“Merchan wrote that in such instances, it would be preferable if he could impose ‘a fine more commensurate with the wealth’ of the person being fined.”
Yeah I’ve always been surprised that court fines aren’t on a sliding scale. Us normals shouldn’t be expected to have access to large amounts of money to pay fees or fines, but as the right consequence should have to pay enough to feel it without totally ruining our lives. The wealthy should have to pay enough relative to their net worth so they feel it at the same level.
$1000 a day is a massive life-ruining expense for most people, so for Trump it should be more like $100,000 or even $1 million a day if it’s actually supposed to disincentivize violating a court order.
But that sounds too fair for America, so I doubt we’ll ever see it.
In some countries they assess speeding fines based on the driver’s income. Going over the speed limit can get you a six figure fine if you make enough. That’s why if you’re driving in the Scandinavian countries, it’s best to have the low income people drive.
Tl;Dr, he’s getting a fine for each instance and a warning to not do it again. Spoiler alert
$9,000 for 9 instances. If he does it again, he could face jail time. That’s really the key point. Fines, especially tiny ones, don’t mean shit. Throwing him in prison for a few weeks would be a comforting result, though.
The fines are limited by statute, so $1k per instance is the max the judge can order
Max fine. He can also be jailed for contempt of court, but it could be argued that jail was an excessive punishment for a first offense. So the judge has to treat him like any other defendant. It would be unprecedented to send him to jail for a first contempt conviction.
What does the statute say about community service? Make him pick up trash.
Can trump pick himself up?
That would be amazing. I would would settle for that.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Testimony is expected to continue Tuesday, with the court hearing from the third prosecution witness, Gary Farro, a banker who helped Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen open accounts.
Prosecutors alleged the former president had violated the order – which bars him from making public statements about witnesses and jurors – 10 times, and the judge concurred in all but one of those cases.
The meeting, which lasted three hours, was organized to help the men bury the hatchet and discuss potential joint fundraising efforts, according to one of the people, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity to share details of the private get-together.
Last week, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s testimony provided jurors with a stunning inside look at the supermarket tabloid’s “catch-and-kill” practice of purchasing the rights to stories so they never see the light of day.
The collision of so many cases within a five-day span last week underscores the challenges Trump will face as he campaigns again for the White House while his legal matters intensify.
The first week of testimony at Donald Trump’s hush money trial was the scene-setter for jurors: Manhattan prosecutors portrayed what they say was an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential campaign by burying negative stories.
The original article contains 909 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
