reply
· · to read
Toot by Bruce ToewsBruce Toews (mastodon.stickbear.me)

Not that I'm saying you're doing this, but I genuinely do not understand why "If you can't do the time don't do the crime" and similar statements are just fine for people who break the law but who are unsimpathetic to the law and order crowd which also happens to overwhelmingly support Donald Trump, but then when Trump breaks the law and gets a fine for it and has to pay it when everybody else who gets these kinds of penalties has to pay them, all of a sudden they're concerned about fairness in the justice system.

reply
· · to read
Toot by Bruce ToewsBruce Toews (mastodon.stickbear.me)

No, but as I said, this is not about what's fair to someone who claims essentially infinite net worth. This New York state, and they tend to take this sort of thing very seriously, especially when you do it all across several different companies for a long time and then you're completely remorseless about it at trial.

reply
· · to read
Toot by Bruce ToewsBruce Toews (mastodon.stickbear.me)

So I'm not sure which fine you're talking about, but in the US, fines/fees levied by the court are typically tied to anything but fairness. So why should Donald Trump get better treatment on this score than everybody else who goes through the justice system and has to pay a fine? Punative damages on the other hand are a lot more complicated than fines, and for organizations convicted of things like fraud fines/damages can get a lot more serious very quickly. Honestly I think a lot of people are just mad that Trump is being required to face any accountability at all. Finally, assuming you're talking about the Trump Org decision from last week, that final decision is a 92-page document when it could have been 3. So if anybody's claiming unfairness/Trump hate, that falls under "extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence", and "Trump Derangement Syndrome!" isn't that evidence. Not saying you yourself are making this claim.