Elections Trump Indicted On 91 Counts

[emefer]

No cope needed. The things Trump is charged with aren’t even remotely close to official acts. I imagine that’s what lower courts will rule, and I don’t see how any court could disagree.

The main thing Trump gains from this is time, as I’m sure whatever the lower courts rule will be appealed, and around and around we’ll go again.

It’s crazy that the victims don’t have a right to a speedy trial.

 

[Darkballs]

The judge can vacate the verdict, which is basically the same thing as a mistrial

Well at least use the correct legal terms, if you're gonna cosplay as an american.

But no, the judge won't vacate the decision for the same reasons listed above. That being, it would be absurd to conclude, no matter how shitty this SCOTUS decision was, that trump falsifying business records to hide an affair with a porn star BEFORE he was president is somehow covered by this new presidential immunity.

 

[Andy Capp]

That’s almost 4 months? The DA was requesting 2 weeks.

July to September is four months now? What comes between July and August?

 

[HereticBD]

How could any of that be argued as an official presidential act?

From what I understand, it's about certain evidence presented that could lead to a retrial. I don't know all the details, but some witness that was in the Trump administration apparently testified about something or other, which may be considered "Presidential privilege" or some shit. I just caught a clip of some panel talking about it, and that's what they were honing in on.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

From what I understand, it's about certain evidence presented that could lead to a retrial. I don't know all the details, but some witness that was in the Trump administration apparently testified about something or other, which may be considered "Presidential privilege" or some shit. I just caught a clip of some panel talking about it, and that's what they were honing in on.

Hope Hick's testimony for one. Which as I said earlier, didn't even really have anything to do with the case for the most part. The brought her in so they could question her about the tape about grabbing women by the pussy, karen McDougal, etc. Which is doubly funny because she broke down on the stand about how Trump is being treated and enjoyed working for him.

Then also public statement, press conferences, including tweets about Cohen, Daniels, etc

 

[NickNick]

From what I understand, it's about certain evidence presented that could lead to a retrial. I don't know all the details, but some witness that was in the Trump administration apparently testified about something or other, which may be considered "Presidential privilege" or some shit. I just caught a clip of some panel talking about it, and that's what they were honing in on.

Still seems like a slippery slope. At best, it has turned what is and isn't admissible into a mess that will get argued in courts for years and appealed all the way back up to the supreme court. At worst, what stops a president from doing illegal things but hiding them under "official" presidential acts/work? What would stop them from giving illegal orders, running illegal business, but hiding it during "official" presidential meetings making any evidence inadmissible?

 

[HereticBD]

Still seems like a slippery slope. At best, it has turned what is and isn't admissible into a mess that will get argued in courts for years and appealed all the way back up to the supreme court. At worst, what stops a president from doing illegal things but hiding them under "official" presidential acts/work? What would stop them from giving illegal orders, running illegal business, but hiding it during "official" presidential meetings making any evidence inadmissible?

What stopped them in the first place? It's not like Presidents haven't walked a fine line in the past, with the knowledge that they can't actually be prosecuted. They have to have a certain level of immunity, much like cops, because operating outside of civilian law is a requirement for them to be able to do their jobs. They can be impeached and be protected by a divided senate. That's the "court" they have. Other than Nixon(and now Trump), charging a President with crimes when they become a citizen, has never really been entertained, and they pardoned him before the ball even got rolling.

I really don't see the big change here, other than just making the unofficial rules for President, official.

 

[NickNick]

What stopped them in the first place? It's not like Presidents haven't walked a fine line in the past, with the knowledge that they can't actually be prosecuted. They have to have a certain level of immunity, much like cops, because operating outside of civilian law is a requirement for them to be able to do their jobs. They can be impeached and be protected by a divided senate. That's the "court" they have. Other than Nixon(and now Trump), charging a President with crimes when they become a citizen, has never really been entertained, and they pardoned him before the ball even got rolling.

I really don't see the big change here, other than just making the unofficial rules for President, official.

Maybe what stopped them is not having this immunity blessing from the SC? What good could come from any of this? This only opens up the potential for someone to abuse their power as a president even more. It's not like this ruling is now allowing a president to make any good change that they weren't allowed to before.

 

[HereticBD]

Maybe what stopped them is not having this immunity blessing from the SC?

Is that what stopped George Bush from invading Iraq under false pretenses? Did it stop Obama from drone striking American citizens/spying on them? Does it stop Biden from aiding in "genocide"(he's not, but some people believe he is).

My point is that they never felt any pressure, and have always operated outside of the law and did shady shit, long before this ruling came down. Trump is not the first President to skirt the law, and his crimes are far from the most severe.

The whole reason Trump successfully challenged this, is because it had never been made clear what the rules actually were, and there is precedent to Presidents getting away with breaking laws while in office. Well, now the rules are clear...somewhat...kind of...

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Sentencing of Trump has been delayed, probably by several weeks, in light of the Supreme Court's decision.

I don't see any way to argue payoffs before he was elected could be considered official acts. What am I missing here?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Might have something to do with evidence? Maybe if they used evidence from during his presidency it falls under the immunity? Thats all I can really think of.

Maybe he started paying Cohen back and fudged his records after he took office. It still seems like quite a stretch that this ruling could influence this case.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

It would compromise the prosecutions case because the evidence would fall under his immunity. It’s less to do with the crime and more to do with the evidence itself. Again, purely speculative on my end.

I'm not sure what evidence that would be. You had Pecker, Cohen, Daniels, and his business records.

 

[KnightTemplar]

It’s crazy that the victims don’t have a right to a speedy trial.

Lawyers get paid by the hour, bro.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Thats a lot of time, must be something substantial that needs to be considered and looked over.

Might be giving the lower court time to make a ruling on this. I doubt they'll take as much time as the SCOTUS did.

 

[Darkballs]

My point is that they never felt any pressure, and have always operated outside of the law and did shady shit, long before this ruling came down. Trump is not the first President to skirt the law, and his crimes are far from the most severe.

Do you realize that you just argued directly against the majority's decision, and in fact, echoed one of the arguments made by Jackson in her dissent?

Roberts ignored the Constitution and based his reasoning on a theme that ran through some of the Federalist Papers. That theme, was that the president must be free to make bold and decisive actions. And since the threat of criminal prosecution might scare a president into holding back, he must be granted immunity.

Jackson, in her dissent, argued exactly what you say here. That every other President in our history has had no trouble acting bold and decisively, and never appeared worried about a criminal prosecution. Truman dropped two atomic bombs; we had a president order the internment of japanese americans without due process; and numerous wars and military campaigns went ahead without anyone seriously arguing that Bush (and others) could be prosecuted by an American court for their actions.

It always amazes me how little republicans understand about the actual positions of their own party. You weren't even smart enough here to pick up that you are arguing in lock-step with democrats against the ruling you've been praising. I have never met a human being as easily played as you.

 

[jefferz]

Is that what stopped George Bush from invading Iraq under false pretenses? Did it stop Obama from drone striking American citizens/spying on them? Does it stop Biden from aiding in "genocide"(he's not, but some people believe he is).

My point is that they never felt any pressure, and have always operated outside of the law and did shady shit, long before this ruling came down. Trump is not the first President to skirt the law, and his crimes are far from the most severe.

The whole reason Trump successfully challenged this, is because it had never been made clear what the rules actually were, and there is precedent to Presidents getting away with breaking laws while in office. Well, now the rules are clear...somewhat...kind of...

When talking about the drone striking an American citizen, why do you guys always leave out the part where al-Awlaki left the United States and joined Al-Queda.
He joined our enemy, fuck him.

Here's another al-Awlaki, Nawar. She was the 8 year old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, and was also a US citizen.

Did you notice I said was? She is no longer on this earth because she was killed in Yemen during a raid in 2017.
I'm sure you were just as outraged over her dying as her terrorist piece of shit dad.
Right?

Ya'll wanted to string up Obama for killing a terrorist, so what should Donnie's punishment be for killing an 8 year old US citizen?

 

[fingercuffs]

Do you realize that you just argued directly against the majority's decision, and in fact, echoed one of the arguments made by Jackson in her dissent?

Roberts ignored the Constitution and based his reasoning on a theme that ran through some of the Federalist Papers. That theme, was that the president must be free to make bold and decisive actions. And since the threat of criminal prosecution might scare a president into holding back, he must be granted immunity.

Jackson, in her dissent, argued exactly what you say here. That every other President in our history has had no trouble acting bold and decisively, and never appeared worried about a criminal prosecution. Truman dropped two atomic bombs; we had a president order the internment of japanese americans without due process; and numerous wars and military campaigns went ahead without anyone seriously arguing that Bush (and others) could be prosecuted by an American court for their actions.

It always amazes me how little republicans understand about the actual positions of their own party. You weren't even smart enough here to pick up that you are arguing in lock-step with democrats against the ruling you've been praising. I have never met a human being as easily played as you.

I only recently bought The Federalist Papers after becoming a citizen and living here for 10 years, considering he doesn't live here there's a very slim chance he knows what you're talking about

 

[Darkballs]

I only recently bought The Federalist Papers after becoming a citizen and living here for 10 years, considering he doesn't live here there's a very slim chance he knows what you're talking about

Perhaps.

It still should be impossible to have his conclusion if he actually read the opinions. He's literally making the argument in the dissent, for a ruling he supposedly supports.

It's just further proof that the lemmings here follow their instructions without an understanding of why.

 

[CatchnShoot]

An interesting tangent.

The cunt known as Steve Bannon is currently in the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, CT.

But that could just be the hors d'oeuvre.
In September, Bannon will have to face another case in NY. It's for the Build a wall scam.
What's funny about that??... Well, DiaperKing pardoned Cunt Bannon for Federal charges related to the Build a wall scam, but because he was pardoned before he ever had to stand trial, double jeopardy does NOT attatch, and so he was able to be charged by state AG's..
Guess who picked up the torch?



Citizen of the year, Mr. Alvin Bragg will be prosecuting this vile POS come Sept. and this time he will be looking at time in an actual prison.

I haven't seen any of the evidence against Bannon, but I don't think Bragg would bring a case unless he had the goods. 2024 may not be a TOTAL black hole.


Godspeed, Mr. Bragg, Godspeed.

 

[Strychnine]

Happy 4th everyone!