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

robinph · 25-01-2021 5:15pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

My thoughts exactly..

What's the penalty for breaking the Emoluments clause though?

If the penalty is only "Removal from Office" or something , then perhaps the case is now moot , but if potentially there could be a custodial sentence or even personal fines I don't see why the case shouldn't move forward

Don't recall seeing anything about a penalty mentioned previously over the last five years that Trump has been breaking the rule, well four years of breaking it and the year beforehand when everyone knew that he was going to do it, but he claimed he wasn't... then ooops... looks like he did after all.

Even if there isn't a penalty other than a slap on the wrist surely the USSC should be defining what the rule actually means in todays language? When it was written they were expecting someone to be given a gift of a cow for some political favour, that needs updating to cover what Trump has been up to so that the next version of Trump can actually be prevented from breaking the rules rather than everyone looking on from a distance and saying "hmm, that might be wrong but we'll leave it until he leaves office until figuring out how wrong".

Edit: At least the USA should be following this case up against him to recover the money they paid Trump for following him around in golf carts and staying at his hotels. The penalty at the very least should be to pay back the money he swindled the country out of.

aloyisious · 25-01-2021 5:54pm

robinph wrote: »

So the USSC has thrown out the case regarding Trump receiving illegal payments from foreign governments because Trump is no longer president:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/emoluments-supreme-court-donald-trump-case/index.html

Surely that can easily be thrown straight back at them. Trump no longer being subject to that law/ constitution doesn't change the facts around if he was breaking them at the time?

It's more like they are trying to pardon him for an historical crime that isn't a crime anymore, and that is surely down to the current president if a pardon can be granted or not. The USSC should only be deciding on if he broke the rules as they existed at the time when Trump was president and was breaking them.

Wait'll some-one asks a constitutional lawyer, like Alan Dershowitz, if that ruling will apply across the board to ALL presidents as well where it come to the emolument clause and monies paid to their private interests by foreign governments.

It sound's like the USSC said a former U.S president cannot have cases stated against him/her or be tried before any U.S court for any crimes committed against federal laws while president, unlike other U.S citizens.

Trump's lawyers will probably try to use that argument in the senate trial, the same way GOP senators seem to be trending to argue at the moment.

robinph · 25-01-2021 6:02pm

So Trump has managed to implement Putins ruling that presidents are immune from any prosecution of anything, ever.

Can't be charged whilst in office, no point in charging with anything once out of office.

25-01-2021 6:04pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

The only arguments for DC statehood (apart from Democrats wanting more senators ) is for representation (weak enough when you look at population)

Sure take Vermont and Wyoming's delegates away. And probably Alaska soon. Sure there's hardly any people that would be affected.

banie01 · 25-01-2021 6:21pm

So you can't take a case against the sitting president.
You have to pause litigation until they leave office...

And then!
You can't progress that case against the former president for breaching the emoulement act, because they are no longer president?

I'm baffled!
Honestly cannot fathom why this case was kicked for any reason other than to save the SC sitting in judgement at all.

It's mental.

aloyisious · 25-01-2021 6:25pm

In reality though, the USSC will have to state that the ruling is specific to Trump and the case stated against him only, and would not have any effect on charges brought against others. Cant have the USSC doing a "Comey" in relation to charges or offences mooted against other persons in advance of any trial. I'll wait for the paper version of the ruling to be published by the U.S courts section of whatever Govt Dept.

EDIT: It seems the USSC ruling was done as confirmation of at least one of the other lower courts rulings against the case against Trump. When it was originally brought into a lower court the Democrats bringing the case were adjudged to not have large enough numbers in the House and the Senate to grant them standing to bring the case in the first place.

briany · 25-01-2021 8:31pm

Water John wrote: »

Watched the BBC2 docu on Trump's downfall last night. When it's all condensed into a one hour programme, you go WTF? The guy is guilty of high treason.

I think most people have been going 'WTF' at the uncondensed version as well, i.e. the last 3 months.

Manic Moran · 25-01-2021 9:02pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I mean if they are leaving behind a federal rump couldn't they just consolidate the rest of it into Virginia or Maryland? That would likely satisfy the residents as they could get representation while leaving the number of states at 50 which would likely make it easier to get bilateral support for the measure.

Just Maryland. They already did that to the VA part of DC on the South side of the Potomac.

Retrocession has been brought up in Congress a few times dating back to the mid 19th Century. In the 21st century, such bills were submitted pretty much every year in Congress from 2001-2010. Of course, they never got anywhere, for several reasons.

Firstly, DC residents would prefer to be their own State, with all the advantages that provides. Secondly, Democrats would prefer it is their own State, with the likely two D senators it would provide. And thirdly, Maryland opinion polls aren't exactly in favour of accepting it either.

I don't see any likely resolution to this, other than status quo.

L1011 · 26-01-2021 9:05am

josip wrote: »

Dominion are suing Rudi for $1.3bn.
I could say that I get no pleasure in reading such a headline, but it would be a blatant mistruth.
How long would this type of case usually take? 6 months?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/25/dominion-rudy-giuliani-lawsuit-election

Legal discovery and pre trial argument are likely to take years. It's plausible he'd die before a hearing.

The cases against the broadcasters who put it on air are the ones more likely to have the desired result

Nody · 26-01-2021 9:11am

banie01 wrote: »

So you can't take a case against the sitting president.
You have to pause litigation until they leave office...

And then!
You can't progress that case against the former president for breaching the emoulement act, because they are no longer president?

I'm baffled!
Honestly cannot fathom why this case was kicked for any reason other than to save the SC sitting in judgement at all.

It's mental.

Answer from a lawyer explains it better but basically all the cases were seeking to stop him from profiteering while in office; as he's left the office there's nothing to rule on in those cases. Now if someone takes a case for him to repay the money he's made breaking the law that would still be open.

check_six · 26-01-2021 12:47pm

L1011 wrote: »

Legal discovery and pre trial argument are likely to take years. It's plausible he'd die before a hearing.

The cases against the broadcasters who put it on air are the ones more likely to have the desired result

How would a case like this work? Would Giuliani have to prove his claims in a court setting? That could be... interesting.

The bizarro 'hearings' which were televised in November were set up to look as if they were a court case to the casual viewer, which they were not. They were a set of state government hearings that were so far removed from a court case that as soon as some Democrat representative suggested that Giuliani and his motley crew of 'witnesses' should be sworn in to tell the truth, the Republican representatives (and Giuliani) freaked out and voted down the proposal.

I seem to recall him backing down very fast in any actual court cases when it came to declaring the lies he was spouting in the media, due to the fact he could be instantly legally liable for them.

Water John · 26-01-2021 12:51pm

Yes, what they said outside was totally removed from what they said inside court. They then went back out and declared that the Judges wouldn't listen to their arguments. The audience presumed it was the same points, when it was not.

Timberrrrrrrr · 26-01-2021 1:40pm

Water John wrote: »

Yes, what they said outside was totally removed from what they said inside court. They then went back out and declared that the Judges wouldn't listen to their arguments. The audience presumed it was the same points, when it was not.

They even went as far as stating on any court documents they submitted that they were not alleging voter fraud and had no evidence to submit about voter fraud.

Then everytime the cases were thrown out his zealots on here were screaming about how the courts would not allow evidence of voter fraud be heard and it was all a big cover up.

aloyisious · 26-01-2021 5:44pm

L1011 wrote: »

Legal discovery and pre trial argument are likely to take years. It's plausible he'd die before a hearing.

The cases against the broadcasters who put it on air are the ones more likely to have the desired result

Probably a non-starter where this defendant is concerned. I was thinking the plaintiff might find it worth the bother if it asked the court to sequester Rudy's bank accounts and/or estate to the sum being sued for, in the event that it might win the case. At the very least it could ensure Rudy would not reduce any accounts or estate he has to avoid paying up if he lost the case. Ditto any other person who contributed to the damage and loss suffered by the plaintiff by broadcasting false and defamatory statements made by the defendant [Rudy]. It would send a clear signal that anyone involved would be hit hard in the pocket if they didn't choose to make a settlement outside anything Rudy may have to do.

aloyisious · 26-01-2021 6:30pm

In breaking news, apparently Mitch has agreed/assented to return to a 2001 agreement on the use of the filibuster by the Democrats in order for senate business to proceed. CNN reported the news. It seems the Democrats threatened to use the filibuster in the senate to break a GOP induced logjam in senate business.

PropJoe10 · 26-01-2021 8:48pm

A good summation of Trump supporters in a 3 minute clip.

timsey tiger · 26-01-2021 9:02pm

PropJoe10 wrote: »

A good summation of Trump supporters in a 3 minute clip.

LOL, couldn't remember one time when Don didn't lie.

Tell me how · 26-01-2021 9:14pm

timsey tiger wrote: »

LOL, couldn't remember one time when Don didn't lie.

Steven probably spent the rest of the week going over that conversation in his head and thinking 'I should have said this' 'I should have said that'.

aloyisious · 26-01-2021 9:45pm

Rand Paul submitted a proposal that the impeachment motion before the senate was constitutionally invalid as it proposed holding a trial of former official. Chuck Schumer countered Rand's proposal. Rand's proposal got an AYE from McConnell, which does show his opposition to holding the trial on the section Schumer quoted from the constitution.

It remains to see whether McConnell votes on the actual charge on the basis of his conscience, rather than a partisan basis, as he's allowed the other GOP senators have a whip-free vote. If he votes against the actual charge, in line with the AYE vote he gave Rand's motion, it'll make clear he is a man of no character who can't be relied on to vote with a conscience despite his remarks about Trump being responsible for the attack on the senate session which he and all the other GOP senators were attending on the 6th Jan.

weisses · 26-01-2021 9:48pm

So now we got a Karen and a Steven... Brilliant

timsey tiger · 26-01-2021 10:18pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Rand Paul submitted a proposal that the impeachment motion before the senate was constitutionally invalid as it proposed holding a trial of former official. Chuck Schumer countered Rand's proposal. Rand's proposal got an AYE from McConnell, which does show his opposition to holding the trial on the section Schumer quoted from the constitution.

It remains to see whether McConnell votes on the actual charge on the basis of his conscience, rather than a partisan basis, as he's allowed the other GOP senators have a whip-free vote. If he votes against the actual charge, in line with the AYE vote he gave Rand's motion, it'll make clear he is a man of no character who can't be relied on to vote with a conscience despite his remarks about Trump being responsible for the attack on the senate session which he and all the other GOP senators were attending on the 6th Jan.

:eek:

If he votes to convict it won't be for this reason, it will be because he has decided that he wants Trump buried and has ensured that it has sufficient support.

BlitzKrieg · 26-01-2021 10:26pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Steven probably spent the rest of the week going over that conversation in his head and thinking 'I should have said this' 'I should have said that'.

Isnt that the problem with these sort of political interactions.

There is rarely ever any progress, instead people retreat and instead work out responses to say the next time they are challanged on X or Y.

listermint · 26-01-2021 10:28pm

timsey tiger wrote: »

:eek:

If he votes to convict it won't be for this reason, it will be because he has decided that he wants Trump buried and has ensured that it has sufficient support.

He'd want to start shoring that up. Because if trump doesn't get impeached and found guilty then he has opportunity to steal heads from the GOP to feed his own political ambitions. Mitch has to remove that ability.

aloyisious · 26-01-2021 10:54pm

timsey tiger wrote: »

:eek:

If he votes to convict it won't be for this reason, it will be because he has decided that he wants Trump buried and has ensured that it has sufficient support.

Yeah, I can see how he'd like Trump deep-sixed and use patriotism as a cover. Either way, once Trump Snr is gone, the kids will have to learn to walk on their own.

Water John · 26-01-2021 11:00pm

At this point I don't see McConnell supporting conviction. He has felt the wind and very few have ventured even as far as he has in the GOP. Sad, but that's the way it is, anyone with moral fibre couldn't but convict.

Nody · 27-01-2021 12:01am

Well we know Trump is known for, hrm, questionable approaches to things but this one is honestly hilarious (the videos are very short).

In short Trumps pardons of all his friends who paid him are very narrow meaning that they only pardon the crimes they were charged with; however that means the prosecutors can now go after the same crimes with a different claim instead and they would still end up in jail for pretty much the same duration.

aloyisious · 27-01-2021 12:23am

Nody wrote: »

Well we know Trump is known for, hrm, questionable approaches to things but this one is honestly hilarious (the videos are very short).

In short Trumps pardons of all his friends who paid him are very narrow meaning that they only pardon the crimes they were charged with; however that means the prosecutors can now go after the same crimes with a different claim instead and they would still end up in jail for pretty much the same duration.

Plus if the prosecutor/s want to, they can go back to the charges they didn't put before the juries and proceed with them before new juries, and have the "unmentioned" help of the pardons [and the accused own words used on the 6th Jan in direct reference to the Capitol before the attack on it by the mob they addressed and spoke to] used to evade the prison time the convicted would have gotten as confirmation that they were "obviously" guilty as well of the offences the dropped charges referred to. Of course the prosecution will not mention the pardons when presenting their cases to the juries, leave it to the defence to suggest the juries would be biased. That runs the risk of riling the juries up.

aloyisious · 27-01-2021 12:25am

Senator Pat Leahy, the presiding senator at the trial, felt unwell and on the advice of the senate doctor has been taken to hospital as a precaution.

BonnieSituation · 27-01-2021 12:45am

If anything were to happen to him, would the reST of his term be co-opted by the governor?

And given that the governor is a Republican, well, that could set up a spicy showdown.

marno21 · 27-01-2021 2:30am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If anything were to happen to him, would the reST of his term be co-opted by the governor?

And given that the governor is a Republican, well, that could set up a spicy showdown.

Special election called within 6 months of the vacancy occuring.

The Governor said previously that should Bernie Sanders take up a position in the Biden administration, he would replace him with an independent left leaning Senator who would caucus with the Dems, which is tradition in Vermont. But this is a Republican we're talking about so take that with a pinch of salt.

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

Comments