(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Trump lives by claiming laws say things they do not say - witness his "63(12)" defense [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2023-10-04 “The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth” ― H.L. Mencken Donald Trump has invoked “63 (12)” as proof that the dark forces of malevolent socialism have caused him to be wrongly charged and denied his civil rights. In today’s stream-of-consciousness emesis, offered during his NY civil fraud trial, he gave this legal analysis on Truth Social. Just arrived at this Witch Trial Hunt taking place in the very badly failing (so sadly!) State of New York, where people and companies are fleeing by the thousands. Corrupt attorney general, Letitia James, is a big reason for this. Statute 63 (12) is meant to be used for consumer fraud. It has never been used before on a "case" such as this, especially since I did absolutely nothing wrong. He returned to the theme during a break when he addressed the media: “This witch hunt that’s going on using Statute 63 (12) — which is a consumer fraud statute, which may be unconstitutional — doesn’t allow me a jury, doesn’t allow me anything. A lot of people say, oh, that can’t be possible, somebody didn’t check a box. That’s nothing to do with it. Under 63(12), you are not entitled to a jury. It’s the first time it’s ever been used for a purpose like this. Never been used. They used it on me. The former president, the leading candidate.” Anyone following the case has heard the claim that Trump’s lack of a jury is due to his crack legal team, especially Alina Habba, failing to check the box that would have given him his wish. It is not quite that simple (click HERE for an explanation). However, Trump’s squad never asked for a jury — which the law allowed them to request. More easily dismissed is Trump’s claim that “Statute 63 (12) is meant to be used for consumer fraud”. A fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is that a law means what the words in the act say — not what some already convicted fraudster says it is meant to mean. And nowhere does statute 63 (12) say that it restricts fraud cases to “commercial fraud” — if that is even distinct from “business fraud”. Here is the actual verbiage from New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC § 63 Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law or section 130 of the general business law, and the court may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem proper. I am no lawyer. But I can recognize the word commercial when I see it. And I do not see it. This blatant misrepresentation is hardly the first time Trump has tried this misdirection. When his Florida stolen documents case was the big story, he kept saying that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) allowed him to do what he had done. The PRA does not allow anything of the sort. It makes clear that Presidents are not allowed to wander off with any government document, top secret or otherwise — any more than they are allowed to help themselves to the White House’s china and paintings. In simplistic terms, Presidents, at the end of their White House stay, can only take what they brought with them, except gifts of nominal value. Note: the rules for presidential libraries are different — but Trump has no library, even in the rudimentary planning stages. The man himself rarely talks about it. But neither Trump nor the MAGAs give a damn about what a law says. Their only concern is in what Trump says it says. And then we all hear the nonsense. The mainstream media — if such an animal still exists — is the culprit in the reduction of the news to pap and cake. The New York Times, the Washington Post, some other prestige newspapers, and even the Wall Street Journal news pages, still do the traditional job of investigative journalism. However, network and local television, cable, and internet news sources are increasingly, if not entirely, click-bait engines. Sadly, I think the sacrifice of hard news on the altar of eyeballs is a done deal. Americans can still find substantive news if they look for it. But how many are looking for it? The ratings say not many. Any outlet dedicated to practicing rigorous journalistic standards would not interview Donald Trump. Nor would they show live video of his press conferences. By all means, media sources can report his words. But they should do so only after they fact-check them. I do not suggest that if the MSM returned to its Cronkite/Murrow roots, America would become a nation of sophisticated thinkers overnight. The MAGAs are a lost cause. And even liberals — perhaps understandably reacting to the firehose of conservative media bullshit — have become more clannish in their news sources. However, those two groups know who they will vote for (saving some purists on both sides who are enamored of quixotic, so-called third-party spoilers), so news quality has little impact. But, beyond exciting the base, elections are won in the middle. And there are a lot of uncritical apolitical independents (who can blame them? They have lives to lead) who assume that, because they see it on a screen, it must be at least partially true — or at least warrant discussion. The media is doing them no favors. ‘Bothsiderism’ should not be a media goal. Reporting that some people say the earth is flat is not good news — nor is giving equal opportunity to climate deniers and vaccine skeptics. News gathering should pursue the truth. Hanging on Trump’s every word is the antithesis of that aim. Trump is certainly entitled to his rallies. He can create whatever campaign ads he wants and put them on any platform that will air them. However, the only hope for substantive political discourse starts with the media denying Trump gratuitous camera time. As the media will not take that step — and as gag orders will be as effective as pissing on a forest fire — the realistic beginning of a return to sanity will only start when this carbuncle on the body politic is locked up. A fate he should suffered decades ago, when he first embarked on his four-flushing fraud. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/10/4/2197395/-Trump-lives-by-claiming-laws-say-things-they-do-not-say-witness-his-63-12-defense?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/