I never said it was a commercial loan. I stated it was a short-term loan that required re-finance after a few years because it did not have a 15 or 30 year term. More akin to a 7 year ARM which terminates at the 7 year mark instead of being automatically extended. There are articles out there about this loan and his other loans. Go take a look. They are not your typical real estate loans and appear to be mixed with his business operations.
Donald
- Thread starter Buy1Sell2
- Start date
I never said it was a commercial loan. I stated it was a short-term loan that required re-finance after a few years because it did not have a 15 or 30 year term. More akin to a 7 year ARM which terminates at the 7 year mark instead of being automatically extended. There are articles out there about this loan and his other loans. Go take a look. They are not your typical real estate loans and appear to be mixed with his business operations.
That's not a problem in the courts. Courts can balance what testimony should be allowed, versus excluded, versus given in camera (only to the judge and counsels).
Protective orders can also be issued.
IOW, I'm suggesting that there should be no blanket immunity from public servants testifying against other public servants. That would be recipe for disaster, imo.
Just as Kim K. can't expect the same privacy as John Doe; neither can POTUS.
Just as Kim could have chosen to not be a public figure; so could any would-be POTUS.
Public servants sacrifice certain rights, period. An aggrieved NSA employee can't just file an employment action in court. Justice procedures are different for them; for the military; etc.
This is part of the sacrifice public servants make. The public/government owns you more so than John Doe. You represent the US government, not your own personal interests. At least that's how it's suppose to be.
While there may be secrets involving a POTUS and their security, what is, or isn't secret should remain up to the courts to decide, not POTUS, and certainly not a blanket policy.
IMO.
A separate and distinct issue.
Allowing a security agent to appear before a court is not equivalent to allowing an agent to 'tell all' to the public for profit.
Again, the courts would still have the option to decide what the public may, or may not be privy to. There just should be no absolute secrets ... such as spousal immunity.
We aren't talking private citizens. We are talking a person that represents everyone in the nation, and their security personnel.
If you want to be a private person, don't become POTUS.
IMO.
This is where we weigh the pro's and con's.
America says it is better to let a guilty person go free, than to convict an innocent person.
I believe, it is better to disallow secrets between a POTUS and law enforcement, than to allow secrets.
We must error on the side of what's best for the nation.
It is better to address the problem of weaponizing the impeachment process, versus allowing a POTUS and subordinate law enforcement servants to maintain secrets that even the courts aren't privy to.
A democracy should have as few secrets as possible. But even when the public is left in the dark; there ought be representatives, acting in the best interests of the nation and the public, who are aware of the secrets and can certify that everything is on the up and up.
The Clinton impeachment failed.
Back to Donald...
Congrats to Donald on his historic accomplishment today 
