Letitia James tells judge to Reject Trumps $175 Million Bond

originally posted by: Astrocometus
I wonder how many other innocent people these criminals
have put away.

Probably the same number of thug criminals that they let
roam the streets in the name of 'equity'.
They've got a special obsession with Trump though ...
It's really bizarre.

Reply to: Astrocometus

NYC has the third-highest wrongful conviction rate.

link

originally posted by: Dandandat3
Reply to: Astrocometus

NYC has the third-highest wrongful conviction rate.

link

I'll be damned

a reply to: Dandandat3

Simple; Trump is not a flight risk and he is the Democrat party's top political rival;

This isn't a bail bond. Trump was supposed to pay his fine, which was around $450 million. He got a special "good faith" deposit requirement, so that he can file an appeal, for to $175, down from around $450 million, and now they can't even prove that there is actually and money behind the bond at all.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dandandat3

Simple; Trump is not a flight risk and he is the Democrat party's top political rival;

This isn't a bail bond. Trump was supposed to pay his fine, which was around $450 million. He got a special "good faith" deposit requirement, so that he can file an appeal, for to $175, down from around $450 million, and now they can't even prove that there is actually and money behind the bond at all.

Um hmm; and?

Look I get it; when it comes to ones political rivals the national tendency is to want to see them strung up by their short and curllys. The emotional satisfaction is a great motivator.

And if you have Donald Trump dead to rights; then he deserves to be strung up by his short and curlys. I'd even help you with the rope if you would like.

But what's the difference if we do that now or in seven months or after he has had a chance to appeal?

However there is tangible benefit to waiting that 7 months. You prove your commitment to Democracy. You prove you are not engaged in political persecution. You do not alienate the 50% of the country that supports Donald Trump for president or at least disagree with how he is being treated.

The question of why Donald Trump should get "special" treatment is all but irrelevant. There are plenty of good reasons to give a Top candidate for president, seven months out from an election, special treatment (local, state and federal governments do it all the time). Biden’s DOJ just gave Biden special treatment when it decided not to prosecute him for mishandling classified documents for decades.

The relevant question is how does it benefit the country to not give Donald Trump "special" treatment until after the election?

I'd go a step further and argue that it would be immensely beneficial to the country if President Joe Biden were to pardon Donald Trump of all this after the election and let him ride of into the sun set. Why distory good will and compromise over one orange man. It makes no logical sense what so ever.

a reply to: Dandandat3

But what's the difference if we do that now or in seven months or after he has had a chance to appeal?

Because the law says that people need to pay their fines on time, regardless of whether or not they plan to appeal, but they can't appeal until they've paid their fines. Why should Donald Trump's businesses be any different that any other business that loses a law suit and has to pay a fine?

As it is, he got special dispensation to put up a bond of around 1/3rd his fine. But they can't even prove that there's any money behind the bond!

The relevant question is how does it benefit the country to not give Donald Trump "special" treatment until after the election?

Of course! It hurts the country any time someone is treated as if they're above the law, or is treated like the law shouldn't apply to them.

I'd go a step further and argue that it would be immensely beneficial to the country if President Joe Biden were to pardon Donald Trump of all this after the election and let him ride of into the sun set.

That's your opinion, which you're more than welcome to. But, I certainly disagree with that. I also think the pardoning of Richard Nixon was a big mistake.

As a NYer, I have seen 2 things:

1. Businesses are closing left and right, the owners move out of state and open up again. Big and small.

2. The amount of Trump signs I see is astronomical! Everyone I know, even my union sisters and brothers, are voting for Trump.

Now, some see it as a way to stop the inevitable...the right going after the left as the left has Trump.

Some see it as a way to stop the decline of their lifestyle.

Some see it as a way to stop the decline of America.

All of them are paying attention.

But most see it for what it is...an attempt to stop Trump from winning again. Even my most liberal friends say it has gone too far and the next step is going after the population in the same manner.

But dont worry, the fun is just beginning.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Due process be damned ! 🤣

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dandandat3

Of course! It hurts the country any time someone is treated as if they're above the law, or is treated like the law shouldn't apply to them.

Just for clarification, do you also believe it hurts the country when one man is held to a higher standard than his fellow citizens?

I mean, AG James and NY Gov Houcal have admitted to changing the law specifically to go after Trump. They even promised in those pressers, that they will not go after anyone else with the law.

Does that sound like equal protection under the law?

Nope.

Does it make it look like a political hit job? A witch hunt?

Yup.

So, do you?

a reply to: xuenchen

Trump got more due process than any ordinary citizen. But Trump doesn't care about due process, he thinks he's absolutely immune from prosecution and due process.

a reply to: theatreboy

I mean, AG James and NY Gov Houcal have admitted to changing the law specifically to go after Trump.

Governors and AG don't change laws. State legislators enact laws. Are you saying that entire New York State legislator enacted a law just to get Trump?

Yeah, right.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I am at work. When I get a chance, I will post the clip of James and Houcal having the Dem majority legislators change the law to target only Trump.

They were literally bragging.

When I do post it, and prove the fact that they did this...and bragged about it, that you will consider the fact that the hand you hold (progressive left), is the hand that is holding you down.

They lie so much, the masses don't question, just faithfully believe and follow orders.

Maybe when you see this, you will leave the masses behind.

a reply to: theatreboy

Okay. I'll wait.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Trump got more due process than any ordinary citizen. But Trump doesn't care about due process, he thinks he's absolutely immune from prosecution and due process.

This case isn't finished until the appeals processes are over. And it looks like there's going to be plenty more appeals and motion hearings. Due process is in progress, and Trump hasn't received anything extra. L.James is delaying on purpose.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I give you a few things to contemplate:

Here is a poltifact article trying to put context to an interview James did after being elected but before being sworn in. She promises to be a "pain in his ass" and to work everyday to sue him into financial ruin. (Notice the foreshadowing of our current legal mess)

www.politifact.com...

Now, a small correction:

I got 2 cases mixed up...they extended the deadline for the law they passed so victims of past sexual assault crimes could sue.

But back to the case I was talking about.

AG James used an obscure, 70 year old law that had never been used before, to go after him. NY 63 (12). They did not have to prove fraud, literally just the appearance of fraud.

But the fact remains that she promised she was not going to use that law on anybody or business again. She was using it to get Trump.

Of course, that look of a political hit, is a bad one.

So here is a WSJ article on How she has broken that promise by going after a meat company. Bc of global warming.

The Letitia James Anti-Business Business Model www.wsj.com...

Hope you red states like blue bc all these blue states are pushing everyone away.

Of course, you will say it shows she isn't playing a political game. (Even though this new one is based on a theory, not fact.)

Most of us see it for what it is...covering her

a reply to: xuenchen

Part of the "due process" is Trump paying the fine levied by the courts, regardless of whether or not he intends to appeal. Trump's special influence got the amount of the fine to be paid, by promise, down about 2/3rds of what the law requires, so that he could skirt the law, and file an appeal without making the whole payment.

Now, it seems that there is no actual cash behind the bond, and you want everyone to just let Trump off, why?

a reply to: theatreboy

But the fact remains that she promised she was not going to use that law on anybody or business again. She was using it to get Trump.

So what? That's what AG candidates do on the campaign trail, they promise to lock up criminals. Donald Trump ran on locking Hillary Clinton up. Trump didn't follow up and James made good on her campaign promise. Good for her. She must have a case, seeing as Trump has leveled every due process trick he can afford to stop the trials, they just keep coming.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Jesus Christ
If you guys cried Liberal tears any harder, we would all F’ing float away.

Disgusting doesn’t begin to describe it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: theatreboy

But the fact remains that she promised she was not going to use that law on anybody or business again. She was using it to get Trump.

So what? That's what AG candidates do on the campaign trail, they promise to lock up criminals. Donald Trump ran on locking Hillary Clinton up. Trump didn't follow up and James made good on her campaign promise. Good for her. She must have a case, seeing as Trump has leveled every due process trick he can afford to stop the trials, they just keep coming.

Yeah. . . . but at the time she was running, there was never a crime specified.

So. . . umm. . . .awkward.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yeah. . . . but at the time she was running, there was never a crime specified.

Well, the crimes are specified now. Lots of them.