Context:— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) September 26, 2023
It was once my job to approve business loans for a bank. We believed nothing applicants told us, relying only on documents such as tax returns and third-party assessments.
Nearly all applicants "exaggerate" their ability to repay a loan. None were indicted.
Limiting Principles: that was one of the big differences that set the American Revolution apart from the French Revolution which quickly devolved into an infamous Reign of Terror.
One critical brake the Framers installed to limit tryanny was exemplified by no less a luminary than John Adams when he ensured the Redcoats at the Boston Massacre received a fair trial. He himself served as their attorney.
The obvious difference in how high-ranking members of the FBI and the DOJ have been conducting themselves in cases impacting favored versus disfavored political groups and causes since AT LEAST the 2016 election show that our institutions no longer hold a commitment to that principle.
Worse yet, some judges seem to be following that example by demonstrating open bias toward or against some groups and ideas.
There is a reason that ‘bills of attainder’ are prohibited by the Constitution. It’s based in the same logic that insists that you identify a crime and look for the person who caused it, rather than look at a person and go digging for a crime he may have committed. The latter, by the way, is exactly the practice that made Stalin so feared by his own citizens.
It’s a tool of a totalitarian regime, not of a Republic.
It’s also a tool of today’s left.
Trump posted several clips of the NYC prosecutor bragging about how she would abuse her office in the Stalinist fashion to ‘get Trump’. Here are just two of them.
Here she is giggling about how she is going to ‘get’ him.
Here is Trump’s formal statement about the judge’s summary judgement against him in the civil suit.
The central assertion by the judge who ruled against him was that Trump overvalued his property and committed fraud by so doing.
There are at LEAST two problems with that logic, as laid out by many of his supporters. The first is that none of his creditors — who were enormous multinational banks with enormous legal departments who were well able to do their own diligence in assessing the property (as Trump’s own documents instructed them to do) — were harmed by the supposedly fraudulent business dealings of Trump’s organization. He was not in arrears. He was not in default. Banks were repaid — sometimes ahead of schedule. That would suggest that their money was never at risk in the first place.
The second one is the alleged value of the property itself. On one hand, other, smaller lots for sale near Mar-A-Lago show how off-base the judge’s valuation must be.
The judge says ‘$18 million’…
Smaller lots nearby sell for FAR more than that $18 Million figure
And these smaller ones don’t have waterfront on both coasts of Palm Beach island.