45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)

[dobbo_]

VTC said:

B28i
Would I be correct to assume you do not care for Donald ?

Just a random thought.

Do you care for him? Or is this just a drive by st post?

[Bonefish Blues]

When's the Scotus judgement due btw?

[pinchmeimdreamin]

Bonefish Blues said:

When's the Scotus judgement due btw?

June iirc

[Bonefish Blues]

Thanks

[paulguitar]

ScotHill said:

Yeah, but that's just nitpicking isn't it.

[14]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

My money is on them giving immunity to “presidential acts”

And letting everyone else argue what is a presidential act and what’s a personal act.

That would give Presidents immunity for everything, as a President could threaten judges if they don’t rule in the President’s favour. Presidents could also threaten members of Congress to make sure the Constitution says that Presidents have full immunity for life.

[911hope]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

My money is on them giving immunity to “presidential acts”

And letting everyone else argue what is a presidential act and what’s a personal act.

What reasoning do you apply to come to this conclusion?

[hidetheelephants]

14 said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

My money is on them giving immunity to “presidential acts”

And letting everyone else argue what is a presidential act and what’s a personal act.

That would give Presidents immunity for everything, as a President could threaten judges if they don’t rule in the President’s favour. Presidents could also threaten members of Congress to make sure the Constitution says that Presidents have full immunity for life.

Joe should be at the court to hear the verdict, ideally with a saturday night special to shoot them with if they uphold immunity. Or maybe a zombie knife, I reckon Sam Alito may be undead.

[Byker28i]

911hope said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

My money is on them giving immunity to “presidential acts”

And letting everyone else argue what is a presidential act and what’s a personal act.

What reasoning do you apply to come to this conclusion?

Well they've indicated that any trial pf trumps election interference case is unlikely to take place anytime soon, as they try to fudge whats an official act and whats not, how to excuse trump but not give anyone else any immunity.

In fact the prospect of trump going to trial was described by Alito
"That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal."

So they'll delay and delay and fudge to allow trump to run

trumps own lawyer at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him because he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they're arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.



Interesting comment
"Hi, the Supreme Court isn’t an actual court. It’s six paid operatives pretending to consider arguments while overturning laws for money.

Hope that helps clear up what happened today."
https://twitter.com/TheRealHoarse/status/178365271...

Edited by Byker28i on Friday 26th April 06:22

[Byker28i]

Peckers testimony left nothing hidden

David Pecker says that, when he received a letter from the Federal Election Commission, he called Michael Cohen and asked him what to do. Pecker testified Cohen said, "Jeff Sessions is the attorney general, and trump has him in his pocket."

trump invited Pecker to the WH in 2017, took him outside for a walk as asked about McDougal
Pecker, "I said she's quiet, everything's going good."

How in March 2018, trump "got very aggravated" with Pecker on the phone that their original agreement with Karen McDougal had been amended, then he got another call "right after" from Hope Hicks and "on that call," he said he "was going to extend Karen McDougal's contract at least for six months."

Also that Pecker had also told that information to Sarah Huckabee Sanders and trump.
Pecker: "They said do whatever you need to do."


Pecker testified that trump at no time said it was anything to do with his family. Pecker: "I think it was for the campaign."


All these govt paid WH officials running around covering up for trump. It's amazing trump had any time for golf and TV, no wonder nothing much got done when he was potus, apart from paraising dictatiors, secret meetings with putin etc

Edited by Byker28i on Friday 26th April 06:03

[Byker28i]

Mortarboard said:

Trumps appeal of the EJC ii verdict denied.
He still has an appeal on the amount to come though. Shame if it went UP

M.

Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected trumps attempt for a new trial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case with the $83.3 million damage award.

"Contrary to the defendant's arguments, Ms. Carroll's compensatory damages were not awarded solely for her emotional distress; they were not for garden variety harms; and they were not excessive."

They've also not stopped him defaming her further

[Byker28i]

trumps has another gag order violation hearing
Judge Merchan set a hearing on trump’s newest gag order violations for next Wednesday afternoon. The problem for trump is that he has rallies in MI and WI scheduled on the same date and time since that was supposed to be an off day from court, but will now have to attend.

Things have consequences...

Edited by Byker28i on Friday 26th April 06:25

[Byker28i]

Rats, sinking ship...

Giuliani on Arizona indictment, says it wasn't him it was Bobb
https://twitter.com/i/status/1783640171998527550

[Byker28i]

trump went on a Newmax phone in interview last night and they cut him off when he tried to violate his gag order again.

But apparently some are claiming he admitted to another crime when he tried to link his threats to locking up Hillary Clinton to his immunity attempt

He claimed he didn't jail Clinton because he thought it would be a terrible thing despite there being "opportunities" to throw her in lock-up. He adds, "These people have to be careful with what they’re doing because it comes back to bite."
https://twitter.com/i/status/1783669839728349590

He literally campaigned on locking her up, wanted to lock her up, learnt that he couldn't actually do that because she hadn't committed any crimes.
He didn't think that should matter, and that as president he should have every right to lock her up, but DOJ disagreed.

Dem strategist Adam Parkhomenko
"What exactly did Trump do in the process of not putting Hillary Clinton in jail? What conversations and meetings did he have that led him to ultimately make the decision he says he made as he mulled over the crime he would have committed."

[Byker28i]

Many reports trump looked tired yesterday leaving court, walked slowly, dragged a foot again, and rambled as he ranted to reporters

"The U.S. Supreme Court had a monumental hearing on immunity, and the immunity having to do with presidential immunity. And I think it was made clear—I hope it was made clear—that a president has to have immunity or you don't have a president..."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1783595845285191926
https://twitter.com/i/status/1783597776107913389


The the attempted call to his supportrs "Charlottesville was a little peanut"
https://twitter.com/i/status/1783596483993845917


CNN on trumps low energy and tiredness
https://twitter.com/i/status/1783601289466716254

Edited by Byker28i on Friday 26th April 06:30

[Byker28i]

Kevin McCarthy Protege Under Investigation For Sexually Assaulting Daughter: Republican Kern County Supervisor Zack Scrivner is being investigated for sexual assault after his other child stabbed him in the chest twice

Thirty guns, electronic devices, and psychedelic mushrooms were seized from Scrivner's residence,
https://lamag.com/news/kevin-mccarthy-protege-unde...

[Byker28i]

LOL

[Strangely Brown]

Byker28i said:

In fact the prospect of trump going to trial was described by Alito
"That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal."

How is that different to any other trial. Seriously. He has simply described a normal trial process. There is nothing about that unique to Trump so WTF is he talking about.

And anyway, so fking what if, "the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in". That's the point of being arrested, indicted, and tried for criminal activity. Of course you can't just fk off and do whatever you want.

And this is supposed to be from the finest legal minds?

[Byker28i]

John Dean - Author, Lecturer, CNN contributor, former Nixon White House Counsel

Today’s SCOTUS argument on Trump’s criminal immunity revealed an activist conservative majority that wants to provide presidential immunity. To do so, they must get around Nixon v Fitzgerald (1982), which clearly states there is no criminal immunity for presidents. For example, as stated in Nixon v Fitzgerald, in Chief Justice Burger’s concurring ruling in the 5-4 decision creating civil immunity:
...

https://twitter.com/JohnWDean/status/1783629149418...

[Byker28i]

Strangely Brown said:

Byker28i said:

In fact the prospect of trump going to trial was described by Alito
"That may involve great expense, and it may take up a lot of time. And during the trial, the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in and then the outcome is dependent on the jury, the instructions to the jury, and how the jury returns a verdict and then it has to be taken up on appeal."

How is that different to any other trial. Seriously. He has simply described a normal trial process. There is nothing about that unique to Trump so WTF is he talking about.

And anyway, so fking what if, "the former president may be unable to engage in other activities that the former president would want to engage in". That's the point of being arrested, indicted, and tried for criminal activity. Of course you can't just fk off and do whatever you want.

And this is supposed to be from the finest legal minds?

In the case of Thomas - paid for, whos wife was involved in trumps attempts to steal the election.
And as pointed out, the conservative justices did not know what the lower court decided, but had a bribery statute mentioning presidents at the ready.