Surely he's going to run out of money and backers at some point?
I suspect he will be moving what remains of his business empire out of New York shortly anyway and then declare himself bankrupt.
So it seems unlikely Carroll will get any money.
Seems likely. But surely a bankrupt can't sell himself as a 'businessman' not a 'politician'?
Then again, nothing makes much sense in this whole saga.
Trump's business empire was in deep financial trouble many times due to chronic mismanagement and it's already been confirmed it was through colossal frauds that he built it up again.
Surely he's going to run out of money and backers at some point?
I suspect he will be moving what remains of his business empire out of New York shortly anyway and then declare himself bankrupt.
So it seems unlikely Carroll will get any money.
Seems likely. But surely a bankrupt can't sell himself as a 'businessman' not a 'politician'?
Then again, nothing makes much sense in this whole saga.
Trump's business empire was in deep financial trouble many times due to chronic mismanagement and it's already been confirmed it was through colossal frauds that he built it up again.
He sells himself as a businessman anyway.
That, and Douche Bank has stopped rolling over his ever increasing loans.
We may have an FA Cup last 16 without a London club in it. When did that last happen? We've got Chelsea with a replay at Villa Park and Fulham at home to Newcastle left. Levelling up!
NY Times on how White House arrived at decision to delay U.S. LNG terminal CP2 in Louisiana:
"Ahead of the decision, White House climate advisers met with activists like Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old Colorado social media influencer who has led a TikTok and Instagram campaign aimed at urging young voters to demand that Mr. Biden reject the project."
Not a controversial decision at all in the White House, of course. "Little division."
No.
It was 8 months after a summit meeting with Biden that Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It didn't happen on Trump's watch.
And ?
How can you reconcile those facts with your view that we are safer with Biden?
You need a course in baby logic.
I've attended the baby logic course and now I think I get it.
When Biden does things which are against our interests, it's ok because he's not Trump, and when bad things happen on his watch, it's not his fault because he's not Trump.
I think that sort of logic leap is one of the prime symptoms of TDS. It just goes to show that when many of these posters claim they care about Ukraine and the West etc, they actually don’t. If Trump went full on supporting Ukraine, they would quickly switch to backing Russia and / or discussing the ‘complexities’ of the situation .
That’s complete shite. If Trump went full on supporting Ukraine, normal people would respond exactly how they responded to Boris fully supporting Ukraine: by saying good on him. But still hating him for all the other stuff.
Nope, it’s not. There are a fair few people on here who judge the person, not the action. The LNG ban by Biden is an example. Anyone who is pro-Ukraine should be appalled by this, as much for the signal as for the effects. Yet, because it’s Biden, we get the usual silence / “it’s not really an issue”
It's not a ban on LNG exports: it's a refusal to authorize construction on another export terminal. (And it is not the first time US LNG terminals have not been approved by the way.)
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him. His misogyny is on full display with a hefty price tag attached to it. Now he's just a dementia-addled broke loser.
NY Times on how White House arrived at decision to delay U.S. LNG terminal CP2 in Louisiana:
"Ahead of the decision, White House climate advisers met with activists like Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old Colorado social media influencer who has led a TikTok and Instagram campaign aimed at urging young voters to demand that Mr. Biden reject the project."
Not a controversial decision at all in the White House, of course. "Little division."
No.
It was 8 months after a summit meeting with Biden that Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It didn't happen on Trump's watch.
And ?
How can you reconcile those facts with your view that we are safer with Biden?
You need a course in baby logic.
I've attended the baby logic course and now I think I get it.
When Biden does things which are against our interests, it's ok because he's not Trump, and when bad things happen on his watch, it's not his fault because he's not Trump.
I think that sort of logic leap is one of the prime symptoms of TDS. It just goes to show that when many of these posters claim they care about Ukraine and the West etc, they actually don’t. If Trump went full on supporting Ukraine, they would quickly switch to backing Russia and / or discussing the ‘complexities’ of the situation .
That’s complete shite. If Trump went full on supporting Ukraine, normal people would respond exactly how they responded to Boris fully supporting Ukraine: by saying good on him. But still hating him for all the other stuff.
Nope, it’s not. There are a fair few people on here who judge the person, not the action. The LNG ban by Biden is an example. Anyone who is pro-Ukraine should be appalled by this, as much for the signal as for the effects. Yet, because it’s Biden, we get the usual silence / “it’s not really an issue”
It's not a ban on LNG exports: it's a refusal to authorize construction on another export terminal. (And it is not the first time US LNG terminals have not been approved by the way.)
Those are very different things.
You mean, the poster in question was wrong about a factual matter to do with Biden?
Gosh.
That's so surprising I think I may actually have a heart attack and die from not surprised.
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him. His misogyny is on full display with a hefty price tag attached to it. Now he's just a dementia-addled broke loser.
You do wonder how he'll resist the temptation to have another go.
NY Times on how White House arrived at decision to delay U.S. LNG terminal CP2 in Louisiana:
"Ahead of the decision, White House climate advisers met with activists like Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old Colorado social media influencer who has led a TikTok and Instagram campaign aimed at urging young voters to demand that Mr. Biden reject the project."
Not a controversial decision at all in the White House, of course. "Little division."
No.
It was 8 months after a summit meeting with Biden that Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It didn't happen on Trump's watch.
And ?
How can you reconcile those facts with your view that we are safer with Biden?
You need a course in baby logic.
I've attended the baby logic course and now I think I get it.
When Biden does things which are against our interests, it's ok because he's not Trump, and when bad things happen on his watch, it's not his fault because he's not Trump.
I think that sort of logic leap is one of the prime symptoms of TDS. It just goes to show that when many of these posters claim they care about Ukraine and the West etc, they actually don’t. If Trump went full on supporting Ukraine, they would quickly switch to backing Russia and / or discussing the ‘complexities’ of the situation .
That’s complete shite. If Trump went full on supporting Ukraine, normal people would respond exactly how they responded to Boris fully supporting Ukraine: by saying good on him. But still hating him for all the other stuff.
Nope, it’s not. There are a fair few people on here who judge the person, not the action. The LNG ban by Biden is an example. Anyone who is pro-Ukraine should be appalled by this, as much for the signal as for the effects. Yet, because it’s Biden, we get the usual silence / “it’s not really an issue”
It's not a ban on LNG exports: it's a refusal to authorize construction on another export terminal. (And it is not the first time US LNG terminals have not been approved by the way.)
Those are very different things.
I'm old enough to remember when they were building LNG import terminals in the US.
Do we now have, encouraged by the supreme intellects of our time such as David Frost and Jacob Rees-Mogg, people in PB who actually think Trump is OK and not an utter narcissistic shit?
I think he's a complete narcissistic shit, and it's OK.
"Last night, Alabama executed Kenneth Smith by the administration of nitrogen gas. Smith, who murdered a pastor’s wife in 1988, was strapped down as officials put a tight fitting, commercial industrial-safety respirator mask on his face. A canister of pure nitrogen was attached to the mask and set flowing. One local journalist who witnessed the execution said Smith struggled and thrashed about – well as much as the restraints on him made possible – for four or five minutes. Indeed, his struggle for life may have lasted some 20 minutes. Five minutes may not seem a long time, but you just try going without breathing for that long. He eventually suffocated; it is plain that he struggled desperately for air, as we all would have done."
As good as The Traitors is, I am fairly convinced it's not a genuine game. I think they're all actors.
Jas and Harry both played very well, Molly didn't deserve a penny with her poor play at the end though.
No one is that thick. Her reaction at the end should have been "you f***ing c***". It wasn't. It's not real. A traitor had to win this series otherwise it would undermine the premise of the programme.
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him. His misogyny is on full display with a hefty price tag attached to it. Now he's just a dementia-addled broke loser.
You do wonder how he'll resist the temptation to have another go.
As an aside, the number one impact of a (genuine) ban on US LNG exports would be the utter destruction of the US coal industry. US natural gas prices would fall 65-70%, and there wouldn't be a single, even vaguely competitive coal fired power plant in the country. The amount of drilling for natural gas would obviously collapse too.
As good as The Traitors is, I am fairly convinced it's not a genuine game. I think they're all actors.
Jas and Harry both played very well, Molly didn't deserve a penny with her poor play at the end though.
No one is that thick. Her reaction at the end should have been "you f***ing c***". It wasn't. It's not real. A traitor had to win this series otherwise it would undermine the premise of the programme.
Hmm no I've played a version of this with friends (Avalon)/werewolf. It's easier for the bad guys to win. Jaz voting to keep the game going when they were down to three meant the traitor was only ever going to be Mollie or Harry though at that point
As good as The Traitors is, I am fairly convinced it's not a genuine game. I think they're all actors.
Jas and Harry both played very well, Molly didn't deserve a penny with her poor play at the end though.
No one is that thick. Her reaction at the end should have been "you f***ing c***". It wasn't. It's not real. A traitor had to win this series otherwise it would undermine the premise of the programme.
Hmm no I've played a version of this with friends (Avalon)/werewolf. It's easier for the bad guys to win. Jaz voting to keep the game going when they were down to three meant the traitor was only ever going to be Mollie or Harry though at that point
Yes, the only reason a traitor votes to continue the game is if they think someone else will do so, which is what happened when there were four remaining. But perhaps I'm underestimating just how dumb people are.
NY Times on how White House arrived at decision to delay U.S. LNG terminal CP2 in Louisiana:
"Ahead of the decision, White House climate advisers met with activists like Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old Colorado social media influencer who has led a TikTok and Instagram campaign aimed at urging young voters to demand that Mr. Biden reject the project."
Not a controversial decision at all in the White House, of course. "Little division."
No.
It was 8 months after a summit meeting with Biden that Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It didn't happen on Trump's watch.
And ?
How can you reconcile those facts with your view that we are safer with Biden?
You need a course in baby logic.
I've attended the baby logic course and now I think I get it.
When Biden does things which are against our interests, it's ok because he's not Trump, and when bad things happen on his watch, it's not his fault because he's not Trump.
I think that sort of logic leap is one of the prime symptoms of TDS. It just goes to show that when many of these posters claim they care about Ukraine and the West etc, they actually don’t. If Trump went full on supporting Ukraine, they would quickly switch to backing Russia and / or discussing the ‘complexities’ of the situation .
Really ! No ones ever said Biden was beyond criticism but the fact is he wants to support Ukraine and Trump will happily throw the country under a bus .
A vote for Trump is a vote to enable Putin . Those of us who support Ukraine won’t take lectures from those who support Trump .
And I while heartedly support Ukraine and have from day 1.
But your comment goes to show the sweeping assumptions that, if you think Trump is the better candidate, you must be pro-Russia, anti-vax etc. You are displaying your own prejudices (which TBF are shared by many on here).
TBF, had Trump defeated Biden , Russian casualties would have been much lower. But I'm not sure how much of Ukraine would be left.
According to the Washington Post feature by a Ukrainian journalist, it was Boris Johnson's support that was militarily more significant before the invasion. Did you vote for him?
As the United States shut down its embassy in Kyiv ahead of the invasion, it did ship some weapons to great fanfare, such as Javelin antitank missiles. But the quantity was puny: only about 90 Javelins, according to Danilov. Then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, while also briefed about the hopelessness of the Ukrainian cause, had overruled internal objections and authorized a heftier load of about 2,000 NLAW missiles.
So given that why is Johnson now on team Trump ?
Why can anyone who truly supports Ukraine be willing to risk a Trump Presidency ?
What do you think was Johnson's motive for sending those weapons to Ukraine?
As an aside, the number one impact of a (genuine) ban on US LNG exports would be the utter destruction of the US coal industry. US natural gas prices would fall 65-70%, and there wouldn't be a single, even vaguely competitive. The amount of drilling for natural gas would obviously collapse too.
Translation: it isn't going to happen.
It is a (temporary) big deal, though. The proposed developments are gargantuan.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/26/why-biden-delay-cp2-fossil-fuel-climate-change ...CP2 is at the vanguard of a frenzy of new gas export infrastructure along the Gulf of Mexico coast that would, if fully realized, result in an estimated 3.2bn tons of greenhouse gases each year, close to the annual emissions of the entire European Union and severely imperilling hopes of avoiding catastrophic global heating...
The US is producing already now producing more oil and gas than it has in its history (which makes a nonsense of the GOP criticisms of Biden on 'drilling').
Applying the brakes is sensible policy - though it will infuriate the more irrational global warming sceptics.
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him. His misogyny is on full display with a hefty price tag attached to it. Now he's just a dementia-addled broke loser.
You do wonder how he'll resist the temptation to have another go.
Has he got $83million?
His supporters do, he will just beg them to donate....again
As an aside, the number one impact of a (genuine) ban on US LNG exports would be the utter destruction of the US coal industry. US natural gas prices would fall 65-70%, and there wouldn't be a single, even vaguely competitive. The amount of drilling for natural gas would obviously collapse too.
Translation: it isn't going to happen.
It is a (temporary) big deal, though. The proposed developments are gargantuan.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/26/why-biden-delay-cp2-fossil-fuel-climate-change ...CP2 is at the vanguard of a frenzy of new gas export infrastructure along the Gulf of Mexico coast that would, if fully realized, result in an estimated 3.2bn tons of greenhouse gases each year, close to the annual emissions of the entire European Union and severely imperilling hopes of avoiding catastrophic global heating...
The US is producing already now producing more oil and gas than it has in its history (which makes a nonsense of the GOP criticisms of Biden on 'drilling').
Applying the brakes is sensible policy - though it will infuriate the more irrational global warming sceptics.
Personally, I think it's a mistake, as there is plenty of natural gas in the US, and it is a fabulous transition fuel that is relatively emissions light.
But this isn't that big a deal either. There's plenty of new US capacity coming on steam this year (Golden Pass for example). And longer term there's a decent amount in the rest of the world too
An oil tanker is on fire in the Gulf of Aden, its operator says, after Houthis said they hit it with a missile.
The movement said it had targeted the Marlin Luanda on Friday evening.
If someone can explain to me how a vessel flagged in the Marshall Islands and travelling from Morocco to Singapore is in any way linked with Israel, I'd be interested to hear the explanation.
Because the kind of people who are cheering on the Houthis are those who believe the Jews, ah sorry 'Zionists', are behind everything. A Prague Cemetery for the 21st Century.
"Last night, Alabama executed Kenneth Smith by the administration of nitrogen gas. Smith, who murdered a pastor’s wife in 1988, was strapped down as officials put a tight fitting, commercial industrial-safety respirator mask on his face. A canister of pure nitrogen was attached to the mask and set flowing. One local journalist who witnessed the execution said Smith struggled and thrashed about – well as much as the restraints on him made possible – for four or five minutes. Indeed, his struggle for life may have lasted some 20 minutes. Five minutes may not seem a long time, but you just try going without breathing for that long. He eventually suffocated; it is plain that he struggled desperately for air, as we all would have done."
Surely he's going to run out of money and backers at some point?
I suspect he will be moving what remains of his business empire out of New York shortly anyway and then declare himself bankrupt.
So it seems unlikely Carroll will get any money.
Seems likely. But surely a bankrupt can't sell himself as a 'businessman' not a 'politician'?
Then again, nothing makes much sense in this whole saga.
Trump's business empire was in deep financial trouble many times due to chronic mismanagement and it's already been confirmed it was through colossal frauds that he built it up again.
He sells himself as a businessman anyway.
Even if there were not fraud going on it seems like a complete basketcase of a business enterprise.
It's very telling, though entirely unsurprising, that Trump and his lawyers continually bring up how terrible it is that even a former President (they usually just say President, to feed his ego), and the top candidate for the GOP, must go to court to defend himself.
That is, aside from all the protestations of innocence, they are very open and clear that they think important people should be exempt from legal consequences. They are downright offended politicians can be face legal action.
It's remarkably honest, if anathema to the ideas of America, but they never seem to follow the thought through to it therefore applying to anyone besides Trump.
Agreed on the idea Trump will not pay a dime to Carrol. Nor will he run out of money - if he wins the presidency most of his problems will go away and the ones that don't can probably be put off until he dies.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
As an aside, the number one impact of a (genuine) ban on US LNG exports would be the utter destruction of the US coal industry. US natural gas prices would fall 65-70%, and there wouldn't be a single, even vaguely competitive. The amount of drilling for natural gas would obviously collapse too.
Translation: it isn't going to happen.
It is a (temporary) big deal, though. The proposed developments are gargantuan.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/26/why-biden-delay-cp2-fossil-fuel-climate-change ...CP2 is at the vanguard of a frenzy of new gas export infrastructure along the Gulf of Mexico coast that would, if fully realized, result in an estimated 3.2bn tons of greenhouse gases each year, close to the annual emissions of the entire European Union and severely imperilling hopes of avoiding catastrophic global heating...
The US is producing already now producing more oil and gas than it has in its history (which makes a nonsense of the GOP criticisms of Biden on 'drilling').
Applying the brakes is sensible policy - though it will infuriate the more irrational global warming sceptics.
Personally, I think it's a mistake, as there is plenty of natural gas in the US, and it is a fabulous transition fuel that is relatively emissions light.
But this isn't that big a deal either. There's plenty of new US capacity coming on steam this year (Golden Pass for example). And longer term there's a decent amount in the rest of the world too
BTW heard on German news today that in 2023 the number of days German workers took off sick was a record. And if it had been instead an average year for days off sick the German economy would have grown in 2023 rather than shrunk.
I'm genuinely curious why you think that - it seems like a valid concern in the charged political climate and extremism of the US that revealing themselves to be on it will lead to death threats. They can still do what they want, but he's offering a sobering piece of advice - they were anonymised for sound reasons.
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him. His misogyny is on full display with a hefty price tag attached to it. Now he's just a dementia-addled broke loser.
Clearly the damages are costly to Trump but it will be the verdict in any of his criminal charges that will be most significant politically
We may have an FA Cup last 16 without a London club in it. When did that last happen? We've got Chelsea with a replay at Villa Park and Fulham at home to Newcastle left. Levelling up!
I will stick my neck out and suggest that has never ever happened to Lancashire, at least if you're not of a post 1974 disposition for the purpose.
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him. His misogyny is on full display with a hefty price tag attached to it. Now he's just a dementia-addled broke loser.
Clearly the damages are costly to Trump but it will be the verdict in any of his criminal charges that will be most significant politically
I'm genuinely curious why you think that - it seems like a valid concern in the charged political climate and extremism of the US that revealing themselves to be on it will lead to death threats. They can still do what they want, but he's offering a sobering piece of advice - they were anonymised for sound reasons.
It feels icky because it was made before an audience, and clearly intended for that audience, to indicate how awful and dangerous Trump's social media hordes are. If he wanted to actually help the members of the jury stay secure, he would have made sure such warnings were made privately and sensitively. As it is, he decided to publicly shit them up to make a passive aggressive point about Trump and his supporters.
My brief reading of the trial just now had a bit on social media - the prosecution successfully blamed Trump for the death threats etc., whereas his solicitor claimed that it happened to most public figures and that she gets several death threats a week. The judge forbade her from showing her own Twitter feed.
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him.
Leaving aside the rest of his personal issues which barely need repeating, he does seem incapable of restraining himself even a little. Sure, he gets some play with his supporters around all the so called persecution he faces, but as it relates to this particular case at least he surely could have maintained his innocence but also just reined it in even a little, to the point that even if she sued him for defamation it would not have been so time consuming and costly?
I mean, I don't think he'll ever pay the damages, and he can make up the cost of paying his lawyers through donations, but at a point is the benefit from his narrative on this particular case worth the distraction and aggravation to himself and his legal teams?
He has other more serious civil and criminal matters he can use for the same purpose, so it really does seem to be he just cannot stop.
I'm genuinely curious why you think that - it seems like a valid concern in the charged political climate and extremism of the US that revealing themselves to be on it will lead to death threats. They can still do what they want, but he's offering a sobering piece of advice - they were anonymised for sound reasons.
It feels icky because it was made before an audience, and clearly intended for that audience, to indicate how awful and dangerous Trump's social media hordes are. If he wanted to actually help the members of the jury stay secure, he would have made sure such warnings were made privately and sensitively. As it is, he decided to publicly shit them up to make a passive aggressive point about Trump and his supporters.
My brief reading of the trial just now had a bit on social media - the prosecution successfully blamed Trump for the death threats etc., whereas his solicitor claimed that it happened to most public figures and that she gets several death threats a week. The judge forbade her from showing her own Twitter feed.
He can't make private warnings. Judges can't do that with a jury. Justice in the open and all that.
The hysteria about the Royal Family is crazy. It's two people who have never known difficulty in their life getting the best hospital treatment and I am supposed to care?
I'm genuinely curious why you think that - it seems like a valid concern in the charged political climate and extremism of the US that revealing themselves to be on it will lead to death threats. They can still do what they want, but he's offering a sobering piece of advice - they were anonymised for sound reasons.
It feels icky because it was made before an audience, and clearly intended for that audience, to indicate how awful and dangerous Trump's social media hordes are. If he wanted to actually help the members of the jury stay secure, he would have made sure such warnings were made privately and sensitively. As it is, he decided to publicly shit them up to make a passive aggressive point about Trump and his supporters.
My brief reading of the trial just now had a bit on social media - the prosecution successfully blamed Trump for the death threats etc., whereas his solicitor claimed that it happened to most public figures and that she gets several death threats a week. The judge forbade her from showing her own Twitter feed.
My reading of the trial commentary is that his lead lawyer in this case did not understand how to enter things into evidence, so attempts to mitigate damages were severely undercut. That's based on verbatim quotes where she kept bringing things up she had not entered.
As a non-lawyer that last example you give seems perfectly straightforward - personal anecdotes of the defendant's attorney do not seem evidentially very pertinent to the matter at hand. The lawyers here can comment, but it doesn't seem likely lawyers can just bring up anything. If that is incorrect they can win on appeal, but I would not be surprised if they don't mention that point during the appeal and instead focus on other things (like which defences they were able to use or something).
Trump has plenty of good lawyers working for him, but I would suspect they are not the ones who spend a lot of time talking in TV studios. Presumably those ones are working on the criminal cases and the corporate fraud trial, which are more personally significant for him.
Agreed on the idea Trump will not pay a dime to Carrol. Nor will he run out of money - if he wins the presidency most of his problems will go away and the ones that don't can probably be put off until he dies.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
Is are you saying he won't pay anything based on legal knowledge or is it just from the general vibe that rich people in America get away with stuff?
Just reading the lawyerish people on bsky it seems like - He's already put up $5 million which is out of his bank account but not yet in Carroll's - He can appeal, but will probably lose the appeal - If he appeals, he can either put the rest of the $83 million in escrow, or 30 days from now Carroll can start going to court in any state where he has property to seize his cash and personal property and put liens on his real estate.
Agreed on the idea Trump will not pay a dime to Carrol. Nor will he run out of money - if he wins the presidency most of his problems will go away and the ones that don't can probably be put off until he dies.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
Is are you saying he won't pay anything based on legal knowledge or is it just from the general vibe that rich people in America get away with stuff?
Just reading the lawyerish people on bsky it seems like - He's already put up $5 million which is out of his bank account but not yet in Carroll's - He can appeal, but will probably lose the appeal - If he appeals, he can either put the rest of the $83 million in escrow, or 30 days from now Carroll can start going to court in any state where he has property to seize his cash and personal property and put liens on his real estate.
Purely on vibes. It'll be tied up in appeals for ages, he may well be President by this time next year, and there'd find a way to avoid it then - even if he was in Prison he'd be let out if he wins the election after all.
And if he loses the Presidency (and is unsuccessful in stealing it as he surely will attempt in that case - he's already tried holding on after losing after all) he may well just go completely crackers at that point.
Surely he's going to run out of money and backers at some point?
I suspect he will be moving what remains of his business empire out of New York shortly anyway and then declare himself bankrupt.
So it seems unlikely Carroll will get any money.
Seems likely. But surely a bankrupt can't sell himself as a 'businessman' not a 'politician'?
Then again, nothing makes much sense in this whole saga.
Trump's business empire was in deep financial trouble many times due to chronic mismanagement and it's already been confirmed it was through colossal frauds that he built it up again.
He sells himself as a businessman anyway.
Even if there were not fraud going on it seems like a complete basketcase of a business enterprise.
It's very telling, though entirely unsurprising, that Trump and his lawyers continually bring up how terrible it is that even a former President (they usually just say President, to feed his ego), and the top candidate for the GOP, must go to court to defend himself.
That is, aside from all the protestations of innocence, they are very open and clear that they think important people should be exempt from legal consequences. They are downright offended politicians can be face legal action.
It's remarkably honest, if anathema to the ideas of America, but they never seem to follow the thought through to it therefore applying to anyone besides Trump.
Trump has always ran his business empire on the premise that if you owe £100,000 that's your problem, if you owe £100 million - that's the bank's problem. And thus there are different rules for the rich. Even if on paper they're not actually rich. As long as there's assets to shift around and borrow against you'll be fine.
Plus, becoming President did wonders for the Trump 'brand' - despite its toxicity. Given what Trump has always sold is a tasteless proximity to luxury, fame, and power. And what's better on that front than a US President? He's a magnet for the obnoxious rich, who are also his best customers. Plus don't underestimate how much government money was shoveled in via bookings and security needs.
Derogatory texts between Humza Yousaf and Jason Leitch released
Derogatory WhatsApp messages between Scotland's first minister and its national clinical director have been published by the UK Covid Inquiry.
The messages show that Humza Yousaf and Jason Leitch used insulting language about opposition politicians.
Mr Leitch described a female Labour MSP as a "new girl" and said a Tory MSP had been "harrumphing like a child".
Mr Yousaf used expletive language to describe former Labour MSP Neil Findlay.
The message exchange between the pair happened shortly after Mr Yousaf was appointed health secretary in 2021, and saw him joke at one point that he was "winging it! And will get found out sooner rather than later", followed by a laughing emoji.
Mr Leitch responded: "Me too. That doesn't change".
The inquiry has heard that Mr Yousaf also described the Scottish Police Federation as a "disgrace" while he was serving as justice secretary earlier in the pandemic.
---
Some of those things may be accurate - but really, don't put them down in unambiguous language in a message to your mates.
If anyone on here knew what absolutely fucking useless, brain dead, thick, talentless scum the vast majority of Scottish Labour and Tory politicians are, they would realise that Yousaf and Leitch were actually being complimentary to that bunch of twats.
But there are polite, professional ways of saying they are useless brain dead morons. That's where the skill is lacking. Can't even manage that.
Trump will possibly face a decision in the coming days to strip him of his business licence in New York in the corporate fraud case, though his sons might avoid that sanction apparently. That should provoke some interesting comments.
Agreed on the idea Trump will not pay a dime to Carrol. Nor will he run out of money - if he wins the presidency most of his problems will go away and the ones that don't can probably be put off until he dies.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
Is are you saying he won't pay anything based on legal knowledge or is it just from the general vibe that rich people in America get away with stuff?
Just reading the lawyerish people on bsky it seems like - He's already put up $5 million which is out of his bank account but not yet in Carroll's - He can appeal, but will probably lose the appeal - If he appeals, he can either put the rest of the $83 million in escrow, or 30 days from now Carroll can start going to court in any state where he has property to seize his cash and personal property and put liens on his real estate.
From my limited knowledge of US cases, I hesitate to use the word “justice”, it is quite common for appeals to succeed in these cases and the level of damages to be substantially reduced. The jury here has awarded significantly more than the claimant was even asking for.
The civil jury system in the US is out of control, especially for high profile, parties. Sympathy for Trump is beyond me but I don’t believe that this will stand whether he wins the presidency or not.
I for one am very happy to serve King and County - the top brass will always need someone to shuffle papers around at the home office, and I'm willing to do so.
"Last night, Alabama executed Kenneth Smith by the administration of nitrogen gas. Smith, who murdered a pastor’s wife in 1988, was strapped down as officials put a tight fitting, commercial industrial-safety respirator mask on his face. A canister of pure nitrogen was attached to the mask and set flowing. One local journalist who witnessed the execution said Smith struggled and thrashed about – well as much as the restraints on him made possible – for four or five minutes. Indeed, his struggle for life may have lasted some 20 minutes. Five minutes may not seem a long time, but you just try going without breathing for that long. He eventually suffocated; it is plain that he struggled desperately for air, as we all would have done."
Agreed on the idea Trump will not pay a dime to Carrol. Nor will he run out of money - if he wins the presidency most of his problems will go away and the ones that don't can probably be put off until he dies.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
Is are you saying he won't pay anything based on legal knowledge or is it just from the general vibe that rich people in America get away with stuff?
Just reading the lawyerish people on bsky it seems like - He's already put up $5 million which is out of his bank account but not yet in Carroll's - He can appeal, but will probably lose the appeal - If he appeals, he can either put the rest of the $83 million in escrow, or 30 days from now Carroll can start going to court in any state where he has property to seize his cash and personal property and put liens on his real estate.
From my limited knowledge of US cases, I hesitate to use the word “justice”, it is quite common for appeals to succeed in these cases and the level of damages to be substantially reduced. The jury here has awarded significantly more than the claimant was even asking for.
The civil jury system in the US is out of control, especially for high profile, parties. Sympathy for Trump is beyond me but I don’t believe that this will stand whether he wins the presidency or not.
They asked for 12 million in general compensatory and 12 million reputational repair, so 24 million compensatory, plus a very large punitive award because he just won't stop and has said he is worth 10 billion. So I don't think it is the case that it was significantly more than the claimant was asking for, the only question was how much punitive they might give. They actually didn't max out the the non punitive award.
How much will it take to fix her reputation? Between 7 to 12 million. We say 12...
Next, we say another $12 million, probably much more. On punitives, I'm not going to tell you exactly how much. You can consider his wealth. Donald Trump is worth billions of dollars, he said that under oath. This will take an unusually high award https://nitter.net/innercitypress/status/1750910368514207842#m
In some states, possibly not New York, they have limits on what can be awarded but they don't tell the juries what the limit is. Even if New York has no limit, reductions appear very common.
The reform numbers continue to defy local election results, their very limited media coverage and Richard Tice’s extremely low profile. But then Greens are on an unlikely 9% in this poll too - rising after months of declines. Green won’t score more than 3% in the actual GE.
If SKS wins a big majority, what will the "SKS is crap and should resign" people say?
That people will turn on him quickly and he'll lose in 4-5 years.
Granted that has actually happened to the Tories after winning their big majority, though the leadership musical chairs has surely not helped at all.
Nah, the people won't want the Tories back any time soon. He gets two terms, at least.
It's been a long long time since we had a one term government. Labour will play the 'last government didn it' card for all its worth, as every incoming government does, and recent history suggests the outgoing party will indulge in infighting or ideological posturing for years before they get their act together.
Unless it's a quite small majority I'd not be confident of overturning it.
Bit dog bites man really. Let us know when there's a more than the occasional poll showing a mere 15 point deficit.
That's three polls this month with the Tories on just 20%. Can't be long before we one with them in the teens.
What is their floor? We used to think it was 30%.
Interesting bet would be whether Tories go sub-20% before Labour go sub-40%. Both seem highly likely under different pollsters this year. I think Tories will hit 30%+ with someone soon, they’ve had a few 29s.
Stepping back, the spread between pollsters is huge at the moment. Because Labour leads comfortably in all of them we don’t notice it. The spread in small party support, particularly Green, is huge too.
If SKS wins a big majority, what will the "SKS is crap and should resign" people say?
That people will turn on him quickly and he'll lose in 4-5 years.
Granted that has actually happened to the Tories after winning their big majority, though the leadership musical chairs has surely not helped at all.
Nah, the people won't want the Tories back any time soon. He gets two terms, at least.
It's been a long long time since we had a one term government. Labour will play the 'last government didn it' card for all its worth, as every incoming government does, and recent history suggests the outgoing party will indulge in infighting or ideological posturing for years before they get their act together.
Unless it's a quite small majority I'd not be confident of overturning it.
I have no doubt that his first term won't be without troubles and dissent from both right and left, but the Tories are going to be a basket case. Not a big basket either!
If SKS wins a big majority, what will the "SKS is crap and should resign" people say?
That people will turn on him quickly and he'll lose in 4-5 years.
Granted that has actually happened to the Tories after winning their big majority, though the leadership musical chairs has surely not helped at all.
Nah, the people won't want the Tories back any time soon. He gets two terms, at least.
It's been a long long time since we had a one term government. Labour will play the 'last government didn it' card for all its worth, as every incoming government does, and recent history suggests the outgoing party will indulge in infighting or ideological posturing for years before they get their act together.
Unless it's a quite small majority I'd not be confident of overturning it.
The serious-faced, sombre speech to the nation shortly after the election - “we’ve now seen the reality of the state of the economy and public finances and it’s worse than we feared, so we’ve had to make some difficult decisions” - is going to be a work worthy of several BAFTAs.
Agreed on the idea Trump will not pay a dime to Carrol. Nor will he run out of money - if he wins the presidency most of his problems will go away and the ones that don't can probably be put off until he dies.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
Is are you saying he won't pay anything based on legal knowledge or is it just from the general vibe that rich people in America get away with stuff?
Just reading the lawyerish people on bsky it seems like - He's already put up $5 million which is out of his bank account but not yet in Carroll's - He can appeal, but will probably lose the appeal - If he appeals, he can either put the rest of the $83 million in escrow, or 30 days from now Carroll can start going to court in any state where he has property to seize his cash and personal property and put liens on his real estate.
From my limited knowledge of US cases, I hesitate to use the word “justice”, it is quite common for appeals to succeed in these cases and the level of damages to be substantially reduced. The jury here has awarded significantly more than the claimant was even asking for.
The civil jury system in the US is out of control, especially for high profile, parties. Sympathy for Trump is beyond me but I don’t believe that this will stand whether he wins the presidency or not.
It is uncommon for someone found guilty of defamation to keep repeating the sane lie so loudly. Can you think of another such case? The punitive fine is in reaction to that. It is different to other large punitive fines that have been successfully appealed, isn't it?
The law says Trump is lying and has to shut up. What size of fine will achieve that?
Agreed on the idea Trump will not pay a dime to Carrol. Nor will he run out of money - if he wins the presidency most of his problems will go away and the ones that don't can probably be put off until he dies.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
Is are you saying he won't pay anything based on legal knowledge or is it just from the general vibe that rich people in America get away with stuff?
Just reading the lawyerish people on bsky it seems like - He's already put up $5 million which is out of his bank account but not yet in Carroll's - He can appeal, but will probably lose the appeal - If he appeals, he can either put the rest of the $83 million in escrow, or 30 days from now Carroll can start going to court in any state where he has property to seize his cash and personal property and put liens on his real estate.
From my limited knowledge of US cases, I hesitate to use the word “justice”, it is quite common for appeals to succeed in these cases and the level of damages to be substantially reduced. The jury here has awarded significantly more than the claimant was even asking for.
The civil jury system in the US is out of control, especially for high profile, parties. Sympathy for Trump is beyond me but I don’t believe that this will stand whether he wins the presidency or not.
It is uncommon for someone found guilty of defamation to keep repeating the sane lie so loudly.
Including every day during the trial, which was played back to the jury.
Alex Jones tried the same thing - their lawyers don't seem able to persuade them that court is different to their rallies/shows.
Will the amount stay? Who knows, but the whole point of punitive damages is to punish and dissuade surely, so for a man claiming a worth of billions might it not be argued that $83m is not punitive enough?
In reality how much cash he has to hand at any given time seems weirdly low, but based on his claims the amount should not be a punishment at all.
If Reform win Wellingborough (I don’t think they have much chance in the other one) then they can expect a polling bounce and crossover isn’t impossible. The Tories are on the brink of an electoral catastrophe.
If Reform win Wellingborough (I don’t think they have much chance in the other one) then they can expect a polling bounce and crossover isn’t impossible. The Tories are on the brink of an electoral catastrophe.
Sounds insane, and probably won't happen to that extent, but as we know tipping points do happen with good old FPTP in particular. Oblivion can really sneak up on you.
General Melchett: "The healthy humor of the honest tommy! Don't worry my boy, if you should falter, remember that Captain Darling and I are behind you."
Captain Blackadder: "About thirty-five miles behind you!"
Comments
He sells himself as a businessman anyway.
When did that last happen?
We've got Chelsea with a replay at Villa Park and Fulham at home to Newcastle left.
Levelling up!
Hamas attack: US pauses UNRWA funding over claims of staff involvement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68104203
Those are very different things.
Donald Trump took what was a $5 million judgement and made it $83 million, all because his ego was so bruised by another woman standing up to him. His misogyny is on full display with a hefty price tag attached to it. Now he's just a dementia-addled broke loser.
I bet he blames this on one of his staff too!
https://x.com/treborrhurbarb/status/1750970473133817959?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Gosh.
That's so surprising I think I may actually have a heart attack and die from not surprised.
...and still the BBC are showing yet another series of The Apprentice.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/alabamas-nitrogen-gas-execution-is-indefensible/
Translation: it isn't going to happen.
The proposed developments are gargantuan.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/26/why-biden-delay-cp2-fossil-fuel-climate-change
...CP2 is at the vanguard of a frenzy of new gas export infrastructure along the Gulf of Mexico coast that would, if fully realized, result in an estimated 3.2bn tons of greenhouse gases each year, close to the annual emissions of the entire European Union and severely imperilling hopes of avoiding catastrophic global heating...
The US is producing already now producing more oil and gas than it has in its history (which makes a nonsense of the GOP criticisms of Biden on 'drilling').
Applying the brakes is sensible policy - though it will infuriate the more irrational global warming sceptics.
Trump’s statement in reaction to the defamation damages verdict claims the civil suit, brought by a private citizen, was part of a “Biden Directed Witch Hunt”
https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1751004956604149822
Utter tosser.
https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1750998393910919556
Judge Kaplan, to jurors: "My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury."
But this isn't that big a deal either. There's plenty of new US capacity coming on steam this year (Golden Pass for example). And longer term there's a decent amount in the rest of the world too
https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1751006420009406551
Why didn't they simply go with carbon monoxide poisoning? Much more pleasant.
It's very telling, though entirely unsurprising, that Trump and his lawyers continually bring up how terrible it is that even a former President (they usually just say President, to feed his ego), and the top candidate for the GOP, must go to court to defend himself.
That is, aside from all the protestations of innocence, they are very open and clear that they think important people should be exempt from legal consequences. They are downright offended politicians can be face legal action.
It's remarkably honest, if anathema to the ideas of America, but they never seem to follow the thought through to it therefore applying to anyone besides Trump.
If he doens't win the presidency, well, it's a rare rich person who seems to be entirely bereft of funds even when they declare bankruptcy, and as theenglishborn notes he genuinely also raises tens of millions from everyday americans. No doubt he'll raise loads of the back of this verdict (donating to his various PACs often allows him to use the funds for legal defence, freeing up other cash).
Might as well get on with it.
My brief reading of the trial just now had a bit on social media - the prosecution successfully blamed Trump for the death threats etc., whereas his solicitor claimed that it happened to most public figures and that she gets several death threats a week. The judge forbade her from showing her own Twitter feed.
I mean, I don't think he'll ever pay the damages, and he can make up the cost of paying his lawyers through donations, but at a point is the benefit from his narrative on this particular case worth the distraction and aggravation to himself and his legal teams?
He has other more serious civil and criminal matters he can use for the same purpose, so it really does seem to be he just cannot stop.
Also a tricky one for Haley. How does she respond?
As a non-lawyer that last example you give seems perfectly straightforward - personal anecdotes of the defendant's attorney do not seem evidentially very pertinent to the matter at hand. The lawyers here can comment, but it doesn't seem likely lawyers can just bring up anything. If that is incorrect they can win on appeal, but I would not be surprised if they don't mention that point during the appeal and instead focus on other things (like which defences they were able to use or something).
Trump has plenty of good lawyers working for him, but I would suspect they are not the ones who spend a lot of time talking in TV studios. Presumably those ones are working on the criminal cases and the corporate fraud trial, which are more personally significant for him.
Just reading the lawyerish people on bsky it seems like
- He's already put up $5 million which is out of his bank account but not yet in Carroll's
- He can appeal, but will probably lose the appeal
- If he appeals, he can either put the rest of the $83 million in escrow, or 30 days from now Carroll can start going to court in any state where he has property to seize his cash and personal property and put liens on his real estate.
LAB: 45% (=)
CON: 20% (-3)
RFM: 12% (+2)
LDM: 10% (=)
GRN: 9% (+3)
Via
@PeoplePolling
, 25 Jan.
Changes w/ 28 Dec.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1750888826870919231
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13010871/BORIS-JOHNSON-fight-King-country.html
And if he loses the Presidency (and is unsuccessful in stealing it as he surely will attempt in that case - he's already tried holding on after losing after all) he may well just go completely crackers at that point.
Boris Johnson in training with the marines on Salisbury plain - live scenes.
Plus, becoming President did wonders for the Trump 'brand' - despite its toxicity. Given what Trump has always sold is a tasteless proximity to luxury, fame, and power. And what's better on that front than a US President? He's a magnet for the obnoxious rich, who are also his best customers. Plus don't underestimate how much government money was shoveled in via bookings and security needs.
The civil jury system in the US is out of control, especially for high profile, parties. Sympathy for Trump is beyond me but I don’t believe that this will stand whether he wins the presidency or not.
Granted that has actually happened to the Tories after winning their big majority, though the leadership musical chairs has surely not helped at all.
What is their floor? We used to think it was 30%.
How much will it take to fix her reputation? Between 7 to 12 million. We say 12...
Next, we say another $12 million, probably much more. On punitives, I'm not going to tell you exactly how much. You can consider his wealth. Donald Trump is worth billions of dollars, he said that under oath. This will take an unusually high award
https://nitter.net/innercitypress/status/1750910368514207842#m
In some states, possibly not New York, they have limits on what can be awarded but they don't tell the juries what the limit is. Even if New York has no limit, reductions appear very common.
The reform numbers continue to defy local election results, their very limited media
coverage and Richard Tice’s extremely low profile. But then Greens are on an unlikely 9% in this poll too - rising after months of declines. Green won’t score more than 3% in the actual GE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWsESwG4WIA
Unless it's a quite small majority I'd not be confident of overturning it.
Stepping back, the spread between pollsters is huge at the moment. Because Labour leads comfortably in all of them we don’t notice it. The spread in small party support, particularly Green, is huge too.
The law says Trump is lying and has to shut up. What size of fine will achieve that?
Alex Jones tried the same thing - their lawyers don't seem able to persuade them that court is different to their rallies/shows.
Will the amount stay? Who knows, but the whole point of punitive damages is to punish and dissuade surely, so for a man claiming a worth of billions might it not be argued that $83m is not punitive enough?
In reality how much cash he has to hand at any given time seems weirdly low, but based on his claims the amount should not be a punishment at all.
Admittedly not a Westminster election.
Every American poll right now is like:
Do you think Donald Trump is a deeply unwell psychopath, rapist, putschist and a criminal?
Yes: 65%
No: 35%
Who are you voting for President:
Donald Trump: 53%
Joe Biden: 40%
https://nitter.net/OzKaterji/status/1751008618772566385#m
"The healthy humor of the honest tommy! Don't worry my boy, if you should falter, remember that Captain Darling and I are behind you."
Captain Blackadder:
"About thirty-five miles behind you!"