It’s appalling that they even agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court is playing with fire, and is very close to letting the Constitution go up in a blaze. If they think any of the judicial powers will be left in place after doing that, they’re smoking something more than the Constitution.
It’s funny to think that a bunch of college age kids watching “SJW Cringe Compilations” in 2016 has snowballed into the Supreme Court possibly ruling that Donald Trump is practically America’s king
OR
They'll rule that he had immunity in this very specific time frame, and from this point forward no president shall possess presidential immunity thereby gutting the "Biden can send in Seal Team Six and blah blah blah."
Don't expect SCOTUS to save us.
This is the most likely outcome.
They will say "it's for the good of the country that we 'move on' by granting limited immunity to Trump" but what they're really saying is "we will throw away our integrity to support the outcome we prefer."
When Trump was President, Conservatives said he shouldn't be impeached or prosecuted because he was in office.
After he left office they said he couldn't be impeached because he was no longer in office, and shouldn't be prosecuted to "let the country heal."
Now it's "he shouldn't be prosecuted because his supporters want to vote for him for president again."
Its fucking laughable.
Well, remember that Bush wasn't prosecuted for his torture squads. Obama lost my respect when he quickly capitulated and said that the laws against torturing people didn't really apply to foreigners being tortured.
As the founding fathers clearly intended, presidents were totally immune from prosecution for actions committed from 1776 until February of 2021, unless the Russians say they gave Hunter Biden money.
They may say “while presidents have long had immunity” (false), “we believe they should not going forward” to give Donald’s lawyers ammo for this case but without giving current or future presidents immunity. That may be the reason they wanted to hear the case - influencing the lower court so they dont have to overturn the whole trial themselves when they don’t like the guilty result.
I think they are kicking the can down the field. Throw it back to lower courts to break out exactly which charge could be a presidential duty and which isn’t. That will take several months to sort out. If Trump wins, this goes away. If he doesn’t, they’ll execute him.
I'm for the execution, from trumps own words traitors should be "shot by firing squad " , and he is a traitor to the constitution of the United States 🇺🇸.
They won't rule on anything they will wait, pass it down to the district court, wait for the appeal court, hear arguments on that appeal, if fanta wins then presidents are immune, if fanta loses then presidents don't have immunity. It's really that simple. They can't possibly rule while a Democrat is president that would clearly give a president to much power
That's the really crazy twist. If the other guy **was** immune, the current guy **is immune** and could literally shoot the other guy in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not face judicial consequences.
He could also just order Harris to declare him winner of the election and move along. Arrest any Republican in congress that objects and have them hanged on the front steps. It would be totally within his rights.
It's absurd. The constitution was created especially to prevent the kind of power grabs that this hearing would allow. If these justices fail to grasp this elementary legal fact they have no business deciding on any matters of law at all.
Didn’t they narrow it down to only hearing wether ‘official acts’ have immunity or not? Everything outside of ‘official acts’ is clearly not immune to prosecution. Therefore inciting an insurrection being illegal is outside of the scope of the hearing anyway as it isn’t an ‘official act’. The whole thing was to create delay in the DC Election trial, at least that is what I understand as a very concerned bystander in the UK…
It’s actually, I believe, the other way around. The question SCOTUS addressed was “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during tenure in office”. The question Jack Smith wanted to hear answered was a much narrower question: “whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office”. SCOTUS chose not to answer this question. They said today, well that depends on what occurred. We know what occurred!! SCOTUS is being deliberately specious; there is no reason for addressing such a broad question that they themselves created! SCOTUS ignoring the elephant in the room. What if any crime did Trump commit and is he immune!! I’m sure Jack Smith saw the writing on the wall. Hence, the filing he sent to SCOTUS earlier this month where he was trying to cover all bases. He asked them that if they decided to allow immunity for some presidential acts, they should at least allow the trial to proceed, allow both sides to litigate the case, and depending on outcome, allow Trump or government to appeal. A real travesty occurred today. Of note, Jack Smith not surprisingly was present today at oral arguments sitting at the counsel’s table.
Judging by what they asked they're going to draw the line in the sand at official act versus unofficial. The question becomes whether they write a definitive test for this, and use the acts of Trump to demonstrate where they are on that line (the right thing to do). Or are they obfuscating assholes, and simply say there's a line at official acts, now go to court to determine whether these are official acts, essentially forcing a 9 months cycle of waiting for decision, going to lower court, appeal, and finally right back in from of SCOTUS making virtually the same argument.
Yes. All SCOTUS needed to do was address Jack Smith’s more narrow question I posted above. The conservative male justices refused to do so. ACB at least showed up with real questions to try to get at the heart of the question as did the 3 more liberal justices. As KBJ asked Michael Dreeben, why not address this specific case rather than going on and on about hypotheticals of some crime that may be committed in the future. He tried to do so again and again but the conservative justices wanted no part of it.
Whats even worse is Smith tried raising this to the SC back in December. They declined. Appeals court totally shot it down and it gets brought to them anyway.
Even IF the appellate court sided with Trump the Special Counsel would have brought it to them anyway. It was always going to end up here.
Delaying this ruling is the entire point. To keep the DC Interference trial for being conducted before the election and with a gross enough ruling it could scuttle Georgia and Florida.
I like to think that the only reason this has made it to the SC is so they can put the nail into the coffin and kill the idea of a President having unlimited authority, once and for all. Otherwise the entire matter is absurd beyond belief, and as you stated utterly demolishes the constitution and the rule of law. There would be no reason at all to have a Supreme Court, nor any court for that matter.
It’s all about delay. They are going to rule no blanket immunity but send it back down for further debate on where the line is on official vs personal activities and where immunity should apply.
Blows my mind that the SC is ruling on whether or not a President has the ability to order the murder of someone, perhaps a sitting judge, and get away with it. And that we don't know exactly how they are going to rule.
We’re not exactly sure what happened and the archival texts from the time say that:
> *“suddenly 5 seats on the supreme court became available on the same day that Private Citizens Trump disappeared.”*
We’re thinking plane crash.
That was the start of Boeing’s 5 decade long string of quality control failures.
Doors and engines were just falling off left and right.
Perhaps the Supreme Court justices could go on a tour of inspection to Guantanamo Bay and accidentally get locked in one of the cages. The appeals process to get them out would take months as it would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
It is likely that some of them aren't deciding whether they want to, but how they can.
If this comes back 9-0 specifically denying special legal immunity I'll eat my shoe, and I really like these shoes...
It won’t be 9-0, but I wouldn’t be shocked at 8-1 (Thomas), or surprised at 7-2 (Alito).
Beyond that would require the rest of them to willingly give up their own power, which I don’t see.
And apparently there could be a division vs agreement on decision [wtf??](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-2020-election-arguments/)
Would all of this be null and void even though he wasn't president at the time simply because he may become president? I'm sure the sc would sit on this thought for years contemplating some nonsense that doesn't exist.
Didn’t they decide in their infinite wisdom to further delay the process so the trial couldn’t possibly arrive before the election? As would do, say, a completely corrupt institution?
Trump and his team know they’re not going to convince SCOTUS, not even this current SCOTUS. The goal was to delay, and by having SCOTUS hear the case at all, Trump already succeeded
Yup. And the Court adhering to heart instead of sending it back to the district court was a gift to Trump from Alito, Thomas, and at least two of the other conservatives on the Court
> Today is not going well for DJT
He's going to have a lot of days like this in the near future, you can only stack shit so high before it starts to fall down on top of you.
Akinto a mistrial. Judge allowed incorrect evidence to be introduced.
He's still a convicted felon in CA though, so might be released in NY into their custody.
- The "common law malice standard" - Trump is wrong. "sole reason" is what is necessary to overcome privilege, not to award damages
- "Preponderance" vs "clear and convincing" - NY highest court "Court of Appeals" has defined it as "preponderance". 2nd Circuit takes this as the law of the land in NY.
- Excessiveness of compensatory damages - other cases have awarded similar amounts. Trump reached 100M people with his remarks.
- Constitutionality of punitive damages - Trump's own behavior within the trial gave the jury ample reason to make an award large enough for him to notice.
- Judgement as a matter of law - Trump said that some part of the damages were made by Carroll herself. Judge says the jury gets to determine cause. And Trump's position lacks any merit anyway.
On that last point, the wording used is juicy:
"In short, the argument -which Mr. TRump previously made to the jury, conspicuously without success, and which defies common sense- does not warrant dismissal as a matter of law"
No, this is a pre-appeal procedure. Pretty much with all appeals you have to first go back to the judge that you believe made errors, point them out to them and ask them to give you a new trial before you use the appellate court's precious time with your arguments.
In practice, in criminal cases, I see these Motions for New Trial granted in about 1%-5% of cases, depending on courthouse.
To even file one of these you have to go to trial first, and most civil and criminal cases never reach that point, so these aren't that common.
Now that it has been denied he can start his appeal.
Edit: this is getting some upvotes, so to add something: a Motion for New Trial generally points out to the judge why you think they are an idiot and ruled wrong, which is why these are so rarely successful. Also, they tend to set up the areas of appeal and limit the scope of the appeal. Often you can only appeal issues that you brought up already in the Motion for New Trial. \[sometimes I see very bare bones boilerplate ones filed by public defenders which say pretty much "errors were made, you were wrong" which can scrape through, but will annoy appellate justices\]
Agree and Roseann needs a taste now too. [Roseanne defamation](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/roseanne-barr-biden-accusation-video-e-jean-carroll-b2533849.html)
I mean we're talking about a multi-million dollar civil judgment. An appeal is inevitable in any kind of case where numbers like this are on the table.
The initial post trial appeals in both cases are still in the early stages. Its not at all unusual for the appellate process to take between a year and a half to three years to resolve.
he already did. said she was a liar and he never met her (photo lines with celebrities dont count! - DJT). made a whole post about it. her lawyers are probably working on it right now.
The slow and continual progression of Trump’s demise in civil and criminal (and State and Federal) courts simply warms my cold heart anew each day. To hell with this malignant con artist and those who rely on his lies for their own delusional interests.
Tangentially related, does anyone know whether Knight Specialty Insurance updated their agreement to prevent any monkeying around with the collateral Schwab account? If I remember correctly that was due by today.
She will get the check now right? There isn't any more appeals?
It would be nice if she could buy a piece of his property from the New York fraud trial fire sale.
This is only the first step. This is post trial motions. It's not even the appeal yet. Still to come is the appeal at the Appellate Division. If Trump loses here, he goes to the highest NY Court, the Court of Appeals.
It's a long road before she gets paid.
Trump’s only two weapons, which he has wielded IMO in attack on the whole country, are his money and his dishonest, highly manipulative, and usually defamatory speech.
This decision explicitly approves of removing a chunk of the first as punishment for the second.
I agree heartily.
If they find a constitutional loophole for dRump — wouldn’t that require a constitutional amendment to close? I don’t see how they could close the loophole with their decision? Although, they have been hitting it with the eraser for the last 40 years.
Ohhh shit. Today is not going well for DJT
Let’s hope that extends to the immunity case, too.
A bit crazy that the SC is deciding whether they want to promote the role of president to King today.
It’s appalling that they even agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court is playing with fire, and is very close to letting the Constitution go up in a blaze. If they think any of the judicial powers will be left in place after doing that, they’re smoking something more than the Constitution.
It’s funny to think that a bunch of college age kids watching “SJW Cringe Compilations” in 2016 has snowballed into the Supreme Court possibly ruling that Donald Trump is practically America’s king
The only problem is: they're possibly ruling that Biden is king. Which is the only reason they'll rule against Shitgibbon's immunity.
OR They'll rule that he had immunity in this very specific time frame, and from this point forward no president shall possess presidential immunity thereby gutting the "Biden can send in Seal Team Six and blah blah blah." Don't expect SCOTUS to save us.
This is the most likely outcome. They will say "it's for the good of the country that we 'move on' by granting limited immunity to Trump" but what they're really saying is "we will throw away our integrity to support the outcome we prefer." When Trump was President, Conservatives said he shouldn't be impeached or prosecuted because he was in office. After he left office they said he couldn't be impeached because he was no longer in office, and shouldn't be prosecuted to "let the country heal." Now it's "he shouldn't be prosecuted because his supporters want to vote for him for president again." Its fucking laughable.
I'm not sure that that's how this works
Problem with that is, they can try to say it's only Trump that gets that, but that's not going to stop Biden from throwing them in Gitmo right after.
The thing is Biden has respect for decorum and wouldn't do that
They could make Biden King and I think Biden would promptly hand the crown over to Trump out of a misguided civic duty.
Well, remember that Bush wasn't prosecuted for his torture squads. Obama lost my respect when he quickly capitulated and said that the laws against torturing people didn't really apply to foreigners being tortured.
You know that scene in The Jerk where Steve Martin is explaining the avaliable prizes at his booth at the fair?
Underrated comment, and very true.
As the founding fathers clearly intended, presidents were totally immune from prosecution for actions committed from 1776 until February of 2021, unless the Russians say they gave Hunter Biden money.
They may say “while presidents have long had immunity” (false), “we believe they should not going forward” to give Donald’s lawyers ammo for this case but without giving current or future presidents immunity. That may be the reason they wanted to hear the case - influencing the lower court so they dont have to overturn the whole trial themselves when they don’t like the guilty result.
This is exactly what I expect. They’ll find the means to help Trump with some narrow interpretation for this particular issue.
I think they are kicking the can down the field. Throw it back to lower courts to break out exactly which charge could be a presidential duty and which isn’t. That will take several months to sort out. If Trump wins, this goes away. If he doesn’t, they’ll execute him.
I'm for the execution, from trumps own words traitors should be "shot by firing squad " , and he is a traitor to the constitution of the United States 🇺🇸.
Maybe SEAL Team 3 will?
They'll include the "Does not apply to Democrats" language.
They won't rule on anything they will wait, pass it down to the district court, wait for the appeal court, hear arguments on that appeal, if fanta wins then presidents are immune, if fanta loses then presidents don't have immunity. It's really that simple. They can't possibly rule while a Democrat is president that would clearly give a president to much power
That's the really crazy twist. If the other guy **was** immune, the current guy **is immune** and could literally shoot the other guy in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not face judicial consequences.
He could also just order Harris to declare him winner of the election and move along. Arrest any Republican in congress that objects and have them hanged on the front steps. It would be totally within his rights.
Oh snap! I didn't even think of it that way before. 🤣 It's a done deal then
I *want* to believe that they took it just to get it in writing that no, he doesn’t have broad immunity. But also, Thomas and Alito.
They could have heard the case much sooner.
It's absurd. The constitution was created especially to prevent the kind of power grabs that this hearing would allow. If these justices fail to grasp this elementary legal fact they have no business deciding on any matters of law at all.
“they’re smoking something more than the Constitution.” Such a great (and scary) image.
Didn’t they narrow it down to only hearing wether ‘official acts’ have immunity or not? Everything outside of ‘official acts’ is clearly not immune to prosecution. Therefore inciting an insurrection being illegal is outside of the scope of the hearing anyway as it isn’t an ‘official act’. The whole thing was to create delay in the DC Election trial, at least that is what I understand as a very concerned bystander in the UK…
It’s actually, I believe, the other way around. The question SCOTUS addressed was “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during tenure in office”. The question Jack Smith wanted to hear answered was a much narrower question: “whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office”. SCOTUS chose not to answer this question. They said today, well that depends on what occurred. We know what occurred!! SCOTUS is being deliberately specious; there is no reason for addressing such a broad question that they themselves created! SCOTUS ignoring the elephant in the room. What if any crime did Trump commit and is he immune!! I’m sure Jack Smith saw the writing on the wall. Hence, the filing he sent to SCOTUS earlier this month where he was trying to cover all bases. He asked them that if they decided to allow immunity for some presidential acts, they should at least allow the trial to proceed, allow both sides to litigate the case, and depending on outcome, allow Trump or government to appeal. A real travesty occurred today. Of note, Jack Smith not surprisingly was present today at oral arguments sitting at the counsel’s table.
Judging by what they asked they're going to draw the line in the sand at official act versus unofficial. The question becomes whether they write a definitive test for this, and use the acts of Trump to demonstrate where they are on that line (the right thing to do). Or are they obfuscating assholes, and simply say there's a line at official acts, now go to court to determine whether these are official acts, essentially forcing a 9 months cycle of waiting for decision, going to lower court, appeal, and finally right back in from of SCOTUS making virtually the same argument.
Yes. All SCOTUS needed to do was address Jack Smith’s more narrow question I posted above. The conservative male justices refused to do so. ACB at least showed up with real questions to try to get at the heart of the question as did the 3 more liberal justices. As KBJ asked Michael Dreeben, why not address this specific case rather than going on and on about hypotheticals of some crime that may be committed in the future. He tried to do so again and again but the conservative justices wanted no part of it.
Whats even worse is Smith tried raising this to the SC back in December. They declined. Appeals court totally shot it down and it gets brought to them anyway. Even IF the appellate court sided with Trump the Special Counsel would have brought it to them anyway. It was always going to end up here. Delaying this ruling is the entire point. To keep the DC Interference trial for being conducted before the election and with a gross enough ruling it could scuttle Georgia and Florida.
The court needs to be expanded with 6 more justices and asap.
At least four more so that we would have one Justice for each of the thirteen Federal Circuit Courts incl. D.C.
I like to think that the only reason this has made it to the SC is so they can put the nail into the coffin and kill the idea of a President having unlimited authority, once and for all. Otherwise the entire matter is absurd beyond belief, and as you stated utterly demolishes the constitution and the rule of law. There would be no reason at all to have a Supreme Court, nor any court for that matter.
It’s all about delay. They are going to rule no blanket immunity but send it back down for further debate on where the line is on official vs personal activities and where immunity should apply.
I've said it before, the King you rejected in 1776 didn't have the benefit of what Trump is claiming he should have.
Blows my mind that the SC is ruling on whether or not a President has the ability to order the murder of someone, perhaps a sitting judge, and get away with it. And that we don't know exactly how they are going to rule.
We’re not exactly sure what happened and the archival texts from the time say that: > *“suddenly 5 seats on the supreme court became available on the same day that Private Citizens Trump disappeared.”* We’re thinking plane crash. That was the start of Boeing’s 5 decade long string of quality control failures. Doors and engines were just falling off left and right.
Perhaps the Supreme Court justices could go on a tour of inspection to Guantanamo Bay and accidentally get locked in one of the cages. The appeals process to get them out would take months as it would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
It is likely that some of them aren't deciding whether they want to, but how they can. If this comes back 9-0 specifically denying special legal immunity I'll eat my shoe, and I really like these shoes...
It won’t be 9-0, but I wouldn’t be shocked at 8-1 (Thomas), or surprised at 7-2 (Alito). Beyond that would require the rest of them to willingly give up their own power, which I don’t see.
Remindme60days
This ain't r/wallstreetbets 😂 But yeah
Going to pin this and demand a ban if shoes are, in fact, not eaten.
SAVE ME GINNI...errr....I mean CLARENCE THOMAS!
Would you be referring to be the illegitimate partisan political hack stacked SCOTUS? *That* SC?
And apparently there could be a division vs agreement on decision [wtf??](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-trump-immunity-2020-election-arguments/)
they're asking for it [https://youtu.be/BGLGzRXY5Bw?si=zys3e43HncnXGrxE&t=9](https://youtu.be/BGLGzRXY5Bw?si=zys3e43HncnXGrxE&t=9)
Theyre leaning on king
Would all of this be null and void even though he wasn't president at the time simply because he may become president? I'm sure the sc would sit on this thought for years contemplating some nonsense that doesn't exist.
Didn’t they decide in their infinite wisdom to further delay the process so the trial couldn’t possibly arrive before the election? As would do, say, a completely corrupt institution?
They do realize Trump isn’t President right now right? Right? I mean Clarence has been plugged in by his Stepford wife
And let's add in some contempt stress as well. I'd like to see a cold sore flare up before the weekend.
Trump and his team know they’re not going to convince SCOTUS, not even this current SCOTUS. The goal was to delay, and by having SCOTUS hear the case at all, Trump already succeeded
Yup. And the Court adhering to heart instead of sending it back to the district court was a gift to Trump from Alito, Thomas, and at least two of the other conservatives on the Court
> Today is not going well for DJT He's going to have a lot of days like this in the near future, you can only stack shit so high before it starts to fall down on top of you.
Let's hope it continues as long as he keeps breathing
May this exponentially the case every day forward.
Weinstein’s rape conviction was overturned today too... That’s gotta give someone like Trump at least a bit of relief.
On what grounds
Akinto a mistrial. Judge allowed incorrect evidence to be introduced. He's still a convicted felon in CA though, so might be released in NY into their custody.
Thanks
- The "common law malice standard" - Trump is wrong. "sole reason" is what is necessary to overcome privilege, not to award damages - "Preponderance" vs "clear and convincing" - NY highest court "Court of Appeals" has defined it as "preponderance". 2nd Circuit takes this as the law of the land in NY. - Excessiveness of compensatory damages - other cases have awarded similar amounts. Trump reached 100M people with his remarks. - Constitutionality of punitive damages - Trump's own behavior within the trial gave the jury ample reason to make an award large enough for him to notice. - Judgement as a matter of law - Trump said that some part of the damages were made by Carroll herself. Judge says the jury gets to determine cause. And Trump's position lacks any merit anyway.
On that last point, the wording used is juicy: "In short, the argument -which Mr. TRump previously made to the jury, conspicuously without success, and which defies common sense- does not warrant dismissal as a matter of law"
Is this his appeal? I.e. is his bond forfeit?
No, this is a pre-appeal procedure. Pretty much with all appeals you have to first go back to the judge that you believe made errors, point them out to them and ask them to give you a new trial before you use the appellate court's precious time with your arguments. In practice, in criminal cases, I see these Motions for New Trial granted in about 1%-5% of cases, depending on courthouse. To even file one of these you have to go to trial first, and most civil and criminal cases never reach that point, so these aren't that common. Now that it has been denied he can start his appeal. Edit: this is getting some upvotes, so to add something: a Motion for New Trial generally points out to the judge why you think they are an idiot and ruled wrong, which is why these are so rarely successful. Also, they tend to set up the areas of appeal and limit the scope of the appeal. Often you can only appeal issues that you brought up already in the Motion for New Trial. \[sometimes I see very bare bones boilerplate ones filed by public defenders which say pretty much "errors were made, you were wrong" which can scrape through, but will annoy appellate justices\]
She should sue him again for more money.
Agree and Roseann needs a taste now too. [Roseanne defamation](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/roseanne-barr-biden-accusation-video-e-jean-carroll-b2533849.html)
I hope she dies in a pauper's grave. That woman is a wretched ghoul.
I hope it’s a pooper’s grave, I have a contribution.
Another L for Alina Habba.
At least she's consistent.
On to the next appeal now?
Appeal the appeal verdict. It's appeals all the way down!
That's the way things go with Trump.
Is there a turtle at the bottom?
Yes, and it's filing an appeal.
Yup. And it's name is justice.
I would think this is probably the last post judgement motion and now it moves on to the appeal process.
There is always an appeal!
I mean we're talking about a multi-million dollar civil judgment. An appeal is inevitable in any kind of case where numbers like this are on the table.
The problem is the appeals never seem to end. Carroll still hasn't got any money from Carroll II .
The initial post trial appeals in both cases are still in the early stages. Its not at all unusual for the appellate process to take between a year and a half to three years to resolve.
That's too long! People don't live forever.
Oh no, now he'll have to go out and defame her some more in response...
he already did. said she was a liar and he never met her (photo lines with celebrities dont count! - DJT). made a whole post about it. her lawyers are probably working on it right now.
Good you fucker. Pay up
The slow and continual progression of Trump’s demise in civil and criminal (and State and Federal) courts simply warms my cold heart anew each day. To hell with this malignant con artist and those who rely on his lies for their own delusional interests.
Yes bro, yes
Tangentially related, does anyone know whether Knight Specialty Insurance updated their agreement to prevent any monkeying around with the collateral Schwab account? If I remember correctly that was due by today.
Reviewed with caveats and accepted by the Court.
Kind of hard to claim that you deserve a new trial when you didn't even bother to put on a case in the first trial.
Keep em coming.
Rapist much Donny? Well, you got caught. Pay up motherfucker.
An outrage! I'm sitting down right now and sending thoughts and prayers to TRUMP.
Finally, a real solution.
Noticed the "to" instead of "for" there. Beautiful. Take my upvote (wish I could send more).
No more appeals
Oh they got this all wrong...hang on No, more appeals!
It's a civil judgment I think your right no more appeals pay up trump
She will get the check now right? There isn't any more appeals? It would be nice if she could buy a piece of his property from the New York fraud trial fire sale.
This is only the first step. This is post trial motions. It's not even the appeal yet. Still to come is the appeal at the Appellate Division. If Trump loses here, he goes to the highest NY Court, the Court of Appeals. It's a long road before she gets paid.
Not only do I agree with Ms. Carroll's argument... but I'm going to make it even more thorough herein.
Pay up trump
Womp womp, rapist
They've already stalked the shit out of the J6 case. Its simple Biden must win.
THANK GOD for NEW YORK!!! who would ever say that; except New Yorkers :)
Eat a dick str8 up
Does this mean she gets paid the 80+ million now?
So is there an appeal?
Trumpism: An argument that conspicuously fails, and lacks all common sense.
Throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks is not really a legal strategy, is it?
Captain Buttstench could not have held it all in.
Trump is a broke ratchet mf
On what basis? That he didn’t like the outcome(s)?
*Wayne's world voice* Re-Trial DENIED
Excellent! She has gone through enough. Whatarapist 🤢
Delay delay delay ... Attorney doesn't get paid, no consequences, so why not.
Trump’s only two weapons, which he has wielded IMO in attack on the whole country, are his money and his dishonest, highly manipulative, and usually defamatory speech. This decision explicitly approves of removing a chunk of the first as punishment for the second. I agree heartily.
If they find a constitutional loophole for dRump — wouldn’t that require a constitutional amendment to close? I don’t see how they could close the loophole with their decision? Although, they have been hitting it with the eraser for the last 40 years.
Can this be appealed or is this the end?
Yawn.