A judge who made small donations to the Democrats. A judge whose wife works for James. A judge whose daughter made over 93 million in fund raising off the case. A judge whose daughter claims she had discussions about the case with him. A judge whose daughter posted Trump behind bars.
The attack on Trump’s constitutional rights to defend himself, the abuse of the law, the legal system on Trump. I have to tell you, the Democrats, the left have made a massive bet on all of this law fare that some of it will take Trump out.
Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures as he arrives for a Buckeye Values PAC rally in Vandalia, Ohio, on March 16, 2024. (Photo by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / AFP)
Visits: 21
No VirginiaTrump was talking about the car industry, not getting rid of the seven cats and five dogs. So Trump talks about a bloodbath in the auto industry and the MSM blows it into a great big lie.
Below is what was said at a Saturday rally for Bernie Moreno. And no for my lurker loon, you will be able to keep your seven cats and five dogs. But please change the litter box more than once a month
Former President Donald Trump on Saturday night forecast a financial “bloodbath” awaits the U.S. motor industry if he is not elected and China is enabled to swamp the country with their products.
The comments came at an Ohio rally hosted by the Buckeye Values PAC where he discussed the possibility of an increasing trade war with China over auto manufacturing in general and electric vehicle types in particular. Trump said:
If you’re listening, President Xi — and you and I are friends — but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now … you’re going to not hire Americans and you’re going to sell the cars to us, no. We’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected.
Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it […] It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars. They’re building massive factories.
We are witnessing the invention of the "bloodbath" hoax in real-time
How soon we forget. Thanks Joe Biden. Trump does have Immunity. Some will call this a stretch, but remember when the fake comittee asked for Trump imformation but couldn’t have it unless Biden removed Trumps Executive Privilege?
Biden’s decision not to block the information sought by Congress challenges a tested norm — one in which presidents enjoy the secrecy of records of their own terms in office, both mundane and highly sensitive, for a period of at least five years, and often far longer. That means Biden and future presidents, as well as Trump.
Biden removing this tells me that even Presidents past and present have certain protections. This goes hand in hand with Presidential Immunity.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, “Big win for America!!!”
What a brilliant move. Democrat Leaders Triggered by President Trump’s Rally in Richmond, Virginia. Trump needs more of this. As we see Trumps support continuing to grow with Blacks and Latinos, the Progressive Supremacists are having fits cause Trump had a rally in a blue City and the crowd was very large.
Trump needs more of these rallies in both blue states and cities. Let the folks of color see who is the racist. Trump or some old white guy who in the past has hung out with the Jim Crow crowd.
This from the affirmative action mayor. Hey folks, Levar Stoney here. I’m a member of the Biden/Harris National Advisory Committee. And I’m here to remind folks that President Trump has chosen Richmond as a campaign stop. And I wanted President Trump to know this, that your rhetoric of division and hate and destruction of our democracy is not welcome here in Richmond. We reject those values. We believe in the values of being more inclusive, more welcoming, a place where people belong, a place where people can thrive, and that’s the opposite message of Donald Trump. That is why I’m supporting Joe Biden for reelection, and I ask all of you to get out there and support the president.
Mayor of Richmond: “ we don’t want Trump‘s bigoted message here” Richmond: MAGA Baby!!! #Trump2024AmericaFirst
Former U.S. President Donald Trump, with lawyers Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. (Shannon Stapleton/Pool Photo via AP)
Visits: 38
Just in case you missed it. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Trump’s $355 million fine.
SusanShelley
Let me tell you about the time Ruth Bader Ginsburg saved Donald Trump $355 million plus interest. It was Feb. 20, 2019, and Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court in the case of Timbs v. Indiana.
In that case, police in Indiana had seized Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover SUV, which he bought for $42,000 with money he received from a life insurance policy when his dad died. The state sought civil forfeiture of the vehicle because Timbs had pleaded guilty to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft. However, the fine for the crime was only $10,000 and the vehicle was worth four times that. Taking the vehicle was an excessive fine, the judge ruled, and excessive fines are prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals agreed.
But then the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies only to the federal government, and it does not bind the states.
Yes it does, the U.S. Supreme Court said unanimously. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions stating that they would have arrived at the decision through different reasoning. But the conclusion was the same.
“There can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment,” wrote Gorsuch.
“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies in full to the States,” wrote Thomas.
“The Excessive Fines Clause traces its venerable lineage back to at least 1215,” wrote Ginsburg, “Magna Carta required that economic sanctions ‘be proportioned to the wrong’ and ‘not be so large as to deprive [an offender] of his livelihood.’”
Timbs v. Indiana was a landmark decision. It was the first time the Supreme Court had held that the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applied to the states. Just nine years earlier, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court had acknowledged in a footnote, “We never have decided whether … the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive fines applies to the States,” pointing to the 1989 case of Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., in which the court declined to decide the issue.
McDonald v. Chicago was itself a landmark decision. In that case, the Supreme Court said for the first time that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
“When ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.
How that eventually changed is a little-known part of U.S. history that is about to protect former President Trump from the state of New York.
The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War, in 1868. It read, in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
However, this did not immediately make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. That change began more than 50 years later, in 1925. In the case of Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court floated the idea that freedom of speech and of the press are assumed to be “among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states.”
Gradually over the next century, the court would pick and choose provisions of the Bill of Rights, declare them to be “fundamental” or “deeply rooted” in our history, tradition and “scheme of ordered liberty,” and make them binding on the states. (The history of this process can be read in Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion for the court in McDonald v. Chicago.)
The Eighth Amendment reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
The “cruel and unusual punishments” clause was declared applicable to the states in 1962, in Robinson v. California. The “excessive bail” provision has applied to the states since the 1971 case of Schilb v. Kuebel. And the “excessive fines” prohibition has been binding on the states since the 2019 Timbs case.
New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron fined the former president and 2024 frontrunner an astronomical $355 million plus $100 million (and counting) in interest. Engoron also prohibited the Trump Organization from taking loans from financial institutions that do business in New York for three years, and he banned Trump personally from working as a director or officer of any corporation or entity in New York for the same period. Engoron even refused Trump’s request for a 30-day extension of the due date to pay the fine, which New York requires before he can appeal the judgment.
This was a civil fraud trial, without a jury, in which the judge found Trump guilty of giving his assets a too-high valuation to get good loan terms, even though the bank adjusted those values downward before approving a loan that was paid back fully and on time, with interest.
“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” wrote Ginsburg. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James campaigned on a promise to sue Donald Trump, calling him an “illegitimate president.” She said she’ll ask the court to seize Trump’s buildings if he can’t come up with hundreds of millions of dollars in cash in time to pay the fine.
We’ll see. It may be easier to go up against Trump than to argue with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump, with lawyers Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024. (Shannon Stapleton/Pool Photo via AP)
Throw out the NY Bail. Eighth Amendment Protects President Trump. The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled 9-0 that the eight amendment protects Americans from exsessive fines. Ginsburg wrote the decesion in overturning the Indiana Supreme court.
The court held unanimously that the excessive fines clause of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment applies to the states. The ruling is potentially a major win for property owners and individual citizens facing excessive fines, fees, and forfeitures—to say nothing of Tyson Timbs, the man who fought the seizure of his SUV all the way to the Supreme Court.
This was the former Congressman who served three previous terms, so the folks knew him. He ran against a person who up until a week before the election was a Democrat. Her mistake? She like the Democrat ran against Trump, and the trump folks stayed home.
Why Donald Trump won’t be found guilty. Four other sloppy people did worse. All five were sloppy and we know 100% what four did was illegal. Jury is out on the fifth. Who are they?
Both Clintons, Pence, Biden, and Trump. All had documents or Tapes that were Government Property. Bill had tapes that were government property and he used them for his book. Recorded folks without their knowledge.
Hillery had the illegal server and destroyed it plus erased the server. Pence had classified documents at his personal home, and Biden had classified documents all over the country.
Trump had classified documents he said he declassified. Bill Clinton didn’t claim that he declassified the tapes. Hillary, Pence and Biden did not have the authority to have those documents.
Five people who yes were sloppy in how they handled this. But for some reason only one was charged with crimes. The one who may have had a right to those documents. Donald Trump.
Former President Donald Trump is reportedly using President Biden’s alleged derogatory remarks about him as a means to raise funds.
What Happened: Trump is capitalizing on claims that Biden referred to him as a “sick f**k” during a private conversation. In a recent fundraising email to his followers, Trump suggested that Biden’s alleged remarks were not just targeted at him, but at all his supporters, reported The Hill.
The fundraising email also drew attention to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s infamous “deplorables” comment, implying that Biden “will spit on us” and use every curse word to describe his supporters.
Trump urged his followers to demonstrate their patriotism and support him, assuring them that they would be “the ones laughing on Election Day.”
This fundraising effort comes after reports that Trump’s fundraising committees spent nearly $30 million in legal fees for the former president in the second half of 2023.
This is another instance in a series of Trump’s fundraising attempts, which have also included capitalizing off his criminal indictments and state efforts to remove him from primary ballots.
Why It Matters: Biden had reportedly described Trump as a “sick f**k” who takes pleasure in others’ misfortunes in private conversations. Later that day, former National Security Adviser John Bolton affirmed Biden’s remarks, stating that Biden had accurately captured Trump’s personality.
Earlier, Biden mocked Trump for his incorrect prediction of a stock market collapse if Biden won the 2020 election.
Trump currently leads Biden in the 2024 presidential election race – a RealClearPolitics poll shows Trump with 46.6% support, while Biden has 44.8% support.
68
