|
Fuschia tude posted:As has already been mentioned, these would still happen even if he were found guilty and imprisoned immediately for the rest of his life. Prisoners can still communicate and lie in public. Prisoners can still run for office. Prisoners can still lead political parties. Prisoners can still fundraise. Nothing you are demanding happen as a result of his criminal trials can happen as a result of criminal trials in the United States. (Technically, a court might be able to prevent him from communicating certain things publicly, but judges almost always refuse to issue prior restraint orders in general, especially broad ones, not least because the Supreme Court has ruled that they must demonstrate inevitable, direct, immediate damage to the US as a result of that speech.) You're right, that all sounds really stupid and not at all like a fair, functioning justice system, I agree.
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Not to discount the likelihood that Trump's wealth, power, and political position are all obstacles to any prosecution efforts, but given the documented rank-and-file allies Trump has had in various government agencies, it seems like a nonzero chance that putting together an airtight criminal prosecution case would be even harder because of having to work around his embedded loyalists across federal organizations. It's not like (to my knowledge) Al Capone had allies in the IRS gumming up their case against him.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Rakeris posted:If he gets put in a fed prison under SAMs, he wouldn't be doing much of any of that. Granted I think that is extraordinarily unlikely to transpire. Yeah, those are extremely rare, but you're right, technically possible. That might probably be the most likely way prior restraint would be applied in his case. But you're right, this is incredibly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Federal investigations of multi-year conspiracies to take over the country with the aid of numerous highly-placed officials tend to go pretty slow regardless of how much money the main mastermind has.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
As these cases make it to public court, there is discovery, and supoenas, and statements are entered into the public record, and a lot of the facts around the case become established. Trump wants to invent a false history and have it be believed. This process works against him. Getting away with it doesn't mean dying before he sees jail time - it means history being written with the false narrative he prefers being taught from generation to generation from here. These cases being heard work against him. Moreover, all those disclosures will give a much more detailed account of everything Trump has done in the last decade. And this may lead to additional charges.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 04:51
|
|
|
The people who believe him aren't going to change their mind because of what happens in court. The classified document theft is possibly the most flagrant violation of law he's committed and he hasn't even been charged with that. He's rich and can do whatever he wants. He may be president again. Consequences may happen but they definitely have not and are not even in the process of happening.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 05:03
|
|
|
The lady suing Rudy for sexual harassment is seemingly now claiming that he was also selling pardons for Trump at $2 mil a pop. But as far as I can tell she can provide no proof on that one. "Dunphy alleged in her suit that Giuliani talked about presidential pardons. She said Giuliani claimed to have “immunity” and told “her that he was selling pardons for $2 million, which he and President Trump would split.” The lawsuit did not suggest any pardons were sold." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-accused-offering-sell-trump-pardons-2-million-new-lawsuit-rcna84569 https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=ayMPHcCh5eCKqo1g4gB42A==&system=prod
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
Even if that was definitely the case (and Lord knows even the most diehard chud wouldn't be surprised), Rudy claiming it doesn't matter in the slightest unless you have Trump confirming it. One again, Trump's refusal to use email and constantly eating his own notes makes him smart 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 08:47
|
|
|
It certainly matters for Rudy if somebody comes across hard evidence for the scheme. Rudy isn't the smartest man. If you can get him to flip (or even slip up) on pointing to where Trump hid the skeletons, that could make a huge difference.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 12:45
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:It certainly matters for Rudy if somebody comes across hard evidence for the scheme. Best bet would be some kind of documentation or recordings Rudy has. For as much as he has apparently pickled his decaying brain meats I can easily see him being a lovely, useless witness.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 13:06
|
|
|
OgNar posted:The lady suing Rudy for sexual harassment is seemingly now claiming that he was also selling pardons for Trump at $2 mil a pop. Honestly this just as easily sounds like Giuliani was trying to grift people for 2 million dollars. Toward the end of his administration, I think Trump kept Giuliani at the edge; I don't think he was part of Trump's inner circle anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 13:32
|
|
|
V-Men posted:Honestly this just as easily sounds like Giuliani was trying to grift people for 2 million dollars. Toward the end of his administration, I think Trump kept Giuliani at the edge; I don't think he was part of Trump's inner circle anymore. Only Donald can grift off the Trump name. If anyone else tries to grift off the Trump name they get cut off.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Only Donald can grift off the Trump name. If anyone else tries to grift off the Trump name they get cut off. Ivanka/Kushner made up to $640m personally during the Tump Era, and Kushner got $2bn in Saudi money to play with
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 14:23
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Ivanka/Kushner made up to $640m personally during the Tump Era, and Kushner got $2bn in Saudi money to play with Unlike the rest of his kids, he loves Ivanka.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Independence posted:Unlike the rest of his kids, he This seems more accurate.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:This seems more accurate. Trump won't see that, but your friends that want to have incestuous relationships with their daughters will
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo if Trump was selling pardons? As far as I understand that's not illegal. The person paying for the pardon might run afoul of a Federal Bribery Statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 but then the President just has to issue a second pardon and voila! You're set.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Who gives a poo poo if Trump was selling pardons? As far as I understand that's not illegal. The person paying for the pardon might run afoul of a Federal Bribery Statute: No, that law explicitly does not include the presidency. That ban from holding US office would be unconstitutional if it did, anyway. Spiro Agnew resigned after taking a plea deal under criminal investigation for corruption and tax fraud, as he was taking kickbacks from business deals dating back to his time as county executive all the way through his vice presidency. That looks like the most analogous case to this.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Who gives a poo poo if Trump was selling pardons? As far as I understand that's not illegal. The person paying for the pardon might run afoul of a Federal Bribery Statute:
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Ivanka/Kushner made up to $640m personally during the Tump Era, and Kushner got $2bn in Saudi money to play with And there's no way Trump didn't get at least a piece of that action. As with almost everything else, what they claim about Hunter and the Bidens is entirely projection. Jethro posted:Section b.2 includes the public official themselves, and even the Roberts Court might find "give us $2M and get a pardon" to be a quid pro quo "Might" is doing some heavy lifting there.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Best bet would be some kind of documentation or recordings Rudy has. For as much as he has apparently pickled his decaying brain meats I can easily see him being a lovely, useless witness. The woman in question says she has recordings
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:
Unless someone cuts a check where the memo line says "Bribe for (politician name here)", and records a video where said politician clearly states "This is a bribe from (person), I am accepting this as quid pro quo for (thing)", the Roberts court considers it "protected politicial speech".
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Unless someone cuts a check where the memo line says "Bribe for (politician name here)", and records a video where said politician clearly states "This is a bribe from (person), I am accepting this as quid pro quo for (thing)", the Roberts court considers it "protected politicial speech". To be pedantic, the ruling in McDonnell was that bribery charges under the Hobbes act have to be for "an official act" of the office. Voting for something would count and using the pardon power would count. They can't charge you for bribery if you didn't perform "an official act" for them. So, setting up meetings, calling other politicians, or hosting events don't count as quid pro quo because there is nothing specific about the power the office being used. The "money = protected political speech" ruling from Citizens United doesn't apply to giving directly to candidates, but SuperPACs and 501(c)(4) organizations make that almost entirely moot. You still can't just give money directly to a politician. Both of them are still bad decisions, though.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Exclusive: New evidence in special counsel probe may undercut Trump’s claim documents he took were automatically declassifiedquote:
We all knew Trump's declassification claim was bullshit so that much isn't news. This is proof that Trump himself knew it was bullshit - which helps to prove it was deliberate criminal behavior and not a mistake. Another brick in the wall.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Exclusive: New evidence in special counsel probe may undercut Trump’s claim documents he took were automatically declassified Knowing the official process while president doesn't prove Trump didn't use a double extra secret process known only to presidents when he took the documents. The smoking gun is Trump referring to the documents as classified AFTER he took them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Exclusive: New evidence in special counsel probe may undercut Trump’s claim documents he took were automatically declassified So now he goes down, right?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Exclusive: New evidence in special counsel probe may undercut Trump’s claim documents he took were automatically declassified The thing is that determining if a presidents power to declassify documents is as unilateral as Trump says is EXACTLY the sort of thing you need to determine in court. Otherwise it’s just people opinions. Essentially, his dumb argument is that he has to be indicted and tried to find out if he’s right.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Legally it doesn't matter, he didn't declassify poo poo because declassification is an official process with like you know paperwork and other very official things that are very easy to prove. I don't get to argue that my taxes are filed because I printed out my W2 and "filed" it in a box.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Legally it doesn't matter, he didn't declassify poo poo because declassification is an official process with like you know paperwork and other very official things that are very easy to prove. brb, contacting my accountant about an urgent matter
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 04:12
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Legally it doesn't matter, he didn't declassify poo poo because declassification is an official process with like you know paperwork and other very official things that are very easy to prove. You don't get to argue a lot of things in court that the rich and powerful routinely argue and win.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Legally it doesn't matter, he didn't declassify poo poo because declassification is an official process with like you know paperwork and other very official things that are very easy to prove. But is that official process legally required? Is there a law passed by Congress that says declassification can only be done in that specific way? As far as I can tell, the modern declassification process was created by an executive order. In other words, declassification works that way because the president says it does, and the president can unilaterally change it at any time (and many have), as long as the new process is within whatever bounds and requirements have been set by Congress. Now, going from "the president can change the declassification process at any time" to "the president can mentally declassify stuff and not tell anyone he did it until his secret unauthorized document cache is found" is quite a leap, but it's one that'll probably have to go in front of a judge.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 07:40
|
|
|
My understanding is that an important part of the declassification procedure is reprinting the documents without the 'classified' branding. If someone sees documents marked as being classified, then even if they are personally certain that the documents are no longer classified they are required to handle the copies-so-marked as if they were. tl:dr if a document says 'classified' on it then it is, even if it isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 08:24
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:My understanding is that an important part of the declassification procedure is reprinting the documents without the 'classified' branding. If someone sees documents marked as being classified, then even if they are personally certain that the documents are no longer classified they are required to handle the copies-so-marked as if they were. These are the rules, yes. Trump's entire argument is "the rules don't apply to the president because executive authority is more important than anything else". No amount of defining the rules he broke matters at all.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 12:37
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:My understanding is that an important part of the declassification procedure is reprinting the documents without the 'classified' branding. If someone sees documents marked as being classified, then even if they are personally certain that the documents are no longer classified they are required to handle the copies-so-marked as if they were. True for normal people who suffer consequences for loving it up. More of a suggestion though when there are no consequences.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 12:40
|
|
|
Trump's argument is that he can assign classification status for documents and that he can define the official process for classification and so he doesn't actually need to go through any official channels to classify or declassify documents. The argument is basically if I'm empowered to do a thing I don't need to follow any processes to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
Which is complety consistent with Trump's belief that being President meant that he had unlimited powers to do whatever he felt like.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
As part of the "sad, move faster, prison dammit!" crowd, I'm just going to say that the last two weeks have a lot of feel good stories. Indictments, charges, bills, judicial rulings, unsurprising reports. It feels like things are moving this week. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Which is complety consistent with Trump's belief that being President meant that he had unlimited powers to do whatever he felt like. He really is Stupid Nixon isn't he?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Yureina posted:He really is Stupid Nixon isn't he? Very Stupid Nixon, yes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
If the documents aren't classified Trump should just tell everyone what they said so we can hear how normal it is. He probably doesn't remember what they said, but I'm a bit surprised Hannity or someone hasn't asked him what this declassified and obviously not secret info was.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2023 23:32
|
|
