Why the silence about Trump/NY?

[CardinalBacker]

Isn't it weird how this board can't ever seem to talk about the obvious story of the day when it's NOT favorable to Trump?

 

The NY scenario honestly seems like a giant hoax to me, and takes away from investigations that seem to have actual merit in my opinion... like the 1/6 inquiry (not so much), the Georgia Election Interference Investigation and the Mar A Lago Docs investigation...

[baddog]

7 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Isn't it weird how this board can't ever seem to talk about the obvious story of the day when it's NOT favorable to Trump?

 

The NY scenario honestly seems like a giant hoax to me, and takes away from investigations that seem to have actual merit in my opinion... like the 1/6 inquiry (not so much), the Georgia Election Interference Investigation and the Mar A Lago Docs investigation...

That’s all you see and want to talk about. Who’s the weird one?

[baddog]

 

[mat]

Trump is no saint but less credible is anything that comes out of New York. I don’t care to dig for the facts but since it’s a civil suit I assume there was not much criminal.    They are throwing everything at him including the kitchen sink hoping something sticks or sways the voters. They are that scared of him. I’m not a huge Trump fan but I am much more opposed to the liberal base.

[myrecordwashorrible]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Isn't it weird how this board can't ever seem to talk about the obvious story of the day when it's NOT favorable to Trump?

 

The NY scenario honestly seems like a giant hoax to me, and takes away from investigations that seem to have actual merit in my opinion... like the 1/6 inquiry (not so much), the Georgia Election Interference Investigation and the Mar A Lago Docs investigation...

The story of the day is what the democrats want us focused on.  So, you are presently wrong. THE story of the day is the stock market plunge. Appreciate that you are a conservative, but your views of Trump blind you to real stories.  

[baddog]

If I am accused of a crime, shouldn’t I be charged, taken to jail, arraigned, brought to trial, etc….? Then, if convicted, be sentenced to jail time and then the lawsuits follow? TVC could clear this up

[tvc184]

17 minutes ago, baddog said:

If I am accused of a crime, shouldn’t I be charged, taken to jail, arraigned, brought to trial, etc….? Then, if convicted, be sentenced to jail time and then the lawsuits follow? TVC could clear this up

You are correct. It doesn’t take me to clear it up.

Anyone can claim that they are investigating someone. Look at the big news (or comedy skit) this week about a Texas sheriff claiming that he is investigating Governor DeSantis of Florida for the Martha’s Vineyard entertainment.

Sure, investigate all you want. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an indictment on that case. 

[LumRaiderFan]

lol

[baddog]

50 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

You are correct. It doesn’t take me to clear it up.

Anyone can claim that they are investigating someone. Look at the big news (or comedy skit) this week about a Texas sheriff claiming that he is investigating Governor DeSantis of Florida for the Martha’s Vineyard entertainment.

Sure, investigate all you want. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an indictment on that case. 

Thank you. I am simply having trouble with lawsuits trying to uncover criminal intent. For me it doesn’t follow due process. I have been wrong before. 

[Unwoke]

33 minutes ago, baddog said:

Thank you. I am simply having trouble with lawsuits trying to uncover criminal intent. For me it doesn’t follow due process. I have been wrong before. 

Hell… they don’t even have to uncover anything on Trump, Our own government has literally made stuff up to try an prosecute him i.e. the Russian Hoax along with other doctored things. Our country is in serious trouble. 
 

 

 

 

[thetragichippy]

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You are correct. It doesn’t take me to clear it up.

Anyone can claim that they are investigating someone. Look at the big news (or comedy skit) this week about a Texas sheriff claiming that he is investigating Governor DeSantis of Florida for the Martha’s Vineyard entertainment.

Sure, investigate all you want. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an indictment on that case. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to have a victim in a civil case?

If trump did in fact say I think my property is worth 20 million, gets a loan based on that amount and pays it off, I don't see a victim. I see a bank that made interest off of a 20 million loan. 

Also, banks don't take customers words on value....if you purchase a house, you, the customer pay for an appraisal, typically up front and it is not rolled in closing.  And commercial appraisals are based on size.....they can run into the thousands of dollars....

 

I hope they throw out this case 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to have a victim in a civil case?

If trump did in fact say I think my property is worth 20 million, gets a loan based on that amount and pays it off, I don't see a victim. I see a bank that made interest off of a 20 million loan. 

Also, banks don't take customers words on value....if you purchase a house, you, the customer pay for an appraisal, typically up front and it is not rolled in closing.  And commercial appraisals are based on size.....they can run into the thousands of dollars....

 

I hope they throw out this case 

It depends on the laws in that state. You cat be jailed for some civil actions.

A state can classify or enact a law in any manner as long as it doesn’t violate the US Constitution or their state constitution.  It would be their decision by their supreme court if it follows the state constitution. 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to have a victim in a civil case?

If trump did in fact say I think my property is worth 20 million, gets a loan based on that amount and pays it off, I don't see a victim. I see a bank that made interest off of a 20 million loan. 

Also, banks don't take customers words on value....if you purchase a house, you, the customer pay for an appraisal, typically up front and it is not rolled in closing.  And commercial appraisals are based on size.....they can run into the thousands of dollars....

 

I hope they throw out this case 

Their is a term used in both Texas criminal and civil law. It is “material” or “materiality”.

So while a person might not be exactly truthful, would it have any real bearing on the case or issue.

If I am giving a statement to the police about some incident that I witnessed like a murder, and during the questioning  the office asked, what were you doing at the time? Let’s say I told the officer I was coming back from the beach and I caught the biggest redfish of my life while I was there.  Let’s say I gave a completely true statement about what I witnessed in the murder but lied about the biggest fish of my life. Would that be material as part of the investigation?

Or being a banker, what if on a loan application a person said he makes about $150,000 a year gross? During a search of the records it was determined that he only made $145,000 a year on average. Is that really material? What if he claimed $500,000? 

So while a bank might not be a victim, if a person grossly exaggerated  his worth, it could still be a law violation in falsifying a document…. depending on state law. 

[Reagan]

8 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Isn't it weird how this board can't ever seem to talk about the obvious story of the day when it's NOT favorable to Trump?

 

The NY scenario honestly seems like a giant hoax to me, and takes away from investigations that seem to have actual merit in my opinion... like the 1/6 inquiry (not so much), the Georgia Election Interference Investigation and the Mar A Lago Docs investigation...

The mere fact that the Demonrats keep these charades up are, again — a clear sign that they are extremely afraid of Trump.  I think people are finally realizing that these are just nothing more than a continuing clown show.   

[Unwoke]

The Democrat’s strategy for the 2022 midterms is obvious …

1) Talk about Trump 24/7 to deflect from their massive failures and economic destruction.

2) Lie about everything and don’t do debates - because debates would prove they lie about everything.

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, Unwoke said:

The Democrat’s strategy for the 2022 midterms is obvious …

1) Talk about Trump 24/7 to deflect from their massive failures and economic destruction.

2) Lie about everything and don’t do debates - because debates would prove they lie about everything.

Don’t forget…

3) Pour money into conservative Republican’s campaigns so they can attack their policies when they become the Republican choice.

democrats are a sad lot.

[Big girl]

Trump said he can declassify documents by merely thinking about it.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[BS Wildcats]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Trump said he can declassify documents by merely thinking about it.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And that has exactly what to do with the charade out of NY?  Reading comprehension letting you down again?

[tvc184]

According to factcheck.org, under the title of dubious Trump orders, set out in an apparent attempt to prove him wrong… but couldn’t.

Former prosecutors in the article made the claim that classification is not relevant, making it appear that it isn’t an issue. 

 The conclusion was that no one knows and the Supreme Court has not made such a ruling. It might be a huge constitutional issue and the separation of powers. Can Congress impose restraints on constitutional guarantees of a president as the commander in chief? As an example: In the impeachment of Trump, it was questioned whether the accusations against him rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution and in a comment (not an official ruling) Chief Justice Roberts said that the Supreme Court had no say so on the issue as it is an authority under Article I of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can’t override a constitutional guarantee with another branch of government. So can Congress as a branch of government, order a president, a branch of government, on what to do as the commander in chief? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Big girl]

17 hours ago, tvc184 said:

According to factcheck.org, under the title of dubious Trump orders, set out in an apparent attempt to prove him wrong… but couldn’t.

Former prosecutors in the article made the claim that classification is not relevant, making it appear that it isn’t an issue. 

 The conclusion was that no one knows and the Supreme Court has not made such a ruling. It might be a huge constitutional issue and the separation of powers. Can Congress impose restraints on constitutional guarantees of a president as the commander in chief? As an example: In the impeachment of Trump, it was questioned whether the accusations against him rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution and in a comment (not an official ruling) Chief Justice Roberts said that the Supreme Court had no say so on the issue as it is an authority under Article I of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can’t override a constitutional guarantee with another branch of government. So can Congress as a branch of government, order a president, a branch of government, on what to do as the commander in chief? 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Are you saying that a President can think in his mind that a document is declassified ? I read that there is process. The special master asked him to show him the steps he took to declassify them

 

[tvc184]

29 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Are you saying that a President can think in his mind that a document is declassified ? I read that there is process. The special master asked him to show him the steps he took to declassify them

 

The process is the problem.

 Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can set limitations on constitutional authority of a president? Everybody in the fact check article, even the Democrats who claim the “process” said that ultimately it is the president’s call on what is classified. Their claim is that he has to come ask first even though they cannot intervene.

It is like I explained on the Trump impeachment by the House. It was questioned by the Republicans if anything brought up rose to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor as “required” in the Constitution. In other words, if Trump did everything that was claimed, is it enough to constitutionally remove a president?

 The Chief Justice said that it doesn’t matter.  The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine what is a high crime or misdemeanor since it was not defined in the Constitution. No one else including the president or the Supreme Court, can change that. The Republicans asked Chief Justice Roberts to step in and end the trial in the Senate. His response was that he has no such constitutional authority.  The Constitution clearly gives the House the authority to impeach and he cannot change that but he has to, by the Constitution, act as the presiding judge. 
 

As an example, if the Republicans take back the House in a few weeks, their first action in January can be to impeach Biden. If the Democrats argue, there is no good reason, the Chief Justice has spoken. He is the presiding judge in the Senate for removal and he said that he has no authority to step in on Congress’s constitutional authority.

What might be comical if that happens, the Democrats who laughed at the Republicans for claiming that the House didn’t have the authority two years ago, would now claim the exact same thing that they previously hailed as the law. 

It is the same with presidential authority. You questioned Ihe “process”.  Does Congress have the constitutional authority to tell the president what to do as the commander in chief?

The Democrats claim is that yes because Obama said so. And no, I am not kidding. Does Obama have the authority to override the Constitution because that is the claim from the Democrats, Obama set out a process.  As an example then, could Trump has cut an executive order that future presidents could not make treaties with other countries where the Constitution says ONLY the president can make treaties? Does the Constitution say, this is the law unless a president doesn’t like it for future presidents? 

As I said in my first comment, the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on presidential authority or a congressional requirement on classified documents, much of which is likely constitutional and goes into the separation of powers.

 Whether Trump can verbalize it, put it in writing or merely take a briefcase home with him (his thoughts), can Congress or a former president ban him from doing so?

So far there is no legal answer from the Supreme Court. 

[Unwoke]

19 hours ago, Big girl said:

Are you saying that a President can think in his mind that a document is declassified ? I read that there is process. The special master asked him to show him the steps he took to declassify them

 

 

 

[BS Wildcats]

3 hours ago, Unwoke said:

 

 

Let’s see if big girl can muster up some outrage for this one

[Bobcat1]

I like to get my news updated from Pho_Realizzle also. 

[Big girl]

43 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

I like to get my news updated from Pho_Realizzle also. 

😃😃😃😃😃😃