US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
And that's the thing. No way in hell Joe Biden would ever, ever do that. Which is why I'm voting for him (or whoever ends up being the Democratic nominee).
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, one side is hampered by these inconvenient things called principles.

The other side has no such issue.
 
I read the CNN analysis of the opinion and some of the opinion itself. The unbelievable cowardice of this court, the breadth of the definition of “official actions” (with which not even Barrett agreed), the almost ridiculous logic of “protecting” a President from future Presidents using the office to prosecute past Presidents — never even remotely contemplated until Trump BECAME President — and the complete ignoring of precedent by the allegedly “strict interpretation” Conservatives is staggering even to me.

I try to avoid hyperbole but this is the most dangerous decision for the future of this nation since Dred Scott. It fundamentally encourages bad actors to run for the highest office in the land by setting them above the reach of the law over everyone else. A President SHOULD be worried about his/her official actions breaking the law — that’s what helps ensure they won’t — that and the hope that we elect principled people to the office. This decision strips that worry away, utterly.

Absolute (or near absolute) power corrupts absolutely.
 
Last edited:
Sentencing for Hush money case delayed until mid September. Judge actually saying "if sentencing is necessary"
Wtf
SCOTUS, MAGA and the shit gibbon have managed to turn the clock back to the "wild west"
It's a fucking free for all, the rule of law has been well and truly jettisoned.
Anything really goes... it's open fucking season
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I read the CNN analysis of the opinion and some of the opinion itself. The unbelievable cowardice of this court, the breadth of the definition of “official actions” (with which not even Barrett agreed), the almost ridiculous logic of “protecting” a President from future Presidents using office to prosecute past Presidents — never even remotely contemplated until Trump BECAME President — and the complete ignoring of precedent by the allegedly “strict interpretation” Conservatives is staggering even to me.

I try to avoid hyperbole but this is the most dangerous decision for the future of this nation since Dred Scott. It fundamentally encourages bad actors to run for the highest office in the land by setting them above the reach of the law over everyone else. A President SHOULD be worried about his/her official actions breaking the law — that’s what helps ensure they won’t — that and the hope that we elect principled people to the office. This decision strips that worry away, utterly.

Absolute (or near absolute) power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...
The judges in Germany in the 1930s were in fear of their lives from Hitler. These guys are voluntarily complicit in a fascist takeover.
 
jim tolmies perm said:
Sentencing for Hush money case delayed until mid September. Judge actually saying "if sentencing is necessary"
Wtf
SCOTUS, MAGA and the shit gibbon have managed to turn the clock back to the "wild west"
It's a fucking free for all, the rule of law has been well and truly jettisoned.
Anything really goes... it's open fucking season
Click to expand...
The fucking state of that country. It’s fucked.
 
Biden has drifted to 7/1 in the last hour to be next president while there's been heavy money for Harris and Newsome.

Somethings brewing.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
thanks, that's roughly what I thought - state, unless there are multiple across state lines, or something.

Was just wondering about how many Trump could pardon or claim had been given official sanction.
Click to expand...
A President can only pardon Federal crimes, not State crimes. One can commit a Federal crime in any State, but State crimes are particular to the respective State.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The fucking state of that country. It’s fucked.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court have tied Judge Merchan’s hands on this one.

As I understand it, they didn’t just rule that official acts have presumed immunity, but they also introduced a new evidentiary standard (possibly the most fucked up part of the whole thing) that says any official actions or communications during the presidency are inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial. Even for a crime that happened outside the temporal bounds of the presidency.

The hush money trial relied on evidence which related to Trump’s interactions with Hope Hicks during the presidency along with the fact he signed his illegal checks from the White House. This obviously was fine at the time but it’s uncertain that it now meets this new criteria.

This means we have a pretty unprecedented situation where he has been convicted of felonies but now the evidentiary standard has changed post factum. It seems that pretty much the only thing the judge can do now is declare a mistrial and re-try him, which may involve another trip to the Supreme Court to see if the evidence they used previously is admissible under their new guidelines.

This can of worms the SC have opened up will therefore contaminate every case he is tried for. A lot of the evidence for the Docs case is now in jeopardy, the Jan 6th case and the Georgia rico case will rely on him persuading people that slating false electors constitutes an official act, and they need to prove he did that without any “official” communications like the call with Raffensperger where he asked for more votes.

It has fucked everything. It’s almost like that is what they had in mind.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
The Supreme Court have tied Judge Merchan’s hands on this one.

As I understand it, they didn’t just rule that official acts have presumed immunity, but they also introduced a new evidentiary standard (possibly the most fucked up part of the whole thing) that says any official actions or communications during the presidency are inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial. Even for a crime that happened outside the temporal bounds of the presidency.

The hush money trial relied on evidence which related to Trump’s interactions with Hope Hicks during the presidency along with the fact he signed his illegal checks from the White House. This obviously was fine at the time but it’s uncertain that it now meets this new criteria.

This means we have a pretty unprecedented situation where he has been convicted of felonies but now the evidentiary standard has changed post factum. It seems that pretty much the only thing the judge can do now is declare a mistrial and re-try him, which may involve another trip to the Supreme Court to see if the evidence they used previously is admissible under their new guidelines.

This can of worms the SC have opened up will therefore contaminate every case he is tried for. A lot of the evidence for the Docs case is now in jeopardy, the Jan 6th case and the Georgia rico case will rely on him persuading people that slating false electors constitutes an official act, and they need to prove he did that without any “official” communications like the call with Raffensperger where he asked for more votes.

It has fucked everything. It’s almost like that is what they had in mind.
Click to expand...
This all stems from an 18th Century document that has been found pitifully wanting.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
The Supreme Court have tied Judge Merchan’s hands on this one.

As I understand it, they didn’t just rule that official acts have presumed immunity, but they also introduced a new evidentiary standard (possibly the most fucked up part of the whole thing) that says any official actions or communications during the presidency are inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial. Even for a crime that happened outside the temporal bounds of the presidency.

The hush money trial relied on evidence which related to Trump’s interactions with Hope Hicks during the presidency along with the fact he signed his illegal checks from the White House. This obviously was fine at the time but it’s uncertain that it now meets this new criteria.

This means we have a pretty unprecedented situation where he has been convicted of felonies but now the evidentiary standard has changed post factum. It seems that pretty much the only thing the judge can do now is declare a mistrial and re-try him, which may involve another trip to the Supreme Court to see if the evidence they used previously is admissible under their new guidelines.

This can of worms the SC have opened up will therefore contaminate every case he is tried for. A lot of the evidence for the Docs case is now in jeopardy, the Jan 6th case and the Georgia rico case will rely on him persuading people that slating false electors constitutes an official act, and they need to prove he did that without any “official” communications like the call with Raffensperger where he asked for more votes.

It has fucked everything. It’s almost like that is what they had in mind.
Click to expand...
Makes Nixon’s resignation seem almost quaint now, as Watergate wouldn’t even be a crime now, would it?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top