Basically, this is a common practice in real estate, to set up each and every building you own as its own separate business (in the form of an LLC), for both tax and liability purposes. They're not "dissolving the Trump Group", and they can't even touch the non NYC buildings he owns.
The only thing they CAN do is force him to create new LLCs outside of NYC and NY to now own and operate the properties, which is basically what they're doing. Essentially, the only thing they've successfully done is lose business tax revenue, since there's a 99% chance that Trump will just set up a few LLCs that are owned by independent Trusts in Florida (of more smartly, South Dakota, Delaware, or Nevada), and then everything is settled.
Well the "judge" ordered the properties custody be turned over to three independent entities, so if he tried to turn them over to a different LLC in say, Chicago (Since he owns quite a few buildings in Chicago), they they'd probably either throw a fit, or just have the Chicago DA do the same thing.
Hence it'd be a safer and more convenient path to just make new LLCS held by trusts in the most Trust/LLC friendly states (which are the ones I listed, sans Tennessee, which I forgot about).
And? That has no bearing to anything I said. By transferring the disputed assets to legally independent entities in red states, and red districts, you basically set up a giant wall between yourself, and the corrupt DAs who keep doing crap like this.
All the Monitor does is keep track of all the internal financials. What I'm suggesting has no bearing on that, all it does is take the assets out of the legal jurisdiction of the soros puppets.
Trump tried to transfer his assets last year and was prevented by the court.
The Trump properties in New York are now in receivership. Trump and his family are not in control of the asset is my understanding. Which means they can't simply file new paperwork and transfer the LLC to an out-of-state LLC. Somebody else will now be in charge of these properties.
100% false as well. The judge made a move but it was never approved. Likewise, I don't know what you don't understand, they can't force him to give up his private property for this under the fourth Amendment, since there's no backlog of property taxes owed.
Likewise, if nothing else, one can simply convert everything into a Sole Proprietorship, which has a unique status as both a corporation and an individual and doesn't require a business license.
Trump isn't losing his properties, so stop trying to insist otherwise.
This is corporate property, not private property correct? And corporate property is sold all the time when a company goes into receivership. That's my understanding.
Before we go further, are you familiar with the New York Executive law on this? It's pretty broad
Because I've heard several people refer to this as the corporate death penalty.
The attorney general of New York could have but did not in this case, ask for a complete dissolution of a company.
What do you mean the judge made a move but it was never approved?
The New York court system is really goofy. I read that it became so corrupt decades ago, that they had to "start over" and created a sort of parallel system. The result is that I have no idea which courts have what functions.
But as I understand it, this is a civil case at a local trial court. If so, this ruling can be appealed.
It appears to me that this judicial order was issued in violation of law.
A person cannot be convicted of fraud without any evidence being presented, under oath, and subject to cross examination.
Here is an article from a few days ago, which states that there was a hearing a few days ago, and today's "ruling" was a result of that hearing.
It does not appear that any evidence was presented. The plaintiff simply CLAIMED that she had evidence of fraud, and presented a bunch of documents.
But if there was no WITNESS in the courtroom, who could verify the documents, and state what they were and what they meant UNDER OATH, AND SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, then NO EVIDENCE was presented to the court. It is nothing more than heresay.
In addition, there is no injured party making a claim. The NYC DA does not like the valuations that were presented to banks, but so what? The banks accepted them, issued business loans based on them, and the loans were paid back in full.
Where is the fraud? Because the NYC DA does not like the valuations (long after the fact), even though no party was harmed, and then presents NO WITNESSES to verify her claims?
There is a trial scheduled for 10/2/23, but now the issue of guilt is not to be determined at a trial, since the "judge" has already determined guilt, sans evidence.
The only thing to be determined at trial now is the penalty, which is also out of order. Besides, the "judge" has already issued a penalty with the decertification order.
What a goofy mofo this "judge" is.
Should be appealed and thrown out, with sanctions to the NYC DA and disbarment of the "judge."
Regarding the business entities, I would be shocked if Trump did not already have everything owned in trusts long ago, anyway.
But then again, for a billionaire, some of the attorneys he hires ("the best that money can buy") seem really horseshit in a lot of cases.
Also, he should already have the hotel business in one legal entity, the hotel structure in a different entity, and the land underneath it in a third structure. Probably a fourth structure to hold liens against all of it, too, and most of these structures and/or ownership (trusts) outside of New York, anyway, since New York is a shithole when it comes to this sort of thing.
It's a documents case. Many of the documents were signed by the executives of the Trump organization, basically under penalty of perjury. Businesses have to file tons of legal documents. To validate the document, the attorney general just needed to pull the official files or subpoena bank records or insurance records or tax records
This is a valuation of property case. The claim is that valuations were inflated in a fraudulent manner.
If an attorney wants to present evidence in court, the attorney can certainly submit public records, bank records, insurance records, etc.
BUT ...
The attorney CANNOT attest to those records in a court case. That is hearsay (see: Trinsey v. Pagliaro).
In order for it to be EVIDENCE to be entered into the record, there MUST be a WITNESS to testify under oath, subject to cross examination, that they have PERSONAL FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE that these records are "this" and mean "that."
Furthermore, you would need expert witness testimony as to the valuations of the properties -- testified to under oath, and subject to cross-examination -- to verify (or deny) the CLAIMS made by the prosecution.
It appears to me that NONE of that was done. Ergo, there was no evidence ON THE RECORD upon which a judge could make a lawful determination of "guilty" of fraud, and therefore, the order is a void judgement (can be appealed, or set aside by a different court, as a "void judgement").
Evidence is submitted in summary judgment motions by way of sworn testimony and authenticated documents. This was a summary judgment motion. The judge is wrong, but that is the normal process.
That sworn testimony is hearsay UNTIL someone stands up in a court room, swears to tell the truth under oath, and states what they know, based on first-hand knowledge, AND is subject to cross-examination. Maybe their only testimony is, "Yeah, I wrote and signed that affidavit and it is correct to the best of my knowledge." Fine, BUT the other party gets to CROSS-EXAMINE UNDER OATH.
Now, maybe Trump's attorneys stupidly waived his rights. Would not suprise me, necessarily, but I have not seen any evidence of that, so I can only go on what I have read and heard (which is not a lot, because I am not that interested in it -- at least, until today).
EVIDENCE must follow the Rules of Evidence, and NOTHING is evidence until it is ON THE RECORD, UNDER OATH, and SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Besides all that, this case fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted because there is NO INJURY to any complaining party.
The whole thing is a shit show. It will be appealed and overturned.
I have been an an attorney for 34 years. Undisputed testimony under oath and authenticated documents can establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is a thing.
I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.
Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?
But I digress ...
Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."
But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.
Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.
Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?
AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.
There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.
Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.
34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important than justice and law.
Prosecutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.
"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years as a trial lawyer)
If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?
The article you linked appears to me to be about the AG office talking to an appraiser. That is not a deposition, and you can see that the appraiser never "got back to" the AG office with other info.
That is an investigation of an AG's office, not a deposition in a court case (which, by itself, would not be evidence, anyway).
From your article:
James has accused the appraiser of failing to fully comply with four subpoenas she has issued
Clearly, this was NOT a deposition. It was an informal discussion within the AG"s initial investigation.
"Any suggestion that Cushman & Wakefield has not responded in good faith to the Attorney General's investigation is fundamentally untrue," a company spokesperson said Monday of the AG's allegations.
"The Attorney General's filings do not accurately depict Cushman & Wakefield's responses to prior subpoenas and inquiries. We stand behind our appraisers and our work."
So ... THERE YOU HAVE IT.
The author of the article wrote a MISLEADING TITLE.
The appraiser STANDS BY their valuations.
It is only the AG who doesn't like it, and the author of the article (Laura Italiano) who apparently thinks that biased articles is some sort of stand-in for real journalism.
Regarding Laura Italiano (click on her name):
her work for Insider's Enterprise news desk is focused on the New York investigations into the Trump Organization and on related stories out of state and federal court
Which means ... she writes false hit pieces on Trump.
Here are some of the titles of her other articles:
Does Trump know how many minutes are in a day?
Donald in Wonderland
Trump keeps asking to move his March hush-money trial date because he's overbooked with criminal trials
Trump rambled so much in an NY fraud-case deposition ...
100% false, they can't legally force him to sell his properties, as that would violate the 4th amendment since it would be unconstitutional seizure of his personal property.
He's not being charged with anything that can legally result in the forfeiture of his property, the only thing they've done is cancel his NYC business licenses. By simply transferring the businesses to out of state entities, this circumvents their ridiculous attempts at trying to bankrupt Trump.
Not trying to be mean here, but Trump's lawyers are full of crap quite often. They put up weird facades whenever the next attack comes, but there's always a simple solution 99% of the time.
For example, they also mentioned Mar-a-lago in all of this. Both the "judge" and Trump's Lawyers.
There is 0% chance Mar-a-lago will be effected. It's in Florida, held in a Florida LLC. Not a single Judge in NYC has authority in Florida, not even the Federal Judges, as Florida is in a completely different Judicial District.
The whole "Trump may lose control of X property" thing is nothing more than fear mongering. If nothing else, all he has to do is create a series of Trusts for his kids, listing himself as the co-beneficiary and the Trustee. Thereby retaining control, retaining his income, and simplifying the inheritance process for his kids.
Q+ “less than 5 months from now we’re going to defeat Crooked Joe Biden; we’re going to take back our country.” “we’re gonna take back the White House — and sooner than you think! It’s going to be really something special.” WWG1WGA
posted 6 hours ago by DRan
55 comments share download save hide report block
Trump - "We will take back the White House in less then 5 months". Statement right after opening intro. No way this is a mistake. SC rally today. Watch and you will hear it... its within the first 10 minutes of him speaking. PREVIOUSLY AIRED
posted 1 day ago by QDay
I remember hearing parts of this speech, now that I hear it again. I had it on in the background while I was doing something or other and missed that part.
Now that I hear the five months part (4 times over with context), I think it was a boo boo of some kind.
I'm not sure what to think of it, but we'll know in five months. :-)
These idiots leftists better be glad that Trump, unlike any of them, is a law abiding citizen. Otherwise with his money and resources these people would be found floating face down in the East River.
Never thought of it that way. But just think if he was just like the evil ones in the uniparty. The "died suddenly" wouldn't be talking about vax deaths.
Made me think of some of the posts from Qanon.pub. The first arrest would shock the world. With over 484,000 sealed indictments, what if it's a mass arrest?
Not exactly, they just ordered the dissolution of the LLCs in NY.
https://abc7ny.com/donald-trump-news-today-president/13831659/#:~:text=The%20judge%20immediately%20canceled%20all%20of%20the%20defendants%27%20business%20certificates%20in%20New%20York%2C%20and%20ordered%20that%20they%20must%20recommend%20no%20more%20than%20three%20potential%20independent%20receivers%20to%20manage%20the%20dissolution%20of%20the%20canceled%20LLCs%20within%2010%20days.
Basically, this is a common practice in real estate, to set up each and every building you own as its own separate business (in the form of an LLC), for both tax and liability purposes. They're not "dissolving the Trump Group", and they can't even touch the non NYC buildings he owns.
The only thing they CAN do is force him to create new LLCs outside of NYC and NY to now own and operate the properties, which is basically what they're doing. Essentially, the only thing they've successfully done is lose business tax revenue, since there's a 99% chance that Trump will just set up a few LLCs that are owned by independent Trusts in Florida (of more smartly, South Dakota, Delaware, or Nevada), and then everything is settled.
I'm sure he's incorporated in many states. Now they can lose revenue. 🤷♀️ it's a nose in spite of your face socialist dumbass kinda thing...💥💥
Well the "judge" ordered the properties custody be turned over to three independent entities, so if he tried to turn them over to a different LLC in say, Chicago (Since he owns quite a few buildings in Chicago), they they'd probably either throw a fit, or just have the Chicago DA do the same thing.
Hence it'd be a safer and more convenient path to just make new LLCS held by trusts in the most Trust/LLC friendly states (which are the ones I listed, sans Tennessee, which I forgot about).
The Trump Organization is currently under an independent financial monitor since last year.
And? That has no bearing to anything I said. By transferring the disputed assets to legally independent entities in red states, and red districts, you basically set up a giant wall between yourself, and the corrupt DAs who keep doing crap like this.
All the Monitor does is keep track of all the internal financials. What I'm suggesting has no bearing on that, all it does is take the assets out of the legal jurisdiction of the soros puppets.
Trump tried to transfer his assets last year and was prevented by the court.
The Trump properties in New York are now in receivership. Trump and his family are not in control of the asset is my understanding. Which means they can't simply file new paperwork and transfer the LLC to an out-of-state LLC. Somebody else will now be in charge of these properties.
Trump certainly appeal this ruling.
100% false as well. The judge made a move but it was never approved. Likewise, I don't know what you don't understand, they can't force him to give up his private property for this under the fourth Amendment, since there's no backlog of property taxes owed.
Likewise, if nothing else, one can simply convert everything into a Sole Proprietorship, which has a unique status as both a corporation and an individual and doesn't require a business license.
Trump isn't losing his properties, so stop trying to insist otherwise.
This is corporate property, not private property correct? And corporate property is sold all the time when a company goes into receivership. That's my understanding.
Before we go further, are you familiar with the New York Executive law on this? It's pretty broad Because I've heard several people refer to this as the corporate death penalty.
The attorney general of New York could have but did not in this case, ask for a complete dissolution of a company.
What do you mean the judge made a move but it was never approved?
They are definitely not deep thinkers.
The New York court system is really goofy. I read that it became so corrupt decades ago, that they had to "start over" and created a sort of parallel system. The result is that I have no idea which courts have what functions.
But as I understand it, this is a civil case at a local trial court. If so, this ruling can be appealed.
It appears to me that this judicial order was issued in violation of law.
A person cannot be convicted of fraud without any evidence being presented, under oath, and subject to cross examination.
Here is an article from a few days ago, which states that there was a hearing a few days ago, and today's "ruling" was a result of that hearing.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-hear-arguments-new-yorks-civil-suit-trump-rcna116854
However ...
It does not appear that any evidence was presented. The plaintiff simply CLAIMED that she had evidence of fraud, and presented a bunch of documents.
But if there was no WITNESS in the courtroom, who could verify the documents, and state what they were and what they meant UNDER OATH, AND SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, then NO EVIDENCE was presented to the court. It is nothing more than heresay.
In addition, there is no injured party making a claim. The NYC DA does not like the valuations that were presented to banks, but so what? The banks accepted them, issued business loans based on them, and the loans were paid back in full.
Where is the fraud? Because the NYC DA does not like the valuations (long after the fact), even though no party was harmed, and then presents NO WITNESSES to verify her claims?
There is a trial scheduled for 10/2/23, but now the issue of guilt is not to be determined at a trial, since the "judge" has already determined guilt, sans evidence.
The only thing to be determined at trial now is the penalty, which is also out of order. Besides, the "judge" has already issued a penalty with the decertification order.
What a goofy mofo this "judge" is.
Should be appealed and thrown out, with sanctions to the NYC DA and disbarment of the "judge."
Regarding the business entities, I would be shocked if Trump did not already have everything owned in trusts long ago, anyway.
But then again, for a billionaire, some of the attorneys he hires ("the best that money can buy") seem really horseshit in a lot of cases.
Also, he should already have the hotel business in one legal entity, the hotel structure in a different entity, and the land underneath it in a third structure. Probably a fourth structure to hold liens against all of it, too, and most of these structures and/or ownership (trusts) outside of New York, anyway, since New York is a shithole when it comes to this sort of thing.
Is that you Viva?
I don't know what a "Viva" is.
Viva Frei, he’s a based lawyer with a podcast.
Oh.
No, not me.
Take it as a complement, I thought your legal analysis was top notch.
It's a documents case. Many of the documents were signed by the executives of the Trump organization, basically under penalty of perjury. Businesses have to file tons of legal documents. To validate the document, the attorney general just needed to pull the official files or subpoena bank records or insurance records or tax records
No.
This is a valuation of property case. The claim is that valuations were inflated in a fraudulent manner.
If an attorney wants to present evidence in court, the attorney can certainly submit public records, bank records, insurance records, etc.
BUT ...
The attorney CANNOT attest to those records in a court case. That is hearsay (see: Trinsey v. Pagliaro).
In order for it to be EVIDENCE to be entered into the record, there MUST be a WITNESS to testify under oath, subject to cross examination, that they have PERSONAL FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE that these records are "this" and mean "that."
Furthermore, you would need expert witness testimony as to the valuations of the properties -- testified to under oath, and subject to cross-examination -- to verify (or deny) the CLAIMS made by the prosecution.
It appears to me that NONE of that was done. Ergo, there was no evidence ON THE RECORD upon which a judge could make a lawful determination of "guilty" of fraud, and therefore, the order is a void judgement (can be appealed, or set aside by a different court, as a "void judgement").
Evidence is submitted in summary judgment motions by way of sworn testimony and authenticated documents. This was a summary judgment motion. The judge is wrong, but that is the normal process.
That sworn testimony is hearsay UNTIL someone stands up in a court room, swears to tell the truth under oath, and states what they know, based on first-hand knowledge, AND is subject to cross-examination. Maybe their only testimony is, "Yeah, I wrote and signed that affidavit and it is correct to the best of my knowledge." Fine, BUT the other party gets to CROSS-EXAMINE UNDER OATH.
Now, maybe Trump's attorneys stupidly waived his rights. Would not suprise me, necessarily, but I have not seen any evidence of that, so I can only go on what I have read and heard (which is not a lot, because I am not that interested in it -- at least, until today).
EVIDENCE must follow the Rules of Evidence, and NOTHING is evidence until it is ON THE RECORD, UNDER OATH, and SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Besides all that, this case fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted because there is NO INJURY to any complaining party.
The whole thing is a shit show. It will be appealed and overturned.
I have been an an attorney for 34 years. Undisputed testimony under oath and authenticated documents can establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is a thing.
I realize you attorneys take short-cuts all the time. That is part of the problem, as I see it.
Where the hell were you during the Covid scam and violations of constitutional rights?
But I digress ...
Back on point. Like I said, I would not be surprised if Trump's attorneys STUPIDLY waived his rights, which is what you imply here by claiming they stipulated to "undisputed facts."
But elsewhere in this thread, it is clear from an article that the appraisers in question STAND BY their work, meaning their valuations.
Trump is accused of fraudulent valuations of real estate. But those valuations are supported by the appraisals. AG doesn't like the valuations, but so what? The appraisals support the valuations.
Why were the appraisers (and bank employees who reviewed the appraisals) not brought in as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, by the defense in a TRIAL?
AG says Trump inflated valuations. Appraisers support Trump's valuations.
There IS a dispute of material facts, if the case is for fraudulent valuations and appraisers support the valuations.
Unless there is something I'm missing, which is possible because I have not been following it. But based on DJT and Eric Trump's reactions, they certainly seem to think that there was supposed to be a trial (scheduled for 10/2) to determine the issue of fraud.
34 years or not, your industry has a nasty habit of taking short-cuts, because salaries are more important than justice and law.
Prosecutors have a 99% success rate not because they are brilliant, but because they can put undue pressure on defendants, and defendants' attorneys would rather not rock the boat than put up a vigorous defense.
"In more than 60 years in court rooms across America, I have never -- hear me now, NEVER -- had a case in which the government did not lie or cheat. Not one time." -- Gerry Spence (never lost a criminal case, lost only one civil case in 61 years as a trial lawyer)
If the appraisers are saying they disagree with the AG's view of fraudulent valuations, and their valuations support Trump's claims, and THERE IS NO INJURED PARTY, then (a) why would Trump's lawyers stipulate to fraudulent valuations (if they did; hard to believe they would), and/or (b) what is the judge doing issuing this judgement without a trial?
I have not been following the story much.
The article you linked appears to me to be about the AG office talking to an appraiser. That is not a deposition, and you can see that the appraiser never "got back to" the AG office with other info.
That is an investigation of an AG's office, not a deposition in a court case (which, by itself, would not be evidence, anyway).
From your article:
Clearly, this was NOT a deposition. It was an informal discussion within the AG"s initial investigation.
So ... THERE YOU HAVE IT.
The author of the article wrote a MISLEADING TITLE.
The appraiser STANDS BY their valuations.
It is only the AG who doesn't like it, and the author of the article (Laura Italiano) who apparently thinks that biased articles is some sort of stand-in for real journalism.
Regarding Laura Italiano (click on her name):
Which means ... she writes false hit pieces on Trump.
Here are some of the titles of her other articles:
Trump has been deposed in this case, Eric, Don jr and Ivanka were all deposed
You have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to law Jesus
Happy to be educated
Thank you.
100% false, they can't legally force him to sell his properties, as that would violate the 4th amendment since it would be unconstitutional seizure of his personal property.
He's not being charged with anything that can legally result in the forfeiture of his property, the only thing they've done is cancel his NYC business licenses. By simply transferring the businesses to out of state entities, this circumvents their ridiculous attempts at trying to bankrupt Trump.
Not trying to be mean here, but Trump's lawyers are full of crap quite often. They put up weird facades whenever the next attack comes, but there's always a simple solution 99% of the time.
For example, they also mentioned Mar-a-lago in all of this. Both the "judge" and Trump's Lawyers.
There is 0% chance Mar-a-lago will be effected. It's in Florida, held in a Florida LLC. Not a single Judge in NYC has authority in Florida, not even the Federal Judges, as Florida is in a completely different Judicial District.
The whole "Trump may lose control of X property" thing is nothing more than fear mongering. If nothing else, all he has to do is create a series of Trusts for his kids, listing himself as the co-beneficiary and the Trustee. Thereby retaining control, retaining his income, and simplifying the inheritance process for his kids.
Didn't Trump say in 5 months we're taking back the WH, that was sure to bring the Nazis out in the open & there will be more no doubt.
Wait! Where did he say that? This is the first I've heard of it.
Q+ “less than 5 months from now we’re going to defeat Crooked Joe Biden; we’re going to take back our country.” “we’re gonna take back the White House — and sooner than you think! It’s going to be really something special.” WWG1WGA posted 6 hours ago by DRan 55 comments share download save hide report block Trump - "We will take back the White House in less then 5 months". Statement right after opening intro. No way this is a mistake. SC rally today. Watch and you will hear it... its within the first 10 minutes of him speaking. PREVIOUSLY AIRED posted 1 day ago by QDay
Thanks. I knew you'd have sauce.
I remember hearing parts of this speech, now that I hear it again. I had it on in the background while I was doing something or other and missed that part.
Now that I hear the five months part (4 times over with context), I think it was a boo boo of some kind.
I'm not sure what to think of it, but we'll know in five months. :-)
I'll carry these scars with pride. :-)
Well, then I will too. I mean, it seems that we are all heading into the next five months and beyond together, one and all.
I wish there was a quicker way of saying that, haw haw haw.
It appears the judge is not aware of the expansion down at GITMO
He will be, and then he will be aware of being hung by the neck until dead.
These idiots leftists better be glad that Trump, unlike any of them, is a law abiding citizen. Otherwise with his money and resources these people would be found floating face down in the East River.
Never thought of it that way. But just think if he was just like the evil ones in the uniparty. The "died suddenly" wouldn't be talking about vax deaths.
I really hope these migrants destroy NY completely. What a shithole.
My heart hurts for this man.
Made me think of some of the posts from Qanon.pub. The first arrest would shock the world. With over 484,000 sealed indictments, what if it's a mass arrest?
There is no Q post with that phrase.