Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

OldBaldy1701E

(5,325 posts)

19. No, it is not.

Reply to babylonsister (Original post)

Tue Mar 26, 2024, 12:08 PM

Mar 26

The way the courts and the press have been handling him and his situation from the beginning of all of this as opposed to anyone else in this country most certainly is.

There, I said it. Crucify me if you wish. I don't care anymore.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Reducing the Bond was not "Rich Man's Privilege" [View all] babylonsister Mar 26 OP

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #1

People wanted the bond to be a punishment ripcord Mar 26 #3

Correction: he has a right to appeal even if he doesn't post bond. Goodheart Mar 26 #5

We all wanted to see a padlock on Trump Tower yesterday. Too good to be true! LeftInTX Mar 26 #14

+1. important to emphasize that the purpose of the bond is NOT stopdiggin Mar 26 #17

I disagree... Think. Again. Mar 26 #28

Gawker was required to have a full bond in its verdict and thus was forced to go under dsc Mar 26 #4

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #8

Gawker likely had different assets IbogaProject Mar 26 #21

Thank you for posting this common-sense explanation of a situation Ocelot II Mar 26 #2

Recommend. onecaliberal Mar 26 #6

Hmmmm.... that doesn't explain why the Appeals Court reduced the amount of the bond. Goodheart Mar 26 #7

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 26 #12

+1. also quite relevant. and important to how this perceived. stopdiggin Mar 26 #15

This message was self-deleted by its author MichMan Mar 26 #16

it rather does. stopdiggin Mar 26 #13

No, it really doesn't. Goodheart Mar 26 #20

Bingo, gab13by13 Mar 26 #33

The 5 Judge panel that reduced the bond are all Democrats appointed by a Democratic governor MichMan Mar 26 #36

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 30 #38

Why not $189.95? kiri Mar 26 #27

or $465 million? Think. Again. Mar 26 #29

Taking it down to the last millisecond... lame54 Mar 26 #9

Didn't know that the court had to approve every single expenditure including a roll of toilet paper MichMan Mar 26 #10

weighing in with a "thank you" as well stopdiggin Mar 26 #11

Appreciate this levelheadedness Sympthsical Mar 26 #18

No, it is not. OldBaldy1701E Mar 26 #19

Anyone else in this country MorbidButterflyTat Mar 26 #23

"We hold these truths to be self-evident.. OldBaldy1701E Mar 26 #37

"Crucify me if you wish." I can tell you are a fan of hyperbole. emulatorloo Mar 26 #26

Yeah sure. While the special master was supposedly watching the criminal enterprise, trump laundered $40 million. Comfortably_Numb Mar 26 #22

Link? MorbidButterflyTat Mar 26 #25

Here you go. This has been awhile so I thought it was public domain... Comfortably_Numb Mar 26 #32

I'm not understanding yourproblem ripcord Mar 26 #35

Your explantion makes sense of course. totodeinhere Mar 26 #24

The amount was more in line with the reduction that could be expected on appeal Warpy Mar 26 #30

It is privilege angrychair Mar 26 #31

The explanation doesn't make sense gab13by13 Mar 26 #34