Trump’s Legal Battle a Test Case of Cancellation by the Regimes By Charles Taylor (Florida)

The legal cases against Donald Trump are clearly devised as lawfare to either prevent him from running, or destroy him financially and personally. There has never been anything like this in history, short of just shooting the guy, which I suppose is being contemplated by the Dark Lords.

The New York Supreme Court's order, based upon allegations of civil fraud, called for the dissolution of the Trump Organization. It is based upon allegations of Trump over-valuing his real estate to secure loans, all of which were paid back. The case is utterly absurd, since everyone over-values their assets, and that is why big grown ups like banks do independent assessments to get the right values. There is no case against Trump, but the courts have become dominated by Leftists who do not even try to be fair. This is case study of how Leftism destroys the rule of law.

If Trump survives, he is really going to have to drain the swamp this time.

https://conservativecompass.substack.com/p/trumps-employees-in-danger-of-losing

“Former President Donald Trump's legal battle in New York has stirred extensive debate, particularly following a recent ruling that proposed the dissolution of his business empire. Many observers are concerned that this decision represents a miscarriage of justice, primarily because of its far-reaching implications on innocent employees and the absence of due process.

The Order and its Implications

The New York Supreme Court's order, stemming from allegations of civil fraud, called for the dissolution of the Trump Organization and its related LLCs. This would mean that Trump, the 45th President of the United States, would lose his vast real estate empire, putting at risk hundreds of jobs and potentially leaving many without a livelihood.

The Trump Organization reacted strongly to the verdict, criticizing it for lacking basis and violating fundamental Constitutional rights. Their statement highlighted the drastic nature of the judgment, which they described as overzealous and politically motivated. Pointing out that nearly 1,000 New Yorkers would be affected by the ruling, they emphasized that these businesses had "never been given their day in court."

Questionable Legal Processes

The defense's primary contention revolves around the process, or rather the lack thereof, preceding the dissolution order. Trump's attorneys have consistently argued that the New York Supreme Court's decision was taken without proper factual or legal groundwork. Describing the judgment as a "miscarriage of justice," the legal team expressed concerns about the absence of due process.

Furthermore, the attorneys pointed out that the dissolution of the Trump Organization was never sought by the prosecutors in their petition. Instead, New York Attorney General Letitia James had asked for penalties and restrictions, but not the dissolution of the businesses. This raised questions about the jurisdiction and discretion of the court in imposing such a significant penalty without proper precedent or legal authority.

Impact on Innocent Employees

The dissolution order has broader consequences beyond President Trump and his immediate family. Hundreds of New York employees, who rely on Trump's businesses for their livelihoods, now face an uncertain future. This raises ethical questions about the potential repercussions on innocent employees who had no involvement in the alleged wrongdoing. The defense's argument is that these non-parties are being unjustly affected without any finding of wrongdoing on the part of the businesses.

An Unprecedented Verdict

The dissolution of a major business entity based on civil fraud allegations is an unprecedented move, especially when considering the scale of the Trump Organization. Such an aggressive legal maneuver, aimed at a former president's assets, naturally gives rise to concerns of political motivations and bias. Moreover, historically, penalties in similar cases have been restricted to fines or, in extreme cases, leadership restrictions.

Economic Repercussions

The economic implications of dissolving the Trump Organization could be vast. Beyond the direct employment it provides, the organization has contracts, deals, and partnerships with various other entities, which too might suffer from this decision. A cascade of financial consequences could ripple through the New York real estate market, impacting suppliers, partners, and even competitors.

Due Process and Fairness

At the heart of the defense's argument is the principle of due process. The idea that every individual or entity deserves a full and fair opportunity to present their case before suffering any penalties is foundational to the American legal system. The abrupt move to dissolve the Trump Organization, especially without it being explicitly sought by the prosecutors, undermines this core principle, according to many legal experts.

Potential Political Overtones

The case's highly politicized nature cannot be ignored. Given the charged political climate, where Trump remains a divisive figure, it's essential to question whether impartiality can genuinely be maintained. Attorney General Letitia James's past comments on pursuing Trump for fraud during her campaign add another layer of skepticism about the motivations behind the lawsuit.

Looking Ahead

As the case unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the broader implications legal decisions can have on the economy, the lives of everyday citizens, and the principle of fair justice. It is vital for the judiciary to strike a balance between enforcing the law and ensuring that decisions aren't disproportionately punitive, especially when they have the potential to affect many innocent parties.

Conclusion

The legal battles surrounding President Trump have been extensive and polarizing. However, the potential dissolution of his businesses raises concerns beyond political allegiances. The broader implications on innocent employees and the questions surrounding due process warrant careful consideration. As the case progresses, the balance between justice and overreach will be under close scrutiny.”