Trump’s Troubles

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t need to think a) or b) to think the introduction of a new unforeseen factor (a Democrat not selected in the primary process getting the nomination for a reason other than death) combined with prosecutions that could be perceived to be political (and Trump will be adamant it is the case) are bad optics or that Trump won’t link the two to his electoral advantage.

I’m not going to call out a single case - it’s entirely subjective in any case and not relevant to my overarching point. Trump’s role in each is disputed. Despite all this he’s the Republican nominee and either ahead or within the margin of error in almost every poll.

He may well be guilty of all he accused of and every prosecution led by an honest, impartial public servants. That doesn’t matter if his claims to the contrary resonate more against a Democratic party ever increasingly desperate. If ~50% of the country can be convinced, 52% absolutely can too. The politicisation of the justice system allows him to muddy the waters.

Word salad…

If he says often enough that the Justice System is politicised, and repeated ad nauseam by people like you (who wants Trump in to ensure the end of funding for Ukraine), and who can’t/won’t engage in specifics because generalised complaints are much easier to defend/ignore comments on, whereas specifics can be rebutted…

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Because, I Believe, they were ultimately politically motivated.

As I said, Trump was always going to run again. He believed the presidency was stolen from him, and he wants his second term.

I firmly believe that if Trump, after he lost. (and although there were questionable things that went on, he did lose) had said publicly that he had no intention to run again whatsoever……….none of those prosecutions happen.

Two of the cases were results of Grand Juries agreeing there were cases to prosecute….

I actually believe he is running to avoid prosecution, rather than him being prosecuted because he is running…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Word salad…

If he says often enough that the Justice System is politicised, and repeated ad nauseam by people like you (who wants Trump in to ensure the end of funding for Ukraine), and who can’t/won’t engage in specifics because generalised complaints are much easier to defend/ignore comments on, whereas specifics can be rebutted…

That's funny Hugh because every American Presidential election in my lifetime has been fought asking the types of Supreme Court justice that'd be appointed. That abortion rights, segregation, medical care are all up for grabs in a courtroom.

There's no need to be specific because you'd bog down the thread in sentence by sentence excruciating analysis as if that matters to MAGA Republicans. Trump is guilty in your head and I'll never change that (tbh, I've no want or need to).

Ukraine will get let down whoever takes the chair although slower and with a lot better PR than if Trump pulls the plug. I think I've said in this thread it's no skin off my nose if Trump goes to jail and I maintain that view.

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

I actually believe he is running to avoid prosecution, rather than him being prosecuted because he is running…

They're not mutually exclusive positions.

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Because, I Believe, they were ultimately politically motivated.

As I said, Trump was always going to run again. He believed the presidency was stolen from him, and he wants his second term.

I firmly believe that if Trump, after he lost. (and although there were questionable things that went on, he did lose) had said publicly that he had no intention to run again whatsoever……….none of those prosecutions happen.

I know you're not an American voter but would you change your mind if people who wanted him to lose, or off the ballot altogether, kept telling you that you are wrong?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I know you're not an American voter but would you change your mind if people who wanted him to lose, or off the ballot altogether, kept telling you that you are wrong?

No, because I have my own two eyes and a brain.

I know what I see. If Trump had lost graciously, congratulated Biden, had a big “I’m retiring from politic” party, and rode off to into the sunset.

None of those prosecutions happen.

And if you try and tell me they would, then I’m calling you an idiot to believe it or think I would believe it. ( not you personally obvs)

Originally Posted by Pierre

No, because I have my own two eyes and a brain.

I know what I see. If Trump had lost graciously, congratulated Biden, had a big “I’m retiring from politic” party, and rode off to into the sunset.

None of those prosecutions happen.

And if you try and tell me they would, then I’m calling you an idiot to believe it or think I would believe it. ( not you personally obvs)

This is probably true but it's true of all politicians that reach the highest levels, especially in America. It's probably true of Hunter Biden or Hilary Clinton's e-mails.

A Presidential campaign is a massive x-ray machine. Your opponents investigate every aspect of your life and your history to find something.

They have to find something illegal though. Trump has a much richer history than most politicians given his infamous career. Someone like Obama, who was younger and had a pretty clean career, has very little. The Clinton's on the other hand had constant revelations.

The secret is not being prosecuted for a crime when running for President is not to commit crimes.

The Supreme Court has just ruled Trump has total immunity for all official acts as President.

https://x.com/mjs_DC/status/1807783706368614780

Biden should go on a crime spree.....

Originally Posted by Damien

Biden should go on a crime spree.....

He probably cant remember what a crime is.

[jfman]

He’d get off on both mental capability to face trial AND being President.

So what’s everyone clinging to now, the classified documents?

Here is the story: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...se-2024-07-01/

The question is going to be what is an official act? Would Nixon's Watergate tapings be official?

Biden needs to make a Presidential Executive Order removing any convicted felon from a ballot for a federal office.

It might get over-turned but not before the election…

Originally Posted by Hugh

Biden needs to make a Presidential Executive Order removing any convicted felon from a ballot for a federal office.

It might get over-turned but not before the election…

That's not even illegal!

Although I imagine the Supreme Court would fast track that one.

(I also suspect the definition of official act to them is 'what trump did' and unofficial act is 'what other presidents did')

[jfman]

When you think about it there’s nothing really new or unexpected in the ruling. Of course Presidents have immunity as part of their official duties - as head of the armed forces they’re in charge of murderers, rapists and routinely carry out indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in other countries.

The principle has to be absolute or not at all. You can’t have every ambitious prosecutor out to make a name for themselves targeting a sitting President for obvious slam dunk crimes. America’s role as the global policeman, and perhaps largest criminal enterprise in the world as it seizes the assets it “liberates”, depends upon it.

Originally Posted by Damien

Here is the story: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...se-2024-07-01/

The question is going to be what is an official act? Would Nixon's Watergate tapings be official?

Obviously, an official act is anything he’s legally allowed to do.

If it sounds circular, that’s because it’s meant to be. His place-men on the Supreme Court have one job here, which is to slow down any threat Trump faces until after the election. Any prosecution relating to the day of the insurrection, which occurred while he was still president, will now be mired in appeal after appeal while the question of immunity is resolved.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

When you think about it there’s nothing really new or unexpected in the ruling. Of course Presidents have immunity as part of their official duties - as head of the armed forces they’re in charge of murderers, rapists and routinely carry out indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in other countries.

The principle has to be absolute or not at all. You can’t have every ambitious prosecutor out to make a name for themselves targeting a sitting President for obvious slam dunk crimes. America’s role as the global policeman, and perhaps largest criminal enterprise in the world as it seizes the assets it “liberates”, depends upon it.

Furthermore there’s no way they could rule that presidents are immune entirely. That could come back and bite them on the bum very quickly. Despite giving the appearance of being not the sharpest tool in the box*, Judge Alito isn’t irredeemably thick.

*What, that insurrectionist flag in my yard? Can’t say I noticed, my wife must have done that…

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

Obviously, an official act is anything he’s legally allowed to do.

If it sounds circular, that’s because it’s meant to be. His place-men on the Supreme Court have one job here, which is to slow down any threat Trump faces until after the election. Any prosecution relating to the day of the insurrection, which occurred while he was still president, will now be mired in appeal after appeal while the question of immunity is resolved.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------



Furthermore there’s no way they could rule that presidents are immune entirely. That could come back and bite them on the bum very quickly. Despite giving the appearance of being not the sharpest tool in the box*, Judge Alito isn’t irredeemably thick.

*What, that insurrectionist flag in my yard? Can’t say I noticed, my wife must have done that…

IMHO the decision of the Supreme court raises more questions that answers.

Looking at Donalds pending court cases, does inciting a riot to attempt to overturn an election become an official act?

Does removing official secrets documents and refusing to return the same become an official act.

I think not on all counts.

Does the President have the authority to order the removal of a security threat to the USA? Would that be a official act?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by pip08456

does inciting a riot

If he had, you may have a point.

[jfman]

The only question it raises is why would the Democrats waste valuable judicial time when the highest court in the land has already made it clear it’s not interested in stealing the 2024 election. Trump’s lawyers will do all they can to ensure none of the ongoing cases see the light of day before the election.

It’s time to stop clutching at straws, bin off Biden to a senior care facility and take the message to the electorate.

Nobody would be questioning any of the judgement made today if the President referred to was anyone other than Trump. Which is a ridiculous, and flawed, way to apply the law. Some of the panty wetting in the media would be funny except these people are completely serious that commonly understood applications of the law, and due process, should be set aside for Trump.