Donald Trump Jr. revealed his unproven AT&T cell phone outage conspiracy theory on X.
Does anyone actually believe this was a “solar flare?” Next they’ll tell us that the stars are aligning in retrograde or some crap, which made it worse. lol.
At this point if you don’t have a hard time believing anything the government tells you, you must be living under a rock!
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 22, 2024
Legal expert Steven Calabresi asserted in a recent op-ed that the hefty $350 million ruling against Donald Trump bears significant historical weight in American politics, drawing parallels to the infamous 1804 duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.
Calabresi, writing for Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy, likened the civil fraud judgment against Trump to the fatal encounter between Burr, then-Vice President, and Hamilton, the former Treasury Secretary. The duel, fueled by a prolonged and acrimonious political rivalry, resulted in Hamilton’s demise and raised questions of legal accountability for Burr, although he never faced trial for murder.
In his impassioned plea, Calabresi, a professor at Northwestern Law School and co-chairman of the Federalist Society, urged the Supreme Court to intervene in what he described as a “grossly excessive fine” and a “Kafkaesque civil trial.”
“The civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump is a travesty and an unjust political act rivaled only in American politics by the killing of former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton by Vice President Aaron Burr.”
The recent ruling by Judge Arthur Engoron, issued last Friday, mandates Trump to pay over $350 million in damages and imposes a three-year ban on his business activities in New York due to allegations of fraud. Specifically, Trump stands accused of artificially inflating property values to secure more favorable loan terms.
Calabresi countered these accusations, suggesting that Trump’s actions, at worst, amount to tax fraud rather than the extensive fraud alleged by the court. He emphasized that the application of New York State laws in this manner represents a departure from historical precedent, noting that despite potential tax liabilities, no financial institution has claimed to be defrauded by Trump in loan transactions.
In Calabresi’s view, the situation portrays what he deems a “victimless crime,” highlighting what he perceives as an overreach in legal consequences for Trump’s actions.
“The New York State laws used to go after Trump have NEVER been used in this way, historically, and while Trump may owe some back state taxes, if Judge Engoron is right, not a single bank claimed that it had been defrauded by Trump in the loans it had made to him,” he wrote. “This is truly a victimless crime.”
In conclusion, the parallels drawn by Calabresi between the recent legal judgment against Trump and the historical duel between Burr and Hamilton underscore the gravity of the situation. His call for Supreme Court intervention reflects concerns over what he views as excessive penalties and a departure from established legal norms.
