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

Nody

Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The ruling is a major blow to Trump’s key defense thus far in the federal election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith. The former president had argued that the conduct Smith charged him over was part of his official duties as president and therefore shield him from criminal liability.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the court wrote.

The ruling from the three-judge panel was unanimous. The three-judge panel who issued the ruling Tuesday includes two judges, J. Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, who were appointed by Joe Biden and one, Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush.

To no surprise to anyone... Supreme court here we come to find out if the president of USA is completely immune to any prosecution outside of impeachment.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730094#Comment_121730094

Fox news doing their best to deflect.

The piece on the website from "Fox & Friends" is something else.

~4 Minute clip under the heading of "Trump Immunity ruling in" has about 20 seconds about the DC ruling saying "The judges appear skeptical about whether Trump has immunity" , which is an interesting way to describe a unanimous ruling saying that he absolutely doesn't.

And then they scream "SQUIRRELL!!!!!! and switch to the "massive bombshell news"..... about Fani Willis having a relationship in Georgia and they bring in an analyst to talk about that but not another Word about Trumps catastrophic loss in his one and only defence from all the charges in DC.

beggars_bush

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730094#Comment_121730094

Can the supreme court be stacked with your own appointees and then absolve you

Will be a very interesting test of the US judicial system

Wossack

it’s a sad indictment of the justice system in the us, when reporting on any of these issues, the articles seem to always mention who appointed the individual judges

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730719#Comment_121730719

Getting closer, it seems, to the end of the 3 separate branches of US Govt. The MAGA party reducing the GOP in the legislative body to their level, settling the membership of the judiciary and nobbling the executive, all orchestrated by one person. It's a sad state of affairs that he has reduced the USA to.

aloyisious

I've been musing about the chance that the USSC might decide that Section 3, and maybe even Amendment 14, is unconstitutional on the basis that as it is a Civil War era legacy piece of legislation it has no relevance in the present day US.

The court has a habit of making ruling against the popular will of a large percentage of the population. It would get them off the hook of having to make a pro or anti decision in respect of the case against Trump and the term "Office Holder" being a legitimate label to attach to the office of the presidency.

We'll just have to wait and see what the USSC come up with to avoid being blamed by either side on the decision.

beggars_bush

The irony of Trump saying NATO countries have to pay up or he'd encourage Russia to attack

When the man has spent his life trying to work out of paying any contractor or service provider or tax he could get away with

Tony EH

Trump's comments about encouraging Russia to do "whatever the hell they want", should be the nail in the coffin for his bid for the Presidency. It's astonishing that a potential US President could mouth such particularly partisan words. If anything showed where Trump's loyalty lies, it's within that sentence and anyone outside of the foolish MAGA cult should be making efforts to distance themselves from this creature. This piece of shit is an extreme danger, not only to his own country but to many outside of it.

Hasn't America learnt anything about blowback yet? Dealing with rogue states and letting them do "whatever the hell they want" rarely, if ever, works out too well in the end.

It's astonishing that a guy who's interesting in bidding for the Presidency of one of the most powerful nations on the planet could utter should dangerous drivel and even more worrying that his clapping seals cheer it on.

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121756752#Comment_121756752

Little Marco has already bent the knee more will follow.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121756801#Comment_121756801

All the odious little sycophants will, sooner or later. Most already have.

No matter how many times he commits treason or insults their wives.

I.R.Y.E.D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121758530#Comment_121758530

Without a doubt, serious lack of balls and spine evident

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121751104#Comment_121751104

The Constitution can not be unconstitutional by definition.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121756752#Comment_121756752

Should be, but obviously won't.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121759729#Comment_121759729

Its the 14th amendment and section 3 that I'm referring to, not the constitution itself as a whole. The amendment was introduced after the civil war to ensure that former confederate officials and military officers could not get public office. The continued existence of such persons now is unlikely, unless there is an attempt to revive the southern confederacy creating a new threat to the union of the US.

MICKEYG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761625#Comment_121761625

Right, but once it is in the constitution it is constitutional by mistake.

It can be charged, a tough process in the US, and may even contradict other parts of the constitution but it is still constitutional.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761638#Comment_121761638

The internet provided me with this in answer to the question: can the USSC strike down as unconstitutional an amendment to the US constitution?

The Supreme Court can strike down any law or other action by the legislative or executive branch that violates the Constitution. This power of judicial review applies to federal, state, and local legislative and executive actions.

There is a rider that the Constitution does not specifically provide for the power of judicial review but given what is above and the fact that Trump has gone to the USSC as an arbiter on the wording of the amendment, it should mean [on the face of it] that he would accept its ruling whichever way it rules.

He being Trump can intend otherwise but the higher appeal court [the voter] is already in play. I don't believe that he can get enough people to attend another large "peaceful" rally in Washington DC again to protest another losing election.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121756752#Comment_121756752

He asked Putin for help in a previous presidential election bid indicating that he will accept foreign interference in the election if it will get him into office. There's not much more to say about his ability to corrupt the US presidential election system.

MICKEYG

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761895#Comment_121761895

Right, but that is a law and all constitutions have this process. But we are talking about the wording of the constitution itself, not a law.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762102#Comment_121762102

I reiterate that what being questioned here is the meaning of the wording of an amendment to the constitution and a section within it, not the constitution itself. The constitution is an act of law in itself. All government in the US springs from it's lawfulness, including the method of making amendments to the constitution.

Even Trump has asked the USSC on a point of law for a certainty in what the wording of the amendment means: Is the Office of the Presidency a public office within the word and meaning of the amendment? Trump and Biden have both gone to the public electorate seeking election to that office in the past, Trump twice. If that does not make the office 0f the presidency a public office, I honestly don't know what is.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761895#Comment_121761895

The internet should have just provided you with the answer "No".

The SC are the ultimate arbiters indeed of what the Constitution means, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762602#Comment_121762602

I believe that the USSC does have the legal power under the constitution to rule that the words "public office" contained in the disbarment clause do apply to the office of the presidency and those seeking election to that office.

We do agree that the USSC is the ultimate arbiter of what the constitution means. That has to include the meaning and reach of the words in the disbarment from public office clause contained within that constitution as well. Just because no previous USSC bench has made a decision on it does not mean the present USSC bench cannot do so.

Trump has asked the USSC to be the arbiter if the office he is seeking election to is a public office or not. He clearly hopes the USSC rules that the presidency is NOT a public office as defined in the disbarment clause. If the USSC finds it is not a public office as defined in the disbarment clause of the amendment then he is home free in the run for that office. If the USSC finds that the presidency is a public office as defined in the disbarment clause then he has lost one of his strongest arguments against being disbarred by the different states under their own state laws from the state ballot papers. It would also protect the right of the individual States to decide who can run for public office using the State public office ballot system to boot where the disbarment cluse is concerned.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763006#Comment_121763006

Ok sure, all of this is fine.

It just has nothing to do with finding the amendment unconstitutional, which is not in their power.

The most likely outcome from oral hearings seems to be that they will just find it not within the power of individual states to decide, which seems like off reasoning to me. Though oral hearings don't always give the right impression of the final outcome.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763018#Comment_121763018

The argument that the USSC cannot make any finding on the constitutionality of amendments made to the constitution does not ring true to my mind. It would in effect be neutering themselves.

If you don't mind, I'll sidestep that debate between us when it comes to Trump and the way different states want to control their own state laws and their understanding of the disbarment clause as it affects their own state election boards decisions on having candidates running for public office in their states, agreeing to disagree as it were.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763124#Comment_121763124

An amendment to the Constitution is the Constitution. That it is an amendment gives it no less weighting. It can not, by definition, be Unconstitutional.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763160#Comment_121763160

I suggest you take a look at how the 14th amendment was formulated and passed into law as one of the reconstruction amendments by by the Republican Congress and opposed by the former confederacy.

The amendment is merely part of the constitution, not the whole. If the amendment was found by the USSC to be unconstitutional, it would not invalidate the constitution as a whole or call the whole into doubt. To argue otherwise is not, IMO, a valid argument.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763645#Comment_121763645

If the amendment was found by the USSC to be unconstitutional

This is not possible!

There is absolutely no suggestion that the amendment was improperly inserted. Once it is ratified, it is part of the constitution, it can not by definition be unconstitutional. The SC has zero power over what is in the Constitution, only to interpret it.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763675#Comment_121763675

Is it your argument that the USSC, if a citizen stated a case before it on the legal standing of a part of the constitution and the court decided the citizen's case had reached the level of validity and public importance for it to hear it, that the court had no legal right to hear the citizens case, let alone grant the citizen a hearing?

What would you say if the USSC differed with your opinion of its power?

Edit: I did not suggest that the amendment was improperly inserted [into the constitution].

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763718#Comment_121763718

I am struggling to understand what you think the point of this is?

Amendments are not legislation and the SC has no authority over them.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763756#Comment_121763756

I posted the link to you as it showed what the USSC could do and has done. I don't know what your point is with your reference that amendments are not legislation and the SC has no authority over them. Maybe you mean that legislation is open to the authority of the USSC for ruling on validity.

I do take the point that the USSC seems to have no purpose where it comes to what politicians put across the floor of congress for approval as it does not seem to have any means of enforcing any ruling it makes on matters put before it for ruling on, making any rulings the USSC valueless unless the rulings are accepted by the politicians.

political analyst

If the Founding Fathers intended the President to be immune from prosecutions for actions he or she took while in office then presidential immunity would be stated in the US Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS is the correct acronym) would never rule that a serving or former President is entitled to something that isn't mentioned in the Constitution, would it?