October 24, 2025
The Corrupt ABC
Timothy Birdnow
Here is how you do propaganda. You dress it up as a news story, provide everything you can think of as exculpatory and neglect to explain the other side, and use unnamed sources.
Letitia James is the sitting Attorney General in New York State and the prosecutors who were investigating her were doing so under a Democratic Governor and in a deep blue state with a then Democratic Administration in power in Washington. This fairly screams corruption.
FTA:
1.A grand jury indicted James, not the Trump Administration, and they did so by agreeing there was ample evidence to support charges against her.
2.The degree of profit is immaterial; it is the fact of fraud that is the critical point. And you will notice they say she only made $800 IN THE FIRST YEAR while completely ignoring subsequent years. The fact is a mortgage is a long-term proposition and the first year(s) the borrower is paying all interest. The fact is James is a lawyer and knew exactly what she was doing. If not she has no business practicing law, much less being the AG. Would she have accepted this excuse from Trump? Did ABC news?
3.The possibility of not getting a conviction is also a red herring. They didn't even try because she was one of the Establishment and they assume they can play by their own rules. A grand jury thought there was enough evidence to prosecute, and this in a dark blue area. But it's not the job of prosecutors to decide who gets prosecuted or who does not when there is evidence that is good enough for a grand jury. Why didn't they take it to the grand jury in the first place? Anybody?
In typical leftist fashoion the article turns to the attack:
Why wouldn't Trump want to fire a guy who was a holdover from the previous Administration, you know, the Adminsitration that tried to frame him, when this prosecutor simply tried to spike the ball here?
Yes, Trump installed a better prosecutor to handle the case, but remember it still had to go to a grand jury.
One must remember James campaigned on a highly unethical scheme to "get Trump" even while she was swearing to uphold JUSTICE. She never cut him any slack, and did not even play remotely fair. She isn't a principled prosecutor but a partisan hatchetwoman and why does she think she deserves fair treatment now? Live by the sword die by it.
There is nothing exculpatory here. This is just a corrupt political machine that protected it's own and a willing accomplice by a major media network. It's disgraceful.
Here is how you do propaganda. You dress it up as a news story, provide everything you can think of as exculpatory and neglect to explain the other side, and use unnamed sources.
Letitia James is the sitting Attorney General in New York State and the prosecutors who were investigating her were doing so under a Democratic Governor and in a deep blue state with a then Democratic Administration in power in Washington. This fairly screams corruption.
FTA:
Prosecutors who investigated New York Attorney General Letitia James for possible mortgage fraud found evidence that would appear to undercut some of the allegations in the indictment of James secured earlier this month -- including the degree to which James personally profited from her purchase of the property -- according to a memo summarizing the state of the case in September, sources told ABC News.
Prosecutors who led the monthslong investigation into James' conduct concluded that any financial benefit derived from her allegedly falsified mortgage would have amounted to approximately $800 in the year she purchased the home, sources said.
The government lawyers also expressed concern that the case could likely not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because federal mortgage guidelines for a second home do not clearly define occupancy, a key element of the case, according to sources.
Prosecutors who led the monthslong investigation into James' conduct concluded that any financial benefit derived from her allegedly falsified mortgage would have amounted to approximately $800 in the year she purchased the home, sources said.
The government lawyers also expressed concern that the case could likely not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because federal mortgage guidelines for a second home do not clearly define occupancy, a key element of the case, according to sources.
1.A grand jury indicted James, not the Trump Administration, and they did so by agreeing there was ample evidence to support charges against her.
2.The degree of profit is immaterial; it is the fact of fraud that is the critical point. And you will notice they say she only made $800 IN THE FIRST YEAR while completely ignoring subsequent years. The fact is a mortgage is a long-term proposition and the first year(s) the borrower is paying all interest. The fact is James is a lawyer and knew exactly what she was doing. If not she has no business practicing law, much less being the AG. Would she have accepted this excuse from Trump? Did ABC news?
3.The possibility of not getting a conviction is also a red herring. They didn't even try because she was one of the Establishment and they assume they can play by their own rules. A grand jury thought there was enough evidence to prosecute, and this in a dark blue area. But it's not the job of prosecutors to decide who gets prosecuted or who does not when there is evidence that is good enough for a grand jury. Why didn't they take it to the grand jury in the first place? Anybody?
In typical leftist fashoion the article turns to the attack:
Prosecutors detailed the findings to the previous U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, in an internal Department of Justice memo summarizing the status of the case early last month, according to sources familiar with its contents. Siebert was ousted by President Donald Trump last month after refusing to seek charges against James amid what critics call Trump's campaign of retribution against his perceived political foes.
"I want him out," Trump said the day before Siebert was ousted, telling reporters that it was because Virginia's two Democratic senators supported his nomination. Of James, Trump said, "It looks to me like she is very guilty of something, but I really don’t know.
"I want him out," Trump said the day before Siebert was ousted, telling reporters that it was because Virginia's two Democratic senators supported his nomination. Of James, Trump said, "It looks to me like she is very guilty of something, but I really don’t know.
Why wouldn't Trump want to fire a guy who was a holdover from the previous Administration, you know, the Adminsitration that tried to frame him, when this prosecutor simply tried to spike the ball here?
Yes, Trump installed a better prosecutor to handle the case, but remember it still had to go to a grand jury.
One must remember James campaigned on a highly unethical scheme to "get Trump" even while she was swearing to uphold JUSTICE. She never cut him any slack, and did not even play remotely fair. She isn't a principled prosecutor but a partisan hatchetwoman and why does she think she deserves fair treatment now? Live by the sword die by it.
There is nothing exculpatory here. This is just a corrupt political machine that protected it's own and a willing accomplice by a major media network. It's disgraceful.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:55 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 693 words, total size 5 kb.
1
That's not much of a blindfold Lady Justice is wearing these days, is it? I think it's not cloth but rather some translucent material.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at October 24, 2025 11:40 PM (1KBQw)
2
Methinks thou art correct Dana. Either that or Lady Justice developed Superman's x-ray vision.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at October 25, 2025 06:45 AM (bO4c5)
3
Yeah, that could be, Tim.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at October 25, 2025 10:46 PM (1KBQw)
4
Speaking of Superman, the S-F writer Larry Niven once wrote an essay on the topic. As he points out the teenage Clark Kent had x-ray vision, meaning he could see the naked bodies of all the lovely young ladies in his school. And since every life form on Krypton had super powers one must assume his semen did likewise. Accidental or intentional, the over-aroused randy teen would be impregnating millions of women as his sperm would be not particularly choosy about where it went after young Clark had his happy ending.
Of course he could afford it - He would have to squeeze a LOT of lumps of coal, but the diamonds he could make would pay all the alimony suits.
Of course he could afford it - He would have to squeeze a LOT of lumps of coal, but the diamonds he could make would pay all the alimony suits.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at October 26, 2025 07:19 AM (NPQ5I)
5
Oh yes, one assumes his sperm could fly, just as he could.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at October 26, 2025 07:20 AM (NPQ5I)
6
I'm not gonna touch that line with a two-hundred ten foot pole, Tim!
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at October 27, 2025 10:51 PM (1KBQw)
27kb generated in CPU 0.0236, elapsed 0.6932 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.6858 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.6858 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
