On 2/23/2024 12:34 PM, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 07:57:51 -0800, Bob F
> <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2024 6:56 AM, ? Mighty Wannabe ? wrote:
>>> Frank wrote on 2/22/2024 8:34 AM:
>>>> On 2/21/2024 8:57 PM, micky wrote:
>>>>> OT   So, trump has to pay about 450,000,000 bucks for his, shall we say,
>>>>> bad business practices.
>>>>>
>>>>> And he was interviered today, and he cited the 8th Amendment, which
>>>>> either he had learned by heart or he had a copy in his pocket!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
>>>>> cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> He thinks he'll get out of this because it's an excessive fine. But
>>>>> it's not a fine at all.  it's a disgorgment.   And it's not excessive,
>>>>> (except that it's more than he wants to pay).   Maybe it's a cruel and
>>>>> unusual punishment.  He thinks any punishment he gets is cruel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do not forget that nobody in New York complained about what Trump was
>>>> excused of but the state brought it on itself.  He was not allowed a
>>>> jury trial and an obviously highly prejudiced judge ruled.
>>
>> He was allowed a jury trial. He CHOSE not to request one.
>
> Frank may well have honestly believed what he just said about no jury
> trial, but Frank should take a lesson from this, that if he only listens
> to trump-leaning sources, he won't hear the whole story, or he'll even
> hear an inaccurate story, like this time.
>
> I heard, and it's hard for someoen to be sure of a negative, that Fox
> had not reported what trump said about letting Russia do whatever it
> wanted with NATO countries that had not paid their "dues". Could be.
> Even Fox knowws that sounds terrible.
>
>> Yes a highly prejudiced judge! Not one of those GOP ones that never
>> rules against a rich guy when they commit a CRIME.
>>
>>>
>>> A jury trial is for serious criminal cases. Falsifying business records
>>> is not a serious criminal case. Just slap him with hefty fines until he
>>> learns not to do it again.
>>
>> He is a slow learner. $5 M penalty, walks out the door and re-offends.
>> Let's see says the judge to the next jury, "what will it take to
>> convince him he can't keep doing this".
>
> Maybe 320 million next time. He's already again claiming he didn't
> know her but he didn't say who he didn't know or what she had done. He
> just said, roughly, "What about hat woman last week". He seems to think
> that if he doesnt' give her name, that helps him, and that's very true,
> but I think there's a point where if the person is firmly identifiable,
> not saying the name is not enough. I think there have already been
> such cases in many states.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing will be thrown out on appeal but the way the legal
>>>> system operates it could take a long time.
>>
>> Don't hold your breath. trump will pay it. And WHINE, WHINE, WHINE all
>> the way to the bank. What a snowflake!
>
> Yes, he will. The whole amount.
>>
>>>
>>> The long arm of the law can wait.
>>>
>>>
>>>

No jury trial as that is the way the laws are set up in New York.

The judge was highly prejudiced against Trump as shown by his social
media posts.

The penalty was also draconian considered no losses were incurred by
those Trump worked with and there was no room for appeal.

The whole thing will certainly be thrown out by higher courts but it
could take a long time.

New York is already driving out the more affluent people because of
rules and taxes and rulings like this are bound to drive out more.

I know the lefties here are happy about this as they are scared to death
in large part due to the media that Trump will become president.

By ignoring these obvious tactics of the left they are creating a
society that they will detest when it turns on them.

Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>On 2/23/2024 12:34 PM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 07:57:51 -0800, Bob F
>> <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>The judge was highly prejudiced against Trump as shown by his social
>media posts.

What social media posts? Be specific, and don't bother with the
trump social bullshit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/11/30/judge-engorons-wife-says-viral-screenshots-about-trump-arent-her-report/?sh=79ae65ab24f6

You are either a troll, a russian or a fool. Take your pick.

Scott Lurndal wrote on 2/23/2024 3:37 PM:
> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>> On 2/23/2024 12:34 PM, micky wrote:
>>> In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 22 Feb 2024 07:57:51 -0800, Bob F
>>> <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The judge was highly prejudiced against Trump as shown by his social
>> media posts.
> What social media posts? Be specific, and don't bother with the
> trump social bullshit.
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/11/30/judge-engorons-wife-says-viral-screenshots-about-trump-arent-her-report/?sh=79ae65ab24f6
>
> You are either a troll, a russian or a fool. Take your pick.

Could Frank be just a foolish Russian troll?