President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

If it's a totalitarian state maybe. In a free society. ... people do business with each other without the state arbitrarily setting terms.

Deutsche Bank lent Donald Trump money. They collateralized it with property. It's up to Deustche Bank to decide whether that collateral protects their interests. There is no legitimate reason in a free society for the state of New York or Letitia James to ever have her nose in their business.

In that courtroom she was arguing that he had lied about the value of that collateral and had defrauded Deutsche Bank. That's not HER place. Deutsche Bank could have (should have) been doing it's own due diligence -- for example, measured the size of his apartment -- and even absent that, THEY ARE NOT claiming they were defrauded. If they are fine, there was no legal harm. The state of New York claims that it is somehow protecting other people with an action like that. But it's nonsense. ... and authoritarian. Let's say you sell your home. Let's say some law lets the state go after you for misvaluing the home. ... they are just protecting people in some vague way that makes no sense. So now a judge gets to substitute his judgment for how much your house was really worth. ... and tell you you have to give some of the proceeds back to New York state (in what could be argued is an extortion). That, despite the fact that the buyer who willingly paid what you sold the house for was fine with it and never claimed you did anything wrong. Take "Donald Trump" and "karma" and all the non sequitors you have thrown into your posts out of it. ... and it's the same exact thing.

 

1) I give a fuck because when you take that attitude, you erode everyone's individual rights. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Today it's Donald Trump. When it's you tomorrow. ... you endorsed it when you didn't give a fuck because it was karma for a guy you think is a dick.

2) His lawyer did not help him. ... the constant bullshit and the attacks. They should have just argued it in kind of the way I am suggesting. But the law itself still was the problem, not his lawyer. He should have never been in a court room in the first place. Once he was, he didn't stand a chance and that particular judge given the ability to substitute anything he wanted for the supposed "harm" Trump did was going to hit him hard.

 

This wasn't a regulatory issue. I was posting about a civil legal case brought by a district attorney under the auspices of a law that allows the state of New York to arbitrarily stick its nose into private business transactions. It had zero to do with bank regulation. 1929 or whatever other stupid thing you are about to post next had zero to do with it. But good for you for getting me respond to your dancing bear act, I guess. I am sure it's fun for you.