The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Leftist activist Ny judges.
So you say. Nevertheless, the case proceeds.

Everybody is biased against Trump, right? This has nothing to do with Trump's alleged illegal inflation and deflation of property values to defraud banks, insurance companies and the government. It's all about people not liking Donald Trump. Right?

The AG is biased. The judge is a leftist activist. Poor Donald, innocent as can be, but just some guy the biased left does not like. Everyone knows if the left hates you, you should never be charged and always be given a free pass, right?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman and RLENT

danthewolf00

Veteran Expediter
So wait a min they are going after trump for the 4 years he was in office or before that???? I ask because trump was not in charge of his business while in office of the president....the Democrats made him give up control....
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and muttly

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So wait a min they are going after trump for the 4 years he was in office or before that???


I ask because trump was not in charge of his business while in office of the president..
Do you really believe that. Do you really think a man like Trump would let others make decisions for him?

I think not.

..the Democrats made him give up control....
No they didn't. A pesky document called the constitution did.
A part called the “Emoluments Clause.” in particular.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
So wait a min they are going after trump for the 4 years he was in office or before that???? I ask because trump was not in charge of his business while in office of the president....the Democrats made him give up control....
Based on actions and the relevant legal documents, I would not say Trump gave up control of his business.

In Jan, 2017, Trump had a press conference and made a big show of putting his Trump Organization business into a trust. It was then claimed that action would isolate Trump from his business, which would be run by two of his adult children.

That action was never convincing to anyone who knows even a little about trusts. Trump did not place his business in a blind trust run by trustees with whom he'd have little or no contact, which would truly isolate him from his business. He put it in a revocable trust run by his children with whom he maintains frequent if not daily contact.

Also, the nature of his business (a Trump-branded collection of real estate and other entities) is not like a securities portfolio that can be easily hidden by a blind trust. Even if a blind trust had been established, it would have been known to Trump which government actions would benefit the Trump properties and which would be adverse.

When the trust was announced, the Wall Street Journal then reported, "Some ethics experts say the trust and other measures don't create the firewall needed to fully insulate [Trump] from his holdings." (Source) I agree.

Additionally,


Given the nature of the trust and his relationship with his children, Trump has been in clear control of his business interests the entire time he was president; which is a major conflict of interest, grossly improper, and some (including me) would say illegal.

The January 2017 press conference that announced the trust was a sham, unconvincing to his critics, contradicted by the facts, but highly effective in duping his non-critical supporters into believing Trump had somehow done the right thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Everybody is biased against Trump, right? This has nothing to do with Trump's alleged illegal inflation and deflation of property values to defraud banks, insurance companies and the government. It's all about people not liking Donald Trump. Right?
Right. It's about the AG Letitia James of NY having an undeniable bias against Trump and his family. She campaigned on suing and prosecuting Trump if elected. Based on her obvious vendetta against Trump before and after she was elected AG, she should be forced to recuse herself. Good luck with that happening in NY.

"During her campaign, New York Attorney General Letitia James threw out numerous vague and baseless allegations, promising to harass and investigate President Trump’s family and businesses that “may be engaged in illegal conduct.” Although Trump was duly elected, she claims he is an illegitimate president. This is nothing less than a gross abuse of her office."
The AG is biased. The judge is a leftist activist. Poor Donald, innocent as can be, but just some guy the biased left does not like. Everyone knows if the left hates you, you should never be charged and always be given a free pass, right?
Even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Is there something wrong with that? If a liberal AG hates somebody is that adequate reason for legal persecution? Even Trump is entitled to a fair and objective legal process, which is obviously absent in this case. Toward that end, James should be forced to recuse herself. Even if that should happen, this freakshow will drag on for years considering the numerous grounds for appeals and the TDS that pervades deep blue NY.

"Daniel Goldman, who served as the Democratic majority counsel in the impeachment inquiry against the president and as staff counsel to the House managers in the subsequent impeachment, rightfully noted in the context of James’ statements, “They give the appearance of an individualized political vendetta . . . It’s essential that prosecutors maintain their neutrality and an objective view of the facts and the evidence, no matter the politics involved.”

 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Right. It's about the AG Letitia James of NY having an undeniable bias against Trump and his family. She campaigned on suing and prosecuting Trump if elected. Based on her obvious vendetta against Trump before and after she was elected AG, she should be forced to recuse herself. Good luck with that happening in NY.

"During her campaign, New York Attorney General Letitia James threw out numerous vague and baseless allegations, promising to harass and investigate President Trump’s family and businesses that “may be engaged in illegal conduct.” Although Trump was duly elected, she claims he is an illegitimate president. This is nothing less than a gross abuse of her office."

I do not disagree that James has an undeniable bias against Trump and his family. I would say some of her statements about Trump were unprofessional given the stature of her office, and would have been better left unsaid. Her saying Trump is an illegitimate president is a matter of public record. I understand how someone who views the Trumps favorably would conclude that James's statements are "nothing less than a gross abuse of her office."

However, her clear bias against Trump does not relieve her of her responsibility to investigate Trump where good reason surfaces to do so, nor does it negate such an investigation where one may be launched.

In this case, the good reason to investigate Trump surfaced when Trump Michael Cohen testified in public and under oath that Trump improperly inflated and deflated his property values for the purpose of defrauding various entities. That announced fact by Cohen was not produced by James's bias or unprofessional conduct. It came to light because Cohen reported Trump actually committed those crimes, and as Trump's attorney and "fixer," Cohen was in a pretty good position to know.

At present, in the courts, it is an alleged crime. Trump retains the presumption of innocence. It falls on the AG to make and prove the case.

In court, Trump has had the opportunity to argue what you are arguing about James's bias. The arguments have been heard but have not yet proven persuasive. So the investigation and case proceeds.

Even Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Is there something wrong with that? If a liberal AG hates somebody is that adequate reason for legal persecution? Even Trump is entitled to a fair and objective legal process, which is obviously absent in this case. Toward that end, James should be forced to recuse herself. Even if that should happen, this freakshow will drag on for years considering the numerous grounds for appeals and the TDS that pervades deep blue NY.

"Daniel Goldman, who served as the Democratic majority counsel in the impeachment inquiry against the president and as staff counsel to the House managers in the subsequent impeachment, rightfully noted in the context of James’ statements, “They give the appearance of an individualized political vendetta . . . It’s essential that prosecutors maintain their neutrality and an objective view of the facts and the evidence, no matter the politics involved.”

I agree with Goldman's statement about James. I believe it wold be better for all concerned if James recused herself. James's grandstanding does more harm than good. Indeed, I see it doing no good at all.

But even if she did recuse herself and shut her mouth, ample cause exists to continue the investigation by that office.

Finally, Trump still enjoys the presumption of innocence and those protections under the law. If he did not, James would have locked him up a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT
Top