Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.  As long as not insanely punitive, probably withstands 8th Amendment challenge.

I have no idea what the standard would be for "too punitive," but given that it didn't even deter him from immediately defaming her again, $65 mil doesn't seem to be too punitive. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I have no idea what the standard would be for "too punitive," but given that it didn't even deter him from immediately defaming her again, $65 mil doesn't seem to be too punitive. 

I thought we were talking about the New York state real estate value inflation case and the resultant civil penalties/fines wrt 8th Amendment.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yup. Surely it made it into post-trial motions if not briefing on the damages.  But with habba Dabba do, who knows.  Kise probably got it right.

I have no idea.  And don't call me Shirley.

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The excessive fines portion of the 8th actually has a bit of vitality these days in the context of civil forfeiture.

Is the fine excessive in light of the sums of money that he defrauded people out of? Trump stole BILLIONS through fraud. A penalty that is a fraction of what was stolen is hardly unreasonable (unless you have some weird instinct to use kid gloves with fascists)

Posted
11 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Here's the most hilarious thing: Trump was gifted 500 million dollars by his dad and now, despite the fact that the dollars are inflated, he can't even come up with the money his dad gave him.

 

No, the most hilarious thing is if he took that $500 million, didn't touch the principal and lived on the interest until October of 2012, and then was smart like all the libertarian dipshits that vote for him and dumped it all into Bitcoin, he'd be the world's richest man with a net worth of more than 285 billion dollars.

leo-toast.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thanks.  Do/can punitive damages scale with means?

Jurors are permitted to take into account the wealth of the defendant in calculating punitive damages,because it should be sufficient to punish. But wealth of the defendant is irrelevant for most other forms of damages. As in compensatory damages compensate and the ability to pay is irrelevant. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
44 minutes ago, Goredho said:

If you are Russia or Saudi Arabia or whoever, you don't loan Donald Trump half a billion with the idea he'll pay you back with interest.  You pay him half a billion to be himself and damage, perhaps destroy, the post WWII U.S. leviathan.

I'm firmly in the camp that believes KSA are a bunch of cunts, but what do they get out of the good old USA falling apart?  Iran would whip their asses so fast if we weren't around to back them up.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is the fine excessive in light of the sums of money that he defrauded people out of? Trump stole BILLIONS through fraud. A penalty that is a fraction of what was stolen is hardly unreasonable (unless you have some weird instinct to use kid gloves with fascists)

There was no evidence at THIS trial that Trump defrauded anyone of billions. Other people he defrauded over the years are irrelevant to this particular case. 

I think excessive fine analysis requires some connection to the harm done in the case at bar, which is why it has some life in the context of civil forfeiture. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Is the fine excessive in light of the sums of money that he defrauded people out of? Trump stole BILLIONS through fraud. A penalty that is a fraction of what was stolen is hardly unreasonable (unless you have some weird instinct to use kid gloves with fascists)

Analogizing to the criminal sentencing cases, if the penalty falls within a range prescribed by statute, it is per se not in violation of the 8th amendment.  If not, courts consider (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the penalties imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the penalties imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.  As long as not insanely punitive, probably withstands 8th Amendment challenge.

Here’s a question for the law dogs- as currently interpreted how is “Cruel and Unusual” different in practice from “capricious and arbitrary?”

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There was no evidence at THIS trial that Trump defrauded anyone of billions. Other people he defrauded over the years are irrelevant to this particular case. 

I think excessive fine analysis requires some connection to the harm done in the case at bar, which is why it has some life in the context of civil forfeiture. 

In this instance would the appeal just be for a portion of the judgement, and not a reversal of the Judge's findings?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Here’s a question for the law dogs- as currently interpreted how is “Cruel and Unusual” different in practice from “capricious and arbitrary?”

Depends.  What color is the defendant?

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Here’s a question for the law dogs- as currently interpreted how is “Cruel and Unusual” different in practice from “capricious and arbitrary?”

They apply in completely different circumstances. C&U is criminal only and very little has been adjudged cruel or unusual. 

A&C is mostly a term of administrative law and applies to an agency action disconnected from facts or rules/laws. Agency action gets labeled A&C far more often than anything gets labeled C&U. 

They have in common that there is an element of disproportionality or irrationality to both. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm firmly in the camp that believes KSA are a bunch of cunts, but what do they get out of the good old USA falling apart?  Iran would whip their asses so fast if we weren't around to back them up.

They think a non-democratic USA dominated by American conservatives is more aligned with their long-term interests than a democratic USA. They're probably not wrong about that. Autocrats like making friends with other autocrats. Democracies are messy and unpredictable.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Underdog said:

Maybe if he stops trying to fuck Ivanka again Jared will give him the money. 

I'm pretty sure that Jared will only give him the money if he gets to watch, it's the republican way.  Ivanka is the one holding this thing up.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They think a non-democratic USA dominated by American conservatives is more aligned with their long-term interests than a democratic USA. They're probably not wrong about that. Autocrats like making friends with other autocrats. Democracies are messy and unpredictable.  

They also realize that a Christian theocracy in the USA is much more aligned with their own Islamic kingdom than what we currently are. 
 

only scary thing about that is that both sides wouldn’t be able to see past the other’s god. But it’s not like wars have ever been fought over such things. 

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

They also realize that a Christian theocracy in the USA is much more aligned with their own Islamic kingdom than what we currently are. 

Fundamentalism --> theocracy --> authoritarianism --> win

Posted
Just now, Surly Bevo said:

Question. Was it necessary by some deadline etc for the failure to secure the bond to be made publicly known yesterday?

the deadline to secure/post the bond is 3/25.

he's just whining.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're playing America's song now!

Is that a Lee Greenwood b-side?

Edited by dcbc
Posted
25 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Is that a Lee Greenwood b-side?

b-side?  Fuck that, it's from the secret omitted verse of "Proud to be an American."  "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I can be completely fucking irrational and disproportionately exact pain and cruelty on anyone weaker than me, and I won't forget the people I fucked over, because the 'other' don't deserve to be free, and you better stand up, boy....or else I'll beat your ass again."  Or something like that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

b-side?  Fuck that, it's from the secret omitted verse of "Proud to be an American."  "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I can be completely fucking irrational and disproportionately exact pain and cruelty on anyone weaker than me, and I won't forget the people I fucked over, because the 'other' don't deserve to be free, and you better stand up, boy....or else I'll beat your ass again."  Or something like that.

I was hoping I'd get a hidden verse.  I am not disappointed in that effort.  We need to get you into the studio.  

 

0f0d95af-7d5e-446a-8e8c-92b130ec07df_tex

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's gonna pay out a few hundred million at the very least.  The issue for him is if he has to come up with the liquidity even in the short term - that means he's exposing himself to a fuckload of taxes.  So even if they go back and lower the amount...once he's had to makes moves to raise money, it's costing his ass a LOT.  Also remember there's a shitload more cases on the way vs him.  It's beautiful thing.  Just laugh at him and enjoy.  

You're definitely closer to his tax bracket than I am, so I hope you're correct.

Posted
5 hours ago, dcbc said:

They clearly aren't familiar with Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the imposition of a life sentence without parole for fraudulently obtaining an aggregate of $230 (spread across three separate offenses) under the Texas recidivism statute did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.  If that's not C&UP, very little seems to be.

I need to know that. I hate knowing it. I had no idea.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Local rich kid shocked by consequences*


 

 

 

 

 


*ole Donny will wriggle out of this one, nevertheless 

 

 

the dildo of consequences never comes lubed 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 7
Posted
12 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Also remember there's a shitload more cases on the way vs him.  It's beautiful thing.  Just laugh at him and enjoy.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not that I mind Trump getting tagged with a $83.3 million fine for defaming E. Jean Carroll, but how was that amount calculated?


that’s like $83 bucks for a guy worth $10 bil ?

Edited by tx 3 putt
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Question. Was it necessary by some deadline etc for the failure to secure the bond to be made publicly known yesterday?

No. But he filed a motion asking to be relieved of the obligation,thus making it public. 

In true Trumpian fashion, he says not a word about protecting the plaintiff/creditor during the appeal, but only whines about his own problems. That is the whole purpose of the rule. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's gonna pay out a few hundred million at the very least.  The issue for him is if he has to come up with the liquidity even in the short term - that means he's exposing himself to a fuckload of taxes.  So even if they go back and lower the amount...once he's had to makes moves to raise money, it's costing his ass a LOT.  Also remember there's a shitload more cases on the way vs him.  It's beautiful thing.  Just laugh at him and enjoy.  

Trump's Tax Accountants:  "When criming's your business, aren't criminal penalties fully-deductible business expenses?"

or Option B: 

kramer-write.gif

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
56 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

You're definitely closer to his tax bracket than I am, so I hope you're correct.

He's never spent his own money.  He has had real estate daddy gave him and gets money loaned against that real estate - and he inflates the values so he can raise more money.  Well, when all of a sudden you have to sell that real estate you're paying taxes out the ass AND you lose the ability to lend against the real estate you had to sell.  It's a serious ass fucking he's taking - hence his tantrum on whatever the fuck social media platform he uses. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
52 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

the dildo of consequences never comes lubed 

Have you ever wondered if Trump is the dildo of consequences that America earned with its post WWII superpower shenanigans?

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's never spent his own money.  He has had real estate daddy gave him and gets money loaned against that real estate - and he inflates the values so he can raise more money.  Well, when all of a sudden you have to sell that real estate you're paying taxes out the ass AND you lose the ability to lend against the real estate you had to sell.  It's a serious ass fucking he's taking - hence his tantrum on whatever the fuck social media platform he uses. 

A lot of this.  The game he has played his whole life is to keep multiple "real estate" balls in the air simultaneously - so that they are always generating something, and the full bill never actually comes due.  But when the music stops....

.....he SHOULD be in a position where:

1) He either needs cash to pay off the notes that are coming due (and he doesn't have that cash), OR

2) He needs to refinance, but based on the scrutiny he's been under, any party financing debt on Trump Property X is going to examine the SHIT about the asset's actual value so they get the loan-to-value numbers right....and there's plenty of chance that such a process will reveal that multiple properties are actually underwater, or are close enough to it that he can't borrow the full amount needed for that asset.  AND

3) To the extent he CAN refinance/take out new loans on those properties, he's going to take it in the ass with interest rates that are probably close to double what he's currently got on the property, meaning his debt service obligations (e.g., the draws against his cash flow) are going to be MUCH larger than they are today.

 

I mean, all of those are what should happen to any other human in this situation.  Trump will find a way to slither out of it, like he always does.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Most likely way out for Trump is that the Murdering Saudi Prince he helped, and who gave Jared $2 billion for a business in which he had now experience, will help Donald out.  Likely with a cash purchase of one of his golf courses, and giving Donald an option to buy back in if he wins the Presidency and can use his powers of office to help a foreign power.  

If the Saudi's can by George W. Bush's oil company (I know irony) so he could buy into the Texas rangers, certainly they can throw Donald a lifeline.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Have you ever wondered if Trump is the dildo of consequences that America earned with its post WWII superpower shenanigans after the civil war by not finishing reconstruction in the South, not destroying the old southern establishment, not baring the traitors from holding office, and not protecting the institutions of American government?

Yes

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
If you are Russia or Saudi Arabia or whoever, you don't loan Donald Trump half a billion with the idea he'll pay you back with interest.  You pay him half a billion to be himself and damage, perhaps destroy, the post WWII U.S. leviathan.

Legit point. I wasn’t suggesting he’d owe interest, just favors. Which he won’t come through on.

But paying to free him up to just be himself and wreck shop, that actually makes sense. What a brilliant terrorist attack.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I recall that he offered one attorney to whom he owed more than a million dollars a racehorse. Trump said it was a great racehorse, so I'm sure it was.

 

7 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The horse is likely closer to being glue than a champion. 

image.png.19a9b55147af9416382d0078bb06e300.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted
49 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

He's never spent his own money.  He has had real estate daddy gave him and gets money loaned against that real estate - and he inflates the values so he can raise more money.  Well, when all of a sudden you have to sell that real estate you're paying taxes out the ass AND you lose the ability to lend against the real estate you had to sell.  It's a serious ass fucking he's taking - hence his tantrum on whatever the fuck social media platform he uses. 

Most owners/developers who've built a track record use other people's money.  But when you are forced to sell in a down market with capital markets tighter than a drum, yes, you are fucked.  And he's going to get fucked badly.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...