(03-25-2024 10:06 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:40 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:20 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:13 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Wow, I bet the judge never heard this argument! Unfortunately, the judge doesn't care about feelings, only facts

You realize this decision will be overturned on appeal and that you are pulling for the weaponization of the judicial system only because it's going after someone you don't like. What happens when this happens to someone you don't dislike? Most people with an ounce of common sense recognize this for what it is, polls reflect it.

Buddy, Republicans weaponizing the judicial system is nothing new or unprecedented. That pandora's box isn't going to be re-opened by a fraud being held accountable for his actions, and this fraud being held accountable isn't going to stop Republicans from trying their old bag of used up tricks whenever they can, anyway.

Please, feel free to expand...

Mind telling the classroom how exactly Roe v Wade came to be overturned? About the time of Merrick Garland's nomination could be a good starting point. I didn't hear many people here accuse Mitch McConnell of weaponizing the DoJ.

Of course that's just one, egregious example. Sicking the FBI on a political opponent in 2016 is another that comes to mind.

1. Roe v Wade didn't get overturned.. It was moved to the States to make the decision on abortion not the federal government.-- Hardly weaponizing the DOJ

2. Merrick Garland was nominated in a lame duck year for Obama.. DOJ didn't have a hand in that, blame the Senate.

3. FBI on a political opponent in 2016, you mean the Steele Dossier? Cause Hillary went through about 4 days of scrutiny when Comey said we're not pursuing it.

(03-25-2024 10:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:06 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:40 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:20 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  You realize this decision will be overturned on appeal and that you are pulling for the weaponization of the judicial system only because it's going after someone you don't like. What happens when this happens to someone you don't dislike? Most people with an ounce of common sense recognize this for what it is, polls reflect it.

Buddy, Republicans weaponizing the judicial system is nothing new or unprecedented. That pandora's box isn't going to be re-opened by a fraud being held accountable for his actions, and this fraud being held accountable isn't going to stop Republicans from trying their old bag of used up tricks whenever they can, anyway.

Please, feel free to expand...

Mind telling the classroom how exactly Roe v Wade came to be overturned? About the time of Merrick Garland's nomination could be a good starting point. I didn't hear many people here accuse Mitch McConnell of weaponizing the DoJ.

Of course that's just one, egregious example. Sicking the FBI on a political opponent in 2016 is another that comes to mind.

1. Roe v Wade didn't get overturned.. It was moved to the States to make the decision on abortion not the federal government.-- Hardly weaponizing the DOJ

Would that have happened if Merrick Garland was on the Supreme Court instead of Neil Gorsuch?

2. Merrick Garland was nominated in a lame duck year for Obama.. DOJ didn't have a hand in that, blame the Senate.

Who withheld the vote for an entire year because of this lame duck? How did this timeline differ for Amy Comey Barrett?

3. FBI on a political opponent in 2016, you mean the Steele Dossier? Cause Hillary went through about 4 days of scrutiny when Comey said we're not pursuing it.

And it was a part of the reason she lost in 2016. Not to mention Trump lost the Steele Dossier lawsuit...

Republicans set the precedent. Prior to Trump it was the cringeworthy "When they go low, we go high". Democrats aren't so naive anymore, and know if Republicans have any opportunity at their disposal, ethical, legal, or not, they will take it. So now that the options are being whittled away, you pretend to worry about weaponizing the DoJ? Please.

(03-25-2024 10:21 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:06 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:40 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Buddy, Republicans weaponizing the judicial system is nothing new or unprecedented. That pandora's box isn't going to be re-opened by a fraud being held accountable for his actions, and this fraud being held accountable isn't going to stop Republicans from trying their old bag of used up tricks whenever they can, anyway.

Please, feel free to expand...

Mind telling the classroom how exactly Roe v Wade came to be overturned? About the time of Merrick Garland's nomination could be a good starting point. I didn't hear many people here accuse Mitch McConnell of weaponizing the DoJ.

Of course that's just one, egregious example. Sicking the FBI on a political opponent in 2016 is another that comes to mind.

1. Roe v Wade didn't get overturned.. It was moved to the States to make the decision on abortion not the federal government.-- Hardly weaponizing the DOJ

Would that have happened if Merrick Garland was on the Supreme Court instead of Neil Gorsuch?

2. Merrick Garland was nominated in a lame duck year for Obama.. DOJ didn't have a hand in that, blame the Senate.

Who withheld the vote for an entire year because of this lame duck? How did this timeline differ for Amy Comey Barrett?

3. FBI on a political opponent in 2016, you mean the Steele Dossier? Cause Hillary went through about 4 days of scrutiny when Comey said we're not pursuing it.

And it was a part of the reason she lost in 2016. Not to mention Trump lost the Steele Dossier lawsuit...

Republicans set the precedent. Prior to Trump it was the cringeworthy "When they go low, we go high". Democrats aren't so naive anymore, and know if Republicans have any opportunity at their disposal, ethical, legal, or not, they will take it. So now that the options are being whittled away, you pretend to worry about weaponizing the DoJ? Please.

So you think Merrick Garland would have ignored the constitution? That a very good reason for him not being on the supreme court but as GDunn pointed out it had nothing to do with the judicial only the senate and in this case based on your opinion and the actions of Garland as AG it was a good move by the senate.
Prior to Trump we had Obama who used the IRS to go after his political enemies.
You fail again.

Wow....

1. Roe v Wade didn't get overturned.. It was moved to the States to make the decision on abortion not the federal government.-- Hardly weaponizing the DOJ

Would that have happened if Merrick Garland was on the Supreme Court instead of Neil Gorsuch?-- Don't know, but the issue was returned to the States where the STATES decided on the measure...

2. Merrick Garland was nominated in a lame duck year for Obama.. DOJ didn't have a hand in that, blame the Senate.

Who withheld the vote for an entire year because of this lame duck? How did this timeline differ for Amy Comey Barrett?-- Elections have consequences and pending on the majority of the Senate.

3. FBI on a political opponent in 2016, you mean the Steele Dossier? Cause Hillary went through about 4 days of scrutiny when Comey said we're not pursuing it.

And it was a part of the reason she lost in 2016.-- Yet she's not on trial for mishandling of classified documents on a private, non-government issue server.. The DOJ bugged her for less than a week.. You think that lost her an election?? Not the fact that she didn't bother campaigning the last 72 hours?


None of these issues were DOJ related except No. 3 and guess what she barely got anything, oh she lost the presidency..

ETA.. Kruciff who was President in October of 2016? The DOJ didn't go after a political opponent....

(03-25-2024 10:00 AM)fsquid Wrote:  If one is looking for a made for TV moment, they will be boared today. It's just a filing to get the process started.

What a poast.

(03-25-2024 10:28 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:21 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:06 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:56 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Please, feel free to expand...

Mind telling the classroom how exactly Roe v Wade came to be overturned? About the time of Merrick Garland's nomination could be a good starting point. I didn't hear many people here accuse Mitch McConnell of weaponizing the DoJ.

Of course that's just one, egregious example. Sicking the FBI on a political opponent in 2016 is another that comes to mind.

1. Roe v Wade didn't get overturned.. It was moved to the States to make the decision on abortion not the federal government.-- Hardly weaponizing the DOJ

Would that have happened if Merrick Garland was on the Supreme Court instead of Neil Gorsuch?

2. Merrick Garland was nominated in a lame duck year for Obama.. DOJ didn't have a hand in that, blame the Senate.

Who withheld the vote for an entire year because of this lame duck? How did this timeline differ for Amy Comey Barrett?

3. FBI on a political opponent in 2016, you mean the Steele Dossier? Cause Hillary went through about 4 days of scrutiny when Comey said we're not pursuing it.

And it was a part of the reason she lost in 2016. Not to mention Trump lost the Steele Dossier lawsuit...

Republicans set the precedent. Prior to Trump it was the cringeworthy "When they go low, we go high". Democrats aren't so naive anymore, and know if Republicans have any opportunity at their disposal, ethical, legal, or not, they will take it. So now that the options are being whittled away, you pretend to worry about weaponizing the DoJ? Please.

So you think Merrick Garland would have ignored the constitution? That a very good reason for him not being on the supreme court but as GDunn pointed out it had nothing to do with the judicial only the senate and in this case based on your opinion and the actions of Garland as AG it was a good move by the senate.
Prior to Trump we had Obama who used the IRS to go after his political enemies.
You fail again.

It's a shame you feel that way. Let's compromise then: I promise to show the same concern and empathy for your viewpoints as this board has given mine and every other non MAGA. Deal?

Now hurry along, that sky isn't going to scream at itself

Sent from my SM-F946U using Tapatalk

Appeals Court Cuts bond to 175 Million and extends time to pay(10 Days)

Didnt even take a whole day.

Let it play out. We have plenty of time to laugh at the fascists like kruchiv


Bwahahahahaha


Reeeeeeeeeeeee

(03-25-2024 09:13 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 09:08 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  It's sad to see someone stupid enough to cheerlead for government seizing private property due to a kangaroo type court decision. There was no victim in this crime, both parties made money, and both would have done business with each other again. This a case of the government attacking a political opponent using the judicial system. If you are a proponent of those tactics then you are a sorry SOB that favors fascist tactics.

Wow, I bet the judge never heard this argument! Unfortunately, the judge doesn't care about facts, only feelings.

FIFY

https://nypost.com/2024/03/25/us-news/tr...y-to-175m/



Bwahahahhaha. Before noon

(03-25-2024 10:35 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Appeals Court Cuts bond to 175 Million and extends time to pay(10 Days)

Didnt even take a whole day.

Let it play out. We have plenty of time to laugh at the fascists like kruchiv


Bwahahahahaha


Reeeeeeeeeeeee

That should be manageable.. Gotta think James and Artie are not happy.

(03-25-2024 10:35 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:28 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:21 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:06 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  Mind telling the classroom how exactly Roe v Wade came to be overturned? About the time of Merrick Garland's nomination could be a good starting point. I didn't hear many people here accuse Mitch McConnell of weaponizing the DoJ.

Of course that's just one, egregious example. Sicking the FBI on a political opponent in 2016 is another that comes to mind.

1. Roe v Wade didn't get overturned.. It was moved to the States to make the decision on abortion not the federal government.-- Hardly weaponizing the DOJ

Would that have happened if Merrick Garland was on the Supreme Court instead of Neil Gorsuch?

2. Merrick Garland was nominated in a lame duck year for Obama.. DOJ didn't have a hand in that, blame the Senate.

Who withheld the vote for an entire year because of this lame duck? How did this timeline differ for Amy Comey Barrett?

3. FBI on a political opponent in 2016, you mean the Steele Dossier? Cause Hillary went through about 4 days of scrutiny when Comey said we're not pursuing it.

And it was a part of the reason she lost in 2016. Not to mention Trump lost the Steele Dossier lawsuit...

Republicans set the precedent. Prior to Trump it was the cringeworthy "When they go low, we go high". Democrats aren't so naive anymore, and know if Republicans have any opportunity at their disposal, ethical, legal, or not, they will take it. So now that the options are being whittled away, you pretend to worry about weaponizing the DoJ? Please.

So you think Merrick Garland would have ignored the constitution? That a very good reason for him not being on the supreme court but as GDunn pointed out it had nothing to do with the judicial only the senate and in this case based on your opinion and the actions of Garland as AG it was a good move by the senate.
Prior to Trump we had Obama who used the IRS to go after his political enemies.
You fail again.

It's a shame you feel that way. Let's compromise then: I promise to show the same concern and empathy for your viewpoints as this board has given mine and every other non MAGA. Deal?

Now hurry along, that sky isn't going to scream at itself

Sent from my SM-F946U using Tapatalk

You are getting the reaction deserved based on the content of your posts. Concern for weaponization of the judicial by democrats is not sky screaming and ignorant comments such as this are one of the reasons you receive the derision you get. Failing to back up your assertions is another.

(03-25-2024 09:48 AM)gdunn Wrote:  One of the issues I read this weekend and understand that I'm not a whiz when it comes to surety bonds, that due to the amount, he can't secure one. Makes me wonder if the folks in NY knew this, and if so, when and if it goes to appeals, it'll be a black eye on both the judge and James..

So, this is apparently, irrelevant?

(03-25-2024 08:46 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

He's worth 3 billion more today than before the whacko judgment.

(03-25-2024 08:38 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  As of right now, Donald Trump owes $457,721,000.00.

He has 6 hours and 35 minutes as of this post left to pay before his property starts getting seized.

Does he actually pay up or does Mar-a-lago become government property?

You guys almost seem surprised to learn Kruciff is a moron?

(03-25-2024 10:51 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 08:38 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  As of right now, Donald Trump owes $457,721,000.00.

He has 6 hours and 35 minutes as of this post left to pay before his property starts getting seized.

Does he actually pay up or does Mar-a-lago become government property?

Looks like the Republican weaponization of the DoJ is doling out the protectionism! Or is at least trying to. We'll see what happens, but it is pretty telling the collective sigh of relief coming from the MAGAts so quickly.

Trump sidesteps justice again... for the moment!

Sent from my SM-F946U using Tapatalk

(03-25-2024 08:38 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  As of right now, Donald Trump owes $457,721,000.00.

He has 6 hours and 35 minutes as of this post left to pay before his property starts getting seized.

Does he actually pay up or does Mar-a-lago become government property?

lol. You realize Mar-a-lago is not on the chopping block. Its not in NY. Also, its worth noting the moment she moves seize properties---this potential becomes a Federal 8th amendment case. Bye-Bye state court and we abruptly exit the liberal controlled bubble of a kangeroo court system that serves as a life support system for this kind of insane political lawfare.

An appeals court slashed former President Donald Trump's bond payment on Monday, saying Trump must pay $175 million within the next 10 days.

(03-25-2024 10:57 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 10:51 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 08:38 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  As of right now, Donald Trump owes $457,721,000.00.

He has 6 hours and 35 minutes as of this post left to pay before his property starts getting seized.

Does he actually pay up or does Mar-a-lago become government property?

Looks like the Republican weaponization of the DoJ is doling out the protectionism! Or is at least trying to. We'll see what happens, but it is pretty telling the collective sigh of relief coming from the MAGAts so quickly.

Trump sidesteps justice again... for the moment!

Sent from my SM-F946U using Tapatalk

An appeals court lowers the number and that is somehow a result of republican weaponization of the Biden DOJ currently ran by Merrick Garland. And you wonder why people think you are a fool.

Once again we have some liberal idiots playing the part of Wile E Coyote. Such stupid people.