"You can strip Americans of all civil rights and civil liberties without constitutional protection as long as the president calls them an "enemy combatant."

they didn't just sue the Trump organization, they sued Trump and his kids who had nothing to do with this. Eric Trump is part of this judgment. Donald, Jr. was part of the judgment, and they knew his kids had nothing to do with it. It's pure retaliation. --Robert Barnes

A breakdown of the absurdity coming out of New York from last night's stream. https://t.co/AWsz2752eO pic.twitter.com/2WLMxtkPGy

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) October 2, 2023

Dangerous state laws that linger on the books give the state the right to bring suit without any finding that itself has ever been defrauded.  It shows you what a joke the standing Doctrine is I mean they don't let the vaccine-injured sue because somehow they don't have standing.  Not just the immunity laws but even the FDA says, you know, you don't have standing. But if you've not been defrauded pending nickel, dime, or dollar; you have no complaining victim; the state has lost no money; in fact, they have gained money; then you get to sue and destroy somebody's business? Two aspects.  Second aspect is that they didn't just sue the Trump organization, they sued Trump and his kids who had nothing to do with this.  Eric Trump is part of this judgment.  Donald, Jr. was part of the judgment, and they knew his kids had nothing to do with it.  It's pure retaliation.  As Carl Benjamin said, Sargon of Akkad, part of the Lotus Eaters podcast when he was on Tim Pool, said, "We don't have a country anymore.  You're fighting over what the scraps are going to be."  But when you have the open overt weaponization, where you're locking up your political opponents, where you're locking up the leading presidential candidate or trying to, and you're destroying his business, literally based on nothing at all, then you don't have a country, you don't have a rule of law.

So this corrupt political hack of a judge shouldn't have presided over the case, to begin with; the case should have been transferred to the commercial division.  He refused because he's a rogue partisan hack.  And there are a lot of corrupt judges in New York.  Probably per capita, the king of corrupt judges in America is in New York.  A close second is the District of Columbia. If you wonder why the prosecutors are so corrupt in both jurisdictions read Billy Waters's book The Gambler. About his experiences with the southern district of New York, he said he underestimated just how corrupt they were.  He dealt with corrupt government officials his whole life, but he says it's nothing like what you see in the southern district of New York because the judges are in on it in New York.  The judges are in on it in the District of Columbia. So the case has no grounds whatsoever, no legal factual grounds whatsoever. The problem is the statute that even exists that allows the state of New York to just go steal people's business whenever they feel like it, and just say "We feel like we've been defrauded" even if you haven't been defrauded.  You can't prove a penny, nickel, dime, or dollar fraud ever happened.  The idea that the world's most sophisticated banks lent money without knowing the value of the Trump brand is utterly preposterous.  They could not have been defrauded, they never claim to have been defrauded, not an attempt to be defrauded, not in existence because they would have had to have their own . . . these were massive deals.  They would have had their own independent appraisers, their own independent brand assessors,

5:35. Don't the banks in the Trump case need to affirm their appraisal approvals?  Won't the judge have to go after them as co-conspirators to make the bogus charge stick or will the lawfare . . . ?

5:48. Yeah because they're the so-called victim.  You can't allege that the victim is in on it. That's why it's levels of absurdity that all of these cases are . . . what we're seeing is how dangerous the legal system is when it's weaponized by people for political and partisan objectives.  And the question is, is a Supreme Court going to be asleep while the country collapses, or is it at some point going to wake up and step in because these trial courts don't recognize these limits.  They're used to abusing their power; they're used to misusing their power; prosecutors are used to misusing their power, quite frankly, due to a lot of Republican judges over the past five decades, who have completely covered up for corrupt prosecutors.  The leading people doing so have been Republican judges sadly.  I have a case about to go up to the Supreme Court and petition for cert out of the 7th circuit where they created an exception that said, 

one, you're not allowed to go into somebody's house to arrest them for a misdemeanor.  So what you do is you just grab them and throw them out of the house . . .

. . . and do the magic, the rule doesn't apply anymore to these three Republican 7th Circuit corrupt judges who think they're going to be up on the Supreme Court.  I say corrupt because they're corrupt for partisan purposes, not quid pro quo corruption.  The second component is that it's part of a case I have for the 10th Circuit it's okay to shoot somebody dead, tase them, or beat them as long as they're not yet arrested.  So that's not excessive force, because you only have a right against excessive force according to these conservative judges if you're actually in custody; until then, we can beat you, shoot you, and this absurdity has come out of the conservative wing of the legal Academy.  So now we're seeing, you know, when you greenlight abuse for prosecutors, greenlight abuse for the police,  greenlight abuse, . . . you know that judge was going to be on the U.S. Supreme Court that was buddies with Pence that was out saying to take Trump off the ballot, he was a big right-wing Federalist Society judge . . . 

Was that Lawrence Tribe?

No, Tribe is the commie.  This is his buddy from the 4th Circuit.  This is a guy who said "You can strip Americans of all civil rights and civil liberties without constitutional protection as long as the president calls them an "enemy combatant."  There were a bunch of right-wingers there going, "Woo-hoo!!"  Ben Shapiro was Woo-hoo!!" cheerleading that kind of nonsense.  I mean you don't have to follow Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, or a lot of them, Jeremy Boreing, well-named, Boreing, to realize their authoritarian tendencies; their fascistic proclivities, quite frankly, are barely under the surface. They're all excited about El Salvador's method of cracking down on crime because they think mass arrests is a wonderful thing.  They never met a prosecutor they thought was bad.  They never met a police they thought was rogue.  They never thought an executive action done during the Bush Administration was problematic, and that's why we're here.  And now the Left has overtly weaponized using that greenlight and using that open door and it's an outlandish and outrageous case against Trump.  And the reason why it shouldn't matter to everybody is that it goes way past Trump.  If they can establish this precedent, you can defraud nobody, and you could have done one of the most sophisticated business deals in the history of man, we're talking about deals in the 8 figures, deals in the 9 figures, and the idea that they didn't know . . . ?  I mean Trump had through a bankruptcy before.  You don't think the banks didn't know exactly the value of the loan, the exact value of the note to pay back that loan? That's utterly ludicrous.