PBP: P01135809 Trump Espionage, Coup, Conspiracy, Racketeering, Fraud & Obstruction Trial Thread

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by The Jitty Slitter, Jun 10, 2023.

?

What will be the outcome?

  1. Guilty

  2. Not guilty

  3. Pardons himself

  4. Goes into exile in Snowden's flat

  5. Some other fascism

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. ToasterLeavins

    Mar 25, 2003
    NJ USA
    Club:
    Everton FC
    These are great ideas. You should start I dunno, a group or club. You could go around and root out everyone who disagrees with you about anythi--all the fascists.

    You could call it the committee of public safety or something to make sure everyone who's not a fascist gets on board.
     
  2. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Toasty why do you come around here when you hate us all?

    It's a very strange thing to do to yourself for years on end
     
    InTheSun, Deadtigers, rslfanboy and 3 others repped this.
  3. JamesA

    JamesA Member+

    Dec 7, 2004
    Victoria
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    In some bright news though, we look likely to get a summer trial date today in the FL documents case. That's even what Trumps team asked for.

    Bad news is that he's likely to get a highly favourable jury.
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  4. Kazuma

    Kazuma Member+

    Chelsea
    Jul 30, 2007
    Detroit
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    He's just too excited. He's too rough on the rope. He pulls, he wrenches on the rope, he thinks it's his.
     
    Deadtigers, soccernutter and Dr. Wankler repped this.
  5. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    Nah - that one will never go to trial this year.
     
    soccernutter repped this.
  6. diablodelsol

    diablodelsol Member+

    Jan 10, 2001
    New Jersey
    I think the financial devastation he is about to experience will have a greater affect on his election chances than any conviction would. “Where’d the money come Donald?” will be a simple repeatable message during the general election.
     
  7. diablodelsol

    diablodelsol Member+

    Jan 10, 2001
    New Jersey
    I think I’ve already asked this…and I think someone here answered but I don’t recall the answer…but…can Trump request a bench trial? If he does…does DOJ get to oppose that? And if they do…who decides? And if it’s Cannon…is that decision appealable?

    I’m envisioning a scenario where Trump moves to have a bench trial at the very last point it is possible to decide. (It benefits him now as jury selection could delay the scheduled trial date)

    But if Trump has a choice…this will be a bench trial. And he’ll never be convicted. I don’t even think DoJ would oppose. It’s one thing to appeal because you know she’s a partisan hack and won’t convict…but there is no way he would do that in an appeal.
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  8. cliche_guevara

    Jun 1, 2004
    San Francisco, CA
    Sure, because history is littered with autocrats who destroyed their own democracy and then voluntarily restored that democracy.
    Your Christian Nationalism is showing.
     
    InTheSun, Mike03, soccernutter and 5 others repped this.
  9. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think this may actually be a good decision. The President gives orders that would normally be illegal. As an example, the drone campaigns would be considered murder if authorized by anyone else. By saying Chutkin and the Appeals saying a former POTUS never has immunity for his acts as President, that would mean that a former President could be arrested and charged for the deaths related to the drone campaign.
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  10. ElNaranja

    ElNaranja Member+

    Houston Dynamo
    United States
    Jul 16, 2017
    He can't wait to be that little girl from Schindler's List screaming "Goodbye ***" as they're lead away to the camps.
     
  11. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Speaking of money, I saw that Trump's co-investors in Truth Social have sued him in Delaware saying that he restructured the Truth in such a way that they were shorted $50m in the SPAC merger and stock transfer.
     
    Deadtigers, dapip and soccernutter repped this.
  12. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Cascarino's Pizzeria BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    By all dictator-loving rules, he has to be pro Putin too.
     
    dapip repped this.
  13. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    That is not what they are talking about.

    It has always been understood that the president cannot commit criminal acts - he just can't be indicted while in office. As opposed to civil liability where the former president cannot be sued for acts he commits when acting within his official duties.

    Basically they are opening the door to the idea that he could commit crimes (e.g doing a coup or obstructing justice) if he can show some kind of nexus to the office, rather than just say campaign activity which would not be part of his official duties. That is why both Chutkin and the Circuit Court dismissed that entire argument out of hand. If he has that power, the president basically becomes a king.
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  14. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In the primaries so far, Trump has not yet won by the pre-match expectations. Sure, small sample size, but telling that he is not even meeting. Apart from that, there are 20%, or lately I've seen mention of 30%, who are anti-Trump and not voting for him. Will that 20% to 30% not vote for him? I doubt the entirety, but there are indications that enough won't that it will turn the election. And there will continue to be more as more and more ruling come out against him.
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  15. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Again, that's my point. You are correct that it has always been understood that a President can't be indicted for criminal acts while President.. But I'm talking about after they leave office. If a court does not first determine that a criminal act committed while they were President was not part of their official duties, that means once a President leaves office, they could be charged for a criminal act that was part of their official duties.

    That doesn't mean a President has absolute immunity and can commit criminal acts at will, it just means that a court must first rule the criminal act was not part of their official duties.

    Just to repeat my example. The drone campaign is, without question, part of a President's official duties and it is, without question, normally a criminal act to order a person to be killed.
     
  16. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    I can't be bothered to argue because I am too bummed out by it all.

    Please listen to Mary McCords explanation. This has nothing to do with what your are talking about. The president already cannot be charged with murder for a drone strike. There is no reason why Presidents should be allowed to commit crimes in their official duties.
     
    Deadtigers repped this.
  17. Smurfquake

    Smurfquake Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 8, 2000
    San Carlos, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/29/trump-media-sued-over-dwac-merger-share-dilution.html

    These are the "co-founders" of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) - the company that owns / operates all of Trump's internet stuff, of which the primary / only actual thing that exists at this time is Truth Social. They are also people who were on The Apprentice some years ago. They set up TMTG and gave 90% of it to Trump, and kept 8.6% for themselves - this happened in 2021 - then at some point, Trump stacked the TMTG board and removed these guys from leadership, but they kept their 8.6% of TMTG, and then Trump's board issued a ton of new stock which would dilute the original guys' ownership to less than 1%. TMTG is not a public entity so it's like pretend stock certificates, up until the merger with the SPAC at which point all of that play stock becomes worth actual cash. The suit is in front of the Delaware Chancery Court for the "co-founders" to try to retain their original 8.6% ownership. It will be expedited but the merger with the SPAC can't go forward while this is still going on.

    I hope these guys regret going into business with Trump. They literally gave him 90% of this company just for his name (which, to be clear, is the only thing of value in the entire operation) and greedy Trump demands 99%.
     
    Mike03, Deadtigers, rslfanboy and 6 others repped this.
  18. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Cascarino's Pizzeria BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    Something that no one could've predicted! :eek:
     
  19. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Or Team Lawfare. This is about what is within or outside the outer limits of a Presidential duties. Clearly a drone strike on a suspected terrorist is within the scope. But shooting somebody on 5th Avenue? Or Killing a political opponent? Or encouraging supporters to interrupt a necessary political process for the transfer of power? Those are all outside the scope of a President's duties and responsibilities.
     
  20. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    You have this slightly wrong. I'd really recommend McCords summary today of the S.C. fckery

    The whole point of the Court of Appeals judgement, which the vast majority of the legal community appeared to believe is correct (and indeed everyone always assumed was the case) is that it does not matter if the crime happened within outer limits of scope of duty or not. The president simply does not have immunity in either case. Otherwise the President could go round and commit crimes within his official business which would be absurd. The drone example is a red herring. The president already can't be indicted for supposed crimes under his war powers IIRC. We are not talking about that. We are talking about garden variety crimes like obstructing justice, witness tampering, conspiracy etc etc

    Here is one of the key passages from the Judgement.

    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 41 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.” See Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754.
     
    soccernutter repped this.
  21. The Jitty Slitter

    The Jitty Slitter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Bayern München
    Germany
    Jul 23, 2004
    Fascist Hellscape
    Club:
    FC Sankt Pauli
    Nat'l Team:
    Belgium
    This final comment from the Appeals Court couldn't be clearer, and was applauded as obviously correct. The president cannot commit crimes, whether within the scope of his official duties or not. To find otherwise means you have a despot king - and that is the door the SC has opened. This is why many thought they would not hear the case - the answer to this question is simply to obvious, and the Appeals Court judgement so water tight.

    We have balanced former President Trump’s asserted interests in executive immunity against the vital public interests that favor allowing this prosecution to proceed. We conclude that “[c]oncerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government” compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case. See Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 747–48. We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution. Finally, we are unpersuaded by his argument that this prosecution is barred by “double jeopardy principles.” Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.16​
     
  22. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Can you point to a law saying a President can't be charged with murder for a drone strike? I'm not coming to this on my own. There are a number of legal analysts that are saying the same thing I am. Chutkin and and the DC Circuit's rulings were that a President's immunity ends at the end of their term. No exceptions, just that it ends. Unless addressed by a court, that absolutely means authorizing a drone strike could result in a criminal charge after a President leaves office.

    As an example, Obama's authorizing of a drone strike on Al-Alwaki. I'm sure most here are aware who Al-Alwaki is, but, just in case, he was an American citizen who, without question, supported and aided al-Qaeda. Obama authorized a drone strike on Al-Alwaki in Yemen and he was subsequently killed in a drone strike (first attack missed). The US actually has laws that say the US government cannot specifically target and kill Americans. There are, exceptions, of course, but the argument was that killing Al-Alwaki was legally questionable because the US did not have a formal declaration of war against al Qaeda.

    The DoJ, of course, said that the authorization to use force passed following 9/11 was equivalent to a declaration of war. But, as we know, every administration has influence on DoJ opinions, so an administration could come in and change their mind about the killing of Americans in that situation. With this new opinion, what would stop another administration from charging and arresting Obama for the killing of Al-Alwaki under Chutkin's ruling that a President's immunity ends when they leave office without exceptions?

    Or, one that is near and dear to some here.. What about the torture campaign that the Bush Administration ran immediately following 9/11. Again, an act that should be illegal under US laws, even tho one could say it was an official act of a President, what would stop Bush II from being arrested and charged for the torture campaign given Chutkin's ruling?



     
  23. soccernutter

    soccernutter Moderator
    Staff Member

    Tottenham Hotspur
    Aug 22, 2001
    Near the mountains.
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't disagree that SCOTUS ********ing about. I was referencing what the legal question should be, which had been discussed ad nauseam.
     
  24. marek

    marek Member+

    Lechia Gdańsk
    Jun 27, 2000
    Club:
    OSP Lechia Gdansk
    Nat'l Team:
    Poland
    are you pretending that you have not read page after page of posts ranging from not allowing people to vote if they voted 'wrong' to killing Supreme Court Justices fantasies?
     
  25. marek

    marek Member+

    Lechia Gdańsk
    Jun 27, 2000
    Club:
    OSP Lechia Gdansk
    Nat'l Team:
    Poland
    can you define that term?
     

Share This Page