Grab 'em by the ... property

#51
#51
I don’t know either. But if it isn’t, it would seem there is no bulwark against the states simply seizing whatever they want.
Takes a rich white dude losing his toys before Republicans get concerned over the fairness of civil forfeiture. Libs have talking about civil forfeiture for years.

 
#52
#52
IDK if the 8th would apply since this was a civil case and not a criminal. It might not even be subject to federal review.

What it would do is send NY real-estate and investment reeling.

Federal Courts can most definitely review Civil Cases. The key is whether it impacts a Federal Law/Standing. The interstate commerce clauses is likely what will be applied to review it. It is so broad that it definitely covers this situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#53
#53
Takes a rich white dude losing his toys before Republicans get concerned over the fairness of civil forfeiture. Libs have talking about civil forfeiture for years.


False.

I and others, on this board, have talked about how effed up civil forfeiture is - especially when perpetrated by local police departments and highway patrols.
 
#57
#57
Which a reasonable fine should be imposed. Actually, it should have been settled long before it got to court but the AG is playing politics.
no no, it's more logical they he should be thrown in the gulag, all of his property be seized, completely bankrupted, and all of his children be put into a debtor's prison. But none of this is political, "trust me"
 
#62
#62
The fact of the matter is banks charge more for more risk. When Trump overstated the value of properties to get loans or loans at lower rates, banks took on uncompensated risk.
This is coming from a guy that despises Trump- there are these things called appraisals. If banks lend millions on just a stated value then they're morons....unless the borrower is felt to be such a low risk that they just don't care what the actual values are.

This is what I hate about politics....so what if Trump's financial statements are wrong? So what if Biden's son smokes crack? If people actually cared about the level of incompetence these two govern with then neither would even been seen as a viable candidate. All they know how to do is dig a deeper hole in the deficit and spew out incomprehensible speeches.
 
#63
#63
Federal Courts can most definitely review Civil Cases. The key is whether it impacts a Federal Law/Standing. The interstate commerce clauses is likely what will be applied to review it. It is so broad that it definitely covers this situation.
Correct. Let's remember that the constitution not only protects us from the feds trampling on our rights, it also protects us from states and localities from doing the same. Example: Someone wants to preach in a public, city park. The city arrests him or fines him because of some law they just passed. He can sue in federal court saying his first amendment rights are being violated.
 
#66
#66
See post immediately above. This was not a smart thing to do. But hey, if there's a rake in the yard, Trump will step on it.
The left wing "pundits" have been wrong all along about everything...Trump runs intellectual circles around them.
 
#72
#72
I guess I was asleep, got no ideawhat you are refering to a dictatorship. Just stop.

Of course you don't you rube.

Per Trump's Attorney General:

"Former Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday undermined a key pillar of his old boss’ defense in the special counsel’s probe into 2020 election interference, telling CNN’s Kaitlan Collins that Donald Trump “knew well he lost the election.”

The former attorney general also described Trump’s alleged actions as detailed in the indictment as “nauseating” and “despicable,” saying on “The Source,” “someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.”
 
#73
#73
Of course you don't you rube.

"Former Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday undermined a key pillar of his old boss’ defense in the special counsel’s probe into 2020 election interference, telling CNN’s Kaitlan Collins that Donald Trump “knew well he lost the election.”

The former attorney general also described Trump’s alleged actions as detailed in the indictment as “nauseating” and “despicable,” saying on “The Source,” “someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.”
That is all you got for a dictatorship? lmao
 
#74
#74
That is all you got for a dictatorship? lmao

You seriously are dirt stupid. Trump admitted he'd be a dictator on Day 1.

"...But instead of offering a perfunctory answer brushing off the warnings, Trump stoked the fire.

“Except for day one,” the GOP front-runner said Tuesday night before a live audience in Davenport, Iowa. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”

And in case anyone missed it, he reenacted the exchange.

“We love this guy,” Trump said of Hannity. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
 

VN Store



Back
Top