Trump on Trial (Trump indicted for a fourth time in Georgia. Expands his record of most indictments by a former president)

[tshile]

I honestly don’t understand what that argument is and how it has to do with what the charges are and whether the law was broken 

 

“they didn’t search my secret hiding areas when they found all that **** illegally lied about having, illegally possessed, and refused to turn back over”

Edited April 25 by tshile

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Bang]

10 hours ago, tshile said:

I honestly don’t understand what that argument is and how it has to do with what the charges are and whether the law was broken 

 

“they didn’t search my secret hiding areas when they found all that **** illegally lied about having, illegally possessed, and refused to turn back over”

According to Trumpland, this dates back to a statue that decrees "if you didn't find all of it, then you can't have any of it", signed by President Simpson in Eighteen Ninety-Never.

 

~Bang

[TheGreatBuzz]

On our way to DC to remind SCOTUS that we aren't a monarchy. The oath to defend democracy doesn't stop with a DD-214.

[illone]

59 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

On our way to DC to remind SCOTUS that we aren't a monarchy. The oath to defend democracy doesn't stop with a DD-214.

 

fair winds and following seas, sailor!

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

"It would depend on the hypothetical"

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

"It would depend on the hypothetical"

 

Is said President Republican?  

 

[China]

Donald Trump Loses High-Profile Lawyer in Two Cases

 

Donald Trump will temporarily be without one of his most-trusted and high-profile defense lawyers, who is undergoing surgery, new court papers have revealed.

 

Christopher Kise, a former solicitor general of Florida who has won four U.S. Supreme Court cases, has been a key figure in the former president's ongoing documents case and in the New York civil fraud case, which Trump is appealing.

 

Kise is scheduled to have planned surgery on Monday, April 29, and will be unavailable until at least May 14, a notice to the court filed on Wednesday said.

 

The attorney's unavailability may continue during "the post-surgery recovery period which will restrict his ability to work and travel during that time," it added.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The 12th Commandment]

1 minute ago, China said:

Donald Trump Loses High-Profile Lawyer in Two Cases

 

Donald Trump will temporarily be without one of his most-trusted and high-profile defense lawyers, who is undergoing surgery, new court papers have revealed.

 

Christopher Kise, a former solicitor general of Florida who has won four U.S. Supreme Court cases, has been a key figure in the former president's ongoing documents case and in the New York civil fraud case, which Trump is appealing.

 

Kise is scheduled to have planned surgery on Monday, April 29, and will be unavailable until at least May 14, a notice to the court filed on Wednesday said.

 

The attorney's unavailability may continue during "the post-surgery recovery period which will restrict his ability to work and travel during that time," it added.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Wonder what the hourly fee for undergoing surgery to attempt to postpone your clients court proceedings is?

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

Justice Jackson throwing down logic...

 

J: "So for private acts, no immunity. For official acts, there's immunity. So the line drawing problem we're having with the hypotheticals is being necessitated by that assumption. If official acts didn't get absolute immunity, we wouldn't have to worry about drawing the line.

 

So we're assuming official acts get immunity. Why is it that POTUS would not be required to follow the law when he's performing his official act? We know POTUS has the best lawyers in the world, and when he's making a decision he can consult with them to know if its illegal. So how can we say a POTUS can just do any official act and be immune? What is it about POTUS as opposed to other people with consequential jobs - what about POTUS means he doesn't have to follow the law where other officials do?"

 

Sauer: "Well Fitzgerald..."

 

J: "That was civil. Private civil liability. We can see how POTUS is different. But about criminal liability, how does POTUS stand in any different position to follow the law if everyone else has to?"

 

Sauer: "All the checks: public oversight, impeachment, congressional oversight..."

 

J: "I'm not sure that's much of a backstop. You're worried about POTUS being chilled. I'm worried about the opposite effect. Knowing there'd be no penalty for committing crime, what would stop turning the oval office into the seat of crime in the country? If the potential for criminal liability were taken off the table, wouldn't that embolden future presidents to commit crimes? Once we say "no criminal liability", I'm worried we have a worse problem than any "chill".

[TheGreatBuzz]

[Fergasun]

Well if Kav, Roberts and Gorsuch want to throw it to the lower courts, the case is doomed.  Because Alito and Thomas will want to also. 

 

Screw SCOTUS because this delay is exactly what they wanted. This is why they refused the case initially. 

 

Our SCOTUS has been politicized.  Term limits now, just like every other political office.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Alito, arguing why absolute immunity could be necessary, said among other things that if an ex-POTUS can be taken to court, "...during the trial, the former president might not be able to engage in activities he wants to..."

 

😐

[TheGreatBuzz]

Found CNN.

[Larry]

24 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

Admiring some Justices who I am absolutely certain claimed, during their confirmation, to be "strict constitutionalists", apparently invoking the Constitution's completely invisible statement that Presidents are immune from all statutes.  

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

Forgot lol...

 

Quote

Jackson(I think?): "It's hard to imagine that a president who breaks the law, is faithfully executing the law, correct?

 

Lawyer arguing against absolute immunity: "He has to execute all the laws"

 

Alito: "Yeah but POTUS has to make a lot of decisions, do you really think "if he makes a mistake he's subject to criminal laws just like anybody else??"

 

Lawyer: "He has access to legal advice about everything he does. He's supposed to be faithful to the laws. And making a mistake doesn't land you in criminal prosecution. Engaging in conspiracies to defraud the united states, and in one of our most important functions, namely the certification of the next POTUS?"

 

Edited April 25 by Califan007 The Constipated

[illone]

This is wild, and a good way to pass the time until football stuff tonight.

 

 

[Larry]

I'm thinking that Joe Biden needs to issue orders.  Unclassified orders.  

 

Directing Seal Team Six to begin drawing up plans to assassinate Donald Trump, and every single justice on the Supreme Court, on May 15.  If, by that date, SCOTUS has not clearly and unambiguously ruled that yes, laws apply to POTUS.  Even if said POTUS is using a constitutional power.  (For example, the power of "Commander in Chief".)

 

 

Edited April 25 by Larry

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

Recent summary:

 

Alito: gives a lengthy list of worst-case scenarios if the president does not have absolute immunity.

 

Lawyer arguing against that: says our judicial system has layers upon layers upon layers to keep those worst-case scenarios at bay that have worked for centuries.

 

Sotomayer: says that if all those worst-case scenarios were to actually happen, it won't be due to presidents not having absolute immunity, but rather due to actions taken and legal decisions made that weaken our democracy that is the foundation of our judicial system.

[Cooked Crack]

 

Most people in the federalist society maybe 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

As for the election interference trial...recent summary:

 

Pecker (heh...pecker lol) was afraid he and the Enquirer would get into legal trouble if they paid Stormy Daniels like they paid to keep others quiet.

 

Dylan Howard (Exec at National Enquirer) texted a relative of Trump (I think) that if Trump gets elected in 2016, "at least I will get pardoned for election fraud." Judge isn't allowing it to be introduced to the jury at the moment, guess that could change.

[Fergasun]

Its pretty clear to me that ACB is with the liberal justices on this case.  I just heard the last 15 minutes of her and Jackson questioning Dreeben.  It does seem likely they will tweak the Nixonian rules a bit, and perhaps send back to district court.  Which muddied this case timing some more (except there was a good chance that would happen).  I am not sure what additional clarification would be needed, but I guess Nixon got pardoned... right? So that foreclosed all of the judicial review of criminal acts.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Most people in the federalist society maybe 

 

Pretty sure that very few people in here would accuse me of being in the Federalist Society.  

 

And the first vote I ever cast, was for Gerald Ford for President.  

 

And his pardon of Nixon was one of the reasons why I voted for him.  

 

You see, I believe that once Nixon left office, there was a division in the country.  With political vengeance seeking.  

 

I felt that after years of Congressional investigations, and leaks, and tapes, that the man had been dragged through the public square enough.  

 

Yes.  I believed that he should have been impeached.  And convicted.  I believed that his resignation was kind of a "plea bargain".  Resign, to avoid an impeachment which he figured he was going to lose.

 

And no, I do not for a minute believe that Nixon appointed Ford with a promise of a future pardon.  For one thing, because Nixon would have known that he has no way to hold Ford to such a promise.  And because he knew that if he explicitly makes such an offer, it will likely get leaked.  

 

I think Ford did it because he believed that ending the circus would allow the country to move on.  

 

And I believe that Ford took that action, knowing that it would hurt him.  He might have believed that it wouldn't hurt him enough.  But he had to know it would come with a political cost.  

 

In short, to me, Ford pardoning Nixon is one of the rare cases (that I'm aware of) of a President taking an action for the good of the country, knowing that it will cost him.  

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Lawyer asked Pecker if Trump ever expressed worries or concern about how Melania would react if she found out about the affairs...Pecker says "No." He also said he thought he was doing the things he did for the sake of the campaign, not the man and his family. Pretty much torpedoes Trump's claims that he only paid Daniels to keep Melania from finding out (which was already more or less known, but it's now official under oath).