• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Trump Document indictment (as opposed to other indictments)

bignickel said:
Question for those of us watching at home: is interfering with aid sent to the Ukraine until they dig up dirt on a political rival's family an "official act"?

Followup: is asking a Georgia state official to 'come up with more votes' to subvert the will of Georgian voters an "official act"?

Follow followup: is dealing with a political rival in any matter one sees fit an "official act"?
Click to expand...

I have my own personal beliefs regarding the answers to those questions. But notoriously the Court did not address what defines these various categories of actions or which of them Trump's charged actions fall into. That means they stalled and delayed until the very last minute and then gave only a minimal ruling which means another round of appealable determinations and rulings in lower courts. There is zero chance any of Trump's cases will be resolved before the election, or even come to trial.

Interfering with aid? A good lawyer can posture it as a law enforcement action that is within the President's core duty. It wasn't, in this case. But the question now becomes what you can convince a court are your core duties.

Strongarming Georgia election officials? Probably a hard sell, since elections are run by the state. The President's law enforcement duty does not apply there.
 
JayUtah said:
I have my own personal beliefs regarding the answers to those questions. But notoriously the Court did not address what defines these various categories of actions or which of them Trump's charged actions fall into. That means they stalled and delayed until the very last minute and then gave only a minimal ruling which means another round of appealable determinations and rulings in lower courts. There is zero chance any of Trump's cases will be resolved before the election, or even come to trial. ...snip....
Click to expand...


Jack Smith should raise a motion to Cannon that Trump's constitutional right to a speedy trial is being breached.
 
JayUtah said:
I have my own personal beliefs regarding the answers to those questions. But notoriously the Court did not address what defines these various categories of actions or which of them Trump's charged actions fall into. That means they stalled and delayed until the very last minute and then gave only a minimal ruling which means another round of appealable determinations and rulings in lower courts. There is zero chance any of Trump's cases will be resolved before the election, or even come to trial.

Interfering with aid? A good lawyer can posture it as a law enforcement action that is within the President's core duty. It wasn't, in this case. But the question now becomes what you can convince a court are your core duties.

Strongarming Georgia election officials? Probably a hard sell, since elections are run by the state. The President's law enforcement duty does not apply there.
Click to expand...

Not sure it matters - what the ruling does is give Trump another delay tactic - claim everything is an official act and then wait for it to get to the Supreme Court. The court couldn't delay any longer, so it appears they gave another delay mechanism to the former president.
 
Biden should just nominate four more judges to the court. Nothing in the constitution about how many, and it's certainly an official act. And the Senate can't filibuster SC judges.
 
slyjoe said:
Biden should just nominate four more judges to the court. Nothing in the constitution about how many, and it's certainly an official act. And the Senate can't filibuster SC judges.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting, only Republican presidents can nominate SC justices during the final year of a presidential term.
 
Thomas wrote a separate opinion, apparently aimed at Aileen Cannon, that he doesn't think Jack Smith was properly appointed.
 
The initial removal of classified materials may be legally allowed now because it occurred while Donald Trump was still President. Administration of classified materials is a category of act for which the President now enjoys presumptive if not absolute immunity, because it is an appropriate official act. A court may not now inquire into the motive behind Trump's official acts, so the likely purpose of retaining classified materials for unlawful personal use is now irrelevant. Under III-C of today's ruling, a prosecution for unlawful subsequent retention of classified materials cannot use as evidence for other purposes the record of a President's official act.

More directly to the point, Justice Thomas has provided a legal roadmap specifically aimed at Judge Cannon telling her how she can rule that the special counsel here was improperly appointed. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
 
DallasDad said:
Thomas wrote a separate opinion, apparently aimed at Aileen Cannon, that he doesn't think Jack Smith was properly appointed.
Click to expand...
And a stupid opinion it was too. Barr used exactly the same method numerous times when he was AG under the Bush and Trump presidencies, citing the same law. But hey! Let's not let the SCOTUS use history and precedent get in the way of dumb **** opinions!
 
JayUtah said:
The initial removal of classified materials may be legally allowed now because it occurred while Donald Trump was still President.
Click to expand...

Retaining those documents and lying to the FBI about it after his term was over certainly cannot be legal.
 
ZiprHead said:
Retaining those documents and lying to the FBI about it after his term was over certainly cannot be legal.
Click to expand...

I haven't yet read the decision, but from what I've heard the decision doesn't change what's legal or illegal. What changes is whether certain broad categories of illegal acts can be prosecuted.

Nixon said "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Nixon was wrong about that.

What the Supreme Court has just decided amounts to "When the President does it, whether it is illegal doesn't matter. He gets away with it."
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I haven't yet read the decision, but from what I've heard the decision doesn't change what's legal or illegal. What changes is whether certain broad categories of illegal acts can be prosecuted.

Nixon said "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Nixon was wrong about that.

What the Supreme Court has just decided amounts to "When the President does it, whether it is illegal doesn't matter. He gets away with it."
Click to expand...

Not really. The decision specifies 3 groups of acts. Constitutional, official, and unofficial. First and third are clear. The middle one is muddy. There is still a lot of room for discussing and deciding what is what, don't worry.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Not really. The decision specifies 3 groups of acts. Constitutional, official, and unofficial. First and third are clear. The middle one is muddy. There is still a lot of room for discussing and deciding what is what, don't worry.
Click to expand...

Yes, that’s what my takeaway here is, too.

The SC specifically said 3 charges in the election interference trial related to unofficial acts (leaning on Pence, the fake electors scheme, and his tweets on Jan 6).

But I don't see anything in yesterday’s SC ruling specifically relating to the documents case, probably because it's a ruling on the election interference case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom