this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
237 points (96.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7192 readers
1 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The judge who doomed Donald Trump’s family business last week took an aggressive and preemptive step on Wednesday to ensure the former president can't secretly shift assets to salvage his real estate empire.

In an order that was posted on the fourth day of the former president’s bank fraud trial, Justice Arthur F. Engoron commanded that the Trumps identify any corporations they have—and come clean about any plans to move around money in an attempt to hide or keep their wealth.

It's a powerful maneuver meant to counter the sort of underhanded moves Trump has displayed so far during the three-year investigation.

all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Holyginz@lemmy.world 100 points 2 years ago (3 children)

My god. Are we seriously at a point the US government isn't able to get one washed up old traitorous racist to obey the rules in court? This is just sad. He should have been locked up so long ago it isn't even funny anymore.

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 2 years ago

Jail all the poors, the rich run free. So, working as intended.

[–] fleabomber@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I thought this was a preemptive step to prevent the shenanigans.

[–] Kerrigor@kbin.social 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's a step to prevent further shenanigans of the same kind that he's already been doing for years

[–] fleabomber@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

An ex president has faced a corporate death sentence before? I feel like we're in uncharted waters here. His tricks really don't seem to hold up in court, other than delay, delay, delay, and that tactic seems to be running out of steam.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

An ex president has faced a corporate death sentence before?

An ex president shouldn't have had a corporation to dissolve in the first place because he should've been forced to divest due to the Emoluments Clause.

[–] fleabomber@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

I'm not sure that's relevant since we're talking about laws he's broke, not laws we wish were in place. As far as I know, divestment is not a requirement.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 30 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It’s crazy how powerless the justice system is when they’re afraid to put you in jail. Is he gonna prove his Fifth Avenue claim?

[–] audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s not like he’s being accused of stealing a backpack or anything.

[–] ForestOrca@kbin.social 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or selling single cigarettes on the sidewalk.

[–] Hotdogman@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

But, think of the kids those loose cigarettes could have been sold to...

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Doubt it, I imagine long before that someone will prove exactly the opposite.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Looks like the loop-hole is that it's only binding on Trump, Jr., Eric, and Weisselburg.

So if he sets up a shell coompany for Barron or Melania, or Ivanka...

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

And Melania just had her pre-nup renegotiated. Hmmm...