President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

It's arbitrary power regardless of who she uses it against. But Christ, of course she did it BECAUSE it was Donald Trump. That kind of bullshit could have any number of people in a court room in New York City. ... and she's not spending her time that way.

And no, an unjust law is not a "c'est la vie" thing to me because it was passed in a democracy. We're supposed to be better than that, and we're supposed to have a bill of rights and system that helps protect our individual rights and civil liberties.

But injustices happen. ... and I'm not like you, I guess.

Jim Crow laws existed in this country. When Rosa Parks was found guilty, if I were sitting there telling you that it was an injustice and the law as it existed was being used to violate her civil rights. ... I'm sure you would have been telling me that it's great because it all had happened in a democratic way.

 

This wasn't a prosecution. It was a civil fraud case. And once again. ... Deutsche Bank -- the actual entity that would have been impacted by Trump "misstating" his assets -- has never claimed fraud, never sued him for fraud, and as far as any of us know, is still is fine with how THEY collateralized those loans to protect THEIR interests.

No. ... a judge at the behest of the state should not be empowered to substitute his judgments in that transaction for what the actual parties were perfectly fine with.

 

The state shouldn't have the abusive power to civilly go after people for fraud, when the supposed VICTIM ISN'T CLAIMING THEY WERE DEFRAUDED.

We have a civil system that allowed Deutsche Bank to seek remedy from Donald Trump if they -- you know, the one actually INVOLVED in the transaction -- thought they had been defrauded.

They never did. And in fact, what is funny about people mixing up this with a prosecution. ... is the fact that she went into court with that horseshit at all was that she TRIED to bring a criminal prosecution -- that was the focus of the investigation -- and didn't think she had the goods to get a conviction. So she found something pliable enough to use her considerable power to get him.

No, I don't want a judicial system that relies on you (or anyone else) deciding who is weak and who isn't, with the law manipulated based on who is deserving and who isn't. It's exactly what made Jim Crow laws POSSIBLE.

The rest of your post. ... is you not addressing anything I am saying.

 

Yes, it was an AG not a DA.

I so disagree with you about this: "That the banks aren't complaining is irrelevant." In a civil case, there needs to be harm. ... and they would be the ones harmed if they don't secure enough collateral to back a loan. That doesn't even take into account that it's incumbent on them to do their due diligence. Trump says his 11,000 square foot apartment is 30,000 square feet? It's not like they have to make that loan without appraising the apartment independently.

It is not the same as people who make false statements on their mortgage applications, because the state would prosecute them criminally for that. It's a felony. The bank could seek redress civilly if they wanted (it's not worth it to them usually). Letitia James wouldn't be involved in a civil proceeding related to that.

What happened here was that she didn't think she could win a criminal prosecution of any sort after they dug and investigated. ... so she relied on some convoluted law that allowed her to give herself standing to claim fraud in a transaction that she wasn't a party to. The state should not have that kind of power. It's abusive.