Trump's Trials (4 in all, April 2024)

[saxitoxin]

Based on the oral arguments this morning, Roberts and Gorsuch are extremely frustrated with the Special Counsel. They seem to be aligning on a definition of presidential immunity that requires prima facia evidence of a crime and not tautalogical evidence of a crime. If Trump has the authority to do something as president, his motivation for using that authority can't be the basis of a criminal indictment. He could only be criminally indicted if he does something that is both illegal and outside the scope of his authority.

All of the D.C. court charges revolve on Trump's frame-of-mind and would be excluded under this theory.

The example that was given was that Trump could be criminally indicted if he offered $10,000 to an official to make a ruling in his favor since giving bribes is not within the scope of his authority. However, he could not be charged (unless first impeached and convicted by Congress) if he offered to appoint that official to the Postal Rates Commission, even if his underlying motivation was to get the official to make a ruling in his favor, since appointments are within the scope of his authority.

[Pack Rat]

Welcome back Votanic!

I thought you killed yourself in your bunker.

Nope... just waiting for the next school shooting.
Then I might just swing by to watch you show yourself for the shrill, screeching, Constitution-hating, fascist-hypocrite bitch you really are, headless.
Now go off and sob and shriek to your dear ol' Dickasaur... bring along pukey and loltrans too. You'll all have a great time.
..and I don't give a f*ck.

Glad to see that you have not changed a bit Votanic. This forum needs more tears and childish rants.

[saxitoxin]

Cue tears ...

While Trump is in New York, some of his lawyers were at the Supreme Court. And they had a good day.

The justices openly entertained the idea of sending the immunity question back to lower courts for further fact-finding or potential narrowing of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment. That outcome would continue to stall a potential trial in the case, which has effectively been on ice since December amid Trump’s immunity appeals.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 ... s-00154383

[mookiemcgee]

The Judge in charge game money to Biden. His daughter is a big Fund Raiser for Democrats. Tell me that Trump can get a FAIR trial under THOSE conditions.

So it's your position that judges with family members who outwardly raise funds for and promote empowering one party over the other should recuse themselves?

It's funny cus you haven't posted once that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from cases involving Jan 6th. His wife Ginny was an organizer of the failed coup and here he is yet again today presiding over a case in front of the supreme court that specifically pertains to Jan 6th. Trumps lawyers argued today that a sitting president is legally immune from prosecution if he assassinates his political opponents.

So I guess once Thomas signs his name to the majority opinion declaring presidents are completely immune from prosecution, Biden can just have all the conservative justices killed and replace them with abortion doctors.

[saxitoxin]

The Judge in charge game money to Biden. His daughter is a big Fund Raiser for Democrats. Tell me that Trump can get a FAIR trial under THOSE conditions.

So it's your position that judges with family members who outwardly raise funds for and promote empowering one party over the other should recuse themselves?

It's not JP4F's position, it's the law.

Under New York state law, New York state judges are required to disqualify themselves "if a person within the sixth degree of relationship has an interest that could be substantially impacted by the outcome of the proceedings." Retired federal judge Shira Sheindlin (a Clinton appointee) has said Merchan's refusal to recuse "concerns" her.

It's also prohibited under New York state law for judges to give money to partisan political causes, like Merchan did in 2020 when he donated money to "Stop Republicans." CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig says Merchan should have recused himself for that reason alone and his failure to do so sets up an almost certain successful Trump appeal (in the unlikely event of a conviction).

[saxitoxin]

-
Michigan Disqualification Trial: Struck-down 5-2 by Michigan Supreme Court
Colorado Disqualification Trial: Struck-down 9-0 by U.S. Supreme Court
Maine Disqualification Trial: Struck-down 9-0 by U.S. Supreme Court
D.C. Trial: To be neutered by upcoming Supreme Court ruling
Georgia Trial: SCOTUS ruling will also neuter it
New York Trial: Even Rats acknowledge it's a weak case based on a never-before-tried legal theory; will likely end in a hung jury
Florida Trial: Beautiful Judge Aileen Cannon is taking care of this

[Dukasaur]

Based on the oral arguments this morning, Roberts and Gorsuch are extremely frustrated with the Special Counsel. They seem to be aligning on a definition of presidential immunity that requires prima facia evidence of a crime and not tautalogical evidence of a crime. If Trump has the authority to do something as president, his motivation for using that authority can't be the basis of a criminal indictment. He could only be criminally indicted if he does something that is both illegal and outside the scope of his authority.

All of the D.C. court charges revolve on Trump's frame-of-mind and would be excluded under this theory.

The example that was given was that Trump could be criminally indicted if he offered $10,000 to an official to make a ruling in his favor since giving bribes is not within the scope of his authority. However, he could not be charged (unless first impeached and convicted by Congress) if he offered to appoint that official to the Postal Rates Commission, even if his underlying motivation was to get the official to make a ruling in his favor, since appointments are within the scope of his authority.

I was a bit disappointed with Dreeben. I think in response to questions about hypotheticals like whether Obama could be charged for extrajudicial drone killings, he should have simply said, "Yes, he could be. So what?" I think all his equivocation on those points weakened his case immensely. There should have been a crystal clear ringing the bell on "nobody is above the law" and not trying to spin defenses for hypothetical presidents.

He took quite a beating from Gorsuch, and of course Alito is a "my party, right or wrong" kind of guy. But other than those two, I think a fair hearing is possible. Even the heavily-compromised Thomas seemed to be playing fair.

I expect a ruling against Trump of at least 6-3.

[saxitoxin]

Based on the oral arguments this morning, Roberts and Gorsuch are extremely frustrated with the Special Counsel. They seem to be aligning on a definition of presidential immunity that requires prima facia evidence of a crime and not tautalogical evidence of a crime. If Trump has the authority to do something as president, his motivation for using that authority can't be the basis of a criminal indictment. He could only be criminally indicted if he does something that is both illegal and outside the scope of his authority.

All of the D.C. court charges revolve on Trump's frame-of-mind and would be excluded under this theory.

The example that was given was that Trump could be criminally indicted if he offered $10,000 to an official to make a ruling in his favor since giving bribes is not within the scope of his authority. However, he could not be charged (unless first impeached and convicted by Congress) if he offered to appoint that official to the Postal Rates Commission, even if his underlying motivation was to get the official to make a ruling in his favor, since appointments are within the scope of his authority.

I was a bit disappointed with Dreeben. I think in response to questions about hypotheticals like whether Obama could be charged for extrajudicial drone killings, he should have simply said, "Yes, he could be. So what?" I think all his equivocation on those points weakened his case immensely. There should have been a crystal clear ringing the bell on "nobody is above the law" and not trying to spin defenses for hypothetical presidents.

He took quite a beating from Gorsuch, and of course Alito is a "my party, right or wrong" kind of guy. But other than those two, I think a fair hearing is possible. Even the heavily-compromised Thomas seemed to be playing fair.

I expect a ruling against Trump of at least 6-3.

OK good points. However, if the DOJ is willing to deep-six their own case if it means avoiding getting entrapped into a precedent that would allow Barack Obama to be indicted on war crimes, doesn't that validate the claim that this is not a good faith prosecution?

[HitRed]

Thomas in his own words

[pmac666]

Based on the oral arguments this morning, Roberts and Gorsuch are extremely frustrated with the Special Counsel. They seem to be aligning on a definition of presidential immunity that requires prima facia evidence of a crime and not tautalogical evidence of a crime. If Trump has the authority to do something as president, his motivation for using that authority can't be the basis of a criminal indictment. He could only be criminally indicted if he does something that is both illegal and outside the scope of his authority.

All of the D.C. court charges revolve on Trump's frame-of-mind and would be excluded under this theory.

The example that was given was that Trump could be criminally indicted if he offered $10,000 to an official to make a ruling in his favor since giving bribes is not within the scope of his authority. However, he could not be charged (unless first impeached and convicted by Congress) if he offered to appoint that official to the Postal Rates Commission, even if his underlying motivation was to get the official to make a ruling in his favor, since appointments are within the scope of his authority.

I was a bit disappointed with Dreeben. I think in response to questions about hypotheticals like whether Obama could be charged for extrajudicial drone killings, he should have simply said, "Yes, he could be. So what?" I think all his equivocation on those points weakened his case immensely. There should have been a crystal clear ringing the bell on "nobody is above the law" and not trying to spin defenses for hypothetical presidents.

He took quite a beating from Gorsuch, and of course Alito is a "my party, right or wrong" kind of guy. But other than those two, I think a fair hearing is possible. Even the heavily-compromised Thomas seemed to be playing fair.

I expect a ruling against Trump of at least 6-3.

OK good points. However, if the DOJ is willing to deep-six their own case if it means avoiding getting entrapped into a precedent that would allow Barack Obama to be indicted on war crimes, doesn't that validate the claim that this is not a good faith prosecution?

You think Obama would be indicted for war crimes? By whom?
Saxi ridiculous again.

[jusplay4fun]

I edited one letter to correct my thought; apparently those reading knew what I meant. Thanks, Guys.

The Judge in charge GAVE money to Biden. His daughter is a big Fund Raiser for Democrats. Tell me that Trump can get a FAIR trial under THOSE conditions.

So it's your position that judges with family members who outwardly raise funds for and promote empowering one party over the other should recuse themselves?

It's not JP4F's position, it's the law.

Under New York state law, New York state judges are required to disqualify themselves "if a person within the sixth degree of relationship has an interest that could be substantially impacted by the outcome of the proceedings." Retired federal judge Shira Sheindlin (a Clinton appointee) has said Merchan's refusal to recuse "concerns" her.

It's also prohibited under New York state law for judges to give money to partisan political causes, like Merchan did in 2020 when he donated money to "Stop Republicans." CNN legal analyst Ellie Honig says Merchan should have recused himself for that reason alone and his failure to do so sets up an almost certain successful Trump appeal (in the unlikely event of a conviction).

I also enlarged the FONT SIZE above to show my concurrence with the brilliant legal comments by Saxi, Esq.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Have you guys tried hugging it out yet?

[Dukasaur]

However, if the DOJ is willing to deep-six their own case if it means avoiding getting entrapped into a precedent that would allow Barack Obama to be indicted on war crimes, doesn't that validate the claim that this is not a good faith prosecution?

It does weaken it.

I don't think it actually isn't a good faith prosecution. Only that people in the DOJ are frightened toadies.

You think Obama would be indicted for war crimes? By whom?
Saxi ridiculous again.

It's unlikely, but not ridiculous.

Not sure if you remember that GW Bush was indicted in Malaysia for his war crimes. Not a stretch that others would be.

Bottom line is that foreign prosecution will go nowhere, because the U.S. is still top dog and nobody can risk abducting an American to take him to trial. But domestic enemies? That is another story. I can imagine a Jim Garrison type taking it to a grand jury in the U.S. Again, unlikely, but possible.

[pmac666]

However, if the DOJ is willing to deep-six their own case if it means avoiding getting entrapped into a precedent that would allow Barack Obama to be indicted on war crimes, doesn't that validate the claim that this is not a good faith prosecution?

It does weaken it.

I don't think it actually isn't a good faith prosecution. Only that people in the DOJ are frightened toadies.

You think Obama would be indicted for war crimes? By whom?
Saxi ridiculous again.

It's unlikely, but not ridiculous.

Not sure if you remember that GW Bush was indicted in Malaysia for his war crimes. Not a stretch that others would be.

Bottom line is that foreign prosecution will go nowhere, because the U.S. is still top dog and nobody can risk abducting an American to take him to trial. But domestic enemies? That is another story. I can imagine a Jim Garrison type taking it to a grand jury in the U.S. Again, unlikely, but possible.

If i were the USA i wouldnt give much damn about what Malaysia is saying.
And they arent part of the Hague....

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?
What would that be?
And since it would be a political stunt it must be one that doesnt affect Bush. Cause he should be the first one, right?

Anyways, Saxi is wet dreaming of Obama getting indicted for "war crimes" while he forgets Bush and celebrates Putin who does it on a daily basis.
This will happen as much as the canadian rebellion. Only in Saxis head.

[bigtoughralf]

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?

Prosecutions in the ICJ relate to international law, not US law.

And since it would be a political stunt

War can only legally be declared in self-defence and/or if the UN Security Council authorises the use of force. The declaration of war by Bush and Blair fits neither of those criteria and was therefore illegal. There would be nothing 'political' about any prosecution of either of them.

[pmac666]

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?

Prosecutions in the ICJ relate to international law, not US law.

And since it would be a political stunt

War can only legally be declared in self-defence and/or if the UN Security Council authorises the use of force. The declaration of war by Bush and Blair fits neither of those criteria and was therefore illegal. There would be nothing 'political' about any prosecution of either of them.

GL with that, the USA isnt part of the ICJ.

And what would be the exact crime?

[jusplay4fun]

What is the NYC trial for Trump about? I already answered that, but I will reiterate. Trump paid for silence from a woman (a porn star) to stay quiet. The allegation is that Trump tried to HIDE this expense as "Legal expenses" but in the process, violated Campaign Laws, that the NYC DA Bragg has NO jurisdiction for. So this attempt to hide a crime, is to cover a crime UNFOUNDED by

1) the Feds in charge of election violations, including the FBI, and

2) Braggs predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr.

This is the same DA Office that just had their conviction of Harvey Weinstein overturned on appeal. Well done, Bragg. Also, this is the DA who ran his election pledging to "get Trump." Yes, that is JUSTICE in NYC.

If Trump is convicted on these flimsy allegations, the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

All this smacks of election interference by the Democrats who feat their man Biden is too feeble, old, and incompetent to get re-elected. Let's Go, BRANDON..!

[Pack Rat]

Where did you get your Law Degree from...Trump University?

[saxitoxin]

And since it would be a political stunt it must be one that doesnt affect Bush. Cause he should be the first one, right?

How have I forgotten Bush? He should be in the same prison cell as Obama.

[bigtoughralf]

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?

Prosecutions in the ICJ relate to international law, not US law.

And since it would be a political stunt

War can only legally be declared in self-defence and/or if the UN Security Council authorises the use of force. The declaration of war by Bush and Blair fits neither of those criteria and was therefore illegal. There would be nothing 'political' about any prosecution of either of them.

GL with that, the USA isnt part of the ICJ.

And what would be the exact crime?

I never said I could see a prosecution achieving anything. You asked what crime Bush could be indicted for, so I told you. I actually told you the exact crime in my previous post, which you quoted in full. I'm not sure what's confused you.

The UN Charter is the document that makes the invasion illegal, and the US is signed up to the Charter. Bush can't be tried in the ICJ (given the US refuses to be held accountable by the international community for its actions) but the US Government could prosecute him in US courts using the Charter.

[jusplay4fun]

Where did you get your Law Degree from...Trump University[/color]?[/b]

As expected, here is ANOTHER useless post and ineffective, impotent response from the petty-rat. He failed to ADDRESS ONE issue that I raised and instead continues his personal attacks of me.

I continue to point to the drivel posted by our resident petty-rat. WORTHLESS junk.

[mookiemcgee]

The Judge in charge game money to Biden. His daughter is a big Fund Raiser for Democrats. Tell me that Trump can get a FAIR trial under THOSE conditions.

So it's your position that judges with family members who outwardly raise funds for and promote empowering one party over the other should recuse themselves?

I don't care about blatant corruption at the highest federal level of the court system or that a supreme court justices wife tried to organized an insurrection, I'm only concerned that a state judge donated $35 once and that precludes them from being impartial... iT'S tHe lAAw