NY fraud case against Trump is a glaring abuse of judicial authority. Time to strike back with 42 U.S.C. § 1983

dderatz · 2024-03-13T19:08:25.509Z

bigtwnvin:

I won’t do your research for you but you seriously should get some updated information on the commercial real estate industry in NYC and the practices of overvaluation and tax assessments.
You might also take note as to how many companies similar to the Trump Organization are leaving town

As to your first point, the custom of the industry does not affect state law. Perhaps that could be defense, although “everyone else is doing it” doesn’t usually work too well. Besides, my point was that the NYAG (happy?) was not politically biased against DJT, although she clearly thought that he was worthy of pursuing. DJT has had a horrible reputation in NY and NJ all through the 80’s and 90’s for being a cheat and a grifter. That was when he was fairly left wing and partied with the Clintons. No one would go after him. She promised to do so and did.

As to your second point, Courts are not supposed to take into account the consequences of following the law.

bigtwnvin · 2024-03-13T20:06:12.226Z

dderatz:

Besides, my point was that the NYAG (happy?) was not politically biased against DJT

Without being insulting , you’re obviously well read and educated; bull ■■■■■
To your second point, Judge Activist with bad haircut has been overturned in previous decisions and described by other jurists as engaging in judicial overreach considering no victims suffered. Trump was prosecuted under a NY statute never used in civil court before. No bias there but hey, it’s NY.
Levying a nearly 1/2 $Billion security bond “just to appeal” under threat of fire selling off properties for “Pennines on the dollar”? And restricting Trump Organization from engaging in business for three years? Fining both of his sons several millions of dollars each and restricting their ability to continue doing business?
Mmmkay
Your friend “Tish”

SpadeMarlowe · 2024-03-14T11:28:12.653Z

Publius:

SpadeMarlowe:

Publius:

The courts don’t agree with you.

Weponized courts…yes.

Rigged elections, weaponized courts… Trump can do no wrong, he can only be wronged, right?

Correct.
Common sense is your best tool, my dear.
Once you peoples crossed the line I reserve the right to believe nothing that comes from you.

johnwk2 · 2024-03-14T19:40:03.949Z

But state constitutions, and state statutes do.

johnwk2 · 2024-03-14T19:46:22.223Z

dderatz:

johnwk2:

The fact is, as President of the United States, one of his primary duties is to make use of all available resources to ensure the integrity of our election process.

And from whence exactly do you get that? Presidential elections are the sole province of the States. And please don’t say the “take care” clause because there were no Federal laws at issue in 2020, only State laws which a President has no role in enforcing.

The President as Law Enforcer

You should have learned this in your first civics class. Of course, during the past thirty years of so, our government schools have become institutions of indoctrination, rather than education.

Are you a graduate of a government operated school?

dderatz · 2024-03-15T11:41:36.563Z

johnwk2:

You should have learned this in your first civics class. Of course, during the past thirty years of so, our government schools have become institutions of indoctrination, rather than education.

From your link:

Is the president the chief law enforcement officer?

Not exactly. The Constitution says that the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” not that he must personally enforce the law. Generally, the Attorney General of the United States is considered the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

The word that is missing is “Federal.” The President has no role in enforcing state law, as I originally said.

johnwk2 · 2024-03-15T12:00:18.040Z

So, it is a primary duty of our President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” which includes those laws affecting federal elections.

I am impressed you have learned something today.

Publius · 2024-03-15T12:29:42.359Z

Federal elections are administered by the States.

johnwk2 · 2024-03-15T12:36:35.446Z

Publius:

Federal elections are administered by the States.

With the proviso that “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

biggestal99 · 2024-03-15T15:26:00.197Z

johnwk2:

With the proviso that “Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

so has congress made any laws effecting the coming election.

the present congress is the gang that could not shoot straight.

Allan

Zippy · 2024-03-15T15:30:55.352Z

Publius:

Rigged elections, weaponized courts

Ah yes. The dumascrap way.

dderatz · 2024-03-15T17:05:52.942Z

Publius:

Federal elections are administered by the States.

So in other words, the President has no role.

FreeAndClear · 2024-03-15T17:25:00.740Z

dderatz:

Besides, my point was that the NYAG (happy?) was not politically biased against DJT, although she clearly thought that he was worthy of pursuing. DJT has had a horrible reputation in NY and NJ all through the 80’s and 90’s for being a cheat and a grifter.

These two sentences are contradictory.

dderatz · 2024-03-15T19:20:32.621Z

FreeAndClear:

dderatz:

Besides, my point was that the NYAG (happy?) was not politically biased against DJT, although she clearly thought that he was worthy of pursuing. DJT has had a horrible reputation in NY and NJ all through the 80’s and 90’s for being a cheat and a grifter.

These two sentences are contradictory.

How exactly? The AG is prosecuting DJT because of his reputation for dishonesty and financial shenanigans, which were proven. Test has naught to do with prosecuting him because of political disagreement.

FreeAndClear · 2024-03-15T19:21:32.150Z

Because he wasn’t prosecuted in the 80s 90 or even 2000s while everybody knew he was a cheat. She went of her way to go after him. It’s targeted.

johnwk2 · 2024-03-15T20:19:35.707Z

dderatz:

Publius:

Federal elections are administered by the States.

So in other words, the President has no role.

Once again you show your ignorance concerning the Presidents’ role which specifically require that he ". . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . "

And some of those laws, with respect to federal elections, are found under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 29 - ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

Perhaps you would do well spending more time learning Civics 101, and less time here exhibiting your ignorance.

dderatz · 2024-03-15T23:05:07.013Z

johnwk2:

Once again you show your ignorance concerning the Presidents’ role which specifically require that he ". . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . "

And some of those laws, with respect to federal elections, are found under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 29 - ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

And absolutely no section of Chapter 29 pertains to the means of choosing electors for President. Rather than simply reciting a Chapter heading, perhaps you might cite to the section that you think pertains to anything that DJT involved himself in. I think you’ll find there are no such sections because the means of choosing Presidential electors is solely the province of the States.

dderatz · 2024-03-15T23:10:39.066Z

FreeAndClear:

Because he wasn’t prosecuted in the 80s 90 or even 2000s while everybody knew he was a cheat. She went of her way to go after him. It’s targeted.

Well of course it’s targeted; the issue is whether it’s motivated by political differences and devoid of a legal basis.

Let’s assume that it is in part politically motivated. How is that relevant? If a police officer arrests you because he hates you, but he witnessed you committing a crime, does it matter that he hates you? I’ll tell you clearly - it does not.

FreeAndClear · 2024-03-15T23:22:14.273Z

dderatz:

FreeAndClear:

Because he wasn’t prosecuted in the 80s 90 or even 2000s while everybody knew he was a cheat. She went of her way to go after him. It’s targeted.

Well of course it’s targeted; the issue is whether it’s motivated by political differences and devoid of a legal basis.

Let’s assume that it is in part politically motivated. How is that relevant? If a police officer arrests you because he hates you, but he witnessed you committing a crime, does it matter that he hates you? I’ll tell you clearly - it does not.

That’s the rationalization with which i don’t disagree. But both things can be true. He indeed is a cheat and she indeed went after him because she doesn’t like him and because of politics

It’s relevant in the real world not in the legal world. In the legal world. It’s not. In the real world it is.

dderatz · 2024-03-15T23:58:26.154Z

FreeAndClear:

It’s relevant in the real world not in the legal world. In the legal world. It’s not. In the real world it is.

. OK, I’ll own that