US Politics Thread

KS55 said:
Assuming there is no rogue juror, a conviction on the accounts misdemeanour is likely. The harder charge to prove is the felony that it was done to affect the election. Punishment on the misdemeanour is likely a fine, but the felony carries serious prison time.
Click to expand...

I’ve been reading some slightly nobby legal arguments (based on my limited understanding, not a lawyer).

Apparently, the major challenge with this prosecution is again about the limits of state power. Basically the “misdemeanour” of falsifying business records is a law at the state level, as is the law of conspiracy.

The complication is that the conspiracy law states the charges rise to a felony if the fraud was conducted in furtherance to some other crime. That crime, the one it is in furtherance of in this instance, is a federal campaign law violation, indeed the ones Cohen pled guilty to in a federal court.

So you have a state charge, underpinned by a state charge in which to be found guilty another crime needs to be shown and that crime is a federal one. The big issue is not that Trump is innocent of that federal crime, it’s that the DoJ have declined to indict him at the federal level.

All of this, though, is a matter of debate which already happened in pre-trial motions. It seems likely that the jury will not be asked to worry about this element as it is distinctly technical, they will judge whether the crimes have been committed prima facie, and the question of potential state overreach will be left to an appellate court. That means this trial could well not be fully resolved for a long time to come.

Edit: I should add, we haven’t actually heard the prosecutorial arguments yet so there is a certain amount of speculation above regarding which laws/statutes will be involved.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Not good to the USA's soft power.
In China, some people really believe the "demorcracy, open market, free trade, the government doesn't intervene in business", and TikTok's boss, Zhang Yiming, is one of them.
It seems that the US does not value soft power as much as it used to.
The tiktok shit show is so... I don't know how to describe it, it should not be USA's level.
 
KS55 said:
Step forward the Supreme Court of the United States.
Today’s the day of oral argument on the question of absolute presidential immunity.
Most commentators seem to think there is no chance that Trump’s position will be endorsed by the court, but I am not so sure. Trump’s three appointments are real rogues who lied to the senate in their confirmation hearings. They are Maga justices. They are not democrats and look for ways to subvert the constitution. They have already endorsed Republican jerrymandered Congressional maps, not once but twice. They will vote for absolute immunity, so it depends what the rest of the court will do.
Expect a fudge that delays Trump‘s trial for election interference even further.
Click to expand...
If it goes in favour of Trump and the President is immune to prosecution, Biden should sign an executive order to execute Trump.

Job done.
 
Alvin-blue-qhd said:
Not good to the USA's soft power.
In China, some people really believe the "demorcracy, open market, free trade, the government doesn't intervene in business", and TikTok's boss, Zhang Yiming, is one of them.
It seems that the US does not value soft power as much as it used to.
The tiktok shit show is so... I don't know how to describe it, it should not be USA's level.
Click to expand...
The problem is that many countries are now worried that Tik-Tok is setting narratives by controlling the data, which should worry them.

As you are in China, can you confirm what we see in the west, ie. control of the people by any means, including beatings as per during the pandemic?
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
The problem is that many countries are now worried that Tik-Tok is setting narratives by controlling the data, which should worry them.

As you are in China, can you confirm what we see in the west, ie. control of the people by any means, including beatings as per during the pandemic?
Click to expand...
The control of media and its use to shift political views is long understood. However people seem to think the algorithms used in social media aren't manipulated and don't shift the dial. Probably because 90% of content is bollocks.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
The problem is that many countries are now worried that Tik-Tok is setting narratives by controlling the data, which should worry them.

As you are in China, can you confirm what we see in the west, ie. control of the people by any means, including beatings as per during the pandemic?
Click to expand...
The narratives (of China) in the West have already been controlled by the western media. People in the West, of course they have good reasons to be worried about Tik Tok. But, before that ,they should be worried about BBC, FT, The Economist,etc. The quality of the media is important to your democracy.

On the topic of pandemic, from 2020 to the end of 2021, most of the time there was no lock-down in the most area of the country. In my city, for the first two years, we had only about 10 days in lock-down. The logic of zero-covid policy is: If we can use lock-down to stop it at the very beginning, we can keep most part of the country not influenced by the pandemic. And that is agreed by most of the people.

So most of the people would follow the Government's guide, because it's the people ,the public, who wanted to control the pandemic！There were some conflicts, but not common phenomenon, far from that. Generally speaking, we appreciate the performence of the government, they made great efforts to keep everything runs well. It's well organized. And we are proud of our people, who have enough unity and discipline to make all these things happen.

It's a pity, media in the west, they always ignore the reality of "Chinese people appreciate Chinese Government". I think that's completely unnecessary. Now it's not cold war era. Nobody in China want the west to be ruled by some "western communist party". Why hate us so much?
 
SCOTUS HEARING
I only listened fitfully, but it is pretty clear that the ruling will be a fudge:
1. Private Acts can never be immune.
2. Presidential official acts may be immune but may not depending on the circs.
3. There needs to be a clear test to determine which are personal and which are presidential acts. In this case we need to hear further argument on this point. The case remains stayed until this question is resolved.
 
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.