Trump’s Bond: Part 2

This is going to the Supreme Court, have no doubt. He won’t lose.

Part I

Well, shit.

I'd prefer self-immolation but this seems fair.

He'll get away with everything. Hell protects its own.

He will slurp up hamberders and blow shit out his asshole when the rest of us are finely irradiated dust.

Did they reduce the bond only? Or did they reduce what he owes to fulfill the judgment?

That rotten motherfucker...

I think this was a wise decision, especially if they intend to reduce the damages on appeal.

It would be a disaster to force Trump into insolvency or a public disassembly of his empire only to have him win on appeal, even partially. Say in October

This takes away his best argument—that the communists in NY are out to destroy him because they hate his supporters.

They blinked.

Fuck.

This was a ridiculous case that Tish James put together. Zero victims, she was scrounging for something, anything. It’s a total overreach and will boomerang when Repugs use the same tactics against democrats. Total kangaroo court move. The only thing it has accomplished is making conservative business people and companies double take if NY is a place to conduct business. Tish is a total attention whore with an axe to grind.

Just the bond, r6.

But it may suggest they expect to reduce the penalty.

R9 they are though. Everything about this is politically motivated.

R11, I always wondered if this judgment is upheld what this would mean for the other New York real estate families. They have all played this game and the banks went willingly along.

[quote] It’s a total overreach and will boomerang when Repugs use the same tactics against democrats.

When? The Republicans have been attacking Democrats with trumped up charges since Watergate.

Whitewater, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, e-Mails, Benghazi, Burisma.

The difference is Trump is guilty.

[quote] They have all played this game and the banks went willingly along.

I don’t think that’s true. Trump is a con-man. Most real estate developers are 1) actually shrewd businesspeople who actually build things, and 2) not stupid or criminal.

R1 this is a state crime and why would he appeal when he got what he wanted. They reduced his bond and gave him extra time to raise the money. The Prosecutor can't appeal this. And he won't either. The New York State Supreme Court is a crap shoot for him. He got what he wanted. Because for him the big enchilada is appealing the decision, which he can now do with a reduced bond. And my guess, is that if he appeals the decision he may get a reduced amount. There's more at stake here than just Trump. Real Estate Developers are a slimy bunch. And in New York, if you get convicted of fraud and falsifying records to evade taxes and get bank loans, you are also opening up a can of worms for every real estate deal. Do you think Trump is the only developer who was falsified records? Please. So he's gonna pay for his crime, but he is not going to get slammed as much as we want him to. James is sending a warning to developers and banks.But she is not going to upend the system. And believe me it is a corrupt system. Trump is not unusual as developers go.

Fuck.

R16 read R17

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Lots of developers are exiting or have already exited NY because of the psychotic laws that go excessively against landlords. Now this squatter shit is going wild. 3 years or more to evict. Then you have this case. It’s becoming very anti-business.

I just wish Democrats would focus more on analyzing WHY people still vote for Trump although everyone knows that he is a slime ball than spending their energy on legally outmaneuvering him. You cannot declare 40% of the electorate irredeemable a deplorable. Thats what killed Hillary.

The court denied his motion to stay the provision of the judgment forbidding him from borrowing from financial institutions registered or chartered in NY state.

Did anyone SERIOUSLY think, living in this racist ass country, that this dark skinned black woman would be allowed to take a rich white man’s property?

Same with Fanni Willis. All these cases were doomed.

Seems like they gave him a pass to avoid it going to the Supreme Court. It’s not necessarily a sign that he will win on appeal. But as usual, Trump receives special treatment.

[quote]appealing the decision, which he can now do with a reduced bond.

He could — and did — appeal without posting the bond. This is a major public misconception (created largely by Trump himself) that he couldn't appeal without posting bond; the bond simply prevents/mitigates the state from enforcing the judgement as the appeal winds though the system. That another court stepped in at the last minute to lower the bond amount pending appeal proves that there are two systems of justice in America because there is no way a court would step in and do this were the defendant's name not Trump.

[quote]Do you think Trump is the only developer who was falsified records?

No. Other NY corporations have been prosecuted and convicted of this same crime; James spelled this out in several of her public comments about the case trying to show that the law applies equally (when we all know and now have confirmation that is not true).

Developers are fleeing New York yet there is more development happening than there’s been in decades? I have some waterfront property in Kansas to sell you.

Dump and his insanity has destabilized our country. Many citizens now do not trust our own country.

Apparently he was texting from the courtroom. Or will they finally realize he doesn't write the posts himself?

I don't know why people are saying that this isn't a big crime or it's rarely prosecuted. Remember Leona Helmsley, who was sentenced to 16 years in prison for basically the same thing? Even if "everybody does it" it's still illegal. That doesn't give the bad players an excuse.

R27, people have never trusted the government. That’s what the US constitution is all about.

R16, that's a very charitable view of the real estate development industry. Like, Rose territory.

R20, I wonder if you can provide us with some citations once you're done sticking your fist up your gash and pretending Trump is grabbing your pussy.

I’ve dealt with big NYC real estate developers for decades as an accountant, and all of them are up to a lot of… let’s call it shenanigans. As Joan Rivers would say, none of them have last names.

[quote]Lots of developers are exiting... It’s becoming very anti-business.

Funny how we never worry about the victims of the corporate abuse of law, but when we hold corporations and the wealthy to account, it's all about how it's bad for business.

How about the businesses do the right thing in the first place? Trump should have prepared his financial statements to accurately reflect his real wealth — even when it means he won't get the loan at the reduced interest rate that lower risk affords. But Trump never thinks about the long term, whether it's misreporting your assets or mitigating a virus that will decimate the economy. For him, it is all about the right here right now and public perception; tomorrow will take care of itself. Until it doesn't.

Letitia James:

“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud. The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization. The $464 million judgment – plus interest – against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands.”

[quote]I’ve dealt with big NYC real estate developers for decades as an accountant, and all of them are up to a lot of… let’s call it shenanigans.

Yes, real estate developers get away with a lot of shady stuff, not just in NYC but across the country.

[quote]Lots of developers are exiting... It’s becoming very anti-business.

NY commercial real estate is crashing, but the regulation environment has fuck-all to do with it.

Unless of course you're a fan of mobbed-up real estate.

Which you appear to be.

In one of Trump's other court cases, Judge Juan Merchan refused the defense's request for a delay. His hush money trial will start April 15.

I wonder what happens to ordinary citizens who are unable to come up with a few hundreds dollars to pay a judgment?

This is fantastic news!

See? He gets away with everthing. And he will continue to do so.

It idiotic to think he will not be the next president.

God damn it!

R1 don’t be daft. Without a constitutional question, there is no Supreme Court jurisdiction on appeal—it is a state law question. Any possible federal question is so remote as to be laughable.

R12 no such suggestion there. This was a procedural matter; it had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying judgment.

[quote]This was a ridiculous case that Tish James put together. Zero victims, she was scrounging for something, anything. It’s a total overreach and will boomerang when Repugs use the same tactics against democrats. Total kangaroo court move. The only thing it has accomplished is making conservative business people and companies double take if NY is a place to conduct business. Tish is a total attention whore with an axe to grind.

[quote]R9 they are though. Everything about this is politically motivated.

[quote]Lots of developers are exiting or have already exited NY because of the psychotic laws that go excessively against landlords. Now this squatter shit is going wild. 3 years or more to evict. Then you have this case. It’s becoming very anti-b

Bless your heart, OP.

[quote]Without a constitutional question, there is no Supreme Court jurisdiction on appeal—it is a state law question.

We'll just see about that!

Justice Roberts and the conservatives on the Supreme Court have my full support and loyalty.

[quote]This was a ridiculous case that Tish James put together. Zero victims, she was scrounging for something, anything. It’s a total overreach and will boomerang when Repugs use the same tactics against democrats.

I've heard that the hairdo pattern on the Donald Trump MAGA2024 Buttplug has a wavy pattern that creates complicated sensations in the lower colon of the user. Do you find that to be true?

Yes, Trump was given a financial lifeline today.

BUT:

The stay banning him from acquiring loans in from banks in NYS is still in effect.

He's still gonna struggle to cough up $175M.

Ugh. They gave Trump a 60% discount and gutted most of the rest of Judge Engoron’s decision. This may end up being their decision on appeal. Scaredy Cats.

This will make it to the SC if not dropped in appeals.

Eighth Amendment - Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It is neither cruel nor unusual, r51, but continue to beat the drum for Trump.

That’s not how the 8th Amendment works, sorry—not even close.Does no one actually learn anything in school any more?

The quite remote, but only plausible, case to be made is based on due process or equal protection. It won’t go anywhere.

He'll say it is, R52.

[quote]He'll say it is, [R52].

So?

So what you're saying, R51/R53 is what Trump has been saying all along: under the American judicial system, a fat, rich, entitled prick of a white man can do whatever the fuck he wants, including destroying democracy, without the slightest legal ramification?

R56 ummm are you okay? Are your meds refilled? This case is about real estate valuations.

Anyone who thinks that January 6th should have a scintilla of effect on this case, has zero ethical understanding of how the law should properly work and be applied, and might consider moving to Cuba, Russia, or North Korea if you think judicial harassment of political foes is fine and dandy.

"This case is about real estate valuations."

Only in the deepest, darkest recesses of your terribly underutilized brain.

Now run along and lick Trump's shit encrusted asshole.

R59 please inform us what else it’s about. Although it’s probably not best to get legal information from someone whose main informational viewing is RuPaul’s Drag Race. We’ll come around to you when we need advice on applying adhesive for false lashes.

[quote]Trump’s Bond

I thought everyone said it was going to be that Aaron guy.

I'm repeating this from the very end of the - who knows which one? - there's so many fucking threads for the same thing - but it did say Part I:

I no longer believe it's just luck; I think the men behind the curtain are controlling all this for his benefit.

I have no idea why, but I really think this is the case.

I hope when he wins, he kills all the lawyers first.

Spare me, r21.

People vote for Trump because they want their fears, bigotries, and their basic, comfortable ignorance undisturbed. They know better than anybody he's an incorrigible, criminal piece of shit.

They. Don't. Care.

Unrestrained indulgence in what I describe above matters most of all to them and Trump encourages all of that.

It's just that simple and uncomplicated.

R56

51 and 53 are not the same person, and they made contrary arguments. Are you OK?

R64 51 & 53 are not the same

Yes I know—that’s why I said it before you did R64

Are you OK as well?

That’s for R65 ^

I think the Dems can make political hay of this. And I think Trump knows that, too.

Trump is attempting to cast this as an unjustified amount. He got his way with the ruling here.

But it all boils down to the self-described billionaire had his balls on the chopping block and had to beg for mercy.

Letitia James:

“Donald Trump is still facing accountability for his staggering fraud. The court has already found that he engaged in years of fraud to falsely inflate his net worth and unjustly enrich himself, his family, and his organization. The $464 million judgment – plus interest – against Donald Trump and the other defendants still stands.”

R69 …for now

Man. We're doomed.

No, we're not.

JFC.

Spin, little Federalist Society trollfarm cubicle dwellers, spin!

Fuck this bullshit!

To show my displeasure, exactly two weeks from today, I will blot out the sun!

The Stormy Daniels pay-off trial would have started today. So frustrating. Would a felony conviction force Turd to drop out of the race?

No, there is no reason it would.

[quote]The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit a presidential candidate from running for office while under indictment, or even while serving time after having been convicted.

It does not, R76.

You have been BAMBOOZLED by these two attention seekers Fanni and Letitia. America does NOT LET BLACK WOMEN DO THIS, they won’t even give goddamn Beyoncé a Grammy for Album of the Year. This was ALWAYS going to happen, Trump would never see justice unless it was brought by a white man.

And Joe Biden appointed Merrick Garland to prevent that from happening.

The judgement amount was not an arbitrary number. It was based on the years of fraudulent activity, and the amounts involved. If a bond can be 35% of the judgement, then it can set a precedent for anybody else to only need to put up a fraction of the judgement in order to file an appeal?

R79

Day drinking, again?

yes, R80

This was the right decision. It calms all the hillbillies.

I want to know what was the reason given to justify reducing the fucking bond? They can't just do it without justifying it. And why the extension? And why tell them they didn't have to wait three years or two years before they could do business? WTF is there any law in this country? Because how the fuck do you make people abide by the law when certain privileged few flagrantly violate it and then get special consideration. This equal justice before the law thing is total bullshit.

One glaring aspect about the appeals court lowering the bond to 175 million has frosted the asses of several respected legal eagles for the fact that the court gave absolutely no reasoning behind their decision. The court should have given their reasoning to the public, especially during these times where public distrust of the courts is at an all time high.

It’s lame. All they did was coddle Trump.

Someone’s distant relative probably fell out a window, died in a mysterious accident or was otherwise rubbed out as a warning to the appeals court, r85.

That orange traitor is mobbed up to his putrid gills.

That was my first thought R87. Does Trump have blackmail dirt on these judges, like when he got Anthony Kennedy to abruptly step aside from SCOTUS. Yes, it's pure speculation but we all know that Trump is capable of such things.

Wasn’t the inducement for Tony Kennedy, R88, that his former law clerk, Brett Kavanaugh, would be his replacement?

Alina Habba went on the news and said “We won!” Stupid cunt.

Kennedy's son was Trump's loan officer at Deutsche Bank R89. I couldn't find the video but I remember seeing Trump pulling Kennedy Sr. aside and saying something to him and Kennedy having a shocked reaction (there was no audio). I wonder what Trump told him....but I guess we'll never know.

R9, nobody feels sorry for Donald Trump. Nobody is going to hand him the Presidency because they feel like he got a hard time in the courts. His supporters are his supporters. They are finite.

Jesus Christ. People are so warped thinking owing ONLY a bond of $175M with a 10 day window to pay it is a “win” like somehow he’s skating free. He probably won’t even be able to post that. Do you know how many civil trials this guy is facing? His 1st criminal trial starts in like 3 weeks. Criminal. People don’t have sympathy for this racist charlatan.

How many blowjobs are there in 175 million? Looks like I’ll need to get out the heavy duty knee pads for this.

R21, Trump voters don't want to take the time or make the effort---if indeed they were able to do either---to learn about taxation laws; the origins of social "entitlement" or safety net programs, including Unemployment Compensation; pollution; well, pick a topic, any topic.

They "know" they can trust Trump. They "know" they can believe Trump. They "know" Trump will improve their lives by deporting immigrants; bringing down grocery and gasoline prices; letting people keep their gas stoves and guns; allowing Americans to say "Merry Christmas"; letting Putin have Ukraine; and making America great again.

To them, the boastfulness, the lying, the mocking, the name-calling, the White "Christian" Nationalism, the violence, the criminality---are positive traits and behaviors, signs of strength and patriotism in the very footsteps of the Boston Tea Party.

And he was on TV!

R91, We knew all this at the time. Trump probably made some snide remark to Justice Kennedy about his son and how the father is leaving in time to escape blackmail.

R21 Dude, Dems already know why voters support Trump, AND we can ABSOLUTELY declare 40% of the electorate as deplorables.

According to the "experts" on voter behavior who are bloviating about Trump's legal difficulties on TV, they're claiming the general public doesn't give a fuck about all these "confusing" legal problems. The public wants to know what legal accountability he has for January 6th. The other stuff is "too messy." Now you tell me what is so messy about lying to get a bank loan? It seems to me, t he general public, voters, ought to understand it. That isn't complicated. And how about lying on your income tax returns? Not so hard to understand. Or stealing classified documents and hiding them in a toilet? Or rapiing a woman?

These TV pundits are fucking worthless. they pull it out of their asses and because they have this platform to speak to millions with authority, it confers credibility on their assertions, and weight is given to their pronouncements, when honestly, anyone of us with two brain cells working, some common sense, and being up to speed on what's going on, could do a better job of figuring this out. The Media sets the agenda. If the media makes it important, and repeatedly pounds it home that something terrible is happening, the public buys it. (E-mails!!!) So if the average voter doesn't pay attention or care it is because the media has done a piss poor job of covering it. HOW they cover it is just as important as the basic reporting.

8th amendment?

At least the pundits got something right. Most of the cases are too complicated for most to care about. Also the media is fragmented. You can’t change the minds of Fox or MSNBC voters. They’re locked in and don’t want to hear anything that challenges their belief system.

R99? Why would you want to change the mind of an MSNBC viewer? Is your name Ronna, by any chance?

First, R51 has it wrong about the Eighth Amendment. This is not bail or a fine, it is a disgorgement which means that it is merely the guilty (and he, his sons, his employees and critically, his Organization have already been found guilty) have to repay their ill-gotten gains, and it is neither cruel or unusual because of the size of the overall loan. The number was not drawn out of thin air; it was the simple calculation based on the lower interest rate Trump received due to lying on his financial statements and what he should have paid were he honest in his statements.

What this appeals court stay does is show us the higher tier of our two-tier system of justice. Clearly, if you're wealthy, you can afford the lawyers to game the system. While it infuriates those of us seeking justice against the greatest con man to befall our nation, it also shows the MAGAts that the judicial system is flexible enough to give every defendant every opportunity to prove their innocence. It was actually a thing of beauty when Alina Hobba spiked the ball on the 50-yard line claiming victory on Fox after the ruling. It gave the Court the clear opening to say that Trump and his crime family have been given every opportunity to clear their names, and their guilt re-evaluated.

Note that the appeals court didn't overrule or reduce the disgorgement amount, but merely the bond that Trump will have to post in order to stave off collection. What's even more interesting is that the appeals court offered no rationale for their decision, casting their legitimacy in doubt while simultaneously acknowledging that the Eighth Amendment does not apply here for that is the simplest reason they could have offered.

And now, the question is whether he'll be able to come up with $175 million in nine days, or if he'll just go on bleating his narcissistic claims of persecution. It doesn't help his case in the court, and not being able to come up with 35% of the original amount doesn't score Trump any points in the court of public opinion. If a billionaire can't come up with what amounts to the coins in his sofa after an oligarch house party, he isn't a billionaire.

And the icing on the cake is that the MAGAts' donations are going to pay Trump's legal fees, and not on down ballot races, getting out the vote, or even giving him the resources to have rallies (you do know he cancelled a rally in Arizona this week because he couldn't afford it, right?). The Trump campaign is so broke they've had to raid the RNC... that has even less money than his campaign.

R101 stay tuned… stay pressed

Trump’s novelty stock is trading at $69 a share, making him with $6 billion (on paper).

His stupid Troth Sential website stock is a bubble. The price will crash soon enough. And it has never made a profit. Would you invest in a company run by Devin Nunes and Kash Patel?????

It’s an inflated bubble and scam like everything with this man. The stock will soon come down to $2. But his fans will frame it as a “It’s a Wonderful Life” moment. And lose billions…..

Stock is up. As of 1:05 PM:

$72.59 up 46%

Stock symbol: DJT

Who’s buying this shit?

Russians

I would hedge heavily against this stock if I had the mullah.

Disgorgement = cough it up

Or puke it up, we don’t care!

I wonder if deplorables and wealthy Republicans are buying the stock to help him, or if it’s just traders looking to make an easy profit before the stock tanks. The company is millions of dollars in the red.

R99, In the words of Tom Cruise, "You're glib." Nobody who thinks for a minute would equate the viewers of FOX and MSNBC.

R111, You think somehow Trump "deplorables" know anything about this deal let alone how to purchase stocks?

This is all an inside scheme.

Even if the Trump stock goes down to $10, he could sell it for $790M. He always comes out in top.

There are plenty of rich Deplora-tards willing to buy thousands of dollars worth of junk DJT stock. Just watch any of the Trumpettes videos from Mar-a-Lago and you'll see these freaks that have likely spent tens if not hundreds of thousands in plastic surgery so they can look like Jocelyn Wildenstein. These are not people who would make wise investment decisions.

But when it crashes, they'll just somehow blame it on Biden, Democrats, and/or the regulators. Their lard and savior Trump can do no wrong.

THe Deplorables really identify with Trump. All his schemes and dreams are all failures. They can identify with failure..

"... and not being able to come up with 35% of the original amount doesn't score Trump any points"

Especially after Friday, when he already said he had raised the full amount. Oops.

Gag the maggot.

The stock is a meme stock. It’s going to be like a Game Stop situation. Obviously. It’s primarily individual investors. Once it starts to go down, it’s going to crash. Trump will never realise anything from it. FB trades at 10x its value. DJT is currently trading at about 2,000x its value, maybe more. It’s not exactly a blue chip stock.

Also, it’s a different case, but I had no idea Judge Marchan was so cute.

This $6 billion company is housed in an abandoned office.

Not sus at all!

[quote]Not sus at all!

Looks fine and on the up-and-up to me.

Truth Social spacious office space.

Someone’s gonna make bank shorting that shit!

[quote] First, [R51] has it wrong about the Eighth Amendment. This is not bail or a fine, it is a disgorgement which means that it is merely the guilty (and he, his sons, his employees and critically, his Organization have already been found guilty) have to repay their ill-gotten gains, and it is neither cruel or unusual because of the size of the overall loan.

I read that there was no harm proven, so nothing to “repay”. Since the organization did pay back the loans, there’s no harm. The fine in this case is a fine.

#121, that video was from a year ago. Why does it seem current?

[quote]So what you're saying, [R51]/[R53] is what Trump has been saying all along: under the American judicial system, a fat, rich, entitled prick of a white man can do whatever the fuck he wants, including destroying democracy, without the slightest legal ramification?

See Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee...

[quote]So what you're saying, [R51]/[R53] is what Trump has been saying all along: under the American judicial system, a fat, rich, entitled prick of a white man can do whatever the fuck he wants, including destroying democracy, without the slightest legal ramification?

Blyew v. United States

Blyew v. United States (1871), was a court case that originated in Lewis County, Kentucky, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the states right to forbid African Americans to testify against white people.

FYI:

On August 29, 1868, two white men by the names of John Blyew and George Kennard entered the house of the Foster family, an African American home in Lewis County, Kentucky. The two white men had a woman with them, and they were arguing with the Foster family insisting they needed to house the woman. The two white men attacked the family with an axe; four African-Americans died and many were injured, including children. Kennard used an axe and another bladed tool to hack at the bodies of the family members. Jack, his wife Sallie, and his grandmother Lucy Armstrong, who was blind, were killed outright. Richard, the Foster's 16-year old son, hid under his father's body. He later regained consciousness and crawled 300 yards to a neighbor's house for help, but died two days later. The two youngest children were the only survivors: 8-year-old Laura Foster, who hid, and her 6-year-old sister Amelia, who was hacked in the head, but lived.

The case was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in April 1872 addressing the civil rights of African Americans, as well as states' rights issues. The case involved the testimony of African-American victims of the attack. At the time of the murders, Kentucky law prohibited the testimony of a "Negro" against a white man and barred African Americans from serving on juries (the law was repealed in 1872) The testimony revealed that among the reasons for the murders was retaliation for the American Civil War and the potential for another war about African Americans. According to Blyew, Kennard had declared that "he thought there would soon be another war about the niggers; that when it did come, he intended to go to killing niggers, and he was not sure that he would not begin his work of killing them before the war should actually commence." The case was eventually moved to federal court, where the attackers were convicted. Both men were sentenced to death by hanging.

The State of Kentucky then appealed the case to the Supreme Court citing states' rights in defense of its laws prohibiting African Americans from testifying against whites. The case was a test of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court ruled that victims were not entitled to protection from the state law because the word "affected" in the law did not apply to victims of crimes who are not defendants in a case. Noah Swayne (the first Republican appointed to the Supreme Court) and Joseph Bradley dissented. Civil rights legislation was subsequently modified and comments in the dissent are noted for putting forth a group right to the adequate protection of the law. Justice William Strong wrote that any case involving an African American witness could be brought to a Federal Court if the court had ruled for the victims and upheld the right of African Americans to testify in court.

R128 con't

The case was moved back to state court. Blyew's case ended in a hung jury. In 1873, however, before he could be retried, he escaped from prison with several other inmates. He was recaptured in 1890, found guilty of murder, and sentenced to life in prison. Blyew was pardoned by Governor William Jackson Worthington, who had expressed doubts over the evidence used to convict him, on December 8, 1896. He was reported living with his daughter in Ohio in 1900. In 1876, Kennard was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison with hard labor. According to one report at the time, his refusal to escape when he had the judge may have been in a factor in the jury's decision to spare his life. Kennard was pardoned by Governor Luke P. Blackburn on health grounds on March 28, 1885, and died on April 5, 1923, at the age of 82.

Last one (I promise)

On October 29th, 1861, Robert Schell, a white man, walked into a San Francisco barbershop, pulled out a gun and shot George Gordon, the African American proprietor. There were eyewitnesses to the killing, but there was one problem. They were all black. And at the time, California had laws that banned black people or “mulattoes” from testifying against whites in court. So, the judge refused to allow the witnesses to give evidence about what they had seen. There was however, one white man who had also seen Schell commit the murder. Or at least he identified as white. But the defense attorney objected to his testimony as well, claiming that he was really black. The judge ordered James Cowes, the witness, to undergo a humiliating physical examination of the hair all over his body to determine his race. Supposed racial science experts concluded that Cowes was in fact black, and he was not allowed to testify. Without his key testimony, the killer got a lenient sentence of just two years. The murder of the prominent black businessman and civil rights activist caused a public outcry and galvanized opposition to the exclusion laws.

Here's my point with these examples;

Laws (like the examples) have passed (many are still on the books) and have been upheld. When it comes to white male privilege, white supremacy, or whatever you want to call it, is still a very relevant factor--especially when heavily financed. None of us should be surprised should Trump walk out of this pretty much unscathed. First, (IMHO) there are many who are afraid of going down in the history of the USA as being the "first" and responsible for punishing/convicting a POTUS. Second, many are afraid of the "backlash" or retribution that will be exacted by those who were targeted/convicted.

As far as the DJT stock, many should refer back to the scam/grift of his previous DJT stock (Trump Casinos) when that was a public entity

[quote]#121, that video was from a year ago. Why does it seem current?

I'm sorry, did they acquire shiny new offices since then?

I could be wrong but my guess is "no".

R127, I've often thought that one of the US government's biggest mistakes was in not hanging either of those men.

I agree, R132--especially since they themselves expected to be hanged for treason.

Who was the woman needing housing in the first case cited and what became of her?

Now we’re going back in time 163 years ago to own the MAGAS

[quote]Now we’re going back in time 163 years ago to own the MAGAS

Well, if we must go back in time, then we must, R135. The point here is that while situations have indeed improved and we have progressed as a nation, there are still many deeply rooted (worse than a dandelion root) veins of racism in this nation that goes farther back than the Civil War, that still impact this country today. And like dandelions, if they are not rooted out and/or snipped then they will spread just like wildfire

I don't remember, R134. Should I get ambitious I'll pull the case for you and get you your answer.

Does anyone know if Dump is barred from selling his LieSocial stock for six months? There was discussion about that, then someone said that the board could wave that restriction.

Both statements are true, R137. But his selling before the lockup period would be the opening for a slew of lawsuits.

R138, so is he barred? Or is he not selling because of potential lawsuits? The reason I ask is that Dump seemingly has no problem with lawsuits. If he cashes in and makes $3 billion, I don’t think the threat of a lawsuit would bother him.

My understanding is that rest of the Board would have to approve and that would open them up to lawsuits as well. (Feel free to correct if I am wrong)

Cheats at everything and on everyone. True sociopath.

The Courts disagree with you, R125. There are laws that specifically prohibit lying on financial statements including for the purposes of obtaining favorable rates and benefits. You're pushing Trump's excuses. I'd suggest you go speak with the tens of thousands of people currently sitting in prison for lying on mortgage applications despite paying their mortgages on time and, in many cases, in full.

Thanks ElderLez, I’m sure if the board has to approve, they won’t.

THe board is handpicked by Trump:Devin Nunes, Don, Jr. etc.

[quote]Thanks ElderLez, I’m sure if the board has to approve, they won’t.

Don't be so sure. The board consists of Trump acolytes like Don Jr., Devin Nunes, Kash Patel and Linda McMahon. MENSA candidates they ain't.

R135, Way not to comprehend the post or history, nor the adage about being doomed to repeat it (yes, I'm aware of Santayana; are you?). And if you'll check the Oval Office, you'll see just who "owns" whom.

You do know that, as we "speak," various schools, communities, states, and their representaives are fighting and legislating over Confederate artifacts, flags, and monuments?

And, of course, the White Christian Supremacy movement, the Civil War, 1968, modern Charlottesville, BLM, etc.

So yes, r135, "going back" is important.

Are there thousands of people in prison for fraud for lying on their mortgage applications? I heard that analogy on a podcast today which also mentioned prison and losing their house but I’ve never read about it happening.

Does anyone else remember Brad Garrett presenting at the Emmys (??) in 2000 when he drew attention to a beautiful young blonde on stage with him by saying something to the effect of, "You all know Hadassah Lieberman"?

^ Oops, wrong thread.

WOW! John Eastman disbarred!

R148, as a person who volunteers inside a maximum security facility, I assure you that white collared criminals are not in our system. They are the Haves, so they get to only pay penalties. If you’re a poor drug addict, you do hard time. If you grew up in a crime-infested gang culture with a 7th grade education, you do time. If your mother raised you in public housing while she was a heroin addicted prostitute, you do time. But stealing from your fellow citizens???? Pay your ticket and just move it along toots, we will pretend it never happened.

We have two systems of justice, one for the Haves, the rest for the Have Nots. So pardon me if I don’t weep and wail that TFG is actually for once in his entire stinking life receiving a single consequence. And he isn’t losing a home, please don’t make exaggerated statements like that. So he’s getting squeezed by Uncle Sam……am I to pity him? He created this! And I want to see more similarly-minded people go into law to start aggressively prosecuting white collared criminals. I could give two fucks if this is too stiff a penalty or not, I think it is far overdue because of his blatant disregard of both laws and norms. Fry ‘im! Cook his ass! I hope they *break* him if only for all the division he has sowed in this country. I’m in poor health, my dream is to see him get kicked hard in the nuts before I drop from this mortal coil….

R148 As someone who has worked years as manager of a bank's financial investigation team, I can assure you there are many people who were indicted, convicted and sentenced to prison and severe penalties for having committed more than one count of financial crimes such as money laundering, bank fraud, tax evasion, failure to file foreign assets report, structuring cash deposit, etc..