• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Criminal Charges/convictions Against Trump / Trump Indicted / Hush Money Part IV

Page 137:

Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial

:cry::cry: I am profoundly disappointed in my own nation. I can't believe he gets away with everything and people voted him back into office.
 
Can anyone explain why it took so many years to get the report on election fraud written? Why couldn’t it have been done in two?
 
I think the Garland Plan was to run the Election Case as if it was a Mafia investigation, catching some minnows for Jan 7th and have them roll on Trump.
That was a bad idea on every level.
 
Biden and Garland didn't want to further the divide in US politics, and figured trump was politically dead, so it was only when it then became apparent that trump was very much alive and in charge of the gqp, the investigation was launched. What hadn't been expected was how much the federal judiciary, all the way to the supreme court, were willing to run interference on behalf of trump.
 
:cry::cry: I am profoundly disappointed in my own nation. I can't believe he gets away with everything and people voted him back into office.
'Disappointed' does not begin to describe how I feel about the majority of voters in this country. Disgusted with them, embarrassed by them, and ashamed of them are better descriptions.
 
What hadn't been expected was how much the federal judiciary, all the way to the supreme court, were willing to run interference on behalf of trump.

to me that’s just another inexplicable error of judgement. he appointed half of them himself
 
For the lack of a starting a new thread, this is mildly related that I'm thinking about.

Given the recent actions of things like killing the USAID or the blanket cutting the rate of indirect costs in science grants and all the cuts they are making. Courts are stopping these actions on the grounds that the executive branch does not have constitutional authority to do it. But the part that got me was when Susan Collins insists that his actions are "illegal." Congress as appropriated this funding, it's illegal for the President to cut it.

But here's the problem: So what? The USSC has decreed that it is not illegal if he acts within his duties as president. So he can literally do things that Congress says he can't?

As far as I can see, "It's illegal" is not a legitimate objection any more.

What it has to be is that these are not duties that are authorized by the constitution. But I fear the USSC has opened a huge can of worms here. Why does the President need to follow the rules of the Congress? He can do whatever he wants, legal or not.

Of course, he's even whining that courts aren't letting him do what he wants.

Hopefully, sane heads will prevail, but I'm not optimistic.
 
For the lack of a starting a new thread, this is mildly related that I'm thinking about.

Given the recent actions of things like killing the USAID or the blanket cutting the rate of indirect costs in science grants and all the cuts they are making. Courts are stopping these actions on the grounds that the executive branch does not have constitutional authority to do it. But the part that got me was when Susan Collins insists that his actions are "illegal." Congress as appropriated this funding, it's illegal for the President to cut it.

But here's the problem: So what? The USSC has decreed that it is not illegal if he acts within his duties as president. So he can literally do things that Congress says he can't?

As far as I can see, "It's illegal" is not a legitimate objection any more.

What it has to be is that these are not duties that are authorized by the constitution. But I fear the USSC has opened a huge can of worms here. Why does the President need to follow the rules of the Congress? He can do whatever he wants, legal or not.

Of course, he's even whining that courts aren't letting him do what he wants.

Hopefully, sane heads will prevail, but I'm not optimistic.
The sensible, sane solution here is that an act not being illegal means he can't be punished for doing it, not that he has to be allowed to do it. We don't have to punish the child who tries to steal the cookies, but that doesn't mean we have to let him steal the cookies.
 

judge rules that since the president has immunity from crimes and thus cannot be prosecuted anymore, releasing evidence of the cases against him via foia requests must be honored
Ah, the old 'immunity syndrome'; Oh you don't want to self incriminate? Well here, have some immunity and now you can't, so self incrimination is no longer applicable.
 
Ah, the old 'immunity syndrome'; Oh you don't want to self incriminate? Well here, have some immunity and now you can't, so self incrimination is no longer applicable.
Alas, I don’t think it will change much: the MAGAs already know that Trump is a criminal, and they don’t mind. Besides, it is fake news, and the judges are simply criminal activists posing as judges, and should be purged. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom