ADVERTISEMENT

The legal system itself, hand-in-glove with left-wing politicos, is turning the process of balloting and elections into an embarrassing farce...

30CAT

Platinum Buffalo
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
43,064
2,635
113
Clearly all of this is an effort to take Trump off the ballot and punish him for even running. Democrats and the progressive left are crooked, evil and are destroying our country.
..........................................

Victor Davis Hanson: $83M 'embarrassing farce' just a taste of what awaits Trump

$83 million?

In a furor, Donald Trump stormed out of a New York courtroom after the conclusion of the defamation suit brought by author and dating/boyfriend/sex-advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

The Carroll suit was just settled against Trump for $83.3 million! It was largely subsidized by Reid Hoffman, a billionaire capitalist and mega-donor to the Democratic Party and left-wing causes.

The subtext of Trump’s rage, aside from the outrageous monetary size of the defamation ruling, is that he was facing — and angered — a left-wing claimant, a quite hostile left-wing judge, and a left-wing New York jury.

The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional left-wing criminal prosecutions, left-wing judges, and left-wing juries to come — all on charges that would have never been filed if Trump had either not run for president or been a liberal progressive.

Yet, here we are.

The E. Jean Carroll case is the most baffling of all five. She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of bizarre inconsistencies in her story, some of them seemingly exculpatory of Trump.

It was never clear what the preliminaries were that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours, the alleged assault took place.

Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto — and only after Trump was running for and then became president.

Carroll eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired, thus the case seemed defunct.

Her claims of defamation injuries arise in part from being fired from her advice column job at ELLE magazine.

She claimed that Trump’s sharp denials and ad hominem retorts led her career and reputation to ruin. But the loss of a column for anyone at 76 does not seem such a rare occurrence, and the absence of a salaried job for four years in one’s late seventies does not seem to equate to an $83 million hit.

Notably, the allegation that her dispute with Trump led to her firing was strongly denied by the very magazine that cut her loose.

But then another strange thing happened. In 2022, a new law, "The Adult Survivors Act," was passed by the New York legislature. It also post facto established a twelve-month window (beginning six months from the signing of the bill) that permitted survivors of long ago alleged sexual assaults to suddenly sue their accused long-ago perpetrator — regardless of the previous statute of limitations.

That unexpected opening suddenly gave Carroll’s prior unsuccessful efforts a rebirth. And she quickly refiled with the help of arch-Trump-hating billionaire Hoffman.

Yet the bill may have been introduced with Trump particularly in mind — given the legislator who introduced it, Democratic state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Siga, was known as another Trump antagonist.

More interestingly, Hoylman-Siga had earlier introduced and had passed another Trump-targeted bill. That "TRUST" act empowered particular federal Congressional committees to access New York State's once-sealed tax returns of high-ranking government elected officials — such as Trump.

That bill’s generally agreed subtext was a green light for anti-Trump members of Congress to obtain legal access to Donald J. Trump's tax returns.

So there is an eerie feeling that the New York legislature may have abruptly passed legislation that was aimed at the past conduct of Donald Trump but only after he entered the political arena.

While these are not quite bills of attainder, there is something unsettling if they are post facto laws aimed at targeting the most famous and controversial man in America and the leading candidate for the presidency.

In essence, they were targeted statutes designed to make Trump’s prior legally unactionable behavior suddenly quite legally actionable.

Trump will be subject to such special treatment all summer and fall.

Prosecutors Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Jack Smith, and Fani Willis will synchronize their court business for maximum effect.

Trump again will face left-wing big-city prosecutors, judges, and juries on charges that are politically driven, involving alleged behavior that is either usually not criminalized or not to the same degree as in Trump’s case. (Do we remember the nearly $375,000 federal fine belatedly leveled at an exempt homObama but only five years after his 2008 efforts to avoid identifying all the names of contributors to his campaign?).

The stakes are higher each day as Trump closes in on the Republican presidential nomination and thus becomes the hope of half the country to end the Pedo-Joe madness.

Somehow, Trump will have to stay calm and give no opening to his legion of hostile prosecutors, all while conducting a nonstop campaign against Pedo-Joe (and for a while, Haley), and while fighting to keep his name on various state ballots.

So what we are witnessing is not even the extralegal efforts of Steele/Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie/DNC/Hilliary Clinton in 2016, or the 2020 "Russian disinformation" ruse/change the voting laws/infuse half a billion dollars to absorb the work of the registrar machinations against Trump

We are way beyond all that. The legal system itself, hand-in-glove with left-wing politicos (compare campaign boasts of James and Willis, or prosecutorial visits to the January 6 committee and the White House) is turning the process of balloting and elections into an embarrassing farce.

Still, Trump will have to soldier on. He must stay controlled amid the tsunamis, not play into the hands of his accusers, and remember that he may soon be the only eleventh-hour hope to stop this mockery of American law, customs and traditions.

 
Maybe you can write a book when you hear what your orange jesus will have to pay in the real estate fraud case.
 
I want to know how it's a fraud case when the bank was reapaid in full?
Don't worry Bubba. Your orange jesus won't be found guilty in this case either. Just liable. And being found liable will probably cost him several hundred million.
 
Don't worry Bubba. Your orange jesus won't be found guilty in this case either. Just liable. And being found liable will probably cost him several hundred million.
Liable for what? The bank received their money. So where is the fraud?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT
^^^^cons being idiots. You're acting as if it's not a done deal. He's already been found liable. It's down to how much money he will pay.
 
^^^^cons being idiots. You're acting as if it's not a done deal. He's already been found liable. It's down to how much money he will pay.

And you're being a dumbass. As usual.

Appeals with unbiased judges and jurors.
 
The fact that anyone would support changing laws to target specific people for political reasons is just in-American. They should understand, just observing history, that no one, or nothing, is safe when the government and press side together to institute an agenda of dominance over the populace.

I suggest people on both sides of the spectrum go and watch the Tucker Carlson interview of Russell Brand.
 
And you're being a dumbass. As usual.

Appeals with unbiased judges and jurors.
You're a lying idiot magat. Your orange jesus is appealing rulings for which he's been found liable. Until an appeal is reversed, he's been found liable. In the meantime your oj still has to come up with bond money. Lots of it.
 
I suggest people on both sides of the spectrum go and watch the Tucker Carlson interview of Russell Brand.
Let me get this straight:

You want people to go and learn something from a discussion led by a guy whose own employer argued under oath that he doesn't provide accurate information, exaggerates, shouldn't be taken literally, should be looked at with skepticism, and no reasonable person would take as stating factual information interviewing a guy who has rape and sexual assault allegations from numerous people?

You might be a deplorable if . . .
 
Let me get this straight:

You want people to go and learn something from a discussion led by a guy whose own employer argued under oath that he doesn't provide accurate information, exaggerates, shouldn't be taken literally, should be looked at with skepticism, and no reasonable person would take as stating factual information interviewing a guy who has rape and sexual assault allegations from numerous people?

You might be a deplorable if . . .
Oh hell Fox was doing that because they were afraid of political ramifications. They loved the stories until they got afraid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT
Don't need to. I know the bank didn't claim fraud and nothing was wrong with the loans that got paid back. Just more butthurt limp wristed leftists out to get the orange man.
Hey Bubba, maybe a legal definition of fraud might jump start your dead brain...

As usually applied under State laws, the term “fraud or dishonesty” encompasses such matters as larceny, theft, embezzlement, forgery, misappropriation, wrongful abstraction, wrongful conversion, willful misapplication or any other fraudulent or dishonest acts resulting in financial loss.

Hey Bubba, do you see anything in that legal definition of FRAUD that requires the person who was defrauded to complain about financial loss??
 
Let me get this straight:

You want people to go and learn something from a discussion led by a guy whose own employer argued under oath that he doesn't provide accurate information, exaggerates, shouldn't be taken literally, should be looked at with skepticism, and no reasonable person would take as stating factual information interviewing a guy who has rape and sexual assault allegations from numerous people?

You might be a deplorable if . . .
Can you name one person that has accused Russell Brand of rape? Just one.

Actually, that’s the reason you should listen to the interview, but go ahead and keep your head in the sand. Brand was one of the biggest critics of the pandemic response. He pointed out things about British and US health officials taking big positions with Moderna and Pfizer after mandating the vaccines. He did extensive work into the lack of clinical trials for the vaccines, he points out that it was actually British politicians that got him demonitized on social media and then when he kept talking, all of a sudden here comes sex crime allegations.

No victim has ever come forward, no charges have ever been brought, and he is not been interviewed or even made aware of any ongoing investigation. In other words, an accusation was made, picked up, and has disappeared after the objective of getting his podcast shut down was accomplished. They couldn’t have someone they couldn’t label as right-wing not following the narrative.
 
Can you name one person that has accused Russell Brand of rape? Just one.

Actually, that’s the reason you should listen to the interview, but go ahead and keep your head in the sand. Brand was one of the biggest critics of the pandemic response. He pointed out things about British and US health officials taking big positions with Moderna and Pfizer after mandating the vaccines. He did extensive work into the lack of clinical trials for the vaccines, he points out that it was actually British politicians that got him demonitized on social media and then when he kept talking, all of a sudden here comes sex crime allegations.

No victim has ever come forward, no charges have ever been brought, and he is not been interviewed or even made aware of any ongoing investigation. In other words, an accusation was made, picked up, and has disappeared after the objective of getting his podcast shut down was accomplished. They couldn’t have someone they couldn’t label as right-wing not following the narrative.

I like you Banker, but my god, you can be as big of a moron as anybody on here.

Brand has claimed that the encounters with his first four accusers were consensual. If accusers didn't come forward to him, how and why would he ever make that argument? A male actor has gone on the record stating that it was well known among female comedians about Brand's predatory sexual ways. Yet a fifth woman has filed a lawsuit against him (means she had to come forward to an extent) and is also suing some pretty big companies, since they should have known about Brand's actions on set to women.

The accusations haven't disappeared. Police started investigating them in the winter. The lawsuit is still ongoing. There are multiple police investigations by different agencies. A women previously filed stalking and harassment charges against him a couple of years prior to Covid.

And your dumbass believes it's some large conspiracy to get a group of women all over the world to file bogus claims due to his position against BigPharma. I'm the one with my head in the sand? No, you're being a moron with your tinfoil hat.


 
01HPR3YNY1N9ZP81075ZGVM7FA.jpeg



"But it's been met with controversy for not only being very costly, but allegedly inaccurate, ineffective, and even biased."
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT