this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
568 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3813 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

Trump biographer raises questions about his wealth as campaign donors foot the bill for his many lawyers

Former President Donald Trump’s PACs have spent about $50 million in donor money on his legal bills last year, sources told The New York Times.

The “staggering sum” spent by Trump on his legal fees and investigation-related expenses is about the same amount his lone remaining GOP primary opponent Nikki Haley raised across all her committees last year, the Times’ Maggie Haberman and Shane Goldmacher write. Federal Election Commission filings this week are expected to detail the full extent of Trump’s “enormous financial strain,” they added.

Trump, who has a penchant for relying on campaign donations to pay his lawyers if he actually pays them at all, has used his Save America PAC to cover his legal costs. When the PAC ran low on cash last year, Trump asked for an unusual refund of $60 million that had been transferred to the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. PAC. Trump has also been directing 10% of donations raised through Save America to a PAC that primarily pays his lawyers, according to the Times.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Right, the primary difference being that a criminal trial would be that the statue of limitations would restrict what a prosecutor can achieve, while there is no such limitation for civil suits.

The amount of evidence and the case proceeding would be largely similar in both.

So while you are technically correct for calling that out, I just want to be clear that had this been a criminal trial, the result would very likely have been the same from the jury.

[–] PrettyLights@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe he would have been, I'm not a lawyer or judge.

I just believe in America and innocent until proven guilty, and he wasn't proven guilty of that offense.

His actions and responses around the allegations are gross and unbecoming for sure.

Edit:

Right, the primary difference being that a criminal trial would be that the statue of limitations would restrict what a prosecutor can achieve, while there is no such limitation for civil suits.

There's also the vast difference in burden of proof required for a criminal conviction vs a civil trial. It's not only the statute of limitations that was at play here.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Innocent until proven guilty is not a mantra.

It is how the legal system needs to work. It does not mean that your are innocent into proven guilty in the eye of the public, or historical records. It's purely about setting expectations for a working justice system that needs that presumption to function.

That does not mean that a person is innocent and everyone should treat them as if they're innocent until the verdict comes down.

This is an important distinction to make.

[–] PrettyLights@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but there's a difference between feeling someone is guilty and stating they were convicted. We shouldn't knowingly be making factually incorrect statements.

It feeds the right when people are so TDS that they are okay with spreading mistruths or fake news.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

That's true and fair.