New York Judgment Against Trump Violates the Eighth Amendment

[Catsnmeters]

Common among developers and other companies, according to Mr, Womderful.

Did Mr Wonderful give a name?

And besides, there was no harm nor damages - and the “victim” was made a lucrative deal and would do so again.

Incorrect.

This was driven by politics and in violation of Trump’s constitutional rights. And other than the diehard leftists, such as yourself, all of America sees this for what it is and are more Incentivized than ever to vote out Democrats who are turning this country into a Banana Republic.

Speculation.

A banana republic would be not enforcing laws simoly because someone is running for office.

 

[Rawley]

It wasn't a fine.

It was a fine.

 

[JoeB131]

What was it? Both parties of the contract met their obligations, and the so-called “victim” made out to the tune of $100 million - and said they’re eager to do it again. Hundreds of companies do these transactions just like Trump did, and only Trump was punished.

I say it was an action to interfere with Trump’s campaign, and a violation of his 8th amendment rights.

Well, you can say that, it doesn't make it true.

As a matter of law, the Judge was right on the money.

"It turned out okay" isn't a legal defense. "Everyone does it" isn't a defense, either.

 

[Lisa558]

If you don't like the law, change it.

I don’t need to. His Constituional rights were violated, and he will get back all money - plus interest.

 

[Lisa558]

Did Mr Wonderful give a name?



Incorrect.


Speculation.

A banana republic would be not enforcing laws simoly because someone is running for office.

A banana republic would target its political opposition with the tyoe of crap you guys are pulling. This nonsense gets reversed on appeal. Guarantee it.

 

[Catsnmeters]

A banana republic would target its political opposition with the tyoe of crap you guys are pulling. This nonsense gets reversed on appeal. Guarantee it.

Trump broke the law.

He was held accountable.

That is not a banana republic.

What will you do when it's not reversed? Will you accept the judgement then?

 

[Oldestyle]

Our laws were the victim. i thought you cult members claimed to believe in following laws.

Wait...you just claimed that "our laws were the victim"?
I just blew coffee out of my nose...don't make me laugh like that!

 

[JoeB131]

I don’t need to. His Constituional rights were violated, and he will get back all money - plus interest.

Well, it's nice to have a dream, Lisa... but the penalty was well within the guidelines.

A banana republic would target its political opposition with the tyoe of crap you guys are pulling. This nonsense gets reversed on appeal. Guarantee it.

Good, Lisa, you are still on stage 1 of Greif...Denial. Moving on to Stage 2, anger.

 

[Crepitus]

The biggest fraud is the judge valuing MAL at $18MM

That was what tRump valued it at for property tax purposes. The judge attached no value to anything, nor did the prosecutor.

 

[meaner gene]

It wasn't a fine.

It was a fine.

That's what you said of the penalty from Obamacare.

You were wrong there too.

It's not a fine, it's a "disgorgement", or return of ill gotten gains.

 

[meaner gene]

I don’t need to. His Constituional rights were violated, and he will get back all money - plus interest.

There is no constitutional right to commit fraud.
Lying to a financial institution isn't a 1st amendment right.

 

[Rawley]

That's what you said of the penalty from Obamacare.

You were wrong there too.

Obama and Biden told us it was a fine. Until they claimed it was not a fine.

It's not a fine, it's a "disgorgement", or return of ill gotten gains.

If that is the case it would go to the banks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It wasn't a fine.

What exactly was it then?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's what you said of the penalty from Obamacare.

You were wrong there too.

It's not a fine, it's a "disgorgement", or return of ill gotten gains.

Horseshit how can you justify that horseshit when the bank said they got their money back with interest and want to do business with Trump again?

 

[Lisa558]

There is no constitutional right to commit fraud.
Lying to a financial institution isn't a 1st amendment right.

There’s a constituional right to have the penalty fit the damages, as well as not be the sole one targeted for a commonplace, and victimsless infraction.

Don’t you idiot Libs realize that when do these types of things to prevent the candidate that most voters want as president that you are LOSING votes? Especially since the half-dead candidate YOU are putting up is not only in mid-stage dementia, but allowed his family to become multimillionaires by peddling Infkuence? You people are such hypocrites.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There’s a constituional right to have the penalty fit the damages, as well as not be the sole one targeted for a commonplace, and victimsless infraction.

Don’t you idiot Libs realize that when do these types of things to prevent the candidate that most voters want as president that you are LOSING votes? Especially since the YOU are putting up is not only in mid-stage dementia, but allowed his family to become multimillionaires by peddling Infkuence? You people are such hypocrites.

Damn that hit to the heart of the problem

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, you can say that, it doesn't make it true.

As a matter of law, the Judge was right on the money.

"It turned out okay" isn't a legal defense. "Everyone does it" isn't a defense, either.

It makes it true when the bank said it happen

 

[meaner gene]

Obama and Biden told us it was a fine. Until they claimed it was not a fine.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
If the court can't correct a defendants position based on an amicus brief, why does the court allow amicus briefs.

Amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs are briefs written by individuals or groups who are not directly involved in a legal case, but have expertise or insight to offer a court to assist in making its decision.

You're welcome.

 

[meaner gene]

It's not a fine, it's a "disgorgement", or return of ill gotten gains.

If that is the case it would go to the banks.

Actually the banks are free (subject to statutes of limitation) to sue Trump for those damages. And in light of the current verdict, they may yet do that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
If the court can't correct a defendants position based on an amicus brief, why does the court allow amicus briefs.

Amicus curiae (“friend-of-the-court”) briefs are briefs written by individuals or groups who are not directly involved in a legal case, but have expertise or insight to offer a court to assist in making its decision.

You're welcome.

I see you side step that last portion of his post.
So the banks will be getting the 300 million