Thanks for not engaging in hate speech and presenting an objective view of the unjust and unfair persecution of Mr. Trump by AG James and Judge Engoron. You covered it well. You stated that you did not want Mr. Trump to be elected, an opinion shared by millions of citizens, all within their rights to opine. My opinion is that fining the Trump organization for irregularities is legitimate, but the amount is several thousand times what is justified. The terms of bond and appeal might even be reasonable if the fine were reasonable. The penalty imposed on Mr. Trump is equivalent to the awards for 170 victims of the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Happy to leave it to the courts to adjudicate the constitutionality of this penalty and how it was arrived at, and how it was applied. This doesn't seem to be like an innovative case procedurally. (I don't recall anyone else complaining about bench trials and whether they were Constitutionally kosher - especially when Trump HAD an opportunity to have a jury trial and waived that right.) Perhaps the size of the penalty makes this something functionally different - happy to leave that in the hands of an appeals (or Supreme) court and respect their decision.
That said, given that Trump has a decent chance of becoming President again, and he's still having problems raising money to post the bond, the lack folks rushing to his aid in a moment of his greatest peril is probably the karma of all of the one-way loyalty he's exhibited over his career finally coming due. No one wants to be the next Rudy Guiliani left hanging out to dry.
Even i, as anti-trumper, see this large a penalty as an overreach. That said, i'm also a glass-half full kind of guy , so i can see two upsides for trump in this: Great whining material for months to come and more importantly , fabulous fodder for the fund raising grist mill.
This response also allows me the luxury of fact-checking MNSBC's comments yesterday that his donors list gets up to "10 emails per day?" That would drive me wild, i find 1 or 2 per week annoying from the DNC and related candidates.
The settlement for Trump University was fair and legal. I know everyone enjoys calling
Trump a fraudster, FACTUALLY PROVE IT! Trump has played the game within the legal margins in a whole lot of stuff. WITHIN THE MARGINS. When he as been proven not to, he has settled. It really does not matter if you like it or not. Those are the facts.
James and Engoron know full well there are no bond companies who can legally insure a loan for over $100 Million. Trump tried to put together multiple bonds but is constrained by law and these PERSECUTORS know this full well.
James and Engoron plan to make this painful even though they know they will be reversed in the end. They hope to do maximum damage to the Trump's Financial Brand in the mean time. Just like the Georgia case this is the concept design by the Blob, Deep State, Swamp, Bureaucracy, or whatever you want to call it. "We the People", I think even you, see through this scheme.
Obviously Trump can never redeem himself in the eyes of people like you or the Elites. I do not have reason to believe you fall within their circle but some of the things you attribute to him makes me wonder.
Trump stated under oath he had $400mil+ cash on hand. He just stated on social media he has $500mil cash on hand. To my knowledge he has not submitted any proof he bothered asking for a bond - just a statement that he did, which from a fraud like him means nothing.
Did he even bother trying to get a bond? Does he just not actually want to part with his money to appeal because he knows he'll lose?
There really was only one crime here from the left's perspective, that was/is Trump running for office. As usual, this will come back and haunt the left. American's have a pretty good handle on what they get from the politicians and this version of politics, lawfare, is not the American way. I think it just ensures that he will be our next President and we can get the country back on the right track.
"..the language of the 7th Amendment is key. The right to a jury is “preserved.” This actually means that the Constitution was preserving whatever rights were available to litigants in civil trials under English law as it was before the Constitution. English law had some particularities that are still relevant today. Under English law, a party had a right to a civil suit at law but not in equity. The distinction is subtle and, in modern law, much less discernible. But for the sake of simplification, suits at law involved specific areas of the law that had concretely developed in early English society. Suits in equity involved areas of the law that were less defined and required more case-by-case adjudication, and more tailored remedies, than cases at law. Today, generally, areas of the law that are descendants of old suits at law do trigger the 7th Amendment. But areas that stem from suits in equity do not."
The text of the 9th amendment is as follows, and is irrelevant to the case:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This appears to be irrelevant to the above, and instead should be referring to the 7th amendment which states:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Your reference to the 7th amendment should be towards the 5th:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Thanks for not engaging in hate speech and presenting an objective view of the unjust and unfair persecution of Mr. Trump by AG James and Judge Engoron. You covered it well. You stated that you did not want Mr. Trump to be elected, an opinion shared by millions of citizens, all within their rights to opine. My opinion is that fining the Trump organization for irregularities is legitimate, but the amount is several thousand times what is justified. The terms of bond and appeal might even be reasonable if the fine were reasonable. The penalty imposed on Mr. Trump is equivalent to the awards for 170 victims of the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Happy to leave it to the courts to adjudicate the constitutionality of this penalty and how it was arrived at, and how it was applied. This doesn't seem to be like an innovative case procedurally. (I don't recall anyone else complaining about bench trials and whether they were Constitutionally kosher - especially when Trump HAD an opportunity to have a jury trial and waived that right.) Perhaps the size of the penalty makes this something functionally different - happy to leave that in the hands of an appeals (or Supreme) court and respect their decision.
That said, given that Trump has a decent chance of becoming President again, and he's still having problems raising money to post the bond, the lack folks rushing to his aid in a moment of his greatest peril is probably the karma of all of the one-way loyalty he's exhibited over his career finally coming due. No one wants to be the next Rudy Guiliani left hanging out to dry.
Even i, as anti-trumper, see this large a penalty as an overreach. That said, i'm also a glass-half full kind of guy , so i can see two upsides for trump in this: Great whining material for months to come and more importantly , fabulous fodder for the fund raising grist mill.
This response also allows me the luxury of fact-checking MNSBC's comments yesterday that his donors list gets up to "10 emails per day?" That would drive me wild, i find 1 or 2 per week annoying from the DNC and related candidates.
The settlement for Trump University was fair and legal. I know everyone enjoys calling
Trump a fraudster, FACTUALLY PROVE IT! Trump has played the game within the legal margins in a whole lot of stuff. WITHIN THE MARGINS. When he as been proven not to, he has settled. It really does not matter if you like it or not. Those are the facts.
James and Engoron know full well there are no bond companies who can legally insure a loan for over $100 Million. Trump tried to put together multiple bonds but is constrained by law and these PERSECUTORS know this full well.
James and Engoron plan to make this painful even though they know they will be reversed in the end. They hope to do maximum damage to the Trump's Financial Brand in the mean time. Just like the Georgia case this is the concept design by the Blob, Deep State, Swamp, Bureaucracy, or whatever you want to call it. "We the People", I think even you, see through this scheme.
Obviously Trump can never redeem himself in the eyes of people like you or the Elites. I do not have reason to believe you fall within their circle but some of the things you attribute to him makes me wonder.
'cause it needs be posted:
Trump stated under oath he had $400mil+ cash on hand. He just stated on social media he has $500mil cash on hand. To my knowledge he has not submitted any proof he bothered asking for a bond - just a statement that he did, which from a fraud like him means nothing.
Did he even bother trying to get a bond? Does he just not actually want to part with his money to appeal because he knows he'll lose?
There really was only one crime here from the left's perspective, that was/is Trump running for office. As usual, this will come back and haunt the left. American's have a pretty good handle on what they get from the politicians and this version of politics, lawfare, is not the American way. I think it just ensures that he will be our next President and we can get the country back on the right track.
Technically speaking, the banks were in fact victims in that they did forgive hundreds of millions of dollars of his debt.
Regarding the 7th amendment, there's some important things to understand. From https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-07/:
"..the language of the 7th Amendment is key. The right to a jury is “preserved.” This actually means that the Constitution was preserving whatever rights were available to litigants in civil trials under English law as it was before the Constitution. English law had some particularities that are still relevant today. Under English law, a party had a right to a civil suit at law but not in equity. The distinction is subtle and, in modern law, much less discernible. But for the sake of simplification, suits at law involved specific areas of the law that had concretely developed in early English society. Suits in equity involved areas of the law that were less defined and required more case-by-case adjudication, and more tailored remedies, than cases at law. Today, generally, areas of the law that are descendants of old suits at law do trigger the 7th Amendment. But areas that stem from suits in equity do not."
Corrections needed:
The text of the 9th amendment is as follows, and is irrelevant to the case:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This appears to be irrelevant to the above, and instead should be referring to the 7th amendment which states:
“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”
Your reference to the 7th amendment should be towards the 5th:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Also, the bond required is 110% not 120%.