this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
132 points (95.2% liked)

politics

19237 readers
2984 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Merchan wrote that in such instances, it would be preferable if he could impose 'a fine more commensurate with the wealth' of the person being fined."

[–] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I’ve always been surprised that court fines aren’t on a sliding scale. Us normals shouldn’t be expected to have access to large amounts of money to pay fees or fines, but as the right consequence should have to pay enough to feel it without totally ruining our lives. The wealthy should have to pay enough relative to their net worth so they feel it at the same level.

$1000 a day is a massive life-ruining expense for most people, so for Trump it should be more like $100,000 or even $1 million a day if it’s actually supposed to disincentivize violating a court order.

But that sounds too fair for America, so I doubt we’ll ever see it.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

In some countries they assess speeding fines based on the driver's income. Going over the speed limit can get you a six figure fine if you make enough. That's why if you're driving in the Scandinavian countries, it's best to have the low income people drive.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Tl;Dr, he's getting a fine for each instance and a warning to not do it again. Spoiler alert

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

$9,000 for 9 instances. If he does it again, he could face jail time. That's really the key point. Fines, especially tiny ones, don't mean shit. Throwing him in prison for a few weeks would be a comforting result, though.

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The fines are limited by statute, so $1k per instance is the max the judge can order

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Max fine. He can also be jailed for contempt of court, but it could be argued that jail was an excessive punishment for a first offense. So the judge has to treat him like any other defendant. It would be unprecedented to send him to jail for a first contempt conviction.

[–] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What does the statute say about community service? Make him pick up trash.

[–] youngGoku@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

That would be amazing. I would would settle for that.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Can trump pick himself up?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Testimony is expected to continue Tuesday, with the court hearing from the third prosecution witness, Gary Farro, a banker who helped Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen open accounts.

Prosecutors alleged the former president had violated the order -- which bars him from making public statements about witnesses and jurors -- 10 times, and the judge concurred in all but one of those cases.

The meeting, which lasted three hours, was organized to help the men bury the hatchet and discuss potential joint fundraising efforts, according to one of the people, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to share details of the private get-together.

Last week, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s testimony provided jurors with a stunning inside look at the supermarket tabloid’s “catch-and-kill” practice of purchasing the rights to stories so they never see the light of day.

The collision of so many cases within a five-day span last week underscores the challenges Trump will face as he campaigns again for the White House while his legal matters intensify.

The first week of testimony at Donald Trump’s hush money trial was the scene-setter for jurors: Manhattan prosecutors portrayed what they say was an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential campaign by burying negative stories.


The original article contains 909 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!