any money to campaign), but again, he created the delay.