>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Two, the real reason for this action is maybe the far more terrible meaning of the decision—something that runs the risk of being undermined by all the talk of New York commercial fraud legislation. The goal of Letitia James’ campaign was to “getting” Donald Trump. Even months into her term as Attorney General, she was still unsure about what she was trying to “get” out of him. This confusion persisted throughout the campaign. The public was only aware that her political views differed from those of the 45th President. Consequently, there was a desire to extract political retribution at any costs, even if it meant upending the free market in America.
James lacks legal or constitutional knowledge, just like Fani Willis did in Georgia. Without question, she follows orders from her boss, the politicized Justice Department of the Biden administration, faithfully. Her potential is limited to being a simple operator since people in positions of authority have defined her function and chosen her for conformity.
She is similar to Willis, Alvin Bragg, and other special prosecutors or district attorneys who have been selected to bring legal action against well-known politicians in this sense. Anyone with common sense would see that her motivations are not based on principles, but rather on jealousy and wrath. She doesn’t understand the Constitution, the legal system in America, or the importance of the rule of law throughout history. She may be able to spell “due process of law,” but judging on her involvement in this farce, she probably can’t describe it. She is unlikely, like Bragg and Willis, to make her own decisions on her own, even while she benefits financially from her public office—once thought to be a prerequisite for the position.
James feels that everything is boiled down to her own rather narrow-minded perspective, which is now being expressed in the legal system and, despite her extensive expertise, would never be able to approach the scope of Donald Trump’s expansive ideas. These are the kinds of ideas that gave rise to contemporary wonders like Mar-a-Lago, Trump Tower, and Bedminster Golf Club. Because she is a modern lawyer who was indoctrinated by the corrupt legal system in New York State, she believes that the goal of the law is not to curtail the power of an oppressive government as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison intended, but rather to stifle the possibility of freedom and liberty, particularly the freedom to speak one’s mind and the freedom to follow one’s dreams without interference. In her instance, it is specifically to punish Donald Trump—but for what? Rebuilding New York after it was almost abandoned? building a global brand from the ground up? Getting elected president? Realizing the American ideal for his family and himself? for being a prosperous white guy in a time when the deliberate goal of Western civilization’s lofty achievements is being destroyed? How come?
James and Engoron have no understanding of the worth of the dollar or the amount of labor it takes to accumulate the type of wealth that they now want to take from President Trump in a single transaction over many years. They also don’t understand the judgment’s logical ramifications for New York business, which will undoubtedly have a chilling impact (to put it bluntly), or on their fellow Bolsheviks in the legal profession.
Even with New York’s turn toward socialism, the city’s vibrant commercial environment continues to benefit the city’s attorneys, many of whom unwittingly adopt communist principles. But supporting damaging assessments such as Engoron’s against President Trump’s companies might be disastrous for their industry. By doing such things, they run the danger of starting a domino effect that threatens the Empire State’s capitalism and, in the end, their livelihoods.
If companies are unable to operate freely without facing legal obstacles, this will accelerate their departure from New York. What incentive would there be for any company to do business in a place where they might be arbitrarily punished for something as insignificant as an executive’s remarks that the state attorney general found offensive?
“Well, it will only apply to Donald Trump!” Some who are supporting the present events in the legal system may react carelessly and blithely.
Yeah, ok.
Since the harsh precedent has been set, it is now easy to weaponize the legislation against any political opponents who are classified as “enemies of the state.” History demonstrates that radical groups are incapable of adhering to any kind of restraint and get more confident with every political setback before consuming even their own supporters.
Initially a persecutor, Robespierre was executed by guillotine during the French Revolution.
I hope it serves as a sobering message to those who think they can remain silent in the face of political persecution without facing repercussions. They must act now, God willing, before it’s too late, or else they run the possibility of being the next targets.
