The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#20,002
#20,002
RockyTop85 said:
I haven’t looked into it anymore. I trust that Clarence Thomas and his clerks are a lot smarter than me and put some effort into it.

I have a little less faith in DOJ to have the justification on the front end but I know they’ve already been litigating it in Florida so there is an argument for their side but I don’t even know what it is.

The remaining criminal cases against Trump are pretty much dead and I probably won’t pay them much attention. The 1/6 case is too mired in official conduct. The Florida case judge won’t make a decision on anything. The Georgia prosecutor seems like an idiot. He gets a jury of millions in November and I think that was the intent, here.
Click to expand...
I think the intention all along was to leave it to the electorate. And I think that’s maybe best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#20,003
#20,003
85SugarVol said:
I think the intention all along was to leave it to the electorate. And I think that’s maybe best.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

I think the electorate would benefit from a strong deterrent against unlawful attempts to retain power.

The best way to do that was always for congress to pass legislation to implement a sore loser law that clearly defines criminal penalties for taking challenges beyond the courts. But essentially giving a pass on the first unlawful attempt to retain power and explicitly lowering the deterrent factor for any future unlawful attempts to retain power seems like a bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
#20,004
#20,004
RockyTop85 said:
Maybe.

I think the electorate would benefit from a strong deterrent against unlawful attempts to retain power.

The best way to do that was always for congress to pass legislation to implement a sore loser law that clearly defines criminal penalties for taking challenges beyond the courts. But essentially giving a pass on the first unlawful attempt to retain power and explicitly lowering the deterrent factor for any future unlawful attempts to retain power seems like a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Umm, doesn't a conviction for insurrection or aiding and insurrection already disqualify a potential candidate? Why would a new law be needed?
 
#20,005
#20,005
hog88 said:
Umm, doesn't a conviction for insurrection or aiding and insurrection already disqualify a potential candidate? Why would a new law be needed?
Click to expand...
We can agree that there’s no law that says that a campaign can submit fake electoral college certifications and that the vice president gets to decide whether to recognize the illegitimate certifications or the legitimate ones, right?

Is that an insurrection?
 
#20,006
#20,006
RockyTop85 said:
We can agree that there’s no law that says that a campaign can submit fake electoral college certifications and that the vice president gets to unilaterally decide which votes to count, right?

Is that an insurrection?
Click to expand...

Possibly. Would need to present the case to a jury and see if they come back with a guilty verdict.
 
#20,008
#20,008
RockyTop85 said:
Present the case to a jury on what charge? Against whom do you bring the charges?
Click to expand...

Violation of federal code 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. Whomever allegedly participated in the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws.

Are you suggesting congress pass a law that would bar a person from holding office without a conviction just allegations?
 
#20,009
#20,009
hog88 said:
Violation of federal code 18 U.S.C. Section 2383. Whomever allegedly participated in the incitement, assistance, and participation in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States and its laws.

Are you suggesting congress pass a law that would bar a person from holding office without a conviction just allegations?
Click to expand...
No. Not at all. I’m not sure where you’re getting that.

I’m saying that congress needs to pass a law that clearly defines what conduct is out of bounds when contesting the results of an election, specifies penalties for violations, makes it clear that it is not an official duty of the president to oversee presidential elections, negates or avoids the SCOTUS evidentiary rule in some limited way, and specifically applies to the president and vice president.

I don’t have a strong opinion about whether disqualification from office is among the penalties, but it seems prudent at first blush.

Even though you didn’t answer, I think there’s common ground to be found with regards to when attempts to retain power after apparently losing an election cross the line and become unlawful. I think giving clear notice to candidates and officials about where that line is would be preferable to relying on broad statutes that weren’t intended to be used for that purpose. They’re both preferable to just relying on the president’s good moral fiber, which is basically what we have now.
 
#20,010
#20,010
RockyTop85 said:
No. Not at all. I’m not sure where you’re getting that.

I’m saying that congress needs to pass a law that clearly defines what conduct is out of bounds when contesting the results of an election, specifies penalties for violations, makes it clear that it is not an official duty of the president to oversee presidential elections, negates or avoids the SCOTUS evidentiary rule in some limited way, and specifically applies to the president and vice president.

I don’t have a strong opinion about whether disqualification from office is among the penalties, but it seems prudent at first blush.

Even though you didn’t answer, I think there’s common ground to be found with regards to when attempts to retain power after apparently losing an election cross the line and become unlawful. I think giving clear notice to candidates and officials about where that line is would be preferable to relying on broad statutes that weren’t intended to be used for that purpose. They’re both preferable to just relying on the president’s good moral fiber, which is basically what we have now.
Click to expand...
Do you agree with Whitmers new bill in MI?

nypost.com

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signs controversial election recount, fraud bills into law

Michigan’s process of handling election recounts and fraud allegations has changed, with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signing two controversial bills into law Monday.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
#20,015
#20,015
NorthDallas40 said:
The FLA classified docs case was just dismissed. This is the only one I figured they had a chance to get to stick.
Click to expand...
Last time I remember people making a big deal out of nobody joining one of Clarence Thomas’s off-topic concurrence/dissents it was when he said he would have gone further and overturned Roe and Casey.

Be interesting to see if he picks up 4 more votes this time.

Edit: I think he might. If “Congress do your job” was the theme of last term, as I believe it was, then delegating appointment power for a special counsel would be part of their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#20,017
#20,017
NorthDallas40 said:
The FLA classified docs case was just dismissed. This is the only one I figured they had a chance to get to stick.
Click to expand...
They tried to throw him off the ballot.
They tried to throw him in jail.
They tried to throw him in the grave.

There is no stopping him. He WILL be elected our 47th President and they are just gonna have to deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#20,018
#20,018
lawgator1 said:
It was the most curious one, and hard to explain his (Trump's) actions. The others were more obvious.
Click to expand...
Well I don’t think his actions pass the legal muster bar still. I think the charge was obstruction on the investigation on not returning the docs? But the appointment was deemed unconstitutional and thus I don’t see how you can obstruct Smith for doing something he didn’t have the authority to do. So both things I think are true he should have returned the docs and the indictment was vacated as it was brought by an unconstitutional officer.

At this point he’s going to clear all of them. The GA case is still born from the SCOTUS ruling and the NY case is going to implode on appeal I believe. As I think it should.
 
#20,019
#20,019
VOLS INC. said:
They tried to throw him off the ballot.
They tried to throw him in jail.
They tried to throw him in the grave.

There is no stopping him. He WILL be elected our 47th President and they are just gonna have to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Eh I’m glad you’re happy but I’m not quite as enthusiastic as you are. 😂 Regardless I think he’s going to see the rest go away also as I stated above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLS INC.
#20,020
#20,020
NorthDallas40 said:
Well I don’t think his actions pass the legal muster bar still. I think the charge was obstruction on the investigation on nit returning the docs? But the appointment was deemed unconstitutional and thus I don’t see how you can obstruct Smith for doing something he didn’t have the authority to do. So both things I think are true he should have returned the docs and the indictment was vacated as it was brought by an unconstitutional officer.

At this point he’s going to clear all of them. The GA case is still born from the SCOTUS ruling and the NY case is going to implode on appeal I believe. As I think it should.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that the obstruction was of the special prosecutor, only but it doesn't matter now, it would seem.

And I was speaking less to the legality of his actions and more to the curious nature of them, i.e. why would he resist calls for return of documents that, presumably, he and his team knew he was obligated to return? He never did articulate a why, just replied that he could.

Never made sense to me.
 
#20,021
#20,021
lawgator1 said:
I'm not sure that the obstruction was of the special prosecutor, only but it doesn't matter now, it would seem.

And I was speaking less to the legality of his actions and more to the curious nature of them, i.e. why would he resist calls for return of documents that, presumably, he and his team knew he was obligated to return? He never did articulate a why, just replied that he could.

Never made sense to me.
Click to expand...
Well the indictment originated from the special counsel so that indictment clearly goes poof. All of this is losing steam I’d guess and with all current events is going to go away. We’re less than four months from an election he’s probably going to win and then all efforts WILL stop
 
#20,023
#20,023
NorthDallas40 said:
Well the indictment originated from the special counsel so that indictment clearly goes poof. All of this is losing steam I’d guess and with all current events is going to go away. We’re less than four months from an election he’s probably going to win and then all efforts WILL stop
Click to expand...

If Trump appoints the AG, and there are no special prosecutors, then you are correct in that Trump would appoint an AG who would dismiss all the charges.

A lingering question will be the correctness of the order today. It will be appealed by DOJ of course, but if Trump wins, he will ensure that anyone he appoints as AG simply has the DOJ dismiss the appeals.
 
#20,024
#20,024
lawgator1 said:
If Trump appoints the AG, and there are no special prosecutors, then you are correct in that Trump would appoint an AG who would dismiss all the charges.

A lingering question will be the correctness of the order today. It will be appealed by DOJ of course, but if Trump wins, he will ensure that anyone he appoints as AG simply has the DOJ dismiss the appeals.
Click to expand...
Any AG that Trump appoints is absolutely going to dismiss the charges because he wants to keep his political appointment job and it won’t require a single word from his boss. And that extends to anybody whom is POTUS or AG and totally unrelated to Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top