Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

The question is actually a hard one if they want to grapple with it. Ordering the assassination of an Iranian general is murder. There isn't any two ways about it. But there's no one arguing that a President can't do that -- or rather, should be subject to criminal liability for doing that.

So, what they'll likely do is spell out some sort of workable standard that involves performing his official constitutional duties or something to that effect and then either (a) remand to the District Court to figure out if the acts were with his official constitutional duties (they were not); or (b) specifically hold the acts were outside whatever standard they say is appropriate.

What they can't do is articulate an standard focused on "getting DJT" that fucks over the office. We're seeing criminal prosecutors, especially in NY, essentially ignoring the law to prosecute DJT because he's DJT. That's not they way this country should work. And I suspect -- if DJT wins in November -- Ds are gonna find out exactly why.

Absolute immunity is 9-0 no. The hypotheticals show that. What is reasonable is for the SC to say it is unconstitutional to prosecute a former president for political reasons. Look at how the reputation of Jerry Ford has been rehabilitated BECAUSE he pardoned Nixon (arguably costing him the election in 1976). I understand this would not be a bright line but I could see some test of whether the prosecution would be because of policy differences rather than criminal acts.

I don't know if it is criminal for the executive branch to, as a matter of policy, refuse to "faithfully execute the laws" passed by the legislative branch. But blocking a proceeding (meant as destroying documents after Enron), or questioning the outcome of an election (by most losing presidential contenders this century) certainly is a lesser mens rea (evil intent) than outright refusing to obey the law.

It is not good for people like Talent to reasonably wonder what "payback" Trump might seek. The country needs the SC to speak forcefully to try to break the "power at all costs..." ethos that is so prevalent.

[iam416]

And the documents case is really an obstruction/evidence tampering case. Because, I mean, he's only facing charges because he was a complete asshat and apparently ignored all the sound legal advice being given to him and listened to Tom Fitton instead.

I suppose Georgia might've gone too far in charging Trump specifically and not sticking to the underlings. Trump himself didn't get charged in Michigan, Nevada, and now Arizona alongside the fake electors.

Georgia is dubious. It's a pretty big stretch. NY is the case that's honestly appalling.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think this "shared link" is accessible. It's commentary on the legal arguments that have been advanced so far in Trump's immunity claim. IMO, the Supremes that are quoted are asking the right questions and offering some interesting comments on them.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/25/us/trump-immunity-supreme-court/trump-supreme-court-immunity-case?smid=url-share

[Dr. Strangelove]

Also, no one's going to buy that you sired a son.

[THE_WIZARD_]

heh

[Dr. Strangelove]

horrifying

[THE_WIZARD_]

DSL...you may need to change your moniker to THE_WIZARD_Jr.

[Dr. Strangelove]

All I can say is...if I were a Democrat in the Biden administration and Trump wins...I'm leaving the fucking country and changing my identity...

One thing the Dems have going for them is he tends to hire based on flattery skills and bra size. There's still hope the tinpot dictator will implode on himself.

[Dr. Strangelove]

And the documents case is really an obstruction/evidence tampering case. Because, I mean, he's only facing charges because he was a complete asshat and apparently ignored all the sound legal advice being given to him and listened to Tom Fitton instead.

I suppose Georgia might've gone too far in charging Trump specifically and not sticking to the underlings. Trump himself didn't get charged in Michigan, Nevada, and now Arizona alongside the fake electors.

[iam416]

The District and Circuit Court did already spell out a standard. Do you know of specific things the SC may want them to revise and resubmit?

I don't. If they adopt the same standard then there shouldn't be anything to reconsider.

And this is actually a case with at least 1 leg to stand on. As opposed to NY and Georgia. I guess the documents case is solid, but -- I mean -- it's documents, so meh.

[THE_WIZARD_]

All I can say is...if I were a Democrat in the Biden administration and Trump wins...I'm leaving the fucking country and changing my identity...

[Dr. Strangelove]

The question is actually a hard one if they want to grapple with it. Ordering the assassination of an Iranian general is murder. There isn't any two ways about it. But there's no one arguing that a President can't do that -- or rather, should be subject to criminal liability for doing that.

So, what they'll likely do is spell out some sort of workable standard that involves performing his official constitutional duties or something to that effect and then either (a) remand to the District Court to figure out if the acts were with his official constitutional duties (they were not); or (b) specifically hold the acts were outside whatever standard they say is appropriate.

What they can't do is articulate an standard focused on "getting DJT" that fucks over the office. We're seeing criminal prosecutors, especially in NY, essentially ignoring the law to prosecute DJT because he's DJT. That's not they way this country should work. And I suspect -- if DJT wins in November -- Ds are gonna find out exactly why.

The District and Circuit Court did already spell out a standard. Do you know of specific things the SC may want them to revise and resubmit?

[iam416]

Per an Axios -- AXIOS -- poll....immigration is a real winner for Ds... https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/tru...migration-poll

I don't know why the American public just can't understand that this is all the Rs fault and there's nothing The Chairman can do.

[iam416]

The question is actually a hard one if they want to grapple with it. Ordering the assassination of an Iranian general is murder. There isn't any two ways about it. But there's no one arguing that a President can't do that -- or rather, should be subject to criminal liability for doing that.

So, what they'll likely do is spell out some sort of workable standard that involves performing his official constitutional duties or something to that effect and then either (a) remand to the District Court to figure out if the acts were with his official constitutional duties (they were not); or (b) specifically hold the acts were outside whatever standard they say is appropriate.

What they can't do is articulate an standard focused on "getting DJT" that fucks over the office. We're seeing criminal prosecutors, especially in NY, essentially ignoring the law to prosecute DJT because he's DJT. That's not they way this country should work. And I suspect -- if DJT wins in November -- Ds are gonna find out exactly why.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Who is this fruitcake arguing on behalf of the government here? Is that your butt buddy DSL?