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

MorbidButterflyTat

(1,879 posts)

25. Link?

Reply to Comfortably_Numb (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 26, 2024, 02:01 PM

Mar 26

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