Donald Trump

[Vienna_70]

quote: "The boats dont float because the batteries are too heavy"

Luckily for him he doesnt know how buoyancy works or he would get how monumentally stupid that remark is. the man must be scratching his head every day though at the sight of steel hull ships. That and he never surfed in his life because he would then get that its just a matter of enough styrofoam to make everything including his fat ass float.

I think his best one was, that because it’s undetectable by radar, the Stealth bomber is invisible.

 

[Luddite_Blue]

Trump's pushing hard for the debate to be on the 4th rather than 10th September, presumably to avoid debating Harris in the immediate aftermath of Judge Merchan deciding on the 6th September whether his hush money trial conviction is upheld.

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris at odds over presidential debate

The two candidates trade barbs as broadcasters negotiate details of new debates ahead of the November election.

www.bbc.co.uk

Trump’s sudden debate withdrawal linked to looming criminal sentencing: legal experts

New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan is expected to deny Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his 34-criminal count conviction on September 6, and sentence the ex-president on September 18. That likelihood may be impacting his sudden decision, announced late Thursday night, to pull out from the...

www.alternet.org

 

[SebastianBlue]

Judge rejects Trump’s claim of ‘vindictive’ prosecution by Biden allies

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan swept aside Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Washington, D.C., criminal case, saying he repeatedly mischaracterized the charges against him.

Former President Donald Trump presented “no meaningful evidence” that the White House or Justice Department targeted him for prosecution over political animus or his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Saturday.

In a 16-page opinion, Chutkan swept aside Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Washington, D.C., criminal case — which charges him with sweeping conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election — over claims that President Joe Biden pressured prosecutors to target his political rival. In the ruling, Chutkan said Trump repeatedly mischaracterized the charges against him, which describe far more than simply criminalizing his claimed belief that the 2020 election was stolen.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/03/trump-biden-tanya-chutkan-00172566

 

[mancboy]

Judge rejects Trump’s claim of ‘vindictive’ prosecution by Biden allies

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan swept aside Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Washington, D.C., criminal case, saying he repeatedly mischaracterized the charges against him.

Former President Donald Trump presented “no meaningful evidence” that the White House or Justice Department targeted him for prosecution over political animus or his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled Saturday.

In a 16-page opinion, Chutkan swept aside Trump’s attempt to dismiss his Washington, D.C., criminal case — which charges him with sweeping conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election — over claims that President Joe Biden pressured prosecutors to target his political rival. In the ruling, Chutkan said Trump repeatedly mischaracterized the charges against him, which describe far more than simply criminalizing his claimed belief that the 2020 election was stolen.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/03/trump-biden-tanya-chutkan-00172566

This situation with trump at present is a microcosm of society, it is social media vs the rest, it is those who shout the loudest against those who actually have the knowledge and it will be interesting to see how it pans out and i am fearful that it will pan out with those who shout the loudest.

 

[Dax777]

To say that there is nothing radical about the SCOTUS decision is ludicrous. The bill introduced in the Senate to counter act it is called “No Kings.” Says it all.

What do you find radical about the decision? What portion stuck you as ridiculous? And what do you presume are the potential ramifications of the parts of the decision you find ridiculous?

 

[KS55]

What do you find radical about the decision? What portion stuck you as ridiculous? And what do you presume are the potential ramifications of the parts of the decision you find ridiculous?

What I find ridiculous is the route from Paine’s famous pamphlet to SCOTUS placing a president above the law. That is radical and laughable. The need for each court in each case to decide whether an action is official which will be appealed in every case where the court says it’s not official is bad law. That’s ridiculous too.

 

[Dax777]

Anyone believing that its legal to kill children under 1 month old in California because someone else told them is a very dangerous state for your country to be in. Seems to me that the seeds of a civil war starts with one side believing that the otherside are murderous and inhuman. There is no excuse for the people making up such lies.

I don't disagree that it's dangerous. And people who make up such lies are despicable. But that's not WHO we are discussing here now is it?

We are discussing those who believed the lie.

It's more sinister than just people having different opinions.

You are beyond reason if you can't see that.

Again, don't conflate 2 things. The person making up the story is sinister. People who believe it aren't. They simply hold a false belief.

Holding beliefs that are wrong is common. The only difference here is that many think wrong beliefs that they don't hold is grounds for deeming others unworthy of existing.

But to make this crystal clear, do you agree that everyone who believes that false law exist should be dead or killed?

If you do, then you are the one who's beyond reasoning. But if you don't, then you agree with me in principle even though you are trying hard to pretend otherwise.


it's not I who's beyond reason here, rather it's the guy who made the claim about people who believe something false.

 

[Dax777]

What I find ridiculous is the route from Paine’s famous pamphlet to SCOTUS placing a president above the law. That is radical and laughable. The need for each court in each case to decide whether an action is official which will be appealed in every case where the court says it’s not official is bad law. That’s ridiculous too.

So in your response I already see you acknowledging that the ruling didn't put the President above the law.

So your real issue is that the you don't know the limits of official capacity? Well lol, that's what courts are for. To adjudicate that. Almost every ruling creates a similar judicial tapestry. The contours of what's within a President's official is worth examining. I don't see the issue here. Other than Democrats feeling they are much more limited in their attempts to beat Trump outside the ballot box.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

What do you find radical about the decision? What portion stuck you as ridiculous? And what do you presume are the potential ramifications of the parts of the decision you find ridiculous?

According to the decision, for example, "immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General."

Under this standard, Nixon/staff conversations about covering up Watergate could have (and probably would have) been claimed as "official acts" by the Nixon White House. He didn't have that, so he used the "national security" line of defense to delay release of the Smoking Gun and other tapes in order to hamper the evidentiary gathering process by prosecutors, claiming discussions with Haldeman et. al. were "confidential".

But then we have the following problem. From the USC transcript in USA vs. Nixon --this is Justice Marshall speaking to Nixon's defense counsel James St. Clair during oral arguments.

QUESTION: Well, don't you think it would be
important if a judge and the President were discussing how
they were going to make appointments for money?

MR. ST, CLAIR: I'm sorry, sir, I didn’t understand
your question.

QUESTION: Don't you think it would be important in a
hypothetical case if an about-to-be-appointed judge was
making a deal with the President for money?

MR. ST. CLAIR: Absolutely.

QUESTION: But under yours it couldn’t be. In public
interest you couldn't release [a tape of] that.

MR. ST. CLAIR: I would think that that could not
be released, if it were a confidential communication.
If the President did appoint such an individual, the remedy
is clear, the remedy is he should be impeached.

QUESTION: How are you going to impeach him if
you don't know about it?

MR. ST. CLAIR: Well, if you know about it, then you
can state the case. If you don't, know about it, you don't
have it.

QUESTION: So there you are. You're on the prongs of a dilemma, huh?

MR. ST. CLAIR: No, I don't think so.

QUESTION: If you know the President is doing
something wrong, you can impeach him; but the only way you
can find out is this way; you can't impeach him, so you
don't impeach him. You lose me some place along there.

{Laughter}.

Even Barrett's concurrence brought up this problem.

So the ramifications are that the decision makes it very easy for a rogue President to claim that criminal activity outside the scope of powers granted by the Constitution (since his actions as President are "presumptively constitutional") are "official acts" and as such dramatically impact a prosecutor's ability to pursue evidence to prove otherwise.

Had the Court narrowly and specifically defined "official acts" then that would be different. But if they had, the ramifications of the case almost certainly would have left the barn door open for Smith and ended up being a pro-prosecutorial decision.

It’s bad law period regardless of who the President is.

Never thought I'd see a day when a conservative court was so anti-prosecutorial.

 

[KS55]

So in your response I already see you acknowledging that the ruling didn't put the President above the law.

So your real issue is that the you don't know the limits of official capacity? Well lol, that's what courts are for. To adjudicate that. Almost every ruling creates a similar judicial tapestry. The contours of what's within a President's official is worth examining. I don't see the issue here. Other than Democrats feeling they are much more limited in their attempts to beat Trump outside the ballot box.

You clearly do not understand the law. Start with :
I am the president and I perpetrate an action which, prima facie, is criminal. I am arraigned on a criminal charge. My defence will be that the court has no power to arraign me…..
Now follow it through to the bitter end and see where you get.
Incidently, an immunity which the ordinary citizen, even if it is partial, cannot claim places the president above the law.
Sometimes, you are so dazzled by what you see as your cleverness that you do not think logically but just become needlessly argumentative. See the first sentence of your post. And “almost every ruling ….etc “ which is hopelessly wrong. SCOTUS rules on a handful of cases each year. With this ruling it would be every case where official acts are claimed by the defence. Yes, courts decide these matters but they have access to evidence.
You clearly have a brain and some knowledge. Use it more wisely, post less, think more. (My counselling charge is waived.)