Perpetual Convicted Felon Donald Trump Scandal (Major and Minor) Thread

SandyTech

Ars Legatus Legionis
13,235
Subscriptor++
To bring things back around to the topic, it looks like that clown Cannon has opted to grant trump another delay to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether or not the search warrant was valid or not.

Trump favoring partisan judge is in Trump's pocket, news at 11 I suppose.
 

iPilot05

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,781
Subscriptor
I think that's where I saw it. Cartoon with that rabbit.
Tar baby is covered in tar. Don't remember if the rabbit was a baby though.
What a crazy twist this thread has taken. When I was a little kid my parents read those little golden books to me. I distinctly remember as a 4-5 year old when Brer Rabbit was being read to me and I asked what a “tar baby” was. My mom (upstanding non-racist) kind of stammered out an answer and I just knew it was ugly and wrong. I never was read the book again.

I suspect she didn’t even realize what she was reading until she read it (it’s Disney after all!) and it quietly got tossed in the trash after that night. I had asked recently about it and she didn’t remember but did remember “Song of the South” and how shocking it is that nobody bat an eye at the movie back in the day.
 

trapine

Ars Tribunus Militum
1,772
Subscriptor
What a crazy twist this thread has taken. When I was a little kid my parents read those little golden books to me. I distinctly remember as a 4-5 year old when Brer Rabbit was being read to me and I asked what a “tar baby” was. My mom (upstanding non-racist) kind of stammered out an answer and I just knew it was ugly and wrong. I never was read the book again.

I suspect she didn’t even realize what she was reading until she read it (it’s Disney after all!) and it quietly got tossed in the trash after that night. I had asked recently about it and she didn’t remember but did remember “Song of the South” and how shocking it is that nobody bat an eye at the movie back in the day.
It's kind of terrible how Uncle Remus has been now thrown away due to PC culture, when Harris was trying to capture the stories and voices of people he knew were going away.
 

Lt_Storm

Ars Praefectus
16,294
Subscriptor++
Ultimately Democrat and Republican voters are animated by different things. Republicans care a lot more about coopting the organs of state to ensure their platform is followed even if they don't have power (see: control of the Supreme Court) and are animated to vote by appeals to doing that in a way that Democrat voters are not.
While this may be true of rich Republicans, I don't think it holds particularly true for the rank and file. Instead, they are typically concerned that the government, having no profit motive, is inefficient and wasteful. As such, they want to cut its funding / privatize because they believe doing so is a better deal, not because something is being co-opted. Moreover, they typically haven't thought very much about what this actually means.

As such, the average Republican voter actually cares about the co-opting of the government more than you might think. It's just that they haven't thought all that much about how the rich and monopolies actually use that power to both increase costs and minimize public benefit. When phrased in these terms, there is usually some progress that can be made on these topics.
 
My brother-in-law has an old copy of collected works of Harris which includes Uncle Remus: His Songs and His Sayings. Linguistically, some of the dialog is as hard to read as middle-English. There's cultural and academic value in it, but a ton of racial baggage as well. I can understand how politicians (and others) who grew up with the stories might be blind to their own biases or may have even gotten a revised version with less racial overtones.

But none of that compares to how blatantly racist Trump is and has been for practically as long as there's public record - including not renting to black people and marking their applications "C" for colored back in the early days when he was working with his father.
 
Presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court just dropped. TLDR: Presidents have absolute immunity for official acts under the constitution. Presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts. Separating official and unofficial is sometimes hard. The case is sent back to district court to factually determine whether Trump's actions for which he is criminally charged were official or not.
 

Chuckstar

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,642
Subscriptor++
Presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court just dropped. TLDR: Presidents have absolute immunity for official acts under the constitution. Presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts. Separating official and unofficial is sometimes hard. The case is sent back to district court to factually determine whether Trump's actions for which he is criminally charged were official or not.
Terrible. What immediately comes to mind is that there’s no such thing as holding a President accountable for ordering a war crime, since any military order could be considered an “official act” of a commander-in-chief.

Of course, not as terrible as if they had granted even broader immunity, but still…

EDIT: Or even outside the context of the military, it means a President never has to think even once (let alone twice) about the law, as long as the context is within Executive remit.
 

Nekojin

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,356
Subscriptor++
Presidential immunity decision by the Supreme Court just dropped. TLDR: Presidents have absolute immunity for official acts under the constitution. Presidents do not have immunity for unofficial acts. Separating official and unofficial is sometimes hard. The case is sent back to district court to factually determine whether Trump's actions for which he is criminally charged were official or not.
Yep. This is exactly the result I was expecting. It functionally changes nothing, it just wasted a ton of time and wagged a meaningless finger at the lower courts to look closely at his actions to decide whether they were actually official acts or not. Spoiler: Campaigning isn't an official government duty.
 

Nekojin

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,356
Subscriptor++
Terrible. What immediately comes to mind is that there’s no such thing as holding a President accountable for ordering a war crime, since any military order could be considered an “official act” of a commander-in-chief.

Of course, not as terrible as if they had granted even broader immunity, but still…
I mean, that hasn't changed anything. Both Reagan and HW Bush engaged in activity that would probably be criminally chargeable if they weren't Presidents. Nothing was ever formally charged on them.
 

Chuckstar

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,642
Subscriptor++
I mean, that hasn't changed anything. Both Reagan and HW Bush engaged in activity that would probably be criminally chargeable if they weren't Presidents. Nothing was ever formally charged on them.
Classic fallacy. The fact that some people have gotten away with a crime doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t even bother with it being illegal.
 
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy and the Constitution. So Biden can have him thrown into solitary at Leavenworth since upholding the Constitution is an official Presidential duty. Right?
Drone strikes. It would be better as drone strikes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjn

Nekojin

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,356
Subscriptor++
Classic fallacy. The fact that some people have gotten away with a crime doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t even bother with it being illegal.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that they haven't functionally changed things, they've just solidified how the government has been run so far. That doesn't mean that it can't be changed in the future, or that I'm in any way advocating for the status quo to be etched in stone for all eternity.
 

Chuckstar

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,642
Subscriptor++
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy and the Constitution. So Biden can have him thrown into solitary at Leavenworth since upholding the Constitution is an official Presidential duty. Right?
Well… remember, there is still the fact that he’d get released by a court with hours, and everyone below the President can still be tried for illegal acts, regardless of following orders.

But then, of course, how long before SCOTUS rules that following an official presidential order grants immunity to the order-follower. We’re going full fascist, after all, and we’ve seen that defense among fascists before.
 

linnen

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,122
Subscriptor
Terrible. What immediately comes to mind is that there’s no such thing as holding a President accountable for ordering a war crime, since any military order could be considered an “official act” of a commander-in-chief.

Of course, not as terrible as if they had granted even broader immunity, but still…

EDIT: Or even outside the context of the military, it means a President never has to think even once (let alone twice) about the law, as long as the context is within Executive remit.
How did that witticism go again? "What's mine is mine. If it isn't nailed down, what's yours is mine as well. If it can be pried loose with a crowbar, it is not nailed down." That is what the Executive remit will look like. Except that an excavator will be used.
 

Chuckstar

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,642
Subscriptor++
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that they haven't functionally changed things, they've just solidified how the government has been run so far. That doesn't mean that it can't be changed in the future, or that I'm in any way advocating for the status quo to be etched in stone for all eternity.
No. I understand exactly what you meant. The point I made is entirely a response to that.
 

iPilot05

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,781
Subscriptor
So I guess the next steps are the lower court determines his crimes were not official acts and then the supreme court finds a legal contortion to overturn that determination, right?
By then Trump will be President or not and the whole thing will be moot either way. If he's President he's completely immune from prosecution of even unofficial acts and if he looses the election nobody will care what happens to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BurntToShreds

DarthSlack

Ars Legatus Legionis
18,504
Subscriptor++
Well… remember, there is still the fact that he’d get released by a court with hours, and everyone below the President can still be tried for illegal acts, regardless of following orders.

But then, of course, how long before SCOTUS rules that following an official presidential order grants immunity to the order-follower. We’re going full fascist, after all, and we’ve seen that defense among fascists before.

Ok, ok. We'll send him to Guantanamo. The courts don't seem to have much, if any, jurisdiction there.
 
I'm duplicating this post from the SCOTUS thread since it seems to be the core of what the district court will need to work through on remand.

More on the specifics of Trump's case (From section III - which appears to be the core of what the district court will use):

Chief Roberts said:
Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch […] The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham(s)” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

Essentially, a president can use the Justice Department to investigate anything he wants - such as election interference.

With respect to pressuring Pence the question is still open for district court to determine:

Chief Roberts said:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. Ibid. Despite the Vice President’s expansive role of advising and assisting the President within the Executive Branch, the Vice President’s Article I responsibility of “presiding over the Senate” is “not an ‘executive branch’ function.” Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 2 (Aug. 28, 1974). With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the
Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

With respect to interactions with non-executive branch personnel:
Chief Roberts said:
…the Federal Government’s role in appointing electors is limited. Congress may prescribe when the state-appointed
electors shall meet, and it counts and certifies their votes. Art. II, §1, cls. 3, 4. The President, meanwhile, plays no direct role in the process, nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do. And the Framers, wary of “cabal, intrigue and corruption,” specifically excluded from service as electors “all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office.”

With respect to his statements leading to and on Jan. 6th:
Chief Roberts said:
Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans,
including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.

There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.

Note: some in-line references omitted for readability. One instance of brackets exchanged for parenthesis to avoid BBCode insertion.
 
and everyone below the President can still be tried for illegal acts, regardless of following orders.
But, we now know those wouldn't be, in fact, illegal acts. The President gave a perfectly legal order, since, er, the President was acting in his official capacity.

"If the president does it, it is not illegal."