"But a hell of a lot of us could be Jack Phillips, who will be hounded to his grave by these people.
"And this is why we will vote Trump."
For certain. If they can use the law in a way it's not been used before, and require an absurdly high bond few could ever pay - if they can do it to Trump they can surely do it to you, and don't you think they'll try if you, for example, decline to bake the Satan dildo cake?
That's the heart of Trump's appeal to his fans - he's taking the arrows that are ultimately meant for them. He's exposing how far "our democracy" will go to get him - and of course they'll subsequently use it to get the "deplorables."
Trump is giving us all a sneak peak of how it's going to work. Because, after perfecting these tactics against Trump, let's not think "our democracy" will retire them.
Florida appallete defense attorney Steve Gosney has a great video on how this is an unconstitutionally large fine. The relevant case is a '98 case and the majority opinion was written by Thomas. In that case a man was carrying $350k worth of cash out of the country and didn't report it. There was no other alleged wrong doing, he just didnt properly report it. They government siezed the money. The Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional. The two-prong test for whether a fine is unconstitutional is this: is it even in part intended to be punitive, and is it proportional. There was also a lot of talk in the ruling about was anyone actually harmed by act being fined. That the guy failing to report the cash in no way harmed the government. Heres the video https://www.youtube.com/live/Z4Fzaa_3nl4?si=vya6HlZSz80_LzHk
You mention "the legitimacy of American institutions," which is being damaged by the persecution of Donald Trump. Of course, nothing new here. I don't know what legitimacy we're talking about. For me, the last of it went out with Reagan.
Will the persecution help Trump? Maybe, but the Democrats will do all they can to steal the election, and they are much better at that than The Stupid Party is at fighting it. The Repubs are, as far as I can see, largely clueless about what is going to come down on them in the campaign or the election.
American culture, discourse, and politics have been gradually eroded until now there is very little left except tribalism all the way down. (We really do seem to be living through some version of a Reformation combined with a cold civil war that could get hot before the end of this decade.)
In every possible sphere of public life, from our cultural and educational classes who have tied themselves to the mast of holy dogma and who MUST make one more Social Justice movie, play, musical, exhibit, book, no matter how sterile or repetitive, even if it leads to hemorrhaging cash; from our journalists now who campaign against free speech; to our political class who are like mayflies that exist as slaves to a day, ie. the eternal present of the social media news cycle—NOTHING matters to any of these people except publicly performing obedience to their tribe and its dogma, while doing anything, no matter how deranged, to show how much they hate the other tribe and want to destroy it.
The Letitia Jameses of America are never in doubt and will never change course no matter how destructive their actions may become—the Dems have become Ahab with the Trump as their Orange Whale, and never forget they have zero allegiance to the principles of the Constitution or republican government (equality before the law, due process, free speech, freedom of association, good-faith democratic debate) because they believe these things are racist and illegitimate, and because these things stand in the way of their power dreams.
Soviet America is here and there will be no going back to the American Republic.
Those of us who frequent the Ace of Spades HQ are familiar with the Mencken quote, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
I'm seeing speculation that ISIS is behind the Moscow attack.(Russia was instrumental is taking down the Islamic State). Of course it's too soon to know anything certain on this.
In other news Princess Kate has cancer (though nothing more specific on this)
As someone who has no love for Donald Trump (he is everything I despise in a politician and in a man) I have to say Luntz is spot on: this will indeed get Trump elected. His base is a given, but a lot of people most definitely NOT part of his base are going to see this as destroying Trump simply because he's Trump. And Americans react viscerally when they see something that is egregiously unfair.
I'm no Trump fan but the NY persecution (not prosecution) of Trump on financial fraud matters is egregious by any standard. It's catnip for the progressive base without regard for law, justice, integrity or decency.
Firstly, the judge unilaterally declared Trump guilty with hardly a thought, and then imposed a ridiculously massive fine that, as you referenced in your post, encourages massive fines on the basis that regardless of the justness of it, they are harder to appeal.
Second, whether anyone has standing in the suit has been in question from the very beginning. A bedrock principle of our legal system is the concept of standing. I can't sue you (Rod) for libel or slander because you said something about Trump, Biden, or Bishop Deshotels that I don't like. Imagine if I could sue someone over something that doesn't affect me! We'd all be screwed. I don't have standing because I wasn't damaged. In the NY fraud case, who has sustained damages and therefore has the right to sue? Not Trump's creditors, who admitted as much, nor the state. It is as objectively vindictive as you're going to get in a politically tinted lawfare case. How I wish the left would understand it is digging its own grave with this, and stop blindly rationalizing anything and everything in the name of "stop Trump".
Third, the idea that it was some criminally egregious overinflation of assets is laughable. Apparently Trump's creditors didn't think so (see above, "standing"). These banks have very well-paid and intelligent analysts who can evaluate the value of properties and turn down deals that are a concern. How naive would someone have to be to believe Trump secured hundreds of millions in loans on the basis of, "Hey, we'll just take your word for it on the collateral, here's a few hundred mil..."? The last time you got a mortgage on a home, did the bank say, "We totally trust you're paying a fair price and aren't going to get an appraisal"? Didn't think so. Property values are inherently subjective, and anyone who has ever bought or sold a house subjectively stretched or compressed the value of their property to get the best deal. Is that fraud? Of course not. And if the people lending to you agree to lend based on the value you gave them, then they believe, obviously, that it is within the realm of defensibility, whether or not they agree with the exact amount.
So there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that this case in particular is a joke, and the Left is way out over their skis but too ignorant and arrogant to notice they're about to sail right off a cliff. They're making it obvious these institutions and offices are a joke to them, nothing more than political billy-clubs they'll gladly use to torment Americans like the totalitarian wannabes they are. I don't like Trump, but if he wins and they're left crying about their delusional dark fantasies of gulags and mass executions (just like Trump did in his first term, right?), they deserve that and much more.
<<And if Trump and the Republicans have a lick of political sense, they are going to make that connection in their public rhetoric, and keep making it all the way to election day.>>
I love how you keep talking Election Day. As if it matters. I always ask, yet never receive a satisfactory answer: historically, name one totalitarian regime (and we’re there) that has voted itself out of it. I’m all ears.
What matters is 11/3 and 1/6, and because discussion of them is completely taboo, they shall forever remain unscrutinized except in kooky extremist circles.
Do you think “they” will let Trump near the White House? Cmon.
Look how Mike Johnson is handling the budget and border. This is the opposition! It’s business as usual!
A few points need clarification . . . if not education:
"It does seem incredibly disproportionate to impose a fine so massive, especially as it severely restricts Trump’s right to appeal." - In fact and as a matter of law Trump's right to appeal the judgment entered against him has nothing to do with posting or not posting a bond. Trump's lawyers can file his appeal at any time, regardless of whether a bond is posted. The bond is required before the appellate court can enter a stay in execution on the judgment. That the amount of the bond is "so massive" is the consequence of the amount of the judgment and fixed by law. The judgment is the amount found at trial to represent the damage the People of New York State suffered as a consequence of Trump's business practices, enhanced by a punitive amount designed to act as a deterrent against future actions and actors If the amounts are excessive, or if the verdict is in error, the appellate court will order the return to the defendant of all amounts paid in to the Court. The same rules apply to any person doing business in New York State.
This leads to a second misconception: "The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid — and that the penalty levied against him was therefore wildly excessive." If that's the argument Trump's lawyers themselves use on appeal, they're going to lose. The harm caused to Trump's lenders is not the issue before the court. Rather the law seeks to reclaim from the defendant the losses incurred by the People of New York for underpayment of taxes and penalties for failure to abide by the commercial laws and practices of the state. The penalties could be, and were, enhanced to serve as a deterrent to anyone in the future contemplating such a course of action. Once again, these sums can be reduced as excessive by the appeals court, but whether or not the lenders lost any money is irrelevant.
Lastly, "it will be very, very easy for Trump to claim on the campaign trail that the System is taking away his property to punish him for being Donald Trump." No doubt many see this as so. But had Trump been acquitted of all charges, it would have been very, very easy for his opponents to claim on the campaign trail that the System was allowing him to keep his ill-gotten gains, rewarding him for his illegal behavior simply because he was Donald Trump.
Either the law treats everyone the same, regardless of name or station, or it is no longer the law a free people deserve.
Re: Masterpiece Cake Shop. Apparently the left (and, truth be told, sensible people everywhere) aren't really opponents of confectionary censorship when it suits them:
I admit I’m feeling really optimistic about Trump winning the election after these headlines.
I kept thinking ‘are you trying to get him elected’ when I saw them. Trump has his commercials right here.
I really haven’t paid attention to the ins and outs of any of these cases, but the NY ‘we are going to seize your properties’ seems extraordinarily vengeful and petty.
It’s one thing to be able to say something is a fair penalty and believe that justice was served for a specific crime. But I don’t think anyone outside of ideological Leftists can say that in this case.
I find it disheartening that a lot of this could have been avoided had we had leaders that weren’t compromised by big money and the desire for power.
Why is it so impossible to believe that people are truly upset and frustrated by the effects that globalization has had on their local communities? I know way too many people who left Michigan in the early part of this century because businesses were moving out, not in. And that was way before the recession in 2008. We never got the boom that other areas of the country had at that time. It was bad. Really bad. A lot of us had no idea what GWB was talking about when he was suggesting the economy was good. It seemed very delusional at the time.
1. That quote from Ruth Marcus is something! She usually is a lib/left hack.
2. Real estate deals are perpetual arguments about how much this and that property is worth. That is part of the game. Criminalizing that is beyond absurd, especially when no one is defrauded, when obligations are paid in full.
3. Trump has about $3 billion worth of Truth Social stock coming in. That should help him post the bail on that ridiculous fine so he can appeal. It also makes the "Trump is broke" stuff look silly.
I completely agree with the larger point. Anyone with a functioning brain without TDS can see all this Democrat political lawfare is an outrage.
"But a hell of a lot of us could be Jack Phillips, who will be hounded to his grave by these people.
"And this is why we will vote Trump."
For certain. If they can use the law in a way it's not been used before, and require an absurdly high bond few could ever pay - if they can do it to Trump they can surely do it to you, and don't you think they'll try if you, for example, decline to bake the Satan dildo cake?
That's the heart of Trump's appeal to his fans - he's taking the arrows that are ultimately meant for them. He's exposing how far "our democracy" will go to get him - and of course they'll subsequently use it to get the "deplorables."
Trump is giving us all a sneak peak of how it's going to work. Because, after perfecting these tactics against Trump, let's not think "our democracy" will retire them.
Rigged system proves Trump right by rigging system against him. Sounds like a good headline to me.
Florida appallete defense attorney Steve Gosney has a great video on how this is an unconstitutionally large fine. The relevant case is a '98 case and the majority opinion was written by Thomas. In that case a man was carrying $350k worth of cash out of the country and didn't report it. There was no other alleged wrong doing, he just didnt properly report it. They government siezed the money. The Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional. The two-prong test for whether a fine is unconstitutional is this: is it even in part intended to be punitive, and is it proportional. There was also a lot of talk in the ruling about was anyone actually harmed by act being fined. That the guy failing to report the cash in no way harmed the government. Heres the video https://www.youtube.com/live/Z4Fzaa_3nl4?si=vya6HlZSz80_LzHk
You mention "the legitimacy of American institutions," which is being damaged by the persecution of Donald Trump. Of course, nothing new here. I don't know what legitimacy we're talking about. For me, the last of it went out with Reagan.
Will the persecution help Trump? Maybe, but the Democrats will do all they can to steal the election, and they are much better at that than The Stupid Party is at fighting it. The Repubs are, as far as I can see, largely clueless about what is going to come down on them in the campaign or the election.
American culture, discourse, and politics have been gradually eroded until now there is very little left except tribalism all the way down. (We really do seem to be living through some version of a Reformation combined with a cold civil war that could get hot before the end of this decade.)
In every possible sphere of public life, from our cultural and educational classes who have tied themselves to the mast of holy dogma and who MUST make one more Social Justice movie, play, musical, exhibit, book, no matter how sterile or repetitive, even if it leads to hemorrhaging cash; from our journalists now who campaign against free speech; to our political class who are like mayflies that exist as slaves to a day, ie. the eternal present of the social media news cycle—NOTHING matters to any of these people except publicly performing obedience to their tribe and its dogma, while doing anything, no matter how deranged, to show how much they hate the other tribe and want to destroy it.
The Letitia Jameses of America are never in doubt and will never change course no matter how destructive their actions may become—the Dems have become Ahab with the Trump as their Orange Whale, and never forget they have zero allegiance to the principles of the Constitution or republican government (equality before the law, due process, free speech, freedom of association, good-faith democratic debate) because they believe these things are racist and illegitimate, and because these things stand in the way of their power dreams.
Soviet America is here and there will be no going back to the American Republic.
Those of us who frequent the Ace of Spades HQ are familiar with the Mencken quote, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
I'm a normal man and I'm tempted AS HELL !!!
I'm seeing speculation that ISIS is behind the Moscow attack.(Russia was instrumental is taking down the Islamic State). Of course it's too soon to know anything certain on this.
In other news Princess Kate has cancer (though nothing more specific on this)
As someone who has no love for Donald Trump (he is everything I despise in a politician and in a man) I have to say Luntz is spot on: this will indeed get Trump elected. His base is a given, but a lot of people most definitely NOT part of his base are going to see this as destroying Trump simply because he's Trump. And Americans react viscerally when they see something that is egregiously unfair.
I'm no Trump fan but the NY persecution (not prosecution) of Trump on financial fraud matters is egregious by any standard. It's catnip for the progressive base without regard for law, justice, integrity or decency.
Firstly, the judge unilaterally declared Trump guilty with hardly a thought, and then imposed a ridiculously massive fine that, as you referenced in your post, encourages massive fines on the basis that regardless of the justness of it, they are harder to appeal.
Second, whether anyone has standing in the suit has been in question from the very beginning. A bedrock principle of our legal system is the concept of standing. I can't sue you (Rod) for libel or slander because you said something about Trump, Biden, or Bishop Deshotels that I don't like. Imagine if I could sue someone over something that doesn't affect me! We'd all be screwed. I don't have standing because I wasn't damaged. In the NY fraud case, who has sustained damages and therefore has the right to sue? Not Trump's creditors, who admitted as much, nor the state. It is as objectively vindictive as you're going to get in a politically tinted lawfare case. How I wish the left would understand it is digging its own grave with this, and stop blindly rationalizing anything and everything in the name of "stop Trump".
Third, the idea that it was some criminally egregious overinflation of assets is laughable. Apparently Trump's creditors didn't think so (see above, "standing"). These banks have very well-paid and intelligent analysts who can evaluate the value of properties and turn down deals that are a concern. How naive would someone have to be to believe Trump secured hundreds of millions in loans on the basis of, "Hey, we'll just take your word for it on the collateral, here's a few hundred mil..."? The last time you got a mortgage on a home, did the bank say, "We totally trust you're paying a fair price and aren't going to get an appraisal"? Didn't think so. Property values are inherently subjective, and anyone who has ever bought or sold a house subjectively stretched or compressed the value of their property to get the best deal. Is that fraud? Of course not. And if the people lending to you agree to lend based on the value you gave them, then they believe, obviously, that it is within the realm of defensibility, whether or not they agree with the exact amount.
So there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that this case in particular is a joke, and the Left is way out over their skis but too ignorant and arrogant to notice they're about to sail right off a cliff. They're making it obvious these institutions and offices are a joke to them, nothing more than political billy-clubs they'll gladly use to torment Americans like the totalitarian wannabes they are. I don't like Trump, but if he wins and they're left crying about their delusional dark fantasies of gulags and mass executions (just like Trump did in his first term, right?), they deserve that and much more.
<<And if Trump and the Republicans have a lick of political sense, they are going to make that connection in their public rhetoric, and keep making it all the way to election day.>>
I love how you keep talking Election Day. As if it matters. I always ask, yet never receive a satisfactory answer: historically, name one totalitarian regime (and we’re there) that has voted itself out of it. I’m all ears.
What matters is 11/3 and 1/6, and because discussion of them is completely taboo, they shall forever remain unscrutinized except in kooky extremist circles.
Do you think “they” will let Trump near the White House? Cmon.
Look how Mike Johnson is handling the budget and border. This is the opposition! It’s business as usual!
And shall remain so.
A few points need clarification . . . if not education:
"It does seem incredibly disproportionate to impose a fine so massive, especially as it severely restricts Trump’s right to appeal." - In fact and as a matter of law Trump's right to appeal the judgment entered against him has nothing to do with posting or not posting a bond. Trump's lawyers can file his appeal at any time, regardless of whether a bond is posted. The bond is required before the appellate court can enter a stay in execution on the judgment. That the amount of the bond is "so massive" is the consequence of the amount of the judgment and fixed by law. The judgment is the amount found at trial to represent the damage the People of New York State suffered as a consequence of Trump's business practices, enhanced by a punitive amount designed to act as a deterrent against future actions and actors If the amounts are excessive, or if the verdict is in error, the appellate court will order the return to the defendant of all amounts paid in to the Court. The same rules apply to any person doing business in New York State.
This leads to a second misconception: "The essence of Trump’s argument on appeal is that the supposed harm he caused was minimal at best — all his lenders were repaid — and that the penalty levied against him was therefore wildly excessive." If that's the argument Trump's lawyers themselves use on appeal, they're going to lose. The harm caused to Trump's lenders is not the issue before the court. Rather the law seeks to reclaim from the defendant the losses incurred by the People of New York for underpayment of taxes and penalties for failure to abide by the commercial laws and practices of the state. The penalties could be, and were, enhanced to serve as a deterrent to anyone in the future contemplating such a course of action. Once again, these sums can be reduced as excessive by the appeals court, but whether or not the lenders lost any money is irrelevant.
Lastly, "it will be very, very easy for Trump to claim on the campaign trail that the System is taking away his property to punish him for being Donald Trump." No doubt many see this as so. But had Trump been acquitted of all charges, it would have been very, very easy for his opponents to claim on the campaign trail that the System was allowing him to keep his ill-gotten gains, rewarding him for his illegal behavior simply because he was Donald Trump.
Either the law treats everyone the same, regardless of name or station, or it is no longer the law a free people deserve.
Re: Masterpiece Cake Shop. Apparently the left (and, truth be told, sensible people everywhere) aren't really opponents of confectionary censorship when it suits them:
https://www.nydailynews.com/2008/12/16/happy-birthday-adolf-hitler-boy-with-nazi-leaders-name-denied-shoprite-cake/
I admit I’m feeling really optimistic about Trump winning the election after these headlines.
I kept thinking ‘are you trying to get him elected’ when I saw them. Trump has his commercials right here.
I really haven’t paid attention to the ins and outs of any of these cases, but the NY ‘we are going to seize your properties’ seems extraordinarily vengeful and petty.
It’s one thing to be able to say something is a fair penalty and believe that justice was served for a specific crime. But I don’t think anyone outside of ideological Leftists can say that in this case.
I find it disheartening that a lot of this could have been avoided had we had leaders that weren’t compromised by big money and the desire for power.
Why is it so impossible to believe that people are truly upset and frustrated by the effects that globalization has had on their local communities? I know way too many people who left Michigan in the early part of this century because businesses were moving out, not in. And that was way before the recession in 2008. We never got the boom that other areas of the country had at that time. It was bad. Really bad. A lot of us had no idea what GWB was talking about when he was suggesting the economy was good. It seemed very delusional at the time.
Three points on the Trump situation:
1. That quote from Ruth Marcus is something! She usually is a lib/left hack.
2. Real estate deals are perpetual arguments about how much this and that property is worth. That is part of the game. Criminalizing that is beyond absurd, especially when no one is defrauded, when obligations are paid in full.
3. Trump has about $3 billion worth of Truth Social stock coming in. That should help him post the bail on that ridiculous fine so he can appeal. It also makes the "Trump is broke" stuff look silly.
I completely agree with the larger point. Anyone with a functioning brain without TDS can see all this Democrat political lawfare is an outrage.
I wish Trump would just dynamite his own buildings to deny them to these jackals. Then he could dynamite Frank Luntz's comical toupee...
"And this is why we will vote Trump."
Absolutely!