• spriteblood@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    160
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Updated headline:
    Does violate gag order, justice system to do nothing about it because rules don’t apply to the wealthy

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        44
        ·
        1 year ago

        By even the most critical standards, his net worth is about $2.5 billion and has access to just under half a billion in cash. He’s nowhere near as rich as he says he is, but he’s still well within the 1% of 1%.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          58
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No. Just no. The federal court and new York State Court have both thoroughly debunked his net worth and it ends up with “probably not able to afford to pay debts even with selling his most valuable property”.

          • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            "even with selling his most valuable property our nations nuclear secrets to the Saudi’s".

            I fixed that for you

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          even the most critical standards, his net worth is about $2.5 billion and has access to just under half a billion in cash.

          I would hardly call the Forbes estimate as “the most critical standards”. They don’t have an accurate account of his debts, nor do they have an accurate accounting of his liquidity.

          No one just has half a billion dollars in liquidity laying around, liquidity loses value at the rate of inflation. Unless hes okay with losing at least 18.5 million dollars a year in depreciation, that money has long been invested into some kind of property or has been used to pay debts.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Net work is supposed to be net, ie including debts.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          What about if we consider all the fraud, unpaid bills, dodged taxes, money laundering (his dad used to buy millions in casino chips and then get rid of them to illegally prop up his failing casinos)? How much does he actually have?

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s does not violate the very narrow gag order set by Justice Engoron, because AG James is not “court staff.” That doesn’t make it legal, doxxing could be charged in either New York State or Federal court (because James is a State employee, and an “officer of the law”).

      But it won’t. Nothing is going to happen.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Imprisoning a former president for contempt of court, even as blatant as this, is always going to be a topic of skittishness among the judges.

      This is an institution that typically loathes setting new precedent when it can avoid it, and imprisoning a former president, one who is running again especially, is a Rubicon that is going to intimidate even the most tough on corruption judge you can have on that bench.

      The sheer unprecedentedness of this case and the others involving trump are gonna go snails pace simply because of how freaked out the judges will be over making sure every i and t have been dotted and crossed.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re setting a precedent either way.

        Either hold decorum over the individual or abandon it.

        How Trump acts, and what he is allowed to get away with, is carte blanche for his followers paying attention.

        If you want to be wealthy, act like the wealthy, right?

        The judges either have spines or they don’t. In that same vein, we either have laws that apply equally, or we don’t have respect for the law across the board.

        This is remedial psychology.

      • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As much as my justice boner is deflated by this statement, I’d rather have Trump convicted by a jury while having a competent attorney making smart decisions and defending him zealously. The last thing I want is his conviction to be overturned because someone took a shortcut.

      • Case@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why? The law should be applied equally, prince or pauper.

        I don’t give a fuck about tradition and precedent - a traitor as the head of the nation is unprecedented too.

        Gather evidence, make a case, throw the book at him - with stiffer sentencing solely because as a former president, he SHOULD be held to a higher standard.

        Just like cops should be held to a higher standard than a civilian, but I digress.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well I’d personally love to see Trump get so many things that are coming to him for his many criminal activities, the gag order they’re referencing was only applied narrowly to him speaking about court staff. Letitia James is not court staff, so he hasn’t actually broken that gag order at least as written currently. But it’s obvious stochastic terrorism per his usual mo. And any other person would have the book thrown at them for this by the judge, gag order or no gag order.