Donald Trump

KS55 said:
Chutkan will hold a trial within a trial to decide whether the indictment is valid or whether the acts evidenced are covered by immunity. It is for the judge to decide whether to hear oral argument (probably yes) and on what points. I would expect a decision in favour of the prosecution. After that, I expect Trump to appeal, arguing that he has immunity. Anticipate it finishing in POTUS with looney tunes Maga judges. This will run and run. Trump may die before a trial begins. Two years of argument? What a system but @Dax777 tells us it is a minor issue.
Click to expand...
But the defence will have to show that the things alleged are "official" acts as president.

So either they deny the evidence (he never said/did that) or will have to admit he asked people to commit electoral fraud but claim it was not a criminal act because he did it as president. Does a US president have immunity for an official act of electoral fraud? I'm not sure even his chosen supreme court judges would like to set that precedent.

The charm of this move is that we don't have to wait for a trial to see the evidence. It's all there now, before the election.
 
Vic said:
But the defence will have to show that the things alleged are "official" acts as president.

So either they deny the evidence (he never said/did that) or will have to admit he asked people to commit electoral fraud but claim it was not a criminal act because he did it as president. Does a US president have immunity for an official act of electoral fraud? I'm not sure even his chosen supreme court judges would like to set that precedent.

The charm of this move is that we don't have to wait for a trial to see the evidence. It's all there now, before the election.
Click to expand...
The defence that it was official acts is refuted by Smith saying Trump was acting, not as president but as an election candidate. Standing for re-election is not a core duty. Is it within the outer limits? If so, that is refutable by the private act argument. All through the indictment Smith talks about private acts and a private conspiracy. He will win that argument and the next appeal will try to knock that down. It is entirely possible that the mad Maga SCOTUS will rule that these criminal acts were within the official outer limits and therefore not indictable. Harris as president must act quickly to crush immunity thriough statute. Not sure whether it can cover events prior to the SCOTUS ruling.
There will eventually be a substantive trial but no sooner than 6 years after the events of Jan 6. Crazy, given we all saw them and heard Trump say “Fight like hell or you won’t have a country.”
Worth noting that a release of thousands of items of evidence in the appendix is due mid Ostober.
Smith has done a great job.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
It's impossible to call. Trump's odds have been a bit short from day 1. Most evidence points yo a Harris win. But polls have been all over the shop the last few years. And Republicans still have time to meddle and ramp up interference.
Click to expand...
Polls have consistently given the GoP around 2-4% more than they received in actual votes for the last six years.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.