Bond slashed to 175 million while Trump appeals

[Dill]

(03-28-2024, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Last I looked the 2nd Amendment was still a thing.  Also, the refusal to properly enforce the law in many deep blue urban areas is a direct attack on the rule of law.  Abusing prosecutorial discretion to enact absurd social engineering is thoroughly damaging to the daily functioning of those areas.  I see it literally every day I'm at work.  It would be like a LEO exercising their discretion to not issue citations, but only doing so for straight Asian males.  Except this is far more damaging, as it enables more criminal conduct, which means more victims.  So yeah, one could and it's easily provable.

No. Could not. The "prosecutorial discretion" to which you refer does not signal some party turn to authoritarianism working to secure
the machinery of the state to control elections for a leader who wants immunity from rule of law. You could make a case for bad
policy from this, which will likely trigger policy revision, people voted out of office, etc.  E.g., Oregon's revision of lax drug policy. 

You are still confusing "rule of law" with "law and order."  

[Dill]

(03-28-2024, 11:44 AM)pally Wrote: The architects of this have been working for 40 years towards this goal.  They've put pieces in place including a majority of Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court.  You have a candidate right now who is planning on purging the civil service system because its bloated, not because its incompetent but for political ideology.  You've got state laws that muzzle teachers from essentially anything but right-wing positions

The press is the 'enemy of the people"
Immigrants are here to replace white Americans and are "poisoning the blood"
The drip drip drip of attempting to force right wing evangelical beliefs into the school systems and legal systems
People who disagree with Trumpism are unAmerican and should be "driven out"

Open your eyes!  pooh poohing the rhetoric coming from Trump and his followers is being deliberately ignorant

Yes. Those are danger signs. Anti-democratic (small "d") behavior.

People want a "strong" leader to sort it out. Purge the "liberal elite."

It's happening here. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-28-2024, 05:38 PM)Dill Wrote: No. Could not. The "prosecutorial discretion" to which you refer does not signal some party turn to authoritarianism working to secure
the machinery of the state to control elections for a leader who wants immunity from rule of law.

I didn't say it did.  I was responding to one of pally's criteria.  That being "a Lack of respect for the Constitution and law".  A turn to authoritarianism is not required to illustrate the Democrat's disdain for either.  You're equating my showing the Dems disdain for both as evidence that they have the same, supposed, objectives as Trump.  I am merely illustrating their obvious lack of respect for both.

Quote:You could make a case for bad
policy from this, which will likely trigger policy revision, people voted out of office, etc.  E.g., Oregon's revision of lax drug policy. 

You are still confusing "rule of law" with "law and order."  

No.  Am not.

[Dill]

(03-28-2024, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say it did.  I was responding to one of pally's criteria.  That being "a Lack of respect for the Constitution and law".  A turn to authoritarianism is not required to illustrate the Democrat's disdain for either.  You're equating my showing the Dems disdain for both as evidence that they have the same, supposed, objectives as Trump.  I am merely illustrating their obvious lack of respect for both.

No.  Am not.

Pally's "criteria" were listed in service of the larger point that Trump and the GOP have become a serious threat to US democracy. 
I.e., Trump's turn to authoritarianism, bringing his willing party along, is the threat under discussion.

You quoted these lines together:
How does Trump turn this country into a Totalitarian government...It is easier than we thing
-a Lack of respect for the Constitution and law

I was treating your "showing the Dems disdain for both" as part of an argument that both parties are therefore equal threats to democracy, not that they have the same "objectives," because you placed that "equal disdain" claim in opposition to these two statements, offered as part of the same argument. 

It would be an incredible deflation of Trump's real threat to suggest some progressive DAs in California's selective prosecutions place the national Dem party on a similar level of lack of respect for the Constitution and law as a party led by someone who actually attempted an autogolpe which would vitiate rule of law and the Constitution altogether--an act which then only increased his support from the GOP and EXPANDED his control over it.   And you threw in a reference to the 2nd Amendment too?

But now you are just saying you meant that rule-of-law-Constitution point as just a side comment about supposedly equal lack of "respect"? 

(03-28-2024, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How large?  How easy is this to achieve?

This post is honestly quite silly.  You post examples of "easily achievable" goals, none of which are easily achievable, that will enable the overthrow of the longest contiguous democracy in modern history.  It's fear mongering at its most generic.  If Trump does win, which is becoming increasingly possible, then we'll almost certainly get another four years identical to his first term.  Then Trump can "retire" and claim he's the only POTUS to win his position back after being defrauded of his reelection the first time, proving him right all along (in his mind).  Then we'll see what lame candidates the two parties can vomit up for us to agonize over in 2028.

I don't believe Pally was around in the summer of 2020, when you dismissed my concerns that Trump was signaling he would not go quietly if he lost the election, You thought that "fear mongering" was "honestly quite silly" as well. "Put a bow on it," you siad; not worthy of forum discussion. Outside the pale. Seriously, what could he do?

And here we are again.

Now you are predicting that an angry, vengeful and increasing impaired Trump, sans guardrails like Mattis and Kelly and with greater control over his party, will "almost certainly" pose no more danger than "another four years identical to his first term." Like we weathered that one just fine. 

The issue is not whether Trump will convert the US to a totalitarian government. The issue is the kind of damage which will result--is resulting--from his conversion of a major political party into his primary personal support in bid for autocratic control, stronger and more focused now after the failed attempt. Even if he is unsuccessful in the long term, it means mass Constitutional/democratic crisis and instability. Serious damage to our polity and institutions. Ukraine gifted to Russia with the predictable consequences to the system of alliances the US has led since 1949.  And no return to normalcy in 2028, for us or the world. 

But the 2nd Amendment will remain safe through it all, to the advantage of an authoritarian leader. 

[*pally*]

The Prosecution has requested proof that this bonding company actually has the assets to cover the bond. Conveniently, they "forgot" to attach the required financial disclosures to the bond documents

[Luvnit2]

(04-04-2024, 05:55 PM)pally Wrote: The Prosecution has requested proof that this bonding company actually has the assets to cover the bond.  Conveniently, they "forgot" to attach the required financial disclosures to the bond documents

Then seize his assets or quit the whining.

I bet you a $100 Trump's appeal is successful and at most the fine in 1 million dollars. If so, this whole thing is proven to be a sham by a corrupt AG and judge.

Do we have a bet?

[SunsetBengal]

(03-29-2024, 04:52 AM)Dill Wrote: Pally's "criteria" were listed in service of the larger point that Trump and the GOP have become a serious threat to US democracy. 
I.e., Trump's turn to authoritarianism, bringing his willing party along, is the threat under discussion.

You quoted these lines together:
How does Trump turn this country into a Totalitarian government...It is easier than we thing
-a Lack of respect for the Constitution and law

I was treating your "showing the Dems disdain for both" as part of an argument that both parties are therefore equal threats to democracy, not that they have the same "objectives," because you placed that "equal disdain" claim in opposition to these two statements, offered as part of the same argument. 

So you don't see the Democrats disdain for Constitutional law as a threat to democracy in and of itself? If you consider it a threat from one side whose demonstration that condition as a threat, how can it not be the same when the other side does likewise?  After all, we are talking about both sides of the same coin.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2024, 04:52 AM)Dill Wrote: But the 2nd Amendment will remain safe through it all, to the advantage of an authoritarian leader. 

The 2nd Amendment will never be to the advantage of an authoritarian leader.  That's the entire point of it and that's what you anti-gun "liberals" completely fail to understand.  I'm in favor of every single law abiding adult (i.e. not a convicted felon) who wants one to be able to own a firearm.  


Armed minorities are harder to oppress.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2024, 07:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The 2nd Amendment will never be to the advantage of an authoritarian leader.  That's the entire point of it and that's what you anti-gun "liberals" completely fail to understand.  I'm in favor of every single law abiding adult (i.e. not a convicted felon) who wants one to be able to own a firearm.  


Armed minorities are harder to oppress.

Yeah, we have to recognize that Trump does not give one fig about the Second Amendment as he showed in some of his policy moves. His position on it is based solely in it being a talking point to garner him votes. When push comes to shove, he would 100% work to undermine those protections if given the opportunity.

FWIW, I don't think Trump will turn this country authoritarian, but I think he is greasing the skids for someone with more institutional know-how to do it. The willingness of his followers to dismiss long held democratic norms is concerning and is going to give someone else an opening.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-04-2024, 08:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, we have to recognize that Trump does not give one fig about the Second Amendment as he showed in some of his policy moves. His position on it is based solely in it being a talking point to garner him votes. When push comes to shove, he would 100% work to undermine those protections if given the opportunity.

You're probably right, but his SCOTUS picks are a damned site better than Hillary's would have been in this regard.  Do you disagree?

Quote:FWIW, I don't think Trump will turn this country authoritarian, but I think he is greasing the skids for someone with more institutional know-how to do it. The willingness of his followers to dismiss long held democratic norms is concerning and is going to give someone else an opening.

I don't disagree with this either.  An armed populace makes this a much tougher goal.

[*pally*]

Aaron Fritschner
@Fritschner
Per CBS, Trump's $175M bond filing "is deficient for a number of reasons... Including that the company doesn't appear to be licensed in New York and doesn't appear to have enough capital." NY Supreme Court is seeking "correction" from Trump's attorneys:


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-04-2024, 10:28 PM)pally Wrote: Aaron Fritschner
@Fritschner
Per CBS, Trump's $175M bond filing "is deficient for a number of reasons... Including that the company doesn't appear to be licensed in New York and doesn't appear to have enough capital." NY Supreme Court is seeking "correction" from Trump's attorneys:


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/

Sounds like someone is nit-picking and trying to find a way to get the money into a place where they have jurisdiction over it and can take it right before the appeal verdict so they can tie it up and keep it from Trump if he wins... Not sure how all that works, just putting my 1+1 together as to how this whole case has gone.

[Arturo Bandini]

(04-04-2024, 11:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sounds like someone is nit-picking and trying to find a way to get the money into a place where they have jurisdiction over it and can take it right before the appeal verdict so they can tie it up and keep it from Trump if he wins... Not sure how all that works, just putting my 1+1 together as to how this whole case has gone.

Or maybe do thing properly for one a time.

Sounds like a motto at this moment. His lawyer team just can't make anything good.

[*pally*]

(04-04-2024, 11:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sounds like someone is nit-picking and trying to find a way to get the money into a place where they have jurisdiction over it and can take it right before the appeal verdict so they can tie it up and keep it from Trump if he wins... Not sure how all that works, just putting my 1+1 together as to how this whole case has gone.

Or like the AG is following New York State law. I get that Trump thinks he is above the law but this bond company has to be licensed to do business in the state and actually have the assets to pay the state when Trump loses and fails to do so.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 03:34 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Or maybe do thing properly for one a time.

Sounds like a motto at this moment. His lawyer team just can't make anything good.

Right....

(04-05-2024, 04:26 AM)pally Wrote: Or like the AG is following New York State law. I get that Trump thinks he is above the law but this bond company has to be licensed to do business in the state and actually have the assets to pay the state when Trump loses and fails to do so.

The AG isn't questioning that they are not licensed in NY, all he's asking for is the paperwork to prove they can pay if Trump loses. The paperwork will come thru and it will all be moot. Making Mountains out of Mole Hills. But hey, more free press for Trump, so it's all good there. 

First, the court system kicked back Monday’s filing for more paperwork, including a financial statement from Knight Specialty Insurance. That was filed Thursday, showing that the company has over $539 million in assets and related reinsurer Knight Insurance Co. Ltd. has over $2.1 billion.

[GMDino]

(04-04-2024, 11:10 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sounds like someone is nit-picking and trying to find a way to get the money into a place where they have jurisdiction over it and can take it right before the appeal verdict so they can tie it up and keep it from Trump if he wins... Not sure how all that works, just putting my 1+1 together as to how this whole case has gone.

Is anything NOT a conspiracy against Trump?  

The court has rules.  Trump's team didn't follow the rules.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 09:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: Is anything NOT a conspiracy against Trump?  

The court has rules.  Trump's team didn't follow the rules.  

And this is not a normal run of the mill case. 

[GMDino]

(04-05-2024, 12:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And this is not a normal run of the mill case. 

None of his trials are seen as "fair" to some people.  Even the ones he loses.

But when he wins...it was fair.

Like when he loses elections it's "fixed". When he wins it was a "great victory".

Weird.

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2024, 12:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: None of his trials are seen as "fair" to some people.  Even the ones he loses.

But when he wins...it was fair.

Like when he loses elections it's "fixed".  When he wins it was a "great victory".

Weird.

I'm pretty sure his narrative is that 2016 was rigged against him, but he still won.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-05-2024, 12:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: None of his trials are seen as "fair" to some people.  Even the ones he loses.

But when he wins...it was fair.

Like when he loses elections it's "fixed".  When he wins it was a "great victory".

Weird.

I understand your mentality, but like i said with the GA case. 
When you go after Trump, get your effing Ducks in a row. Fanni blew that opportunity to put him down, now it's all turned against her.