Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119593439#Comment_119593439

She is not doing it by the book, she is bending facts and breaching fundamental legal rules. Her ruling is being described as the worst reasoned judicial decisions in American history. Even Bill Barr called it "deeply flawed".

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119595564#Comment_119595564

So she could appoint a person as this master who has no security clearance of any type, and few people would actually have the security clearance to view these documents.

The whole question of appointing a lawyer to oversee such matters is just daft - it flies in the face of the obvious flaws with this whole idea..

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119596581#Comment_119596581

When one volunteers for duty in Trump-world, one has to remove one's brain so it doesn't have a melt-down.

Ahwell

Back in April Trump tried to get the case he filed against Hillary Clinton before Judge Aileen Cannon. When it wasn’t assigned to Judge Cannon, he tried to disqualify the judge it was assigned to so he could again try to get the case before Judge Cannon.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119599853#Comment_119599853

That is not the type of precedent judge Cannon wants on her federal employee record when it comes to impartiality and justice not merely done but seen to be done and Trump personally seeking her out to hear his SM request suit. It also shows precedence in interference by Trump in the appointment of federal judges to his legal suites against political opponents, which in itself alone may be a federal criminal offence.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119601461#Comment_119601461

Cannon has tainted her "federal employee record when it comes to impartiality and justice" all by herself with her ruling on the Trump case that did end up in front of her.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119603034#Comment_119603034

According to the blurb available on the net, Federal judges are life-time appointments and removable by impeachment by the House AND then trial by the Senate for contravening article 2 of the constitution. There is a code of conduct for US judges. Canon 1. [no pun] A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary. An independent and honourable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.

https://work.chron.com/code-conduct-united-states-judges-13830.html#:~:text=Canon%201%20of%20the%20code%20of%20conduct%20requires,practice%20integrity%20in%20every%20aspect%20of%20judicial%20practice.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119603210#Comment_119603210

Interesting in that judges have to be independent.

Could any US Supreme Court judges that were appointed by Trump be forced to recuse themselves in issues relating to Trump that might come before them?

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119603801#Comment_119603801

Should they all recuse themselves and get a Supreme Court that is actually independent?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-supreme-court-recuse_n_5e54c109c5b66729cf615054

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119603801#Comment_119603801

Before reading all below, read what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the single sentence and Para 3 below.

Supreme Court Justices and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

In 1973, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. This code, while binding on lower federal court judges, does not apply to the Supreme Court Justices. The introduction to the Code states:

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

As Justice Roberts wrote in his 2011 Year End report on the Federal Judiciary:

…The Code of Conduct, by its express terms, applies only to lower federal court judges. That reflects a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts. Article III of the Constitution creates only one court, the Supreme Court of the United States, but it empowers Congress to establish additional lower federal courts that the Framers knew the country would need. Congress instituted the Judicial Conference for the benefit of the courts it had created. Because the Judicial Conference is an instrument for the management of the lower federal courts, its committees have no mandate to prescribe rules or standards for any other body…

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c6bb7258053e177cJmltdHM9MTY2Mjg1NDQwMCZpZ3VpZD0xYTRlZWZkZC1mYjU5LTZkZmItMzVkMi1lMDI2ZmY1OTZmMzAmaW5zaWQ9NTE3Nw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=1a4eefdd-fb59-6dfb-35d2-e026ff596f30&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9hYmFmb3JsYXdzdHVkZW50cy5jb20vMjAxOC8wMi8yMS9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LWp1c3RpY2VzLXJlY3VzYWwtY29kZS1jb25kdWN0LXVuaXRlZC1zdGF0ZXMtanVkZ2VzLw&ntb=1

The USSC has the Chief Justice and 8 associate justices. It takes a quorum of 6 justices for the USSC to sit in judgement in any case. It would take 4 members to be unavailable for duty at THE ONE time on the bench for it NOT to hear a case or suit.

CJ Roberts opinion is that NO USSC Judge has an obligation to recuse him/herself as they have an obligation as USSC judges to hear USSC cases but they can recuse themselves if they choose. He also said a judge's decision not to recuse is NOT open to review.

This makes the case for an increase in the number of USSC judges BUT not in the quorum numbers.

Sam Russell

Interesting.

So a corrupt judge of the Supreme Court, despite being known to be corrupt, can only be removed by being impeached, in the same way Trump was impeached, and escape by the Senate being equally corrupt.

What a system.

I presume the founders never envisioned that corruption would be so ubiquitous, one corrupt party of Gov corrupting the rest of the safeguards.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119605635#Comment_119605635

I try to remind myself that the original constitution was designed for 13 small colonies in an era when the French and British empires were at their zenith. The composers of the constitution couldn't have forseen how radically the country would change and how two parties would lock down its democracy.

I think the idea of the supreme court was that only people of impeccable character would ever get to serve in it. Now that that idea's been conclusively debunked, we have something that wouldn't look out of place in a banana republic.

Call me Al

Im seeing all manner of speculation about Trump's unexpected arrival in Washington DC yesterday.

He seems to have come directly off the golf course.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606493#Comment_119606493

IIRC the writers of the constitution also didn't intend the document to become the Holy Writ it has effectively mutated into, in the mindset of some anyway - the right-of-centre in particular.

So much reform and sensible evolution could be achieved if there was consensus that a 200+ year old document is not fit for purpose in the modern world of democracy and society. Yet still they will fight over the archaic definition of a "well armed militia". Here we have Citizen's Assemblies and a healthy, codified attitude towards constitutional change.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606668#Comment_119606668

Indeed. I find the whole idea of originalism both grotesque and obscene. The idea that a country should be beholden to men who died centuries ago is so patently absurd, it wouldn't get more than lip service from extremists in other countries.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606684#Comment_119606684

It’s absolutely ludicrous and is a relatively new idea from what I understand.

Originalism only became a mainstream movement as a reaction to social progressivism as far as I can tell. It was an over reaction by conservatives who feared losing influence.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119606684#Comment_119606684

Its just interpreting religious texts in another form.

Tony EH

Fundamentalism.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119605635#Comment_119605635

Just like in the UK, most of these rules were written with the underlying assumption that elected officials would ultimately behave like "gentlemen" in the "olde worlde" meaning of it and that when faced with evidence of their malfeasance they would take their leave or that others would vote to remove them for the same reasons of "honour" and "duty".

All utterly archaic and meaningless in the modern world of brazen illegality.

Trump and his ilk have utterly shattered the idea that the US is capable of meaningful self governance with its current laws and procedures.

aloyisious

I was looking at the constitution ref the USSC yesterday and came across the 27th amendment. It's several centuries old from gestation to birth around 10 years ago. A college student doing a paper on govt came across the unratified amendment back then and contacted a senator for help. Basically the amendment stopped any pay rises for Senators and C/persons being passed before their end of term, as it stated that pay rises could only be given at the start of term in office [no little going-away gifts to the cost of the taxpayer]. 9 states had ratified the amendment before interest "was lost" in it leaving it filed away over the centuries until the student and the senator pushed enough states into ratifying it into effective law. Hope is not lost yet on probity in public service.

aloyisious

Judge Cannon yesterday[at the request of the DOJ] revealed more details of the FBI affidavit provided to a magistrate judge to get a search warrant. The revelation includes the probable source of the information a Trump lawyer provided on 03 June in a letter to the FBI on what was, and was not, in the Mar-A-Lago storage room and nowhere else in his home there was Trump himself, which could be a let-off for that lawyer in respect of any lying to the FBI charges.

It seems that the FBI affidavit included specific mention of what was on the front pages of a few dozen pages, classified and upwards security markings, which gave them legal cause to believe the documents were in Trump's home, despite the letter from Trump's lawyer to the contrary. It seems that information may have come from within Trump's home [a human source] and not from Government sources made aware of documents probably missing from Govt after Trump left the White House.

It's been reported on a variety of US media sources that the DOJ request to Judge Cannon followed on from the Trump lawyers revelation that the FBI had [sought] a warrant for the footage recorded on Trump's home CCTV security system, thus breaching secrecy on the FBI warrant. This warrant was sought after Trump's allegation that the FBI had brought in and planted fake evidence during it's search at his Mar-A-Lago home and a report that Trump & Co had revealed the existence of the footage themselves after they had sat down to look at it themselves in Mar-A-Lago.

Initially, I thought that it was the magistrate judge who had revealed more details of the warrant affidavit so when i checked for more sources and found it was Judge Cannon instead, I had to edit my first post several time to correct it. My apologies...

aloyisious

Surprise turn by the winner of the GOP candidature race in New Hampshire. Rtd Bde Gen Bolduc has stated on FoxNews [despite his previous position that the presidency was robbed from Trump] that it was not robbed from Trump and that Biden is the legitimate president [of the US]. He also said there was fake voting during the election. Bolduc is facing the sitting Democrat Senator Hassan on Nov 8 in the mid-term elections. I caught this on CNN which ran the F/N clip with Bolduc. I don't know whether that will have any sort of fallout for Bolduc after the news of his position-switch becomes more publicly known.

The CNN piece also mentioned that there was tension within the Democrat Party over the decision to [for electoral purposes] highlight the fight against Bolduc's candidature instead of the other two more democracy-minded GOP candidates, as it would help Democrat Party voter turnout due to Bolduc's pro-Trump position on the loss of the last election.

Rjd2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119626139#Comment_119626139

The DNC have given at least 40 million to these Stop The Steal loons, people can say "its all in the game" but its really scuzzy behavior and totally undercuts their message that democracy is on the line at the ballot box,,,when you are funding the supposed threats to democracy.

Nonetheless Hassan has been very lucky here, she likely would have lost to the GOP Governor who Mitch has begged to run for senate for a while, her polling numbers aren't great but this is a very favorable match up. Its not a cert, but it would be a huge shock that such a candidate was to win such a state as NH.

Regarding the senate, its amusing that Trump keeps insulting Mitch so vigorously and just the other day trolled JD Vance who he endorsed for a bag of money from Thiel a few months ago.

Trump is currently raising a huge amount of money and investing SFA in the 2022 midterms while McConnell is slightly cash strapped and is now having to be very careful when it comes to money management.

The 2022 candidates all in tough battles in private have to be seething tbh.

Rjd2

Blake Masters for example who Trump endorsed for Thiel money has had to go cap in hand to Mitch asking for money as Thiel is slightly stepping back for now and obviously Trump who is sitting on absolute fortunes is going to give him SFA.

aloyisious

Does anyone have knowledge of what is currently happening to the US Electoral Act before Congress?

According to Vox.Com, [quote] A bipartisan group of 16 senators on Wednesday unveiled new legislation aimed at clearing up the vague language in the Electoral Count Act, which former President Donald Trump tried to exploit in an attempt to invalidate the 2020 election outcome. The ECA, first passed in 1887, lays out Congress’s routine role in counting the electoral votes that candidates receive from each state. The new bill is aimed at updating the legislation so it makes explicit the limitations of the vice president’s role and makes it harder for lawmakers to challenge different states’ results.

The push for this legislation comes as Republican candidates across the country continue to question the 2020 election results and make their position on it central to their midterm campaigns. Senators co-sponsoring the bill have emphasized the importance of passing these changes ahead of the next presidential election, when Trump or another candidate may try to mobilize supporters to target Congress again.

There is legislation before Congress to make changes to the electoral act which will define the role the V/P has in the vote-count procedure which has the support of nine Republican senators: Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Rob Portman (R-OH), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitt Romney (R-UT), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Todd Young (R-IN), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). It’s not yet clear when a vote on it will take place, and if one more Republican will sign on to give the bill the filibuster-proof majority it needs to pass [end quote].

Looking at the list of [R] Senators listed as supporting the changes, I have doubts that the changes will be become fact seeing that Lindsey is at the tail-end of the list, with another [R] Senator still needed as well.

The Vox.Com article also mentioned that to ensure the voters freedom to vote without state hindrance, changes would also be needed to laws passed at state-level blocking specific electoral groups from the franchise.

Edit: Zoe Lofgren and Liz Cheney have also proposed changes to the legislation to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election in the future.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119643165#Comment_119643165

I saw this earlier....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKwvAOTQhyo

It is expected to pass in the House tomorrow and there is optimism that it will do the same in the Senate at a later date.

aloyisious

Call me surprised at James Trusty's line to Trumps best choice special master, Judge Dearie, that it was too early to confirm Trumps statements that he had declassified the classified documents. Call me even more surprised that the judge laid it on the line for Trusty and Trump with his "you cant have your cake and eat it" reply when Trusty hemmed and hawed about Trumps position on the documents in question so he, as special master, can make decisions on them.

That might have come as a surprise to Judge Cannon too, but maybe it wasn't, as she approved the appointment of Judge Dearie. Things are so muddy in the water at judgeship level that I can't say level-headed thinking over partisanship is returning to judges chambers. I'll leave it there as to what is going on at federal judge level at the low to medium levels. The top level judges should take note of Judge Dearie's clear hint to Trusty "consult with your client, find out with clarity what his position is on the classification issue, then report back to me with it".

Nody

Letitia James, the New York Attorney General who has been investigating the Trump Organization over the past three years over possible fraud, is due to make a "major announcement" at 10.30 a.m. Eastern Time.

That's 15:30 in Ireland and there will be live shows due to the press conference I'm sure. No leaks on what it is about which makes me think it will be either "We've extended our investigation to x, y & z" or they will put forward charges against someone relatively senior in the Trump organization but not against Trump/Trump's family because something that big would likely have leaked.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119645083#Comment_119645083

With his CFO there past at the guilty point, does that leave many in Trump's employ there facing Grand Jury and criminal prosecution?

Nody

They are suing Donald Trump! Oh this will be a good one... Accusations of lying about his valuation of companies / assets to not only pay lower taxes but also inflate value to be able to loan more money from banks. Sued based on the basis of fraud (inc. insurance fraud, submitting finance documents that are false on state level and as well on federal level which they are passing on to the state to do). They are asking for Trump & children never to be allowed to run a company in NY and bar any Trump companies to work in NY for 5 years.

The New York state attorney general filed a sweeping lawsuit Wednesday against former President Donald Trump, three of his adult children and the Trump Organization, alleging they were involved in an expansive fraud lasting over a decade that the former President used to enrich himself.

In the more than 200-page lawsuit, Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, alleges the fraud touched all aspects of the Trump business, including its properties and golf courses. According to the lawsuit, the Trump Organization deceived lenders, insurers and tax authorities by inflating the value of his properties using misleading appraisals.

“These acts of fraud and misrepresentation were similar in nature, were committed by upper management at the Trump Organization as part of a common endeavor for each annual Statement, and were approved at the highest levels of the Trump Organization – including by Mr. Trump himself,” the lawsuit states.

Trump and his children, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump, are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Allen Weisselberg, former CFO for the Trump Organization, and Jeff McConney, another longtime company executive, are also named.

James said she believes state and criminal laws may have been violated and referred the matter to the US attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York and the Internal Revenue Service.

Further information in the CNN article this is from here.