 
     |
| TRUMP 2024 (Page 7/59) |
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 11, 02:34 PM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by rinselberg:On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a hearing on whether Trump can claim "presidential immunity" and have the federal charges against him over the 2020 presidential election dismissed without trial. Here's some of how that went... in so many words. |
|
There's more to this than meets the eye. Constitutionally, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity. I could read through the whole thing again, but I see nothing about it other than the president cannot be sued while in office. There's also absolutely nothing that defines the concept of executive order... which again, is a bastardization of the clause, "...to faithfully execute law."
All of that aside... none of the stupid **** that the DOJ is charging him with have absolutely any basis at all... and all of this crap will get thrown out, and the only reason why the DOJ is doing this is because the President is asking them to in hopes that it makes Trump look bad. What they don't realize is that it actually only makes Biden look bad, and more and more people are questioning what the point of this is.
Anyway... don't be surprised if these judges are very careful what they say / do... Democrats do not want this evolved concept of "presidential immunity" to be eliminated for them in the past, so the judges may attempt to "refine" exactly what it means... even though the Supreme Court already found that Presidential Immunity didn't exist and that Nixon had to hand-over the Watergate tapes.
|
|
|
|
theBDub
|
JAN 11, 04:06 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
There's more to this than meets the eye. Constitutionally, there is absolutely nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity. I could read through the whole thing again, but I see nothing about it other than the president cannot be sued while in office. There's also absolutely nothing that defines the concept of executive order... which again, is a bastardization of the clause, "...to faithfully execute law."
All of that aside... none of the stupid **** that the DOJ is charging him with have absolutely any basis at all... and all of this crap will get thrown out, and the only reason why the DOJ is doing this is because the President is asking them to in hopes that it makes Trump look bad. What they don't realize is that it actually only makes Biden look bad, and more and more people are questioning what the point of this is.
Anyway... don't be surprised if these judges are very careful what they say / do... Democrats do not want this evolved concept of "presidential immunity" to be eliminated for them in the past, so the judges may attempt to "refine" exactly what it means... even though the Supreme Court already found that Presidential Immunity didn't exist and that Nixon had to hand-over the Watergate tapes. |
|
If Trump is found guilty of some of these charges, will you find the convictions valid?
It's pretty bold to claim that the DOJ is just doing this because Biden asked them to, and to preemptively say the judges are going to be careful about how they word things because they want to leave doors open for Democrats. Every one of Trump's cases will be carefully considered and worded because the implications of everything decided through these are broad.
Someone else could just as easily claim that every charge is true, but not to expect much because the Supreme Court leans right and will have a largely biased set of carefully limited decisions as to not create precedent (a la Gore/Bush).
Both are just preemptive excuses to avoid facing whatever the outcome of all of these are. Personally, I think Trump's lawyers are arguing full immunity because they're going to try stalling everything with as much B.S. as possible to try and get any decisions stalled until after Trump wins a second term, in which he will pardon himself of all federal charges.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 11, 04:20 PM
|
|
OTHER BIG QUESTION IS
HOW MUCH ?
IS THE FINE
REMEMBER
THE NY NY TRIAL
FOUND GUILTY
Q IS HOW MUCH IS THE FINE !!!!
SO PICK ONE
A under 100m [unlikely]
B 100 TO 200M
C 200 TO 300M
D OVER 300M
i SAY 2-300M AS I THINK THAT IS ABOUT ALL HE HAS [BLOOD< STONE ECT]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 11, 04:37 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by theBDub:
If Trump is found guilty of some of these charges, will you find the convictions valid?
|
|
Absolutely... but it will never happen... or let's say I'd be really shocked if it happened. What would be more likely, is they come up with sort of a feigned made up conviction. Like... none of the actual charges will have applied, but they'll come up with something like falsifying information, or lying to FBI... which could be totally subjective in nature. It'll be none of the stuff they're actually charging him for.
We've gone round and round on this before, but there's only three people on this board here that have had a clearance, and understand unequivocally the power structure of classification, and who has ultimate authority. There's literally nothing in law that defines what classified material is, and you can't charge the President for it because he's literally the one that is the SOLE authority for it, and the president can literally wave his hand over a stack of documents and declassify it... all of the things he basically did while he was President. EVEN if he lied about doing such a thing... it wouldn't matter because of the power vested in him as President. It's one of the reasons why I said classification should be legislated... and not created by executive order.
The records thing is also totally silly... because literally everything was a print-out of a digitally generated document, which are all ALREADY recorded and stored in the National Archives... and anyone with a clearance already knows this because the President is a special person and everything he writes is automatically saved. The "we want the documents back" is so 1950s... because they already have them, these were just print outs in the first place.
All of it is so totally ridiculous. The public doesn't understand this, you don't understand this (no offense), and even most politicians don't understand this, but people who've had clearances clearly do. So as I've said from the very beginning... all of this stuff will get thrown out.
They'll probably try to charge him with something totally unrelated... to save face, like lying to the FBI or something ridiculous like that. And that's really a "gotcha" charge because it could simply be the same question asked two different times with a slightly different answer (with no ill-intent). They probably will just fine him too because there's no way they want the backlash of imprisoning the former President. This is all just to damage his campaign.
Anyone who actually thinks this is going to turn into anything... AGAIN... really needs to wake up.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
JAN 12, 09:58 AM
|
|
but your side is anti-woke
so any who wake up to the scam is a RINO
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 12, 10:28 AM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 12, 03:50 PM
|
|
From "VDH"
| quote | When faced with the possible return of former President Donald Trump, the current agenda of the Democratic Party is summed up simply as "We had to destroy democracy to save it."
The effort shares a common theme: Any means necessary are justified to prevent the people from choosing their own president, given the fear that a majority might vote to elect Trump. |
|
So I read that far into this column from VDH and I stopped right there!
There's no way that a majority of this country is going to vote for Trump to be President again. Just as Trump did not have a majority of the popular vote in 2016, when he became President only because of the malign anachronism that is the Electoral College system of electing the President and Vice-President.
The only way I can imagine Trump getting more popular votes than Biden in 2024 is if there is some big turnout for a possible third-party candidate like RFK Jr, or someone at the top of a "No Labels" party ticket. I can imagine a "splintered" popular vote, in a third-party scenario, in which Trump gets more popular votes than Biden—but not a majority of the popular vote. Maybe a plurality of the popular vote.
But I doubt that will actually happen.
I think I'd rather see a President Trump again, than RFK Jr.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 12, 04:12 PM
|
|
Scoffed the article and a closed mind......
Got it.
Just as I expected from you.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 12, 07:22 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Scoffed the article and a closed mind......
Got it. Just as I expected from you. |
|
Victor Davis Hansen talks about the high profile court cases in which Trump is a defendant, but he omits the federal case against Trump on four criminal charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
To my mind, that's the most important of these cases, and it may be the first to go to trial, comfortably in advance of the 2024 general election date in November.
I wonder what happens if this case goes to trial and Trump is convicted and given a prison sentence. Does he remain free while the case is being appealed? That's what I'd expect, but I'm not an expert.
I expect that Trump will be on the ballot as the Republican candidate for President in all 50 states for the general election in November.
I don't think that Victor Davis Hansen is standing on solid ground when he refers to Jack Smith, who is heading up the two federal cases against Trump, as a "leftist" prosecutor.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 12, 08:10 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Victor Davis Hansen talks about the high profile court cases in which Trump is a defendant, but he omits the federal case against Trump on four criminal charges related to the 2020 presidential election.
To my mind, that's the most important of these cases, and it may be the first to go to trial, comfortably in advance of the 2024 general election date in November.
I wonder what happens if this case goes to trial and Trump is convicted and given a prison sentence. Does he remain free while the case is being appealed? That's what I'd expect, but I'm not an expert.
I expect that Trump will be on the ballot as the Republican candidate for President in all 50 states for the general election in November.
I don't think that Victor Davis Hansen is standing on solid ground when he refers to Jack Smith, who is heading up the two federal cases against Trump, as a "leftist" prosecutor. |
|
Rinse... Trump is NOT going to get a prison sentence. I will be shocked, and I know you will be too. There are a lot of people that, for whatever reason, really, really want to see him in prison. But it will never happen. It just won't. Can you imagine how insane it will be? Trump will win in a landslide out of sheer anger. Even the Democrats would be nervous about putting him in jail. Besides the fact that there is literally nothing to jail him on.
More than likely... this administration / DOJ will drag it out through the end of this year, and into the new administration cycle. If Trump wins, Democrats can say that Trump averted prosecution because radical racists elected him. If Biden wins, Democrats will probably drop the charges and "pardon" him, after Biden makes a bumbling ridiculous speech about "healing America."
|
|
|
|