Letitia James receives SUBPOENA from the DOJ for violating President Trumps' civil rights.

[Papageorgio]

No, it doesn't mean that. She explained her ruling, which I provided. You did not address the plain meaning of the language she used where she says it's irrelevant whether he's a principle officer of an inferior officer.

Give me the link.

 

[Marener]

Give me the link.

It's from her decision.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/gov.uscourts.flsd_.648653.672.0_1.pdf

 

[Papageorgio]

It's from her decision.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/gov.uscourts.flsd_.648653.672.0_1.pdf

Thank you.

She saw compelling reasons that Smith acted as a primary but she left it up to next appellate court to decide.

I never looked into the case because I thought that was her reasoning, she is saying that only one of the special prosecutors in the last several decades followed the law regarding special prosecutors, so now I see what you are saying.

So you believe that Smith, Mueller, Durham, Fitzgerald, Cox and Jaworski were unconstitutional? What about Walsh? She felt he was Constitutional do you as well?

If Bondi gives the restrictions like were given for Walsh would you consider it constitutional?

Thank you, I never looked this deeply into the ruling, I figured it was a Trump appointed judge making the ruling, but it wasn’t, it is a judge with a clear interpretation of the law, now I don’t see it that way but I can see why she ruled the way she did.

 

[Marener]

Thank you.

She saw compelling reasons that Smith acted as a primary but she left it up to next appellate court to decide.

I never looked into the case because I thought that was her reasoning, she is saying that only one of the special prosecutors in the last several decades followed the law regarding special prosecutors, so now I see what you are saying.

So you believe that Smith, Mueller, Durham, Fitzgerald, Cox and Jaworski were unconstitutional? What about Walsh? She felt he was Constitutional do you as well?

If Bondi gives the restrictions like were given for Walsh would you consider it constitutional?

Thank you, I never looked this deeply into the ruling, I figured it was a Trump appointed judge making the ruling, but it wasn’t, it is a judge with a clear interpretation of the law, now I don’t see it that way but I can see why she ruled the way she did.

Walsh was constitutional because he was appointed under the Independent Counsel Act, not because of any restrictions. In fact, Walsh had fewer restrictions than any other person on that list, since they could only be removed for cause. I wonder if this SCOTUS, who views the executive as much more powerful than previous, would agree with such a limitation on executive power.

All I want is one set of rules. It seems like Trump argues that special attorneys are illegal when it's convenient and then goes and appoints them when it's also convenient. That seems like the only way this country can survive.

 

[Papageorgio]

Walsh was constitutional because he was appointed under the Independent Counsel Act, not because of any restrictions. In fact, Walsh had fewer restrictions than any other person on that list, since they could only be removed for cause. I wonder if this SCOTUS, who views the executive as much more powerful than previous, would agree with such a limitation on executive power.

All I want is one set of rules. It seems like Trump argues that special attorneys are illegal when it's convenient and then goes and appoints them when it's also convenient. That seems like the only way this country can survive.

Both sides play the game, Democrats got rid of the 2/3 majority for judicial nominees and then belly ached when it worked against them.

Also, the charges against Trump that he got convicted of were bogus and politically motivated and I also think Bondi going after his prosecutor is politically motivated, and both were wrong.

I would like more consistency as well but the last two administrations might have gotten so petty it will never be the same.

 

[CowboyTed]

LOL what a whitewash. OK I'll ask you since all of your Leftist Trump Hater friends failed to answer it. Who was the victim of the alleged FRAUD in Queen Letitita's FRAUD case against Donald Trump?

The bank, they took on more risk than was paid for...

Simple... That is how lending works...

More risk, higher return..

Trump defrauded the bank...

It doesn't matter on was the money paid back or not, it was the risk taken... Trump lied cause he didn't want to show the real risk.

The Prosecution showed that in court and won...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It doesn't matter on was the money paid back or not,

That is correct.

Its a very simple principle. Similarly, you cannot steal $500 from the cash register, pay it back 3 weeks later, and then avoid prosecution for theft.

But what Trump did was worse. More like, stealing the $500 from an interest bearing account, then returning only the $500 instead of the $500 and the interest it would have accrued.

 

[Concerned American]

The bank, they took on more risk than was paid for...

Simple... That is how lending works...

More risk, higher return..

Trump defrauded the bank...

It doesn't matter on was the money paid back or not, it was the risk taken... Trump lied cause he didn't want to show the real risk.

The Prosecution showed that in court and won...

Strange that the bank claimed the loan was paid in full and they would welcome his business in the future. Hmmm, doesn't sound like the response of a victim, moron.

 

[Blisterfinger]

That is correct.

Its a very simple principle. Similarly, you cannot steal $500 from the cash register, pay it back 3 weeks later, and then avoid prosecution for theft.

But what Trump did was worse. More like, stealing the $500 from an interest bearing account, then returning only the $500 instead of the $500 and the interest it would have accrued.

How did they find out that Trump overvalued his property? What tipped them off so they would open their investigation into it when no one had a complaint? No one lost any dollars in fact everyone was whole and everyone profited. Why would they do this to Trump? Oh wait, politics.

 

[Marener]

Strange that the bank claimed the loan was paid in full and they would welcome his business in the future. Hmmm, doesn't sound like the response of a victim, moron.

So everyone gets to lie on their mortgage applications as long as they pay the mortgage?

I don’t think that’s the law.

 

[Concerned American]

So everyone gets to lie on their mortgage applications as long as they pay the mortgage?

I don’t think that’s the law.

Read any MLS listing. IDGAF what you THINK is the law. MLS has a disclaimer that the information is provided by the seller and it is incumbent on the potential buyer to verify the validity of the statements. In this case, I am sure the lender was satisfied that the value was there. Indeed they are on record as saying they would do business with Trump again. Leticia James is no expert on property valuation and the lender was not party to the complaint. There was no victim. The case was political theater.

 

[Papageorgio]

The truth is this type of case isn’t prosecuted in NY, it was only because it was Trump and Non partisan independent Americans see it for what it is and in fact still voted him in as President because they saw through it. Only far left nut jobs on here make it a big deal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Strange that the bank claimed the loan was paid in full and they would welcome his business in the future.

A lie.

That was a former employee of the bank who did not speak for the bank.

The actual bank released a public statement that they would not do business with Trump ever again.

It's easy to tell when someone gets their info from Newsmax.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The truth is this type of case isn’t prosecuted in NY, it was only because it was Trump

A more normal human being would blame the fat rapist for committing the felonies in the first place.

 

[Papageorgio]

A more normal human being would blame the fat rapist for committing the felonies in the first place.

Sure they would most Americans saw it for what it was, a politically motivated move to stop an opponent from running and possibly winning, but most American are past the BS now.

 

[Blisterfinger]

A lie.

That was a former employee of the bank who did not speak for the bank.

The actual bank released a public statement that they would not do business with Trump ever again.

It's easy to tell when someone gets their info from Newsmax.

Link to your misinformation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure they would most Americans saw it for what it was, a politically motivated move to stop an opponent from running and possibly winning, but most American are past the BS now.

And yet, if the fat rapist had not committed 34 felonies to cover up other felony violations of campaign laws, no problem.

I think I will take the side of normal morality and ethics and blame the criminal.

 

[MarathonMike]

The bank, they took on more risk than was paid for...

Simple... That is how lending works...

More risk, higher return..

Trump defrauded the bank...

It doesn't matter on was the money paid back or not, it was the risk taken... Trump lied cause he didn't want to show the real risk.

The Prosecution showed that in court and won...

The bank? BAHAHAHAHAHA You just doubled down on CLUELESS. You bring me much laughter.

 

[Blisterfinger]

And yet, if the fat rapist had not committed 34 felonies to cover up other felony violations of campaign laws, no problem.

I think I will take the side of normal morality and ethics and blame the criminal.

You are pretty much fucked in the head so I don't really care what you think about it. When you say he is a rapist and he is not that pretty much destroys your credibility.

 

[Papageorgio]

And yet, if the fat rapist had not committed 34 felonies to cover up other felony violations of campaign laws, no problem.

I think I will take the side of normal morality and ethics and blame the criminal.

You go ahead and do just that while you excuse the lies and crimes of your buddies.