🇺🇸 Traitor, Con-man, Insurrectionist, Sexual Predator, Convicted Felon and Soon-to-be Fascist Dictator: The Trump Thread

US News
Status
Not open for further replies.
We all knew his VP wouldn't be a woman or POC. :o
 
To be fair, they keep saying Bidens disastrous debate, Trump didnt fair any better, he came off as whiny and a lier, and didnt answer any question, plus Biden had a great campaign rally the next day and reported his campaign made more money from 10 pm till 11 pm after the debate than any time in his campaign, and post debate polling isnt showing it hurt him at all, its the media and democrats that are melting down, Trump looked like a whiny little lier.
If it matters the guy who has accurating predicted the last 9 presidential elections as said he expects Biden to win reelection, which goes with what many have said, since the debate Biden as been energized and he likes the under dog role, people have underestimated him his whole career.
 
The scotus just ruled a former president has absolute immunity while performing official acts as president.
 
GreenKToo said:
The scotus just ruled a former president has absolute immunity while performing official acts as president.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it doesn't get him out of Georgia or the documents case.
 
GreenKToo said:
The scotus just ruled a former president has absolute immunity while performing official acts as president.
Click to expand...
Actually, the supreme court largely rejected his claim of absolute immunity, MSNBC is reporting while he lost this battle he won the war due to delays, he is not completely immune to prosecution, he can still be prosecuted for the the January 6th and Documents case, but they gave him time to try and get reelected to dismiss those charges, no where that i have read says the president has absolute immunity, only some immunity which delays the interferance case as now its back to the lower courts to figure out what he can actually be charged with, nothing he did regarding the interference case was his presidental duty, he was trying to stay in power, i need to read more, but it appears that they are saying the president has absolute immunity for official acts that are constitutional , they sent this back to lower courts to determine if what he did was consider official no not, more delays
 
Last edited:
Ironfan72 said:
Actually, the supreme court largely rejected his claim of absolute immunity, MSNBC is reporting while he lost this battle he won the war due to delays, he is not completely immune to prosecution, he can still be prosecuted for the the January 6th and Documents case, but they gave him time to try and get reelected to dismiss those charges, no where that i have read says the president has absolute immunity, only some immunity which delays the interferance case as now its back to the lower courts to figure out what he can actually be charged with, nothing he did regarding the interference case was his presidental duty, he was trying to stay in power, i need to read more, but it appears that they are saying the president has absolute immunity for official acts that are constitutional , they sent this back to lower courts to determine if what he did was consider official no not, more delays
Click to expand...
Yep. To a degree the ball is back in the voter's court. If he's voted in, these cases go away. If he's voted in, there's an opening for him to throw a coup and remain in power. It is paramount that Trump lose this election or we're even more screwed than we were before today. :(
 
squeekness said:
Yep. To a degree the ball is back in the voter's court. If he's voted in, these cases go away. If he's voted in, there's an opening for him to throw a coup and remain in power. It is paramount that Trump lose this election or we're even more screwed than we were before today. :(
Click to expand...
Exactly, the court did what i expected, nothing basically, they threw it back to the lower courts to determine whether he was acting as President whene he interferred in the election, something the lower courts had already determined, so this was absolutley a delay for Trump and "victories" for both Trump and Democrats, this was a case that the supreme court didnt need to get involved in but did
 
I hate to say it, but I think that the SCt was correct in its ruling. Elected officials are immune from prosecution for official acts but not for unofficial acts. And it is the lower courts’ job to determine whether the acts are unofficial.

The problem is that the issue was largely slow-walked. But I would say that a normal case would’ve gotten scheduled much slower.

But bottom line: Trump is wrong to tout this as a win. He’s still very much in the soup.
 
Babillygunn said:
I hate to say it, but I think that the SCt was correct in its ruling. Elected officials are immune from prosecution for official acts but not for unofficial acts. And it is the lower courts’ job to determine whether the acts are unofficial.

The problem is that the issue was largely slow-walked. But I would say that a normal case would’ve gotten scheduled much slower.

But bottom line: Trump is wrong to tout this as a win. He’s still very much in the soup.
Click to expand...
This is one of the most messed up and just plain stupid principles of American law. None of the other common law countries have this. All of our elected officials can be prosecuted for official acts that otherwise break the law. It is an core aspect of government accountability.
 
DKDetective said:
This is one of the most messed up and just plain stupid principles of American law. None of the other common law countries have this. All of our elected officials can be prosecuted for official acts that otherwise break the law. It is an core aspect of government accountability.
Click to expand...
That's why this is so dangerous for democracy. This is us getting one step closer to fascism where the ruler is more important than the law. :(
 
DKDetective said:
This is one of the most messed up and just plain stupid principles of American law. None of the other common law countries have this. All of our elected officials can be prosecuted for official acts that otherwise break the law. It is an core aspect of government accountability.
Click to expand...
Which part? The immunity? Or tossing to the lower court?

I agree with you to a great extent regarding official immunity. But I also think that is a huge hornets nest to implement if it were walked back. How would one parse out the privileges associated with discussions with DOJ, for example?

I just think that scaling back immunity opens the door to political prosecution and selective enforcement.

(JUST TO BE CLEAR, I DO NOT SEE TRUMP’S PROSECUTION AS BEING POLITICAL OR SELECTIVE. I THINK THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE SENT EVERYTHING BACK TO THE LOWER COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THESE DISCUSSIONS WERE OFFICIAL OR NOT.)

But by all means unofficial acts need to be fair game.
 
Babillygunn said:
Which part? The immunity? Or tossing to the lower court?

I agree with you to a great extent regarding official immunity. But I also think that is a huge hornets nest to implement if it were walked back. How would one parse out the privileges associated with discussions with DOJ, for example?

I just think that scaling back immunity opens the door to political prosecution and selective enforcement.

But by all means unofficial acts need to be fair game.
Click to expand...
Official acts immunity. We don't have it in any form for elected officials. All official acts are fully open to criminal prosecution. The only person here with sovereign immunity is the monarch or in some limited circumstances the Crown/government as a whole. But the people who carry out government acts are completely separate.
 
Not surprised by the immunity ruling. In fact, it's to be an expected outcome. Roberts is probably not a fan of Trump, but given how the Court overturned the corruption conviction on Bob McDonnell, where incidentally, Jack Smith was the prosecutor, this is hardly unexpected.
 
SCOTUS also says a president's communications with his VP, advisers, and DOJ are privileged and inadmissible. Even if a prosecutor thought that a crime had taken place within the scope of an unofficial act, their means of proving so just got cut off at the knees.

Trump won. Nevermind the fact that the federal cases go away if he's re-elected, but even if he loses in November the Jan. 6 case is going to take years before it sees trial. For every act Chutkan deems "unofficial," Trump will simply appeal to SCOTUS. They'll drag their feet for months, then rule in his favor. Rinse and repeat.

This is also just a blatantly dangerous precedent to set. A president's powers are not so clearly defined by the Constitution. A president could realistically make the argument that assassinating someone is an official act. Suspending an election is an official act. A third-term is an official act.
 
DKDetective said:
Official acts immunity. We don't have it in any form for elected officials. All official acts are fully open to criminal prosecution. The only person here with sovereign immunity is the monarch or in some limited circumstances the Crown/government as a whole. But the people who carry out government acts are completely separate.
Click to expand...
That’s very interesting. It is hard for me to conceive what it would be like to litigate in a venue that doesn’t recognize sovereign immunity. My practice centers around lawsuits involving under and over payment of government contractors (mostly healthcare providers.) One of my first hurdles is always to explain to the court why sovereign immunity shouldn’t apply in the particular case that I’m arguing.

I see the value of sovereign immunity. I may need to look closer at Canadian law, as I don’t know that I can picture how courts would function without it. My legal mind always immediately goes to the proverbial “parade of horribles” when I think of it ceasing.
 
Boom said:
SCOTUS also says a president's communications with his VP, advisers, and DOJ are privileged and inadmissible. Even if a prosecutor thought that a crime had taken place within the scope of an unofficial act, their means of proving so just got cut off at the knees.

Trump won. Nevermind the fact that the federal cases go away if he's re-elected, but even if he loses in November the Jan. 6 case is going to take years before it sees trial. For every act Chutkan deems "unofficial," Trump will simply appeal to SCOTUS. They'll drag their feet for months, then rule in his favor. Rinse and repeat.

This is also just a blatantly dangerous precedent to set. A president's powers are not so clearly defined by the Constitution. A president could realistically make the argument that assassinating someone is an official act. Suspending an election is an official act. A third-term is an official act.
Click to expand...
But suspending an election arguably is not an official act. Ensuring transfer of power is an official act, but interference with that transfer is not official.

And communications with executive staff to that regard are not privileged because they would be discussions of unofficial acts.

If I’d have had my wish, the lower courts wouldn’t have wholesale rejected immunity, they would have parsed out why these acts were not official and held an evidentiary hearing to that effect.
 
Babillygunn said:
But suspending an election arguably is not an official act. Ensuring transfer of power is an official act, but interference with that transfer is not official.

And communications with executive staff to that regard are not privileged because they would be discussions of unofficial acts.

If I’d have had my wish, the lower courts wouldn’t have wholesale rejected immunity, they would have parsed out why these acts were not official and held an evidentiary hearing to that effect.
Click to expand...
But that's what I'm confused about. If a president is arguing that he committed an official act, and therefore his conversations are privileged, then they're not admissible. So if a prosecutor is arguing that the act was unofficial, and therefore the conversations were as well, how can they even introduce the conversations as part of their argument?
 
Boom said:
But that's what I'm confused about. If a president is arguing that he committed an official act, and therefore his conversations are privileged, then they're not admissible. So if a prosecutor is arguing that the act was unofficial, and therefore the conversations were as well, how can they even introduce the conversations as part of their argument?
Click to expand...
Courts regularly do in camera review of communications to determine admissibility. Courts do this every day with witnesses who are asserting Fifth Amendment rights or with documents that have work product or other privileges asserted. Those records are produced only to the judge for review and the judge has to provide rationale as to why the privilege applies or not. If the judge finds the privilege does not apply, the judge will order production, but if the judge finds that they do apply the judge will render an order explaining why.

The burden is wholly on the party asserting privilege.
 
Last edited:
Babillygunn said:
That’s very interesting. It is hard for me to conceive what it would be like to litigate in a venue that doesn’t recognize sovereign immunity. My practice centers around lawsuits involving under and over payment of government contractors (mostly healthcare providers.) One of my first hurdles is always to explain to the court why sovereign immunity shouldn’t apply in the particular case that I’m arguing.

I see the value of sovereign immunity. I may need to look closer at Canadian law, as I don’t know that I can picture how courts would function without it. My legal mind always immediately goes to the proverbial “parade of horribles” when I think of it ceasing.
Click to expand...
We have sovereign immunity for the Crown as a whole, but because the Crown is vested in the person of the monarch, elected officials are ultimately separate from the Crown. Also, we have rolled back the common law principles of sovereign immunity by statute a ton in civil law matters. As a result, under our law, I could never conceive of how it could possibly apply to Trump in these circumstances, even for "official acts".

The torts of misfeasance/malfeasance of public office and abuse of authority are fundamental principles of governmental accountability here. Under our law, I cannot see how anything Trump did with respect to January 6 could be deemed official acts that garner the protection of sovereign immunity. By knowingly violating criminal law or civil law, a government official automatically becomes open to prosecution and suit.

I think the fundamental difference with your system is that because of when America got independence, it codified the rights of the monarch, including sovereign immunity in elected officials, whereas the principles of responsible government that developed in the UK in the 19th century and therefore passed on to other common law countries as a result basically reserved those for the monarch alone and the concept of the state as a whole. Elected officials and ministers as being responsible and accountable to the Crown are fully open to prosecution for misconduct in the conduct of their duties. Strangely it seems that constitutional monarchies seem to do a better job of separating the state from those who carry out its functions.
 
DKDetective said:
We have sovereign immunity for the Crown as a whole, but because the Crown is vested in the person of the monarch, elected officials are ultimately separate from the Crown. Also, we have rolled back the common law principles of sovereign immunity by statute a ton in civil law matters. As a result, under our law, I could never conceive of how it could possibly apply to Trump in these circumstances, even for "official acts".

The torts of misfeasance/malfeasance of public office and abuse of authority are fundamental principles of governmental accountability here. Under our law, I cannot see how anything Trump did with respect to January 6 could be deemed official acts that garner the protection of sovereign immunity. By knowingly violating criminal law or civil law, a government official automatically becomes open to prosecution and suit.

I think the fundamental difference with your system is that because of when America got independence, it codified the rights of the monarch, including sovereign immunity in elected officials, whereas the principles of responsible government that developed in the UK in the 19th century and therefore passed on to other common law countries as a result basically reserved those for the monarch alone and the concept of the state as a whole. Elected officials and ministers as being responsible and accountable to the Crown are fully open to prosecution for misconduct in the conduct of their duties. Strangely it seems that constitutional monarchies seem to do a better job of separating the state from those who carry out its functions.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. My legal practice is certainly ego-centric, so I never consider what other sovereigns do in their legal systems.

But I do see your point and probably agree with you.

And I too, don’t see where any of Trump’s actions that are in question are to be considered “official.”
 
This is scary…If Trump regains the presidency which I think he will, he will throw away his cases or potentially pardon himself for any federal crimes. Scary Times we are living in…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
The President Trump Thread
4 5 6
Replies
130
Views
37K
Quasar
Q
webhead731
World The "Sleep Deprived Fans of Spider-Man" Thread.
464 465 466
Replies
12K
Views
254K
The Apatow Crew
The Apatow Crew
M
World The Official Spider-Man 3: The Game -- News and Information Thread (DONT MAKE MORE)
5 6 7
Replies
150
Views
15K
Shonkie
Shonkie
Nave 'Torment'
Politics and Comic Book Movies?
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Figs
Figs
Breogan
Ant-Man and The Wasp The Official ANTOURAGE Thread part II
Replies
3
Views
2K
Mike Murdock
Mike Murdock

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,084 (members: 17, guests: 3,067)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,286
Messages
22,079,284
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"