DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Waste of the peoples' time, not of his time. It works to his benefit - if it works....that is in fact an utter waste of time.
Trump's legal woes
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That's a good point. His supporters have been happy to sacrifice themselves to do his biddings. He gets his things done and doesn't get indicted for them.
Yeah. A ruling that only benefits the crooked. You're right. Biden should quash it.
Problem is, in a sane world, Biden wouldn't--and shouldn't, really--have the power to do this. Now, it's not entirely clear. But I think that adjusting to this "new normal" will take some time--time that we may not have--and it's long-term consequences may well be devastating.
I would note that this ruling does not give the president any new powers; it just describes what he can be found guilty of / liable for later.
Not at all. He will put a huge amount of pressure on the judge to vacate the decision. And his ammunition will be this decision (which doesn't affect his case, but his followers don't know that) and the threat of his presidency (where he can replace judges with Trump loyalists per Project 2025.)
Ostensibly, yes. But if one may not be held accountable for an action, doesn't this effectively render said action a potential power, heretofore unknown, that one may (or may not) possess?
That's why I said "try and see". It's almost as though a president may note that certain actions are not specifically enumerated in their powers, but... if they can't be held accountable for such anyway? (Again, depending upon the c ourts.)
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
There was an article in yesterday's Financial Times listing all the people in Trump's entourage or associates of his who have done time, are doing time or are subject to criminal charges.
Steve Bannon, Michael Cohen, Peter Navarro, Rick Gates, Allen Weisselberg, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, Pal Manafort, have all done or are doing time.
Others charged are Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, John Eastman, Kenneth Cheesebro,Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Boris Epshteyn, Christina Bobb, Waltine Nauta.
It's quite extraordinary. Makes Richard Nixon look like a saint.
Most of these people have, at the very least, some passing familiarity with law, and that just makes their actions all the more extraordinary.
He doesn't have to go through the correct channels, though. What is the comeback if he doesn't? If it is in any way within the outer perimeter of his duties then there is presumptive immunity, and there is a high hurdle to overcome to be able to prosecute.
Sure, there is the fact that immunity does not stretch beyond the President, so if he asks someone to commit an illegal act then they could be prosecuted. However, it seems, if I understand correctly, that if the POTUS has arranged for this illegal act to be carried out through channels that are within his "official acts", then none of that communication / interaction can be used as evidence.
Further, there is then the fact that the POTUS can pardon anyone he wants. So maybe he arranges some illegal act that is otherwise within the parameters of "official acts", and grants those who carry it out a pre-emptive pardon should they need it - i.e. a get out of jail free card.
As for Seal Team Six - I believe that no soldier has the requirement to obey an illegal order, so there is that safeguard, but then if not Seal Team Six then I'm sure there are some Proud Boys or some such that would happily carry out such requests in return for a pardon.
The more likely examples to come to pass, especially with regard Trump, are financial matters. Bribes for secrets, for pardons, for laws, etc.
But yeah, it will take time for the impact to filter through to become normal, and hopefully it won't ever get tested by a Trump Presidency. What it will mean going forward is that the character of the POTUS will be - or rather should be - far more front and centre than seems to be at the moment ('cos if it was then Trump would be nowhere to be seen!).
There's also the question, I guess, of whether the immunity from legal prosecution is also immunity from impeachment?
I understand impeachment to be an important part of the checks and balances, whereby the Houses can ultimately remove a POTUS from office for "high crimes and misdemeanours".
So, could a President who committed bribery as part of an "official act" be impeached for that same act while being immune from criminal prosecution?
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution seems to separate impeachment from criminal prosecution under the law, as it specifies that a President impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate is nevertheless “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law.” While the President would now be immune to this latter part, can the Houses still impeach and remove him from office for the actions?
Sure, there's the question of would they, especially in these abnormal times. But my question is could they?
I understand impeachment to be an important part of the checks and balances, whereby the Houses can ultimately remove a POTUS from office for "high crimes and misdemeanours".
So, could a President who committed bribery as part of an "official act" be impeached for that same act while being immune from criminal prosecution?
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution seems to separate impeachment from criminal prosecution under the law, as it specifies that a President impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate is nevertheless “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment according to Law.” While the President would now be immune to this latter part, can the Houses still impeach and remove him from office for the actions?
Sure, there's the question of would they, especially in these abnormal times. But my question is could they?
A problem that Democrats have had for decades is that they simply do not know how to respond to parties who do not act in good faith.
It's annoying, but I'm sympathetic. I've lived most of my life acting on "good faith" principles--you know, "handshake" deals in lieu of written contracts, that sort of thing. It's easier and, in my personal experience, it simply works better. (Obviously, the success of such is contingent partly upon the scale of an endeavor.) You don't always have to be prepared for every conceivable eventuality, which of course, is essentially impossible anyway.
The few instances wherein people have not acted in good faith, I tend to overreact. Bigly. The systems of checks and balances in place in the U.S. cover a lot, but they certainly don't cover everything. I don't think there are any solid guidelines for addressing matters not covered by such.
Look at that debate last week: Trump lied practically every time he opened his mouth. The moderators did nothing. They basically stated that they were not going to intervene beforehand, but there's a time and a place wherein one might want to reconsider that course of action.
Not at all. He can still be impeached. However, unlike in the times of Nixon, today a Senate majority is effective immunity from impeachment.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yeah. That flabberghasts me too. There was once a time when a public figure had to at least give a passing impression of being a good, honest and law-abiding person (at least acting so, in public), or the people would simply turn on them and 'cancel' them.
Now, the people just don't care. That's what makes it a cult. The unflinching, unashamed loyalty. He literally can do no wrong.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
COVFEFELON!
Yep. And now we have a literal felon and rapist running for president - and he's getting about half the vote.
Times have changed since Nixon.
Barring career criminals, I don't think that most people are equipped to handle people like this. I'm not big on sports analogies, but it's as though people think they are dealing with Lance Armstrong when really they are dealing with Tonya Harding.
It does help me better understand how someone like Hitler could come to power, though. They really believed him when he said that the Jews and other immigrants were the source of all Germany's troubles, that his arrest and imprisonment were the government trying to suppress his ideology. The real villains, according to him, were the other countries who had signed the peace treaty with Germany after World War 1, countries who were trying to destroy the hardworking people of Germany.
And of course Hitler had his own Rupert Murdoch/FOX News in the persona of Alfred Hugenberg, an influential media mogul who printed reams of propaganda extolling Hitler and vilifying the existing government. He claimed over and over that the Weimar Republic was based on a "stab-in-the-back", and its leaders were the "November criminals." They had resident "experts" who would say this over and over, and repetition bred acceptance.
Hitler even had his own Jan 6th, called the Beer Hall Putsch. It was a failed coup attempt, and he was later charged for the crime. In Germany, however, the legal system worked a little better than ours, and he was found guilty and sentenced to nine months in prison. He used the trials as a political platform; he never spoke to the case, but instead used his time on the stand to deliver political speeches, a strategy which has worked for both Hitler and Trump.
LaurieAG
Registered Senior Member
I can't figure it out either. according to this thread there's one bunch of people who are shining white saints and there's another group who are fiendish evil devils and those stupid rednecks and deplorables can't tell the difference so they will probably vote for the devil despite what the media and their betters have to say about things. It's kinda like being robbed of an election, how terrible. 
I guess we will find out this November if people can tell evil from old age and senility.
