Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Quin_Dub

But it all cases , it's not him that's releasing the Data , it's either Mazars or Deutsche Bank.

If they refuse to comply with a Supreme court ruling , then they'll get their licences to trade revoked.

Trump can rant all he likes , Barr is the only one that could possibly try to stop things and even then only if Mazars/Deutsche refuse to comply.

If they do refuse then it would be up to the DOJ to allow the warrants or whatever to be written to force them to hand over the info.

1st - I just can't see either Mazars or Deutsche refusing to comply , the reputational damage to their wider business would be catastrophic and 2nd , as much as I think Barr is in the bag for Trump I don't think even he truly has the balls to tell the Supreme court to get stuffed..

My view is that the NY case will get a straight win and Deutsche will have to hand over the info , but the public won't get to see that info before the Election.

I think that the House case involving Mazars will get punted back to the lower court and THIS is where Barr might feel safe to mess about and slow walk it though the lower court to try to prevent the info getting out before November. He won't stop it , but he'll try to keep it until after the Election, because that's all that really matters.

ECO_Mental

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But it all cases , it's not him that's releasing the Data , it's either Mazars or Deutsche Bank.

If they refuse to comply with a Supreme court ruling , then they'll get their licences to trade revoked.

Trump can rant all he likes , Barr is the only one that could possibly try to stop things and even then only if Mazars/Deutsche refuse to comply.

If they do refuse then it would be up to the DOJ to allow the warrants or whatever to be written to force them to hand over the info.

1st - I just can't see either Mazars or Deutsche refusing to comply , the reputational damage to their wider business would be catastrophic and 2nd , as much as I think Barr is in the bag for Trump I don't think even he truly has the balls to tell the Supreme court to get stuffed..

My view is that the NY case will get a straight win and Deutsche will have to hand over the info , but the public won't get to see that info before the Election.

I think that the House case involving Mazars will get punted back to the lower court and THIS is where Barr might feel safe to mess about and slow walk it though the lower court to try to prevent the info getting out before November. He won't stop it , but he'll try to keep it until after the Election, because that's all that really matters.

Listening to CNN this morning they said also that SCOTUS could agree to give out the records but push some of the details back down to a lower court to sort out. This then could delay the release until after the election...this will be a win for Trump.:(

Quin_Dub

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Listening to CNN this morning they said also that SCOTUS could agree to give out the records but push some of the details back down to a lower court to sort out. This then could delay the release until after the election...this will be a win for Trump.:(

Absolutely - It's not about stopping them , they know they haven't a legal leg to stand on , it has always been about delaying it until after the Election.

It's the story of his life - Do something wrong and then when challenged sue - In business he'd hope that he could win by waiting out his opponent and that they'd give up because they couldn't afford to keep going.

Now though, it's all about losing as slowly as possible.

Tell me how

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely - It's not about stopping them , they know they haven't a legal leg to stand on , it has always been about delaying it until after the Election.

It's the story of his life - Do something wrong and then when challenged sue - In business he'd hope that he could win by waiting out his opponent and that they'd give up because they couldn't afford to keep going.

Now though, it's all about losing as slowly as possible.

Agree.

And, if he does lose in November, I suspect that there will be some sort of tacit agreement between him and the next administration to let sleeping dogs lie because it'll shed a very poor light on the office of the President of the US to show exactly how bad this guy was.

I've said it before, I expect he might be told to go, and go quietly or all these cases will be pursued.

Timberrrrrrrr

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree.

And, if he does lose in November, I suspect that there will be some sort of tacit agreement between him and the next administration to let sleeping dogs lie because it'll shed a very poor light on the office of the President of the US to show exactly how bad this guy was.

I've said it before, I expect he might be told to go, and go quietly or all these cases will be pursued.

This exactly why they should prosecute though, it will show that no one is above the law and also send out a signal to all parties that the next person they choose should be absolutely squeaky clean.

Wether that will happen or not is anyones guess though.

Tell me how

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This exactly why they should prosecute though, it will show that no one is above the law and also send out a signal to all parties that the next person they choose should be absolutely squeaky clean.

Wether that will happen or not is anyones guess though.

While I'd love to believe that it would happen for these reasons. I think we'd be very naive to think that that will be the case.

They talk a good game about honour and dignity but they are just campaign speeches (for the most part*). The number of people within the system who would support this practice is unfortunately a minority, by some distance I fear.

Look at Alexander Vindman, the chief witness in Trumps impeachment. He resigned yesterday with his lawyer saying.

“After more than 21 years of military service, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman is retiring today after it has been made clear that his future within the institution he has dutifully served will be forever limited.”

If it was just about Trump, he'd keep his head down and fingers crossed for 4 months and hope that he loses but he is calling it a day.

*Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is one politician who I believe would support doing the right thing. I have a lot of hope for her given that she got in so young before she had time to have a career elsewhere which could have led to her becoming corrupted or making corporate friends who funded her campaign. Time will tell if she is successful in setting a better example.

Quin_Dub

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree.

And, if he does lose in November, I suspect that there will be some sort of tacit agreement between him and the next administration to let sleeping dogs lie because it'll shed a very poor light on the office of the President of the US to show exactly how bad this guy was.

I've said it before, I expect he might be told to go, and go quietly or all these cases will be pursued.

They might like to do that , but he won't go quietly.

He might leave office mostly quietly but he won't stay quiet for long , he'll launch Trump TV and spit bile and vitriol endlessly and continue to poison the political arena.

This isn't Nixon pissing off to the suburbs to quietly write his memoirs..

There is only one way to deal with him and I think that both sides recognise that.

The GOP have always been very good at playing the long game - If and when Trump's leap to the Far Hard Right fails to get him re-elected , the GOP will turn on him as they will recognise that if they want to have a shot at 2024 or even 2028 they will need to shift back to more of their traditional position.

If he loses , it will be in the best interests of both sides for him to be crushed into oblivion.

Deep deep down , Trump knows this and that's why he's so dangerous right now.

amandstu

The adversarial system of law in the US and elsewhere may be an important consideration

It seems to be based on the premise that nobody is above the law in that they can not set it in stone


Rather it is based on setting legal and judicial precedents and that either side then tries to get its slice of the cake by any permissible means.

The French ,I believe have a different system where they have an examining magistrate but I have no idea how that works in practice

Tell me how

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They might like to do that , but he won't go quietly.

He might leave office mostly quietly but he won't stay quiet for long , he'll launch Trump TV and spit bile and vitriol endlessly and continue to poison the political arena.

This isn't Nixon pissing off to the suburbs to quietly write his memoirs..

There is only one way to deal with him and I think that both sides recognise that.

The GOP have always been very good at playing the long game - If and when Trump's leap to the Far Hard Right fails to get him re-elected , the GOP will turn on him as they will recognise that if they want to have a shot at 2024 or even 2028 they will need to shift back to more of their traditional position.

If he loses , it will be in the best interests of both sides for him to be crushed into oblivion.

Deep deep down , Trump knows this and that's why he's so dangerous right now.

Yes...........but, there is also the possible fact that I think Ivanka has her eyes on the same seat and that Donald being pursued will harm her chances (personally, I don't think she should be anywhere near it but), imagine in 10 years time or so she launches a campaign.

Should she do so, she will be a wealthy, attractive, female candidate with White House Experience having served as an advisor to the President for 4 years. The GOP will gladly welcome her if it means they could provide the first female President (if Niki Halley doesn't get there in the mean time).

I agree that in the short term, the GOP will spit out Trump as soon as it is clear he is a goner.
If they had sense, they'd weigh in behind the Massachusetts Governer Charlie Baker for 2024 who has been doing very well throughout Covid but he might not be to the taste of some of the big hitters in the party.

It's all very Game of Thrones!

duploelabs

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes...........but, there is also the possible fact that I think Ivanka has her eyes on the same seat and that Donald being pursued will harm her chances (personally, I don't think she should be anywhere near it but), imagine in 10 years time or so she launches a campaign.

Should she do so, she will be a wealthy, attractive, female candidate with White House Experience having served as an advisor to the President for 4 years. The GOP will gladly welcome her if it means they could provide the first female President (if Niki Halley doesn't get there in the mean time).

I agree that in the short term, the GOP will spit out Trump as soon as it is clear he is a goner.
If they had sense, they'd weigh in behind the Massachusetts Governer Charlie Baker for 2024 who has been doing very well throughout Covid but he might not be to the taste of some of the big hitters in the party.

It's all very Game of Thrones!

Donald as Tywin Lannister? I'm sure he likes to think he has the cunning, but perhaps Mazars case will reveal exactly is contained in the Lannister mines

pixelburp

Serious genuine question, possibly worth a separate thread but one that I can't help but speculate - no matter how ostensibly hyperbolic it might seem (and I know it is): do people think the Trump era might hasten the fragmentation of the United States? It's a bit pat to talk of the "American Experiment", but does anyone think there's a chance of the country breaking apart? I've never known it to in such turmoil and in a near-constant state of self reflection or existential crisis.

I only ask because you look to something as egregious as Trump, truly highlighting both the thin veneer of normalcy, as well as the obvious cracks & flaws in the federal system as a whole. The double-whammy of CoVid and BLM becoming more overt have added their own cracks. Equally, there's this sense of a fierce local pride across states of their own unique identity (some officially still using those old terms of nationhood [your "Commonwealths" and whatnot]). Yet secessionist movements are fringe at the very best - or laughing stocks at worst. There's no roiling equivalent to Catalonia or Scotland - or even Quebec to use a more localised example - within its heart. Even among those movements who'd lament at the state of things.

It's easy for me to say "America's broken" and point to a myriad of structural or cultural problems. To an outsider they're kinda beyond the point of no return, but what's the secret sauce Stateside that keeps that conversation from coming to the surface? Or am I just indulging in the worst flights of alternative universe speculation?

Shelga

pixelburp wrote: »

Serious genuine question, possibly worth a separate thread but one that I can't help but speculate - no matter how ostensibly hyperbolic it might seem (and I know it is): do people think the Trump era might hasten the fragmentation of the United States? It's a bit pat to talk of the "American Experiment", but does anyone think there's a chance of the country breaking apart? I've never known it to in such turmoil and in a near-constant state of self reflection or existential crisis.

I only ask because you look to something as egregious as Trump, truly highlighting both the thin veneer of normalcy, as well as the obvious cracks & flaws in the federal system as a whole. The double-whammy of CoVid and BLM becoming more overt have added their own cracks. Equally, there's this sense of a fierce local pride across states of their own unique identity (some officially still using those old terms of nationhood [your "Commonwealths" and whatnot]). Yet secessionist movements are fringe at the very best - or laughing stocks at worst. There's no roiling equivalent to Catalonia or Scotland - or even Quebec to use a more localised example - within its heart. Even among those movements who'd lament at the state of things.

It's easy for me to say "America's broken" and point to a myriad of structural or cultural problems. To an outsider they're kinda beyond the point of no return, but what's the secret sauce Stateside that keeps that conversation from coming to the surface? Or am I just indulging in the worst flights of alternative universe speculation?

I hear what you're saying, but to me it seems like they're too fragmented to even know what sides they want to split into! So much mindless hatred in the country, with no idea of what they actually want.

Headshot

I think the ruling on Trumps taxes is due any minute

JohnFalstaff

Headshot wrote: »

I think the ruling on Trumps taxes is due any minute

BREAKING: TRUMP LOSES SUPREME COURT BATTLE WITH NEW YORK PROSECUTOR OVER HIS TAXES AND FINANCIAL RECORDS

Jack1985

7-2 decision by SCOTUS, fantastic!

Headshot

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

BREAKING: TRUMP LOSES SUPREME COURT BATTLE WITH NEW YORK PROSECUTOR OVER HIS TAXES AND FINANCIAL RECORDS

Its a ****ing great day, yes it is

Headshot

Damn more delay happening as the Supreme court have pushed it back to the district court

We wont see any ruling on this before Novemeber

Penn

I think the fact the decision was 7-2, and that Trump's lawyers were arguing that a sitting President should have temporary immunity which the SC rejected, is a decent reason to find it a great result regardless.


From The Guardian:

Chief justice John Roberts wrote the 7-2 opinion that the president is not categorically immune from grand jury requests. Both supreme court justices nominated by Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the majority.

“Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding,” Roberts wrote in the decision.

“We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.”

Jack1985

SCOTUS blocks Congress from accessing Trump's financial records ''for now''

Penn

Jack1985 wrote: »

SCOTUS blocks House from accessing Trump's financial records ''for now''

Yeah from what I'm reading of it, they've knocked down Trump's main arguments, but it still goes back down to the lower courts to assess "separation of powers concerns", not fully sure what that means.

Quin_Dub

Jack1985 wrote: »

SCOTUS blocks Congress from accessing Trump's financial records ''for now''

Haven't ruled on the Congressional one yet.

They have kicked the NY case back to the lower court - Saying that he's not immune to the subpoena.

so basically he'll now go into NY court and fight the subpoena , up to now he's been saying that the Subpoena was basically invalid because he's President.

Dillonb3

Interesting Gorsuch and Kavanaugh sided with majority. Typical of Thomas and Alito to dissent

Jack1985

Penn wrote: »

Yeah from what I'm reading of it, they've knocked down Trump's main arguments, but it still goes back down to the lower courts to assess "separation of powers concerns", not fully sure what that means.

We won't see these until after the election which is despicable

Quin_Dub

And as expected , they've punted on the Congressional one - Sent it back to the lower court for review.

Jack1985

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Haven't ruled on the Congressional one yet.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, CNN are also running with SCOTUS blocking both Congress and NY Prosecutors until lower court decides which will take months.

Quin_Dub

Jack1985 wrote: »

Unless I'm reading it wrong, CNN are also running with SCOTUS blocking both Congress and NY Prosecutors until lower court decides which will take months.

Yes , they've updated on both..

Slightly different next steps now.

For the NY case -

Up to now Trump has basically refused to acknowledge the NY case saying that he couldn't even be served with the Subpeona. SCOTUS now says they can.

Basically they now deliver the subpoena and Trump will go to Court to fight it in NY.

For the House one -

This goes back for a legal review in the lower appeals court to determine if the House have the right to view his Tax returns. They have already said that they can , but Trump will go back and fight again.

So - The race is on to see if either one can get through the courts before November.

StringerBell

Most transparent president in history indeed.

s1ippy

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-supreme-court-rules-prosecutor-can-obtain-president-donald-trump-s-financial-records-1.4300185?mode=amp

I'm actually so thrilled to read that they're investigating his financial records for tax evasion and separately they're looking into whether he was corrupted by foreign groups or individuals.

sid waddell

Sorry but these Supreme Court decisions look like a fake "victory" for the rule of law to me, and essentially a victory for Trump in getting his way. Trump has always been stalling for time and that stalling has been successful.

Which is exactly what I expected.

Quin_Dub

sid waddell wrote: »

Sorry but these Supreme Court decisions look like a fake "victory" for the rule of law to me, and essentially a victory for Trump in getting his way. Trump has always been stalling for time and that stalling has been successful.

Which is exactly what I expected.

They are a bit.

The Supreme court can be seen to have "upheld the rule of law" and not set precedent , whilst potentially delaying the inevitable long enough to cover Trump before the Election.