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

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.

 

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.

 

He's just too excited. He's too rough on the rope. He pulls, he wrenches on the rope, he thinks it's his.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Sure, because history is littered with autocrats who destroyed their own democracy and then voluntarily restored that democracy.
Your Christian Nationalism is showing.

 

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.

 

He can't wait to be that little girl from Schindler's List screaming "Goodbye ***" as they're lead away to the camps.

 

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.

 

By all dictator-loving rules, he has to be pro Putin too.

 

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.

 

Something that no one could've predicted!

 

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?

Smith raises the Awlaki killing as something to which a former President might invoke privileges. This is a key example, bc right wingers have raised possibility Obama could be prosecuted for Awlaki's murder. pic.twitter.com/r5tuOLISdJ

— emptywheel (seiceáil) (@emptywheel) December 30, 2023

They didn't address the Awlaki scenario. When asked James Pearce simply said, well, we'll deal with that when we come to it.

I think DC Circuit opinion may be too general to stand w/o the Awlaki scenario addressed.

— emptywheel (seiceáil) (@emptywheel) February 29, 2024

Caveating that SCOTUS is corrupt and should have granted in December, I think DC Circuit didn't address Trump's Awlaki case, and Jack left it unaddressed in bid for rejection. PARTICULARLY given Trump's SDFL claims, that needs to be addressed.

— emptywheel (seiceáil) (@emptywheel) February 29, 2024

 

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?

 

can you define that term?