teachercd Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, Guy Chamberlin said: Busted. Ya got me! 2 Link to comment
Crusader Husker Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 37 minutes ago, teachercd said: He is done. Just for fun...If Trump basically can't run anymore, does JB bow out and all of a sudden we have 2 new people running in 24?? I was listening to some talking heads a few months ago about this, the Dem pollster said if Trump ever dropped out they would bring someone new in, because Biden does not poll well with the independents against basically anyone else. 2 Link to comment
commando Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Neal seems like he is someone who should know what he's talking about. I could see SCOTUS not taking it because the conservative judges don't want to be cornered in making a decision on it. IF they take it, I suspect the ruling will be upheld...but I would not be surprised if it wasn't unanimous with someone like Thomas dissenting. they don't have to rule for him....but they can help him delay everything until it's too late 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Neal seems like he is someone who should know what he's talking about. I could see SCOTUS not taking it because the conservative judges don't want to be cornered in making a decision on it. IF they take it, I suspect the ruling will be upheld...but I would not be surprised if it wasn't unanimous with someone like Thomas dissenting. The three-judge panel name-checked several Conservatives Supremes in their decision, anticipating that Orange Man Bad might try to appeal. They were pretty thorough. 1 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Based on their prior judgements, I don't think the Supreme Court would side with Trump on this, but that doesn't mean I like chancing it going there. Among a list of 500 other things, the fact he's acking this would have lost him the primary if we were 12-20 years ago. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, knapplc said: The three-judge panel name-checked several Conservatives Supremes in their decision, anticipating that Orange Man Bad might try to appeal. They were pretty thorough. I can see the SC not wanting to take this case - their reputation will be even more tarnished as a court if Roberts gives the conservatives an opportunity to support Trump on this. Roberts seems to be a Chief Justice who places a lot of importance on the reputation of his court. But I am concerned about the Colorado case and the possibility that they overturn the Colo SC. In each case Judge Thomas should be excluded but he won't step aside - his words about being unbiased ring pretty hollow at this point. 1 Link to comment
Scarlet Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 I don't know but he seems a little nervous. Like maybe he did something that's illegal and he needs "FULL IMMUNITY!!!". Slams fist 1 Link to comment
Born N Bled Red Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, Scarlet said: I don't know but he seems a little nervous. Like maybe he did something that's illegal and he needs "FULL IMMUNITY!!!". Slams fist Mindset of the wealthy. This is why at mega corps when the organization gets caught doing something illegal they get a slap on the wrist and the rank and file pay with their jobs while the CEOs often times see a bonus at the same time. If the Corp has even the slightest bit of integrity and decide on new leadersh former CEO gets a billion dollar parachute and a kush job across the street. A small town clerk can make a simple mistake and do years of time, but a CEO intentionally breaking the law with their business practices never steps foot in a courtroom. The rich think they are above the law no matter what industry it is. For-profit, not for profit, government, its all the same. Laws only apply to the middle class and below. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 hours ago, Scarlet said: I don't know but he seems a little nervous. Like maybe he did something that's illegal and he needs "FULL IMMUNITY!!!". Slams fist Is he new to the country? Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Pretty good review of the DC Court of Appeals ruling against Trump ( what is Trump's record now in court cases 1-999 now) Airtight case per this OPED. We should see the J6 case start up early summer in the view of the writer. Based on the reasoning of the court below, Trump's goose is cooked, burnt and ready to be tossed onto the garbage heap of history. It can't happen soon enough. Article quoted in part below. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/an-airtight-ruling-against-trump/ar-BB1hSWHY?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=1cfa94cf68e8484cbff3c85b10ebf2a8&ei=12 Quote For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution. As the opinion explains, Trump asked the court to “extend the framework for Presidential civil immunity to criminal cases and decide for the first time that a former President is categorically immune from federal criminal prosecution for any act conceivably within the outer perimeter of his executive responsibility.” Trump argued principally that two considerations compelled such an extraordinary protection: first, that judges are somehow prohibited from reviewing discretionary presidential acts and, second, that policy considerations flowing from the separation of powers required categorical immunity for presidents from criminal prosecution. Quote The court dismantled these claims patiently, painstakingly, and unsparingly. The first it disposed of with an impeccable discussion of the basic constitutional law of judicial review. Trump invoked, of all cases, the Supreme Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the fountainhead of the judicial power to pass judgment on the constitutionality and legality of governmental action. At one point in that decision, as Trump’s counsel emphasized, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that when the executive exercises discretionary authority, his or her actions “can never be examinable by the courts.” But Marshall said something else as well, the D.C. Circuit observed. The executive remains an “officer of the law,” and “is amenable to the laws for his conduct,” Marshall wrote, with emphasis added by the D.C. Circuit. And so “the judiciary has the power to hear cases ‘where a specific duty is assigned by law.’ Marbury thus makes clear that Article III courts may review certain kinds of official acts,” including the president’s. The court added a little tour of the history books, citing the famous “Steel Seizure Case,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the 1952 decision in which the Supreme Court struck down President Harry S. Truman’s executive order seizing control of most of the country’s steel mills. That case, together with Marbury, the court explained, led to the conclusion in yet another case (Clinton v. Jones), that “when the President takes official action, the [courts have] the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law.” And so: The separation of powers doctrine … necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws … Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion; accordingly, Marbury and its progeny provide him no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment. Quote As for Trump’s second argument, the contention that policy considerations underlying the doctrine of separation of powers required an expansive criminal immunity, the D.C. Circuit did what the Supreme Court has done in assessing claims of civil immunity: weighed the considerations for immunizing the president against those opposing such immunization. In engaging in that analysis, the appeals court did something very important, from the standpoint both of bolstering its conclusion and of insulating its decision from Supreme Court review. The panel, as smart judges do, limited its analysis to the specific “case before us, in which a former President has been indicted on federal criminal charges arising from his alleged conspiracy to overturn federal election results and unlawfully overstay his Presidential term” (emphasis mine). And so the balancing question became: Does the nation’s interest in protecting democracy outweigh the danger that potential post-presidency prosecution might deter presidents from doing their job? When posed that way, the question admitted of only one possible answer: yes—by a country mile. Trump’s professed fear that “floodgates” might open, allowing meritless and harassing prosecutions of former presidents, bore no relation to historical and practical reality, the court reasoned. There would be no such floodgates: “Former President Trump acknowledges this is the first time since the Founding that a former President has been federal indicted.” The concession brilliantly extracted by Judge Florence Pan at the oral argument was invoked with devastating effect: “Even former President Trump concedes that criminal prosecution of a former President is expressly authorized” if he has previously been impeached and removed by Congress. And the clincher was a quote from the district court: “Every President will face difficult decisions; whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them.” None of Trump’s concerns could outweigh what was on the other side of the scale. Citing United States v. Nixon, among other cases, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that “the public has a fundamental interest in the enforcement of criminal laws.” Indeed, it would make no sense for the president, charged with enforcing laws, to be immune from them: It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. But there was even more, the court explained. The public interest at issue in the case was not simply the enforcement of criminal law; it was the enforcement of criminal law against an alleged scheme directed at nothing less than the destruction of American constitutional democracy. Quote Hence the judicial coup de grâce: The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office. Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress … We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count. At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.” The opinion—every jot, title, footnote, and citation of it—is worth your time to read. And it was worth the court’s time to write. Not just for our benefit, but for the benefit of justice. By writing such a strong opinion, the D.C. Circuit may have hastened the day that Donald Trump will finally face consequences for seeking to block the peaceful transition of presidential power. In its judgment accompanying its opinion, the appeals court took an additional important step in moving Trump’s case to trial. It essentially set a deadline of next Monday for Trump to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The court of appeals directed that, by February 12, if Trump does not ask the Supreme Court to halt proceedings in the district court, those proceedings should recommence immediately. Which means that Trump’s lawyers have to take their case to the Supreme Court—by filing an application for a stay—by next Monday. And the Department of Justice will surely respond almost immediately. What will the Supreme Court do? The strength of today’s opinion makes it far more likely that the Court will do … nothing. Any court—including the Supreme Court—would have a tough time writing a better opinion than the one the D.C. Circuit published today. The best course of action would be for the Supreme Court to deny a stay, and to deny review altogether, in a matter of days. And that could mean a trial in United States v. Trump no later than early summer. That’s what a unanimous, airtight opinion can do. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Despite the above ruling by the DC court on presidential immunity, Trump's brilliant lawyers are proceeding with that claim in the documents case where he has a more friendly judge. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-to-defy-presidential-immunity-ruling/ar-BB1hUzXa?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=424a670edc934d9c92d7a9a252f132ca&ei=18 Quote Donald Trump's lawyers indicated that he will argue that he has presidential immunity in his classified documents case—even though a federal appeals panel shot down that argument in his federal election interference case. The panel ruled on Tuesday that the former president can face trial on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, rejecting his novel claims that he is immune from prosecution for actions taken while in office. "For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote in its opinion. "But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution." Trump's team has said they will appeal, which could further delay the case. It had initially been set to go to trial on March 4, but U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, canceled that date on Friday. A new trial date has not been set. The case is one of four prosecutions Trump is facing as he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024. Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, has pleaded not guilty to all charges and decried them as politically motivated efforts to derail his campaign. Link to comment
Crusader Husker Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Why am I getting flashbacks of the Watergate hearings? 1973?? Maybe?? Ruined my whole summer. They were like on all 3 channels. Is this coming back? 1 Link to comment
Archy1221 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 This doesn’t sound good for the GA prosecutor if she found lying to the court. Doesn’t change any facts in the case against Trump, could get her in trouble though 1 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 A guy needs a room full of accountants just to keep track of all of the comings and goings of the Trump cases. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/13/trumps-criminal-cases-reach-inflection-points-this-week-00141079 1 Link to comment
.thumb.jpg.c05ebdd666d00f48cef33a218d519151.jpg)
Recommended Posts