Democrats: "Dat fine of $355 MILLION levied on Trump wuz TOTALLY reasonable!"

If you're vaguely well-informed you'll have heard that a week ago, at the behest of the utterly corrupt attorney-general of New York--Letitia James--an insane judge in New York City--Arthur Engoron--fined Donald Trump $355 million.

Wow.  So do any of you know what alleged crime that astonishingly huge fine was levied for?

Take your time.  You're all well-informed adults, right?

If you're not sure, do an online search for "+network news +trump engoron fine."  Recall that the Lying Mainstream Media are all virulently anti-Trump, so you'd think if there was a crime there, they'd be positively slobbering to tell you every detail, eh?  Dey wanna make Trump look eeeebil, eh?

And yet while you'll scores of pieces on the network news about the fine, you'll find almost nothing on the networks about the alleged crime.  Plenty of stuff in the Wall Street Journal, but damn little explanation of the alleged crime on the networks.

That's because the so-called "crime"--the one that supposedly warranted a fine of $355 million--was a nothing.  When Trump applied to banks for loans, he reported the value of his real-estate assets in New York City at the most optimistic level. 

The banks don't just naively take a loan applicant's valuation at face value.  They verify.  And they made the loans, and every dollar was repaid.  No one lost a dollar.  No entity was damaged.  The banks didn't complain that they were defrauded in any way.

Historically, to incur a huge fine there has to be huge damage.  But in this case no one was damaged.  Instead the case hinged on black female A-G Letitia James wailing that Trump had over-valued his properties.  But again, where was the damage?  Did a lender lose a single dollar?  No.  Plus banks have their own appraisers who go over every claimed asset to ensure it exists, and to evaluate its market value.

The banks didn't see any problem.  But Letitia and Arthur did--and assessed the record personal fine.

Now: the 8th Amendment to the Constitution says the federal gruberment can't levy "excessive fines."  Does $355 million strike you as outrageously excessive for a case with no damages?

If a fine of $355 MILLION does NOT strike you as excessive, given the lack of ANY claimed damages, you're clearly a moron and shouldn't be either voting or having children.

But wait, it gets worse!  The ghastly, corrupt DECREE by the insane leftist Engoron included the DEMAND that if Trump had the gall to appeal the fine, Engoron DECREED that he would have to post the ENTIRE amount of the fine as a bond.  And Letitia James has now smirked that if he didn't do so, she would seize his properties in NYC.

This is communism.  Totalitarianism.  Engoron and James are violating the Constitution--but of course all Democrats have long-since trashed that document--which was once called "the supreme law of the land."

Now: Democrats (like my attorney sister) merely shrug and smirk: "Dis ruling only apply to Trump, not to ordinary Americans.  See, it beez reasonable for us faaabulous Democrats to doo anyt'ing we want to destroy Trump cuz he so baaaaad!  But we'd nevah doo anyt'ing like dis to regular folks!  TRUST US!"

No.  Not only no, but hell no.  Because once you trash the Constitution for one person, its protections vanish.  Then only the "connected" elites are protected--and not by that document,  but by their connections.

Of course you Democrats WANT that.  Have the courage to admit it!  You want to be able to control how the Laws are applied--who shall be prosecuted and who shall be deemed to be above prosecution--because that gives you massive power.  It allows you to weaponize the gruberment against your political opponents, and to shield your friends--which is exactly what we're seeing now.  And you aren't worried that what you've unleashed will evah be used against YOU, cuz you beez "elites," "connected."  (And you're certainly right about that.)

When I was young there was a phrase "The ends justify the means."  If you're a college-age American, your parents will usually be in their 40s or 50s.  Ask 'em if they've heard the phrase, and what they think it means. If they're not sure, you'll realize how totally the society has changed since I was young.

The phrase is "sophistry"--in this case a sarcastic claim that as long as one is trying to achieve a really important goal [define, please], any means to achieve that goal is justified.  A moment's thought should convince you of the flaw in that reasoning.

If you don't see the problem there, you're a perfect Democrat, so off ya go, citizen.

Again, for young Americans: ask your parents.  See if they know the phrase, and if they take it literally.  Because Democrats do.  And that's not hyperbole: the Dems have a slogan they shorten (for good reason!) to "BAMN."  Ever seen that?

It stands for "By any means necessary."  That should chill you, because it means exactly what it says:  If the Democrats wanna do something they feel is "big," they totally believe they're justified in using ANY means to achieve that goal.    

Startin' to see the trap yet?  If not...

Normally I'd stop there, but this morning I'm feeling more inclined to explain the obvious: If "great goals" justify the use of any means to achieve those goals, what (if anything) is "off the table," eh?

Regular Democrat voters won't have any idea what's being asked--and if you told 'em what that question was asking, they'd deny the "BAMN" claim.  But if you ask the "progressives" of the Democrat party you'll find they mean exactly what they say: ANY means are justified to achieve a hotly desired goal.

So...do you believe "the ends justify the means" is a good way to run a country?