The Sham Trial Against Trump

[Oldestyle]

People v. Barclays Capital, Inc., 47 Misc. 3d 862, 871 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015)
New York v. Princess Prestige, 42 N.Y.2d 104 (N.Y. 1977)
People v. Mean LLC (2023)

I'm sure someone with access to the New York State Court system could find more cases under NYS Law 63(12).

WW

Those have nothing to do with Trump's case...why do you keep listing them?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Those have nothing to do with Trump's case...why do you keep listing them?

You claimed: "with a charge that hasn't been leveled against ANYONE else...EVER?"

You are incorrect. They show the law has been used in charging others.

WW

 

[SeaMajor7]

View attachment 855860

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991876/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf

Sorry, just because you don't like it makes it fake news.

WW

Fuck OFF!!!
I don't trust ANYTHING from the CROOKED Courts, or YOU!
You mother fuckers have been TWISTING every fucking thing about Trump for SEVEN FUCKING YEARS!!!!
You are CONTAMINATED with HATE!!!
This is Twilight Zone Banana Republic SOVIET BULLSHIT
Go Fuck Yourself!!!

 

[Rawley]

As to the use of 63(12)? They sure are. The claim a was the law has never been used before.

No that wasn't the claim. Word matter. Read his words.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fuck OFF!!!
I don't trust ANYTHING from the CROOKED Courts, or YOU!
You mother fuckers have been TWISTING every fucking thing about Trump for SEVEN FUCKING YEARS!!!!
You are CONTAMINATED with HATE!!!
This is Twilight Zone Banana Republic SOVIET BULLSHIT
Go Fuck Yourself!!!

.
.
.
.
.
.
"Ummmm.... Oh I got it..."

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... "Facts!"

WW

 

[maybelooking]

Oh god no.

The earliest use of the law that I could find goes back to 1977, so no FPOTUS#45 isn't the only one ever to do this nor is is the only to have a complaint filed against him.

WW

Johnathan Turley (pretty well respected legal analyst) says Trump is the first one to be indicted under this ridiculous law. Either he is lying, or this judge is full of shit right along with Letitia.

 

[Marener]

Johnathan Turley (pretty well respected legal analyst) says Trump is the first one to be indicted under this ridiculous law. Either he is lying, or this judge is full of shit right along with Letitia.

Do you have a link to this claim? I tried to find it and couldn't.

 

[maybelooking]

View attachment 855874
.
.
.
.
.
.
"Ummmm.... Oh I got it..."

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... "Facts!"

WW

what triggers Trump supporters is ridiculous bullshit like "Russia Russia Russia" and this ridiculous attempt in NY to crucify him for something that is done EVERY DAY by many businesses. Either apply the law equally or fuck off. This bitch RAN HER ELECTION on getting Trump. Thats a fact. And she has a crooked judge helping her keep her campaign promise. I don't expect people who hate the orange mans tweets to understand.

 

[Rawley]

Do you have a link to this claim? I tried to find it and couldn't.

Your Google broken?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/11/06/turley_this_is_a_case_uniquely_created_for_trump_this_crosses_the_line_from_law_to_entertainment.html

 

[Marener]

Your Google broken?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2023/11/06/turley_this_is_a_case_uniquely_created_for_trump_this_crosses_the_line_from_law_to_entertainment.html

Turley really didn't say the law was never prosecuted. He says this:
This crosses the line from law to entertainment. It should be concerning for people because it does appear that this is a case uniquely created for Trump under a law that hasn't been used in this same way against others...

I don't know what he means by not being "the same way" but it is not the same as saying the law was never prosecuted before, which is what I was searching for.

 

[maybelooking]

how many times was Trump indicted BEFORE becoming POTUS? All those years as a businessman and it NEVER HAPPENED until now.

anyone who cant see this shit show for what it is is being willfully ignorant.

 

[Rawley]

Turley really didn't say the law was never prosecuted. He says this:
This crosses the line from law to entertainment. It should be concerning for people because it does appear that this is a case uniquely created for Trump under a law that hasn't been used in this same way against others...

I don't know what he means by not being "the same way" but it is not the same as saying the law was never prosecuted before, which is what I was searching for.

Yes. The poster was not precise in his language, but the gist of what Turley is saying is that her case against Trump is unprecedented and incredibly dangerous. And he's right

 

[Marener]

Yes. The poster was not precise in his language, but the gist of what Turley is saying is that her case against Trump is unprecedented and incredibly dangerous. And he's right

Weasel words. The language changes converts it from a clear statement to an ambiguous one that could mean anything or nothing.

 

[Rawley]

Weasel words. The language changes converts it from a clear statement to an ambiguous one that could mean anything or nothing.

OK You think he's weasel. Other than in the Trump hating circles in which you clearly run, Turley is well respected

 

[Robert W]

It's not particularly honest to cite the entire code book and claim that it backs up your specific claim. A citation needs to be specific.

Banker says Trump’s financial statements were key to loan approvals, but there were 'sanity checks'

Donald Trump obtained millions in loans using financial statements that a court has since deemed fraudulent, a retired bank official testified.

apnews.com

This describes the testimony pretty well.

In other words, FDIC is being dishonest by not instantly clarifying what I happen to know is the law?

 

[Robert W]

Weasel words. The language changes converts it from a clear statement to an ambiguous one that could mean anything or nothing.

That is precisely why I refuse to do your homework for you on the issue of what FDIC laws are on values of estimates by customers.

 

[Marener]

OK You think he's weasel. Other than in the Trump hating circles in which you clearly run, Turley is well respected

I said they were weasel words. That's an accurate description.

Weasel word - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is a word and phrase aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated.

What does it mean that the law hasn't been used "in this way"? No one has any idea.

 

[Marener]

In other words, FDIC is being dishonest by not instantly clarifying what I happen to know is the law?

"Trust me bro" doesn't work for me.

 

[Rawley]

I said they were weasel words. That's an accurate description.

Weasel word - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is a word and phrase aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated.

What does it mean that the law hasn't been used "in this way"? No one has any idea.

It means it's unprecedented. Is that really not in your vocabulary? She's using this law against a consumer regarding real estate valuations submitted to a lender. Never been done before. Unprecedented. Turns the statute on its head.

That, on top of her campaign pledge to bag the white Trump. Unprecedented.

 

[Robert W]

"Trust me bro" doesn't work for me.

When did you quit using it?