Post from Truth Social

In other words, the case that was brought against Donald Trump should never have been brought. There shouldn't have been a sentencing hearing. There shouldn't have been fines. There shouldn't have been anything. This case against Donald Trump is a greater, more gray violation than anything we've ever seen under the excessive fines part of the Eighth Amendment and much worse than the Timbs case. The case brought against President Trump violates over 800 years of history of Western Enlightenment and the law dating back to the Magna Carta. President Trump's case is much stronger than anything before, much stronger than the Timbs case that the court ruled on. Why? The prosecutor for the state, Letitia James, campaigned for office on the platform of destroying Donald Trump. Her statements are now evidence of her intent and motivation in any appeal and central to the violations of the Eighth Amendment. Two, the state consumer fraud statute used against President Trump has never been used this way against anybody else in the history of the statute by the state of New York, ever. It's been used against him and his family. The Associated Press reviewed nearly, and I report as they report, 150 reported cases under the statute used to punish Mr. Trump and stated that nearly every previous time a company was taken away, victims and losses were key factors. Customers had lost money or brought defective products or never received services ordered, leaving them cheated and angry. Actual fraud, harm, detrimental reliance. Those are the three elements of fraud. No one was defrauded here. No one was harmed. No proof of detrimental reliance. None of them exist. Also, no testimony by anybody who lost anything. No complaint filed by any bank, by any insurance company, by any lender. In fact, the testimony was to the contrary. Now, there was no trial. There was no jury. Wow. Sounds like pre-1215, if you ask me. The judge ruled on the papers and he ruled that Donald Trump was guilty. And that was that. All the back and forth, all the hearings were about the fines and the penalties. Before Donald Trump stepped into that courtroom, he was guilty, according to this Democrat elected judge. I want you to think about that. When President Trump walked into that courtroom, he was already adjudicated guilty. The judge in the case, an elected Democrat like the prosecutor, an elected Democrat, had made earlier statements in other settings, very negative about Donald Trump, that should have caused him to recuse himself. But obviously, he didn't. None of them do in any of the cases where we know that they're biased against Trump. And I'm going beyond the fact that what this judge should have ruled immediately is, Madam Attorney General, you have no case under the Timbs case. And you have no case because a case like this has never been brought. You're talking about a former president of the United States. You're talking about a candidate for president of the United States. You're talking about a man who built the skyline in New York City. And you're bringing me a cockamamie case. Next thing you know, you'll bring the Ku Klux Klan case. Oh, wait a minute. They already did that in Washington. And what does the judge do? He orders nearly half a billion dollars in fines and interest, orders President Trump and his sons to turn his business over to the state, effectively the state of New York, to be managed by another former prosecutor of his choosing. Latisha James, the state prosecutor, she's made the rounds on the Sunday shows bragging about what she accomplished, bragging about how she upheld her campaign promise. So Trump properties, she says now, if he doesn't come up with four hundred million dollars, what is effectively bond in order to have the privilege of appealing the decision by this judge and the actions by the state government. She will seize the properties and sell them from under him. Sell them from under him at pennies on the dollar. Think about this. You know what this is? From her campaign statements, from the judge's prior statements, from the use of a statute that's never been used this way against anybody else in the history of New York, the lack of a trial, the lack of a jury, a decision on the papers, and all the rest of it. This is a prima facie case of a violation of the Eighth Amendment. It's not even a close case. The state prosecuting judge had to know in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that this kind of state action was absolutely, unequivocally, unconstitutional, a violation of the Bill of Rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The judge even said, "President Trump," in his statement, "I'm doing what's close to the maximum, if not the maximum, because you didn't show remorse. You didn't bend your knee. You didn't kiss the hand of the state, that is, the hand of the king. So we're stealing your property out from under you. We're stealing it, and we're going to sell it if we have to, and you'll have no recourse." No recourse? What did Ruth Bader Ginsburg say in her opinion? "Nine to zero," the Supreme Court ruled, "that other liberties are affected, other liberties are affected, when a king, when a tyrant, when a dictator, when a state, when the federal government treats citizens this way. There is absolutely no legitimate basis of any kind, legally, factually, for what was done here, except to steal the property from Donald Trump to try and bankrupt him, because he's Donald Trump, because he's a former president, because he's running for president, and they're doing the dirty work of the Democrat Party and the Biden regime, the new king." I'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.