this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
886 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3644 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 26 points 11 months ago (4 children)

What are the chances of jail time? White collar crime like this effects way more people than petty theft, but I'm thinking at most it'll be a hefty fine. Again, like on most topics, I'm pretty ignorant of the reality of the situation.

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 46 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It's a civil case, which means no jail time should he be convicted. It will just be a fine.

That said, it's possible the verbal attacks against those involved lead to...something. I wouldn't hold your breath though.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

It is also possible to plead the fifth as a defendant in a civil trial, however, a jury (or the judge, in this case) can make "adverse inferences" from that in civil court.

In a criminal case, a defendant who takes the stand has waived their fifth amendment rights. That's why you don't hear defendants on the stand in court saying "Fifth, fifth, fifth." A defendant retains their fifth amendment rights in a criminal trial by refusing to take the stand - as is their right.

What I'm not sure of is whether that also applies in a civil case. Unlike in a criminal trial, in civil court, the plaintiff can call the defendant to the stand. I don't know if that obliges the defendant to take the stand or not. Also, in civil court, a defendant can only plead the fifth if answering the question could implicate them in criminal matters. The civil matter at hand, all by itself, cannot be "fifthed out of;" if a defendant is on the stand, they must answer questions in relation to the case, again, so long as the answers could not implicate them in crimes.

We know that Trump is on the plaintiff's witness list. If plaintiff calls Trump to the stand in his civil case, is he obliged to go on the stand? I think he is, because fifth amendment protections do not extend to civil litigation. Then he could plead the fifth if the answer to the specific question posed implicates him in a crime. If that happens, there would surely be a motion from plaintiff's attorneys for the court to rule on whether fifth amendment protections extend to that question.

But this is a bench trial, where the judge is going to decide the outcome of the case. It would be completely reasonable for the defense to want a different judge to make that fifth amendment call; having the current bench learn about the potential answers to the question of fifth amendment protection would obviously tend to influence the very same bench who is responsible for deciding the case.

I have no idea what's going to come of all this.

[–] ordinary_dad@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

I would always prefer holding other people’s breath over my own.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 34 points 11 months ago

Unfortunately, this case, in a legal sense, is against his corporation, not him.

It's ruling will likely result in the dissolution of said corporation and the barring of Trump doing business in NYC, just like a similar case did with his charities, from which he stole.

That's the annoying thing with how corporations are handled in the US.

What Trump did in the charity and this case is criminal fraud. But because it was all nicely wrapped in the form of some corporate entity, it's a civil case. That shit is fucked up.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

At this point I think I'd be okay with house arrest. Just confining his remaining years on Earth to Mar-a-lago would do wonders for the health of the world.

[–] theluckyone@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Gotta cut off his internet access, too.

[–] SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Give him fake social media with AI that trolls and insults him.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

AI is too expensive. Just a bot that says "beep boop, you're a loser".

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Give him a cell phone that only gets 1 bar in a single room... if he stands on a dresser and reaches out at a weird angle.

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He may also lose properties, to be sold to pay for the fines.

[–] BroccoliFarts@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It's a civil trial. The court won't forcibly take anything from him.

I was defrauded by someone who lied on a house condition report, and the house needed $20k in work to not be condemned. I had paperwork the previous owner left in a closet that showed they were aware of the extent of the damage years before selling the house, but it was not disclosed.

Our attorney said "you can win this case. But you'll win a $20k judgement. If they don't pay, you have to sue again for failure to pay. If they die (they were elderly) legally the estate has to post in the local paper a notice. If you catch that notice within a couple of weeks, you will be able to claim $20k from the estate. If you miss this window, you're SOL."

[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago

maybe, also possible that the sheer expansive scope of what he’s done and to whom may qualify him for something more extreme. I really don’t know, but it will be fun to find out 🍿

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The court has already ruled that Trump committed fraud, that Trump Org should be dissolved, and that properties should be seized. We'll get more details as to just what that means (likely receivership and then sold), but Trump will lose a lot from this civil case and he won't have that much recourse. (He can appeal, of course, but there's no guarantee that would help him.)