this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
217 points (97.0% liked)

politics

25279 readers
3187 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
 

Former President Donald Trump was recently warned against using his 2024 campaign funds to pay E. Jean Carroll, after being ordered to pay the former columnist stemming from a defamation lawsuit.

On Monday, Dave Aronberg, the state attorney in Florida's Palm Beach County, appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and spoke about the recent jury ruling in New York, which ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defamatory statements he made about her in 2019.

"He's got to post a bond just to appeal within 30 days of the judgment. So E. Jean Carroll will get her money at some point," Aronberg said. "He can try to get money from his supporters, but he's got to tell them what it's for...He can't say, 'Help me with my re-election fund' and then divert the money to E. Jean Carroll, that would be a crime."

Trump was previously ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after he was found liable for sexually assaulting the former Elle columnist in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump repeatedly denied the allegations, bashed Carroll and said she wasn't his "type," prompting the second lawsuit she brought against the former president.

all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Toastypickle@lemmy.world 89 points 2 years ago (3 children)

He can't say, 'Help me with my re-election fund' and then divert the money to E. Jean Carroll, that would be a crime."

Fucking lol. As if something being a crime would ever stop him from doing it. What's anyone going to do? Fine him? Rinse and repeat. The bullshit won't end until the motherfucker is dead or in prison and only one of those things is ever going to happen.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

At this point I'm cheering on McDonald's to kill him by cholesterol with a big mac

Don't forget the decades of amphetamine abuse. I'm honestly surprised his heart hasn't popped yet.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Hamberders: 1

Trump: 0

[–] null@slrpnk.net 6 points 2 years ago

Trump is going to be immortal in prison forever?

Feds are great at hitting the people they want to with financial crimes because there's a paper trail.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Someone told Donald Trump not to do a thing? He's totally going to do that thing now, just to spite this random person, isn't he?

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 24 points 2 years ago (3 children)

yeah but this one could be straight up jail time if he lived to be 97 when he would be convicted of it

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

The jan 6 traitors already got six months. Can’t even do that for this demented rapist fraud.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

He is collecting criminal charges like they're power-ups, though. It helps him build support.

[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

whatever happened to fair and speedy trials?

don't say reagan

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago (1 children)

From Late Night with Seth Meyers last night-

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 27 points 2 years ago

The real trick is to put the real ask as a middle option so it looks more reasonable.

$50 or $84,000,000 or $1 billion?

Well $1 billion is way too much but maybe the next option down...

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I love how this is the question on everyone's mind.

"Oh man. He's gonna pay that with donor money isn't he"

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Wait I thought that John Oliver episode basically showed you could use super pac money for whatever the fuck you want. Is there some reason it doesn't work like that for this?

[–] WeeSheep@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I think you need to show that the money was spent on something sort of connected: A private jet to a spa day to make you look good for a debate. I'm not sure I necessarily understand it any better, but that was what I understand it to be.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, super pacs can go to anything. But the candidate can have no control over the funds. 😉

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

But my fail son can control the funds and everything will be above board

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

All true.

Disgustingly true

But the “campaign” itself cannot.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Garrett: "Well, as you know, with PACs like this, we're not allowed to have direct contact with candidates...

...I'm kidding! I'm Garrett Romney. Mitt's my dad. But here's the thing, Jack. My Brother-Dad, which is Mormon for "Dad", has more money than he knows what to do with."

Jack: "With all due respect, Garrett, I don't think that's a thing."

[–] Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Looks like "I didn't know I couldn't do that" Is out as a defense when he inevitably does that.

That's basically the cornerstone of their legal defense

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's basically the cornerstone of their legal defense.

Funny how that's not a valid excuse for literally every other citizen of the United States.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you were a Republican president"

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

Where is the betting pool on how long until he violates campaign law?

Please respond soon, there's not much time.

[–] vinylshrapnel@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 2 years ago

That’s a sucker bet considering it’s almost assuredly happened already

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

Dude breaks laws to pay for the laws he broke.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

The parody donation commercials just write themselves.