I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
That's the right case, but that's not an indictment. It's a civil case. The indictment is a criminal case. It seems you may not be aware of the difference.
Oh geez. Yeah thanks for the correction. It's difficult to keep all of Trump's legal cases differentiated. There's so much dishonesty and corruption that it's a challenge to keep them straight.
Civil fraud, civil defamation, civil sexual assault, criminal fraud, criminal obstruction, illegal retention and concealment of classified documents, and federal election interference. I know I probably missed a few, there are more than 90 charges.
Oh geez. Yeah thanks for the correction. It's difficult to keep all of Trump's legal cases differentiated. There's so much dishonesty and corruption that it's a challenge to keep them straight.
Civil fraud, civil defamation, civil sexual assault, criminal fraud, criminal obstruction, illegal retention and concealment of classified documents, and federal election interference. I know I probably missed a few, there are more than 90 charges.
Nice deflection.
In this particular case, he's accused of exaggerating his net worth in order to obtain favorable loan and insurance terms.
Yet, its not the banks or insurance companies suing him. They still made their money and seemingly are content.
It's AG, who ran on a "I'll get Trump" platform who has filed this lawsuit.
So, tell me. What do you believe is the motivation behind this case?
"For too long, powerful, wealthy people in this country have operated as if the rules do not apply to them,” she said in a statement. "Donald Trump stands out as among the most egregious examples of this misconduct. With the help of his children and senior executives at the Trump Organization, Donald Trump falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to unjustly enrich himself and cheat the system.”
Justice seems to be her stated motivated.
Or it could be
Quote
Trump for years has blasted James for investigating his business, saying the Democratic attorney general was motivated by political animus against a Republican former president.
I suppose we can discuss the motivation and why behind when the lenders and insurance companies seem okay with the risk and understanding they might have been lied to. If the motivation and mission is to solely pick out Trump and go after Trump as if it's some vendetta does it matter if the charges are legit? Does it matter that banks and insurance companies aren't bothered because they got their money and it's a civil case?
If the charges are just made up and false and no one was harmed, then they have nothing to worry about and they can sue back.
I'd like to think that an organization like Trump would know how to conduct itself legally and since he was a celebrity brand and later politician would be on the up and up. I hope this is the case.
Then again their accounting firm cut ties with them saying their financial statements weren't reliable. Maybe they were just bailing to stay out of trouble and being dragged into the situation or maybe there is something there.
In recent weeks, a growing number of liberal and conservative legal scholars have embraced the longshot legal strategy. The lawsuit, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is the first high-profile legal case attempting to use the 14th Amendment to derail Trump's presidential campaign.
Trump has denied wrongdoing regarding the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol and said in a recent social media post that there is "no legal basis" to use the 14th Amendment to remove him from the ballot.
A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says any American official who takes an oath to uphold the US Constitution is disqualified from holding any future office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or if they have "given aid or comfort" to insurrectionists.
However, the Constitution does not spell out how to enforce this ban and it has only been applied twice since the late 1800s, when it was used extensively against former Confederates.
The lawsuit was filed by CREW on behalf of six Colorado voters, which the group says are independents or Republicans, including former US Rep. Claudine Schneider and former Colorado Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, both Republicans.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Good luck trying to equate Donald Trump to former Confederates.
They don't need to equate him to confederate soldiers. They need to demonstrate that he was involved in an insurrection attempt or that he aided or abetted or gave comfort to insurrectionists.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
The trials that decide if Trump engaged in any of that will be very interesting.
heron, ASN, RN
4,671 Posts
You're right ... and, yes, I know the difference. I should have referred to the civil complaint.
Anything else?