What's Wrong With the Republican Party?

[Pilgrim]

You are placing a lot of faith in Trump's coattails; the coattails of a man who cannot fill a rally like he used to, and who is racking up one loss after another in court.

The court cases so far have done nothing but turn Trump into a martyr. They're civil cases in deep Blue places like NY and DC that have been perceived as biased political persecution and will likely be overturned or severely reduced in appeal. The old bimbo that claimed sexual assault is hardly credible, and did herself no good by launching her "victory shopping tour" on MSNBC. The real estate case just concluded in NY was based on an obscure never-used fraud statute and decided by a highly biased judge and corrupt prosecutor. Everyone but the Trump haters and deluded liberals can see this was not a fair trial or reasonable penalty. It's human nature to be repulsed by contemptible people in power who abuse the legal system to destroy people like Trump or anyone else.

It's no wonder Trump's ratings go up every time he loses a case people perceive to be rigged. This will continue until he is actually convicted of a legitimate felony charge in a fair court by an unbiased jury. Until then his following will continue to grow.

 

[ATeam]

The court cases so far have done nothing but turn Trump into a martyr.

In the eyes of some, yes.

They're civil cases in deep Blue places like NY and DC that have been perceived as biased political persecution

In the eyes of some, yes.

and will likely be overturned or severely reduced in appeal.

I think not. The lawyers who speak on this topic that I listen to are right more often than they are wrong and they say the appeals will be largely if not entirely unsuccessful.

The old bimbo that claimed sexual assault is hardly credible, and did herself no good by launching her "victory shopping tour" on MSNBC.

The credibility of the "old bimbo" is no longer an issue. The jury found her credible.

The real estate case just concluded in NY was based on an obscure never-used fraud statute and decided by a highly biased judge and corrupt prosecutor.

I don't know about never-used. It was used this time and successfully so. Bias was alleged but that allegation was ineffective as a legal argument. Trump will likely remake the bias claim again on appeal and it will probably again fail.

Everyone but the Trump haters and deluded liberals can see this was not a fair trial or reasonable penalty.

Broad brush statement. A lot of people who are not "deluded liberals" see the trial as fair and the penalty reasonable.

It's human nature to be repulsed by contemptible people in power who abuse the legal system to destroy people like Trump or anyone else.

Maybe so, but this is not such a case. The trial was fair. The charges were valid.

It's no wonder Trump's ratings go up every time he loses a case people perceive to be rigged.

That has been the case, but early fundraising results indicate this may have peaked or is tapering off.

This will continue until he is actually convicted of a legitimate felony charge in a fair court by an unbiased jury. Until then his following will continue to grow.

Again, we may have peaked out on that.

 

[ATeam]

Wisconsin Republicans Lose Their Gerrymandered Edge

Gov. Tony Evers signs new election maps, ending Wisconsin Republicans' grip on legislative power

Republicans in Wisconsin have enjoyed lopsided majorities in the Legislature under gerrymandered maps drawn in 2011.

www.jsonline.com

 

[Pilgrim]

In the eyes of some, yes.

In the eyes of some, yes.

I think not. The lawyers who speak on this topic that I listen to are right more often than they are wrong and they say the appeals will be largely if not entirely unsuccessful.

The credibility of the "old bimbo" is no longer an issue. The jury found her credible.

I don't know about never-used. It was used this time and successfully so. Bias was alleged but that allegation was ineffective as a legal argument. Trump will likely remake the bias claim again on appeal and it will probably again fail.

Broad brush statement. A lot of people who are not "deluded liberals" see the trial as fair and the penalty reasonable.

Maybe so, but this is not such a case. The trial was fair. The charges were valid.

That has been the case, but early fundraising results indicate this may have peaked or is tapering off.

Again, we may have peaked out on that.

Collectively, the above responses represent the gleeful viewpoints of liberals everywhere: Trump is Satan incarnated, so he deserves whatever he gets; these end results justify the means; and most importantly, he must be taken out of the presidential campaign by any means necessary. They show no regard for his constitutional rights, not the least of which is his eighth amendment right to not be forced to pay excessive fines. Life is good for the legal pundits and talking heads on CNN and MSNBC - so far.
What they don't seem to care about is the larger issue, which is the effect of this will have on our electoral system now, and in the future. The following article nicely articulates an opposing viewpoint on the Engoron case.

"The New York State laws used to go after Trump have NEVER been used in this way...

Ms. James and Judge Engeron have essentially turned a vaguely worded New York State law into a modern day Bill of Attainder targeted at Donald Trump both for political gain and because they despise his political views...

National, presidential politics will be permanently altered if a local State's legal system can be used in this way against candidates for President of the United States..."

President Trump's Kafkaesque Civil Trial in New York State

A Stalinist nightmare in New York State

reason.com

 

[ATeam]

Collectively, the above responses represent the gleeful viewpoints of liberals everywhere:

No, they don't. They express my satisfaction with Trump's outcomes in court.

Trump is Satan incarnated, so he deserves whatever he gets; these end results justify the means; and most importantly, he must be taken out of the presidential campaign by any means necessary. They show no regard for his constitutional rights, not the least of which is his eighth amendment right to not be forced to pay excessive fines. Life is good for the legal pundits and talking heads on CNN and MSNBC - so far.

Not my view. Put words in other people's mouths as you wish.

What they don't seem to care about is the larger issue, which is the effect of this will have on our electoral system now, and in the future.

Trump is the one charged with election fraud and related crimes. No Democrat and no liberal is charged with organizing fake electors, etc.,

The following article nicely articulates an opposing viewpoint on the Engoron case.

People can write anything they want. Just because you don't like the court outcome, it does not mean the outcome is illegitimate. Trump will have his chance to appeal and make all the arguments he wishes, including those in the article you reference. But he must appeal in a court of law, where the law still matters. For that reason, he's likely to fail.

 

[Pilgrim]

People can write anything they want. Just because you don't like the court outcome, it does not mean the outcome is illegitimate. Trump will have his chance to appeal and make all the arguments he wishes, including those in the article you reference. But he must appeal in a court of law, where the law still matters. For that reason, he's likely to fail.

Obviously people can write most anything they want, and just because you don't agree with the points they make doesn't render them illegitimate. In this case the author is an expert on the subject, and is on to something substantial when he reminds readers the 8th Amendent prohibits excessive fines. This would seem to apply in not only the Engoron case, but also the defamation case - both of which will be appealed.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

In United States v. Bajakajian... "The Court held that the forfeiture11 in this particular case violated the Excessive Fines Cause because the amount forfeited was “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of defendant’s offense.”

Excessive Fines

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ATeam]

In this case the author is an expert on the subject,

Judge Engoron is an expert too. The difference is, he is on the bench. The other guy is on the sidelines.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Given the scope of the fraud, the fines are not excessive.

 

[muttly]

“Expert”

 

[Pilgrim]

Judge Engoron is an expert too. The difference is, he is on the bench. The other guy is on the sidelines.

This compares an apple to an orange. Engoron was biased from the beginning. The author exposes this along with his abuse of power and judicial malfeasance.

Given the scope of the fraud, the fines are not excessive.

There was no fraud. There was no victim. No one lost a single dollar. The banks loaned money based on their own property evaluations at interest rates they chose. The loans were paid back in full and on time. Therefore, there's no financial basis for this grossly excessive penalty. This case would never have been brought against anyone but Trump; it has no legal precedent.

 

[Ragman]

This compares an apple to an orange. Engoron was biased from the beginning. The author exposes this along with his abuse of power and judicial malfeasance.

There was no fraud. There was no victim. No one lost a single dollar. The banks loaned money based on their own property evaluations at interest rates they chose. The loans were paid back in full and on time. Therefore, there's no financial basis for this grossly excessive penalty. This case would never have been brought against anyone but Trump; it has no legal precedent.

#moredonkeydung

 

[coalminer]

This compares an apple to an orange. Engoron was biased from the beginning. The author exposes this along with his abuse of power and judicial malfeasance.

There was no fraud. There was no victim. No one lost a single dollar. The banks loaned money based on their own property evaluations at interest rates they chose. The loans were paid back in full and on time. Therefore, there's no financial basis for this grossly excessive penalty. This case would never have been brought against anyone but Trump; it has no legal precedent.

All the loans may have been paid back in full but would they have even made the loans at the preferred interest rates had his financials been truthful?

Also they BETTER NOT stop at Trump, this kind of fraud is rampant in the commercial real estate business, they need to keep up the lawsuits until people learn to tell the truth.

I will say there is one way to end this once and for all, pass a law that says there is one and only one value for a given property, and that is what the state or county has declared its taxable value to be. If you want to say your property is worth more than what it is, fine, pay taxes according to what you say its worth and the declared value will change.

 

[Pilgrim]

More about the Engoron decision from Prof. Jonathan Turley, a card-carrying Democrat who did not vote for Trump. He points out that not only is Engoron's fine excessive, but also makes it "difficult or impossible for a defendant to appeal, absent declaring bankruptcy or selling off assets at distress prices." Trump can't even use a NY bank or financial institution to borrow money. (bold emphasis mine)

"Much of the criticism of the decision focused on the unprecedented use of the law and the excessive size of the fine. The New York statute has been on the books for decades and has always been something of an anomaly in not requiring an actual victim or loss to justify disgorgement or fines.
Even the New York Times agreed that it could not find a single case in history where this statute was used against an individual or a company that did not commit a criminal offense, go bankrupt, or leave financial victims.
Engoron then combined that unprecedented application with an equally extraordinary penalty, which is greater than the gross national product of some countries.
He disgorged hundreds of millions in a case where not one dollar was lost by anyone. Indeed, the “victims” wanted to get more business from Trump and are now being prevented from doing so by Engoron."

“Nothing Succeeds Like Excess”: New York’s Perverse Incentive in Pricing Trump Out of an Appeal

Below is my column in the New York Post on the confiscatory fines imposed on former president Donald Trump and his family and corporation. Democrats are thrilled by the over the $450 million bill f…

jonathanturley.org

 

[ATeam]

More about the Engoron decision from Prof. Jonathan Turley, a card-carrying Democrat who did not vote for Trump. He points out that not only is Engoron's fine excessive, but also makes it "difficult or impossible for a defendant to appeal, absent declaring bankruptcy or selling off assets at distress prices." Trump can't even use a NY bank or financial institution to borrow money. (bold emphasis mine)

If the case was as fraught with shortcomings as you suggest, Trump and his attorneys would have been able to sink it long ago with pretrial motions and successful appeals of those. That did not happen, so, obviously, there is more to the story than you are telling or you care to learn.

Trump is being punished for the massive fraud he committed over the years, and the punishment is proportional to the crime. That's the story in a nutshell. Also not that Trump could have settled this case long ago at a much lower cost. His failure to do so is a blunder all on him.

 

[ATeam]

This compares an apple to an orange. Engoron was biased from the beginning. The author exposes this along with his abuse of power and judicial malfeasance.

There was no fraud. There was no victim. No one lost a single dollar.

There was fraud. The victims are the people of New York and the financial system under which everyone has a right to fair play.

If I drive home drunk from a bar without getting into a wreck that damages property or lives, there is no victim. But it is still an illegal crime for which one should be punished.

The banks loaned money based on their own property evaluations at interest rates they chose. The loans were paid back in full and on time. Therefore, there's no financial basis for this grossly excessive penalty. This case would never have been brought against anyone but Trump; it has no legal precedent.

You are restating the arguments Trump made in court. He lost because those arguments were without legal merit.

 

[Pilgrim]

If the case was as fraught with shortcomings as you suggest, Trump and his attorneys would have been able to sink it long ago with pretrial motions and successful appeals of those. That did not happen, so, obviously, there is more to the story than you are telling or you care to learn.

I'm quoting Turley, and it's highly likely that he knows more about "the story" than you do. If you have additional enlightenment, let's hear it. I'm sure he'd love to have your input.

Trump is being punished for the massive fraud he committed over the years, and the punishment is proportional to the crime. That's the story in a nutshell. Also not that Trump could have settled this case long ago at a much lower cost. His failure to do so is a blunder all on him.

There was no fraud, to the people of NY or anyone else. All the banks and other parties in the business dealings were satisfied with the transactions. This was a political charge contrived by James especially for Trump and Engoron rubber-stamped it along with the excessive fines.

 

[Pilgrim]

There was fraud. The victims are the people of New York and the financial system under which everyone has a right to fair play.

Everyone involved in the financial transactions was satisfied with the results. The banks go what they wanted. Fraud or irregularities were never mentioned in their testimony.

You are restating the arguments Trump made in court. He lost because those arguments were without legal merit.

The biased judge decided Trump was guilty before he even made the arguments. That decision will be appealed and we'll see what happens.

 

[ATeam]

The biased judge decided Trump was guilty before he even made the arguments. That decision will be appealed and we'll see what happens.

And I'm glad for that. The TV lawyers I listen to say the Engoron ruling is likely to stand on appeal. When it does, it will be clear that the ruling was valid, and those who suggested it was not were wrong.

 

[coalminer]

MSN

After seeing all this douchebags posts on Truth, him saying this really does not shock me.

 

[RLENT]

“Expert”

Exactly ...

People that can, do ... people that can't, teach ...

 

[coalminer]

MSN

The republicans know whats up, the more people vote, the more they will lose since they are not the majority anymore. The only party trying to "rig" an election is the GOP.

Poor people vote democrat because they need the help, the rich vote republican because they think the government is holding them back. As the rich get richer and more and more of the middle class gets sent into poverty there are going to be fewer and fewer votes for the republicans. They are going to use every trick in the book to stay in power.