Off Topic · OT: Trump Fined 350 million for Fraud (page 7)

Also, I have been an expat for 20+ years. It's sad to see a bunch of guys United by their love for the Knicks which I'm guessing averages out to about 5% of their waking day get so nasty to each other. It's not like someone suggested trading Randle.

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this shit and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

State and Federal govt bring both civil and criminal charges against people and entities all the time. This is not a new thing, like at all. Since the beginning of time.

Leona Helmsley is a good parallel that we all should have at least heard the name. She got big fines and jail time for pretty much the same things Trump is getting fined for. There are lots of instances of this all over the place.

You will maybe find this hard to believe but DA’s often run on platforms of prosecuting criminals any which way they can. They often run by actually naming their scumbag targets. As with mob bosses like Al Capone and shitbags like Trump and pretty much his entire family. Much like the full Republican Party is running around on platforms of trying to murder and prosecute the most helpless and poorest people in parts of central and South America who are mostly just trying to flee from terror in their own home countries by way of coming to the country of the home of the free and brave. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Or maybe not so much?

Helmsley was convicted for not paying her taxes.

I've looked up a lot of cases where states' attorneys have bought civil cases. All the examples I could find have been them joining class action suits already filed by private attorneys, examples including tobacco, securities fraud, pollution, and pharmaceutical companies. I haven't found one example of the state bringing a civil charge for monetary damages without an initial filing by an aggrieved party.

I really didn't want this thread to get into all of Trump's other offenses and actions. He was president for four years as has Biden, so it should be a pretty simple argument of comparing their records.

DeeLethal's takes are exactly the reason why I get real quesy about what's happening. It's hard for me to see how any of the indictments have hurt Trump. The idea that states attorneys are trying to keep him off the ballot seems way more problematic.

I have thoughts about the civil trial for pain and suffering (not a criminal conviction of sexual assault) and also Jan. 6 as it pertains to the 14the Amendment (which very specifically leaves President off the list) but I will leave those at the door.

Can anyone post a non-google docs or sribd link to Engoron's decision? Both of those are blocked in China.

And yes, I'd much rather have a beer with Hunter than Trump or Joe.

First and foremost. Trump is running for President again BECAUSE he knew that he was going to be in Indicted and most likely convicted. It's his ONLY escape route. He isn't specifically getting indicted because he is running for President.

Trump has been ordered to pay $500mil in damages so far. And your saying you don't know if they have hurt Trump? I am going to assume you mean his campaign trail.

We visibly saw him incite an insurrection on the capital to stop the certification of an election because he didn't win. He shouldn't legally, morally, ethically be allowed to run for President to begin with.

Acting like all that is cool for a person running for President and that he is the victim is either insanity or wilful ignorance for all other moral codes outside of the few voting topics you agree with and are willing to sacrifice ALL of it for that.

gradyandrew wrote:Also, I have been an expat for 20+ years. It's sad to see a bunch of guys United by their love for the Knicks which I'm guessing averages out to about 5% of their waking day get so nasty to each other. It's not like someone suggested trading Randle.

I totally agree. Wanting Randle traded is as shortsighted as being a Trump supporter.

Think if you are entering a political discussion , you must have a thick skin and be ready for some
extreme views in both sides from those that will never change their opinion. Opinions deep rooted in
personal beliefs and not factual data. My rule on these forums has always been to start off with data based discussions. Add sarcasm and a bit of trash talk. (It's a online forum after all) and then attack the trolls if they are obviously trolling.

Think that is why Trump supporters are easy to put down. They start off with Fox talking points. With no action taken to disprove or prove their validity. Repeat them obsessively like an AI Twitter troll and then go straight to repetitive denial if any opposing fact is mentioned. They also dismiss all the previous points they repeated that turned up to be proven false.
Ie. Dominion, election fraud, all the Trump loyalists who turned against him.

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this shit and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

State and Federal govt bring both civil and criminal charges against people and entities all the time. This is not a new thing, like at all. Since the beginning of time.

Leona Helmsley is a good parallel that we all should have at least heard the name. She got big fines and jail time for pretty much the same things Trump is getting fined for. There are lots of instances of this all over the place.

You will maybe find this hard to believe but DA’s often run on platforms of prosecuting criminals any which way they can. They often run by actually naming their scumbag targets. As with mob bosses like Al Capone and shitbags like Trump and pretty much his entire family. Much like the full Republican Party is running around on platforms of trying to murder and prosecute the most helpless and poorest people in parts of central and South America who are mostly just trying to flee from terror in their own home countries by way of coming to the country of the home of the free and brave. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Or maybe not so much?

Helmsley was convicted for not paying her taxes.

I've looked up a lot of cases where states' attorneys have bought civil cases. All the examples I could find have been them joining class action suits already filed by private attorneys, examples including tobacco, securities fraud, pollution, and pharmaceutical companies. I haven't found one example of the state bringing a civil charge for monetary damages without an initial filing by an aggrieved party.

I really didn't want this thread to get into all of Trump's other offenses and actions. He was president for four years as has Biden, so it should be a pretty simple argument of comparing their records.

DeeLethal's takes are exactly the reason why I get real quesy about what's happening. It's hard for me to see how any of the indictments have hurt Trump. The idea that states attorneys are trying to keep him off the ballot seems way more problematic.

I have thoughts about the civil trial for pain and suffering (not a criminal conviction of sexual assault) and also Jan. 6 as it pertains to the 14the Amendment (which very specifically leaves President off the list) but I will leave those at the door.

Can anyone post a non-google docs or sribd link to Engoron's decision? Both of those are blocked in China.

And yes, I'd much rather have a beer with Hunter than Trump or Joe.

Here is the tact we should take.

1) We are not experts in law.
2) Doing 5 minutes of internet research does not make one an expert.
3) Find civil law experts, like lawyers DA’s judges and whatnot and wonder why they keep moving forward.
4) ???
5) Profit.

At this point you are just wondering about things you are not really familiar with.

If a drunk driver does not cause a car accident or kill anyone or otherwise harm anyone, you cool with them driving around your neighborhood? Cause no harm no foul?

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this shit and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

State and Federal govt bring both civil and criminal charges against people and entities all the time. This is not a new thing, like at all. Since the beginning of time.

Leona Helmsley is a good parallel that we all should have at least heard the name. She got big fines and jail time for pretty much the same things Trump is getting fined for. There are lots of instances of this all over the place.

You will maybe find this hard to believe but DA’s often run on platforms of prosecuting criminals any which way they can. They often run by actually naming their scumbag targets. As with mob bosses like Al Capone and shitbags like Trump and pretty much his entire family. Much like the full Republican Party is running around on platforms of trying to murder and prosecute the most helpless and poorest people in parts of central and South America who are mostly just trying to flee from terror in their own home countries by way of coming to the country of the home of the free and brave. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Or maybe not so much?

Helmsley was convicted for not paying her taxes.

I've looked up a lot of cases where states' attorneys have bought civil cases. All the examples I could find have been them joining class action suits already filed by private attorneys, examples including tobacco, securities fraud, pollution, and pharmaceutical companies. I haven't found one example of the state bringing a civil charge for monetary damages without an initial filing by an aggrieved party.

I really didn't want this thread to get into all of Trump's other offenses and actions. He was president for four years as has Biden, so it should be a pretty simple argument of comparing their records.

DeeLethal's takes are exactly the reason why I get real quesy about what's happening. It's hard for me to see how any of the indictments have hurt Trump. The idea that states attorneys are trying to keep him off the ballot seems way more problematic.

I have thoughts about the civil trial for pain and suffering (not a criminal conviction of sexual assault) and also Jan. 6 as it pertains to the 14the Amendment (which very specifically leaves President off the list) but I will leave those at the door.

Can anyone post a non-google docs or sribd link to Engoron's decision? Both of those are blocked in China.

And yes, I'd much rather have a beer with Hunter than Trump or Joe.

Here is the tact we should take.

1) We are not experts in law.
2) Doing 5 minutes of internet research does not make one an expert.
3) Find civil law experts, like lawyers DA’s judges and whatnot and wonder why they keep moving forward.
4) ???
5) Profit.

At this point you are just wondering about things you are not really familiar with.

If a drunk driver does not cause a car accident or kill anyone or otherwise harm anyone, you cool with them driving around your neighborhood? Cause no harm no foul?

May I add that the question seems to be IF this was an intentional targeting by NY DA?
Answer is obviously.
Second question is so?
Fact is EVERYONE who opposes politicians are targets.
The entire Republican Congress and Senate has their marching orders to GET Biden.
As they did when Trump wanted to put Clinton in jail.

Question for Grady is, what's the difference between Biden, Hilary and Trump?
Not that their are politicians out there targeting their enemies.
Which seems par for the course.

Trump ran on "Lock Her Up" and we are questioning if the legal basis for civil lawsuits that are baked into state laws across the country makes someone feel good or not?

What do we think groups like the SEC does?

To be honest I find the entire premise of this thread humorous considering that Trump has been involved in over 4000 legal suits over the past 3 decades with over 1900 with him as a defendant and > 2100 with him or his companies as plaintiff. Putting aside all the scumbag type statements and actions......being sued by the Government or whomever could not happen enough for a guy who has basically sued his way through life.

First and foremost. Trump is running for President again BECAUSE he knew that he was going to be in Indicted and most likely convicted. It's his ONLY escape route. He isn't specifically getting indicted because he is running for President.

Right, and this is what worries me. If his choice is dictatorship or prison, Trump is going for a dictatorship. That's how the Roman Republic fell first under Sulla and then finally under Caesar.Both generals we're facing the prospect of being declared public enemies, and both decided marching on the capital was preferable. Caesar states that it was to protect his rights and dignitas, something I'm sure Trump would crib.

Trump has been ordered to pay $500mil in damages so far. And your saying you don't know if they have hurt Trump? I am going to assume you mean his campaign trail.

Yes. His campaign- which has mainly turned into an open air forum for him to protest his legal treatment.

We visibly saw him incite an insurrection on the capital to stop the certification of an election because he didn't win. He shouldn't legally, morally, ethically be allowed to run for President to begin with.

I agree with your second statement. As far as I'm concerned nothing trumps the first impeachment charges where he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if Zelensky didn't provide help against the Bidens. Shame on the Republicans for not convicting him.

As far as insurrection, there have been several in our history- Shay's (regarding back pay for Revolutionary Army soldiers) and the Whiskey Rebellion (regarding federal taxes). Neither were of much confidence because they lacked political support beyond a few disgruntled people.

The Civil War on the other hand was so serious because political leaders (Senators, Reps, Governors)
supported it. Lincoln's name wasn't even on the ballot in the southern states and many had preemptively said that if Lincoln was elected, they would secede. Who were the leaders of Jan. 6? What was the plan for seizing power? If Pence had refused to accept the ballots- what next? I'm not sure if any system built by man is infallible, but at least in the case of Jan. 6 the elected leaders followed the Constitution. Eventually everyone just went home because there was no plan, just a riot.

Acting like all that is cool for a person running for President and that he is the victim is either insanity or wilful ignorance for all other moral codes outside of the few voting topics you agree with and are willing to sacrifice ALL of it for that.

But it's a democracy, right? If that's who the system chooses, don't we have to respect that?

martin wrote:

Here is the tact we should take.

1) We are not experts in law.
2) Doing 5 minutes of internet research does not make one an expert.
3) Find civil law experts, like lawyers DA’s judges and whatnot and wonder why they keep moving forward.
4) ???
5) Profit.

At this point you are just wondering about things you are not really familiar with.

If a drunk driver does not cause a car accident or kill anyone or otherwise harm anyone, you cool with them driving around your neighborhood? Cause no harm no foul?

Classic Underwear Gnomes reference, LOL.

I'm not a legal expert, so I tend to crouch my perspective in a historical sense, that leads me to thinking that legal solutions to political problems in a democracy often backfire.

The drunk driving analogy is a good one. The bartender is happy he sold all that beer. The driver is happy because, let's face it, getting drunk is fun but the state has a watchdog function of not only punishment but also prevention.

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

Here is the tact we should take.

1) We are not experts in law.
2) Doing 5 minutes of internet research does not make one an expert.
3) Find civil law experts, like lawyers DA’s judges and whatnot and wonder why they keep moving forward.
4) ???
5) Profit.

At this point you are just wondering about things you are not really familiar with.

If a drunk driver does not cause a car accident or kill anyone or otherwise harm anyone, you cool with them driving around your neighborhood? Cause no harm no foul?

Classic Underwear Gnomes reference, LOL.

I'm not a legal expert, so I tend to crouch my perspective in a historical sense, that leads me to thinking that legal solutions to political problems in a democracy often backfire.

The drunk driving analogy is a good one. The bartender is happy he sold all that beer. The driver is happy because, let's face it, getting drunk is fun but the state has a watchdog function of not only punishment but also prevention.

You keep couching Trump's problems as being political. They are criminal and civil and political.

What is happening is not a legal solution trying to fix a political problem; it's you incorrectly stating the context of what is happening. Trump is being held in criminal and civil court because those are the right venues for his alleged crimes. Somehow you are mistaking that for an election of some sort.

Trump has political problems as well, for which he tried to get around that with an insurrection.

gradyandrew wrote:

First and foremost. Trump is running for President again BECAUSE he knew that he was going to be in Indicted and most likely convicted. It's his ONLY escape route. He isn't specifically getting indicted because he is running for President.

Right, and this is what worries me. If his choice is dictatorship or prison, Trump is going for a dictatorship. That's how the Roman Republic fell first under Sulla and then finally under Caesar.Both generals we're facing the prospect of being declared public enemies, and both decided marching on the capital was preferable. Caesar states that it was to protect his rights and dignitas, something I'm sure Trump would crib.

Trump has been ordered to pay $500mil in damages so far. And your saying you don't know if they have hurt Trump? I am going to assume you mean his campaign trail.

Yes. His campaign- which has mainly turned into an open air forum for him to protest his legal treatment.

We visibly saw him incite an insurrection on the capital to stop the certification of an election because he didn't win. He shouldn't legally, morally, ethically be allowed to run for President to begin with.

I agree with your second statement. As far as I'm concerned nothing trumps the first impeachment charges where he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if Zelensky didn't provide help against the Bidens. Shame on the Republicans for not convicting him.

As far as insurrection, there have been several in our history- Shay's (regarding back pay for Revolutionary Army soldiers) and the Whiskey Rebellion (regarding federal taxes). Neither were of much confidence because they lacked political support beyond a few disgruntled people.

The Civil War on the other hand was so serious because political leaders (Senators, Reps, Governors)
supported it. Lincoln's name wasn't even on the ballot in the southern states and many had preemptively said that if Lincoln was elected, they would secede. Who were the leaders of Jan. 6? What was the plan for seizing power? If Pence had refused to accept the ballots- what next? I'm not sure if any system built by man is infallible, but at least in the case of Jan. 6 the elected leaders followed the Constitution. Eventually everyone just went home because there was no plan, just a riot.

Acting like all that is cool for a person running for President and that he is the victim is either insanity or wilful ignorance for all other moral codes outside of the few voting topics you agree with and are willing to sacrifice ALL of it for that.

But it's a democracy, right? If that's who the system chooses, don't we have to respect that?

Would have no choice. Not like we can lead or incite an insurrection against it.

A functioning Democracy should be weeding out the possibility of a Trump becoming President. We should also have better options than Trump & Biden all together. The fact that these are the 2 leading candidates shows you the poor state of affairs that American has become.

America is gradually stripping away the respect it once had for itself. Minus of course the whole Slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, Massacres, Redlining, Mass incarceration against POC. I digress.

Trump is speaking on becoming a dictator targeting his enemies and potentially refusing to give up power if he does get in office. All this after his Jan 6th stunts. Where does the respect for Democracy land within this landscape? Enough respect to allow it to end it seems.

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

Here is the tact we should take.

1) We are not experts in law.
2) Doing 5 minutes of internet research does not make one an expert.
3) Find civil law experts, like lawyers DA’s judges and whatnot and wonder why they keep moving forward.
4) ???
5) Profit.

At this point you are just wondering about things you are not really familiar with.

If a drunk driver does not cause a car accident or kill anyone or otherwise harm anyone, you cool with them driving around your neighborhood? Cause no harm no foul?

Classic Underwear Gnomes reference, LOL.

I'm not a legal expert, so I tend to crouch my perspective in a historical sense, that leads me to thinking that legal solutions to political problems in a democracy often backfire.

The drunk driving analogy is a good one. The bartender is happy he sold all that beer. The driver is happy because, let's face it, getting drunk is fun but the state has a watchdog function of not only punishment but also prevention.

You keep couching Trump's problems as being political. They are criminal and civil and political.

What is happening is not a legal solution trying to fix a political problem; it's you incorrectly stating the context of what is happening. Trump is being held in criminal and civil court because those are the right venues for his alleged crimes. Somehow you are mistaking that for an election of some sort.

Trump has political problems as well, for which he tried to get around that with an insurrection.

Touche.

I guess what I'm thinking is that he's built his entire modern political career on grievances, following the Pat Buchanan playbook that The Real America is under assault by women, minorities, foreigners, and homosexuals. And my feeling is that as long as he's able to make the argument that the system itself is corrupt and he's an outsider, he will continue to have support.

The 2020 election was pretty unique in that it was the first election in a long time when the candidate who had spent more time in Washington DC won, excluding second terms. Bush II over Gore, Obama over McCain, Trump over Clinton. One thing it's difficult to explain to Chinese people is how Americans in general love the country but hate the government.

newyorknewyork, this also kind of hits on what you're saying about Biden vs. Trump not being a good set of choices. Why hasn't our generation stepped up? I'm assuming most of us are in the 35-65 age bracket. Is it because the seminal event of our adulthood, 9/11 and the War on Terror, have left us all disillusioned with politics. Did you guys watch the Republican debates and think "How could anyone be this stupid?" or in Viveks case "such an A-hole?"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/while-eyes-tr...

Contentious Supreme Court oral arguments this week offered a reminder that while the public focuses on the Donald Trump election cases, the court’s actions this spring will be equally consequential for an array of rules set in Washington governing American life.

Supreme Court conservatives are accelerating their moves to overhaul the way the federal government protects Americans, whether from air pollution or unfair financial practices.

Although the decisions won’t be released until later this year, the frustration of liberal justices was palpable this week, as their sharp remarks from the bench drew attention to the pattern of the right-wing majority to diminish environmental, public health and consumer safeguards.

In recent years, the justices have invalidated rules for power-plant emissions, student-loan forgiveness and Covid-19 precautions. They are hearing a slate of new cases in the current session that seem bound to reinforce the current trend that breaks from decades of precedent.

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

Here is the tact we should take.

1) We are not experts in law.
2) Doing 5 minutes of internet research does not make one an expert.
3) Find civil law experts, like lawyers DA’s judges and whatnot and wonder why they keep moving forward.
4) ???
5) Profit.

At this point you are just wondering about things you are not really familiar with.

If a drunk driver does not cause a car accident or kill anyone or otherwise harm anyone, you cool with them driving around your neighborhood? Cause no harm no foul?

Classic Underwear Gnomes reference, LOL.

I'm not a legal expert, so I tend to crouch my perspective in a historical sense, that leads me to thinking that legal solutions to political problems in a democracy often backfire.

The drunk driving analogy is a good one. The bartender is happy he sold all that beer. The driver is happy because, let's face it, getting drunk is fun but the state has a watchdog function of not only punishment but also prevention.

You keep couching Trump's problems as being political. They are criminal and civil and political.

What is happening is not a legal solution trying to fix a political problem; it's you incorrectly stating the context of what is happening. Trump is being held in criminal and civil court because those are the right venues for his alleged crimes. Somehow you are mistaking that for an election of some sort.

Trump has political problems as well, for which he tried to get around that with an insurrection.

Touche.

I guess what I'm thinking is that he's built his entire modern political career on grievances, following the Pat Buchanan playbook that The Real America is under assault by women, minorities, foreigners, and homosexuals. And my feeling is that as long as he's able to make the argument that the system itself is corrupt and he's an outsider, he will continue to have support.

The 2020 election was pretty unique in that it was the first election in a long time when the candidate who had spent more time in Washington DC won, excluding second terms. Bush II over Gore, Obama over McCain, Trump over Clinton. One thing it's difficult to explain to Chinese people is how Americans in general love the country but hate the government.

newyorknewyork, this also kind of hits on what you're saying about Biden vs. Trump not being a good set of choices. Why hasn't our generation stepped up? I'm assuming most of us are in the 35-65 age bracket. Is it because the seminal event of our adulthood, 9/11 and the War on Terror, have left us all disillusioned with politics. Did you guys watch the Republican debates and think "How could anyone be this stupid?" or in Viveks case "such an A-hole?"

This is the Republican party for the last 50-70 years. Grievances, whose only solution is even more limited government. And those in power have convinced the lower classes that they are the aggrieved and that the only solution is less taxes and less regulations (which is pretty much the same thing). Our lower classes are actually voting against themselves and wondering why they are so poor, so unhealthy, so uneducated.

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this shit and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

I think you are on to something.

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - INDICTMENT

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - INDICTMENT

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - INDICTMENT

8/11 - DOJ (illegally) designates special counsel
8/14 - FBI Whistleblower transcript released
8/14 - INDICTMENT

12/13 - House authorizes Biden impeachment inquiry
12/19 - Biden family whistleblower testifies
12/19 - Colorado ballot removal

2/14 - Damning evidence proving 'Russiagate' was a hoax
2/15 - Fans Willis hearing
2/16 - Tony Bobulinski transcript on Biden family corruption released
2/16 - $354 million fine & banned from business in NY

Just remembered to touch on this.

A series of events have to happen before someone can be indicted. Has to be a thorough investigation with overwhelming evidence to support indicting someone. It doesn't just happen at the drop of a hat. They can't just indict Trump as a deflection to news against Biden. There was a process of Jack Smith for example getting Trump's own stooges to flip on Trump giving up the details solidifying the evidence to call for indictment. And Trump's own GOP members and employees will be the one testifying against him in court as they are the ones that gave up the details and will have to explain that to the jury.

Odds are waay higher ppl were aware ahead of time when the indictments were likely to hit. And manipulated the news around that. Than Biden and the Dems being able to manipulate court to drop indictments on Trump in order to deflect.

I see that you don’t belong to the Tin Foil Hat wearing committee

Former FBI informant charged with lying about Biden business
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...

This about sums it up

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/toddzwillich/status/1760062087890383253?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

You would think years of a special council would have found something though.

People are seeing what is happening. There is a reason Trumps support is growing.

And stuff like this is in the mainstream.

In a nutshell.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1761443417513414704

Click here to view the Tweet

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this shit and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

I think you are on to something.

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - INDICTMENT

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - INDICTMENT

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - INDICTMENT

8/11 - DOJ (illegally) designates special counsel
8/14 - FBI Whistleblower transcript released
8/14 - INDICTMENT

12/13 - House authorizes Biden impeachment inquiry
12/19 - Biden family whistleblower testifies
12/19 - Colorado ballot removal

2/14 - Damning evidence proving 'Russiagate' was a hoax
2/15 - Fans Willis hearing
2/16 - Tony Bobulinski transcript on Biden family corruption released
2/16 - $354 million fine & banned from business in NY

Just remembered to touch on this.

A series of events have to happen before someone can be indicted. Has to be a thorough investigation with overwhelming evidence to support indicting someone. It doesn't just happen at the drop of a hat. They can't just indict Trump as a deflection to news against Biden. There was a process of Jack Smith for example getting Trump's own stooges to flip on Trump giving up the details solidifying the evidence to call for indictment. And Trump's own GOP members and employees will be the one testifying against him in court as they are the ones that gave up the details and will have to explain that to the jury.

Odds are waay higher ppl were aware ahead of time when the indictments were likely to hit. And manipulated the news around that. Than Biden and the Dems being able to manipulate court to drop indictments on Trump in order to deflect.

I see that you don’t belong to the Tin Foil Hat wearing committee

Former FBI informant charged with lying about Biden business
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...

This about sums it up

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/toddzwillich/status/1760062087890383253?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

You would think years of a special council would have found something though.

People are seeing what is happening. There is a reason Trumps support is growing.

And stuff like this is in the mainstream.

In a nutshell.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1761443417513414704

Click here to view the Tweet

Sky News Australia posting an interview about a Canadian businessma’s opinion is mainstream? Or is it cause you found the CNN logo in the video and just assumed it was mainstream?

As well, after losing congress, the senate, and then the presidency, Trumps support is growing?

Thats the last lie MAGA can cling to. Keep sending the donations though, right?

Republicans in their own words

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1761532197402517795?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this shit and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

I think you are on to something.

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - INDICTMENT

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - INDICTMENT

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - INDICTMENT

8/11 - DOJ (illegally) designates special counsel
8/14 - FBI Whistleblower transcript released
8/14 - INDICTMENT

12/13 - House authorizes Biden impeachment inquiry
12/19 - Biden family whistleblower testifies
12/19 - Colorado ballot removal

2/14 - Damning evidence proving 'Russiagate' was a hoax
2/15 - Fans Willis hearing
2/16 - Tony Bobulinski transcript on Biden family corruption released
2/16 - $354 million fine & banned from business in NY

Just remembered to touch on this.

A series of events have to happen before someone can be indicted. Has to be a thorough investigation with overwhelming evidence to support indicting someone. It doesn't just happen at the drop of a hat. They can't just indict Trump as a deflection to news against Biden. There was a process of Jack Smith for example getting Trump's own stooges to flip on Trump giving up the details solidifying the evidence to call for indictment. And Trump's own GOP members and employees will be the one testifying against him in court as they are the ones that gave up the details and will have to explain that to the jury.

Odds are waay higher ppl were aware ahead of time when the indictments were likely to hit. And manipulated the news around that. Than Biden and the Dems being able to manipulate court to drop indictments on Trump in order to deflect.

I see that you don’t belong to the Tin Foil Hat wearing committee

Former FBI informant charged with lying about Biden business
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...

This about sums it up

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/toddzwillich/status/1760062087890383253?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

You would think years of a special council would have found something though.

People are seeing what is happening. There is a reason Trumps support is growing.

And stuff like this is in the mainstream.

In a nutshell.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1761443417513414704

Click here to view the Tweet

Sky News Australia posting an interview about a Canadian businessma’s opinion is mainstream? Or is it cause you found the CNN logo in the video and just assumed it was mainstream?

As well, after losing congress, the senate, and then the presidency, Trumps support is growing?

Thats the last lie MAGA can cling to. Keep sending the donations though, right?

He just beat Haley in her home State and is rolling. So, they will try to stop him with frivelous lawsuits.
I don’t see anything (legal and/or non violent) stopping him.

The Country has had it. We need a return to rule of law.
Let’s see how Congress and Senate go.

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:He just beat Haley in her home State and is rolling. So, they will try to stop him with frivelous lawsuits.
I don’t see anything (legal and/or non violent) stopping him.

The Country has had it. We need a return to rule of law.
Let’s see how Congress and Senate go.

This is what the MSM is telling me. What do they have wrong?

Help me understand what you think these mean. I’d like to understand your perspective. Each one of these is less than 2 minutes, prob couple minutes total across each. Please let me know you direct response to each. 2 of them are Fox News.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/rpsagainsttrump/status/1761576047072481283?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/mikesington/status/1761736886413054226?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1761722713855373697?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/acyn/status/1761554858102931693?s=46&t=extrxRVbPWOjVmse9uE88w

Click here to view the Tweet

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

martin wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

CanItGetAnyWorse wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:

martin wrote:

gradyandrew wrote:First, the caveats:

1. Forgot where we landed on 'political talk,' if I'm overstepping the boundaries just shut it down.

2. Trump is a fraudster. Trump University was a hoax.

3. No doubt that Trump inflated the value of his properties.

BUT, my big issue is the government bringing the case in the first place. I really don't like the idea of prosecutors having the right to enter a civil contract without either of the parties to the contract bringing suit. It just seems to open the bag to way too much government interference in private life. Any legal eagles know if this is already something government does regularly or has done before?

You are against something you literally have zero background or firm understanding of what you are talking about.

Thats the basis for your (uninformed? misguided?) opinion?

I wouldn't say zero background. It was a civil, not criminally trial. That's why Hofstra's first two analogies didn't sit right with me- prostitution and speeding are criminal offenses. My question was if the state has the right to file in a civil suit. I respect your knowledge and that of others in this forum. And yes, I'm probably less informed than a lot of people here and maybe misguided. That's why I ask.

So I don’t get your take. Why come to an opinion on something before you even have much of a background on a subject?

Seems like an odd sequence of things.

I get asking questions on it, but that’s a different path.

Honestly man, I'm hoping you will explain it to me. I know you are deep in this shit and my initial take is that this is more about sinking Trump's run than the actual charges, which to me is a dangerous slope- when politicians are facing prison or dictatorship, they usually choose the latter.

So, a useful nudge in the right direction would be appreciated. Or not.

I think you are on to something.

3/17 - Hunter admits laptop
3/18 - Trump indictment news

6/8 - FBI doc alleges Biden bribe
6/9 - INDICTMENT

7/26 - Hunter plea deal collapses
7/27 - INDICTMENT

7/31 - Devon Archer testifies
8/1 - INDICTMENT

8/11 - DOJ (illegally) designates special counsel
8/14 - FBI Whistleblower transcript released
8/14 - INDICTMENT

12/13 - House authorizes Biden impeachment inquiry
12/19 - Biden family whistleblower testifies
12/19 - Colorado ballot removal

2/14 - Damning evidence proving 'Russiagate' was a hoax
2/15 - Fans Willis hearing
2/16 - Tony Bobulinski transcript on Biden family corruption released
2/16 - $354 million fine & banned from business in NY

Just remembered to touch on this.

A series of events have to happen before someone can be indicted. Has to be a thorough investigation with overwhelming evidence to support indicting someone. It doesn't just happen at the drop of a hat. They can't just indict Trump as a deflection to news against Biden. There was a process of Jack Smith for example getting Trump's own stooges to flip on Trump giving up the details solidifying the evidence to call for indictment. And Trump's own GOP members and employees will be the one testifying against him in court as they are the ones that gave up the details and will have to explain that to the jury.

Odds are waay higher ppl were aware ahead of time when the indictments were likely to hit. And manipulated the news around that. Than Biden and the Dems being able to manipulate court to drop indictments on Trump in order to deflect.

I see that you don’t belong to the Tin Foil Hat wearing committee

Former FBI informant charged with lying about Biden business
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...

This about sums it up

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/toddzwillich/status/1760062087890383253?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA

Click here to view the Tweet

You would think years of a special council would have found something though.

People are seeing what is happening. There is a reason Trumps support is growing.

And stuff like this is in the mainstream.

In a nutshell.

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1761443417513414704

Click here to view the Tweet

Sky News Australia posting an interview about a Canadian businessma’s opinion is mainstream? Or is it cause you found the CNN logo in the video and just assumed it was mainstream?

As well, after losing congress, the senate, and then the presidency, Trumps support is growing?

Thats the last lie MAGA can cling to. Keep sending the donations though, right?

He just beat Haley in her home State and is rolling. So, they will try to stop him with frivelous lawsuits.
I don’t see anything (legal and/or non violent) stopping him.

The Country has had it. We need a return to rule of law.
Let’s see how Congress and Senate go.

Exhibit 18945979340894645345245465630235702345704595427

They start off with Fox talking points. With no action taken to disprove or prove their validity. Repeat them obsessively like an AI Twitter troll and then go straight to repetitive denial if any opposing fact is mentioned. They also dismiss all the previous points they repeated that turned up to be proven false.
Ie. Dominion, election fraud, all the Trump loyalists who turned against him

- HofstraBBall.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2023...

A New York grand jury voted to indict former President Donald Trump, who has arrived in New York City ahead of his Tuesday arraignment.

The grand jury had been investigating hush money payments to two women who claimed to have had sex with the former president, including adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Trump is expected to be taken into custody as any other defendant would, but as a former president, he’ll have his Secret Service detail beside him and the option to self-surrender. Here’s what to know about the body that indicted him:

What is a grand jury?
A grand jury is a body of 16-23 people who are tasked with determining whether there is enough evidence to move forward with the case.

The prosecutor is in charge of providing evidence to the grand jury, often in the form of witness testimonies and documents. Both Daniels and Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime lawyer who aided in the hush money payments, testified before the grand jury.

What is the purpose of a grand jury?
The grand jury’s purpose is to decide whether or not the prosecution has presented enough evidence to formally charge someone. They’re not there to decide whether the person has been proven guilty.

Who serves on a grand jury?
In New York state, anyone who is U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old and a resident of the county where they are serving can be a juror. They must also understand and communicate in English and cannot be convicted of a felony.

New York courts have 23 members to a grand jury, with one person acting as a judge-appointed foreperson and one as the assistant foreperson. The foreperson of the grand jury administers the oath to each testifying witness. The grand jury also selects a secretary for record-keeping purposes.

Jurors may serve anywhere from two weeks to over three months depending on the case and county. They’ll hear many cases over this time.

According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, these three groups are exempt from federal jury service:

Members of active duty armed forces
Members of professional fire and police departments
Active public officers of federal, state and local governments

CanItGetAnyWorse in the end you want a rapist, racist, conman fraud. Who screwed over tons of people in his dealings as a businessman. Who lead an insurrection to stop the will of the people and force his way to maintain power. Who also purposely held on to classified documents with the possibility of selling them to the highest bidder for his own personal gain. While claiming we need to return to the rule of law.

Insanity.