DL Open Thread: Sat., January 27, 2024
$83 Mill. With what could well be a $250 mill judgement against Trump by the end of next week. Sure he can appeal. However, he has to either pony up $83 mill in cash or, say, the deed to one of his properties, while the appeals take place. Interest accrues:
Mr. Trump can pay the $83.3 million to the court, which will hold the money while the appeal is pending. This is what he did last year when a jury ordered him to pay Ms. Carroll $5.5 million in a related case.
Or, Mr. Trump can try to secure a bond, which will save him from having to pay the full amount up front.
A bond might require him to pay a deposit and offer collateral, and would come with interest and fees. It would also require Mr. Trump to find a financial institution willing to lend him a large sum of money at a time when he is in significant legal jeopardy. (Something tells me that Deutsche Bank isn’t coming through that door. There’s always the Saudis…)
Although Mr. Trump likes to boast of his billions, much of his wealth is linked to the value of his properties, and he is loath to part with vast sums of cash at once.
And when it comes to his varied legal expenses — of which there are many — he tries to avoid spending his own money at all. Mr. Trump has tapped his political action committee’s coffers to pay for his own legal fees and other expenses stemming from his criminal indictments and civil trials.
Yet $83.3 million eclipses the amount in his political accounts. The verdict on Friday will require Mr. Trump to reach into his own pocket.
A Huge Environmental Win. When Bill McKibben Says It’s So, I Believe Him. Props to Biden, but especially to the people who fought so hard for this:
I wrote you two days ago with provisional good news—it looked as if the long and deep fight to rein in runaway LNG export growth had scored a huge victory. The succeeding 48 hours have been full of joy, because that news turned out to be entirely true. As the White House confirmed with the official release of its policy at 5 a.m. this morning, all new licenses for LNG export terminals are hereby halted, until the policies used to figure out if they’re in the “public interest” can be updated to include modern economics and science.
That this is a huge victory can’t be said strongly enough—for the people in the Gulf who have fought so long and hard (it was such fun to join Roishetta Ozane et al in a press conference this morning), and for the planet. This is the biggest check any president has ever applied to the fossil fuel industry, and the strongest move against dirty energy in American history. And if you have any doubts, check out the tears of outrage from Big Oil. (Fox News coverage here, if you’re experienced in handling schadenfreude).
Two more key points:
- The pledge to “transition away from fossil fuels” that John Kerry and the rest of the world’s governments signed in Dubai was given actual meaning by Biden’s move. He’s thrown down the gauntlet to other world leaders: the world’s biggest hydrocarbon producer has said we’ve reached a limit.
- There’s finally an actual climate test in place for American fossil fuel expansion plans. This is what we failed to win in the Keystone XL fight; though Barack Obama indicated in his rejection of that plan that we should build new stuff if it “only if it does not significantly exacerbate carbon pollution,” we’ve had to wait ten years for that to be turned into policy. It now needs to be formally expanded to every decision we make!
Wisconsin Rethugs Hasten Their Own Extinction. Pass draconian abortion ban before new election maps take effect:
Republicans who control the Wisconsin Assembly approved a bill Thursday that would call for a binding statewide referendum to ban abortion after 14 weeks of pregnancy.
Current Wisconsin law prohibits abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill’s supporters say closing the window after 14 weeks could save more fetuses from death. The proposal would set up a statewide referendum during April’s election asking voters whether the 14-week prohibition should take effect. The deadline would not apply in cases of rape and incest.
I hope this proposal does come to a referendum. Because it’s going down. I haven’t even gotten to Dr. Cow yet:
A Republican lawmaker from Wisconsin has claimed that he’s “qualified” to ban abortion – because he’s a vet.
While debating a potential 14-week abortion ban on Thursday, state Rep Joel Kitchens said he knows that “abortion is not health care” because of his career as a veterinarian.
“You know, in my veterinary career, I did thousands of ultrasounds on animals, you know, determining pregnancy and that kind of thing,” Mr Kitchens said. “So I think I know mammalian foetal development better than probably anyone here. And in my mind, there’s absolutely no question that’s a life, and I think the science backs me up on that.”
“Mammalian Foetal Development”. If that isn’t a band name just waiting to be snapped up…name of first album–Pig-malian. Which reminds me–sad news:
Norman The Pig Passes Away. He was truly beloved by all the kids and families who came to Marini’s Produce every summer. His family made sure he had a great life. RIP, Norman:
The Marini family is asking that Norman fans share a favorite photo or story on his Facebook page and honor his memory by “being kind to others who cross your path.”
What do you want to talk about?
As always, nobody doubts that a fetus is alive. The question is about its rights, and most thinking people (which rules out Republicans) think the rights of the mother overrule the rights of a fetus that’s not yet viable.
Texas AG lets it be known that the life of the fetus is NOT the issue, dominating women as in “YOU WILL OBEY” is the issue…
Roe was fundamentally flawed because it sidestepped the question of defining life using a patient privacy argument. Whether a fetus has legal standing is the question that the courts should be ruling on.
Other arguments can be made. Why should Texas AG Patrick have access to medical records made private under federal HIPPA? In it’s implementation, HIPPA was a steamroller amongst hospital and medical staff. Who is authorized to give the Texas AG private medical information? Answer: No one.
As delicious as it is to see Trump take this hit…I have always been uncomfortable with civil suits for criminal acts. Seems like double jeopardy and a squishy end run around insufficient evidence. And it’s always about money. You never see a civil suit against a poor rapist.
And there is no way Carroll suffered $83 million in damages (from defamation).. Likely to be greatly reduced on appeal.
But if we have to have squishy civil suits, I’m at least pleased the poster children are OJ and Trump.
Of course she didn’t. Look up what “punitive” means.
Also, I don’t think you understand how it works.
First of all, these are two different trials. She didn’t sue him for rape, she sued him for defamation, which isn’t criminal. So your squishiness is ill-founded. He should get a freebie because he wasn’t convicted? Fuck that shit, and not just for him. For anybody.
Second, even if he gets the amount reduced on appeal, he’ll still have to put up the money in escrow. Read and learn:
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-money-problems-2667102371/
I totally understand how this trial worked. It’s you who don’t want to understand my objection.
The defamation claim was part the initial civil suit which found Trump “liable” for a sexual assault committed in “1995 or 1996.” That’s the squishy part – a civil suit for a felony. There were no criminal charges, because Carroll elected not to file a police report. And then the same suit found him liable for defamation based on that “liability”.
Yesterday’s much larger defamation award was based on Trump’s further comments, but still based on the finding of “liability” for the initial felony.
Felony is a serious accusation. If you can’t prove it by the standards of a criminal court, in my opinion the law has no business taking other action against you as if that charge were proven.
I don’t get the defamation either. The world is full of properly convicted criminals who deny their guilt and go around saying their accusers are liars. But you don’t hear of defamation suits against them.
Damn, a Netanyahu and Trump apologist all wrapped in a variety of convenient and illogical arguments. You should add O.J. to your “friends” list of people who have been singled out for undeserved punishment. Screw those victims, they’ve already basked in the glory of their “close” encounters of the worst kind with those creeps and murderers.
John Kowalko
I’m starting to think you listen to right-wing news.
If you’ll recall, after the Me Too movement the law in New York was changed to allow civil suits for such incidents because criminal liability had lapsed with the statute of limitations. That’s the only remedy she had, and she was hardly alone in doing so – more than 2,500 such suits were filed.
So your real complaint here seems to be that women were allowed this opportunity. Nice look.
Looks like Trump’s lawyer won’t be cashing a check anytime soon. Indeed, we shouldn’t be surprised if he bills her for 30 percent of the damages for blowing this witch hunt of a case.
He wanted someone who would show the court the same disrespect that he had for it. He got it.
Any lawyer who doesn’t demand their fee in advance is–about as bad as the lawyer he got in this case.
She’ll make it back on the wingnut welfare circuit.
Rudy listed legal fee debts owed to him by Trump as assets in his bankruptcy proceedings. So many levels of hilariousness.
Wisconsin’s Republicans are in the throes of withdrawal as 15 years of gerrymandered control of the state looms, as noted it’s one more Hail Mary Pass to the far right faithful as they seek to decrease the time until abortion is prohibited. Hoping for decisive defeat. The’s there’s the “pig doctor”. Words fail.
please rid the nation of Ron Johnson
Well we know what Eric trump and his 75 iq we’re doing while daddy was in office. His intelligence afforded him the best he could do – street level pull pusher
“So your real complaint here seems to be that women were allowed this opportunity.”
I recognize it would be a lot mentally easier for you to paint me into that corner, and would put on a better blog performance for you. But it’s just not true about me.
No, I feel the same way about civil suits for all felonies regardless of the type of felony or the gender of those involved.
Sex accusations just highlight the point though, because there is often insufficient evidence for a conviction even the next day, let alone decades after. If there is sufficient evidence the criminal conviction is usually accomplished quickly.
There’s a reason NYS extended the time for civil suits but not for criminal cases. Decades-old sex accusations, especially unreported ones, can almost never be proven in criminal court.
So the cold-case civil trials come down to a popularity contest of which defendant is more sympathetic and puts on the better performance in court and on social media. And in the celebrity cases that make the news, the players on both sides are often actors or executives skilled at public performance. There is no assurance that the outcome has discovered the truth.
And there aren’t any non-celebrity suits of this type, because there isn’t enough money involved.
So you think “abused” and/or raped women are “putting on a performance” Damn you’re even more slimy than I’ve previously imagined. I should have seen that talent for misogyny in your statements of support for the Israeli genocide being perpetrated on the women and children of Gaza.
LOL… I have my own personal troll!
I have to give you credit for ignoring the substance of what I have written and sticking resolutely to your ad hominem attacks.
On the other hand, maybe you are just a hateful moron.
No! You absolutely win the “hateful” award. Now you’re not being able to see or acknowledge that fact moves you way up on the “moron” list. Good luck seeing anything different in that mirror of yours.
“And there aren’t any non-celebrity suits of this type, because there isn’t enough money involved.”
Really. You checked all 2,500, and all were celebrities.
And you can deny all you want, you don’t think these women should have been given the opportunity. Own it, dude.
Bravissimo!
“I recognize it would be a lot mentally easier for you to paint me into that corner”
It has nothing to do with painting you into a corner. It’s the actual result of your opinion, which you’re certainly entitled to. Your sentiments are immaterial. By applying your standard, that such suits shouldn’t be allowed, it logically follows that you don’t think the law should have been changed to allow it.
“Bravissimo” Ia that how you toast your portraits of Trump and Netanyahu on your “Wall of Fame/Shame” st home?
@HM – finis
I’m bummed about the pig – the one at Marini’s to be clear.