Topic: Publicly held Trump trials - ongoing - page 12. (Read 4824 times)

The theory of full immunity is more complex that it seems at first glance. It is intended to allow the president to take pretty much any action in defence of the country and give orders that ordinarily would be classed as crime, and it also frees him from prosecutions. However, the "impeachment" is not based on the legal aspects, but on a political judgement and this can potentially become a dictatorship by elimination of the opponent since all that is needed is a majoriy.

My personal conclusion is that there has to be a limit to the immunity precisely to protect the system from people like Trump who are fine breaking the system while owning a party.

So, a couple of days ago I saw one of the Trump's Lawyers trying to make a case about the presidential legal immunity which alledgely the president has while the performance of his duties. All of it was being discussed in front of judges and it was quite disturbing and unprecedented for the fact Trump's lawyer seemed to question whether the President of the United States could theorically order the execution/assassination of their political rivals (who are as well American residents and Citizens) and not being prosecuted because of his immunity. According to what I understood, it would take the lawmakers of the senate/house to impeach the president for him to be later procesuted of those crimes, otherwise, he would as free as usual when going back into the civil life, after the conclusion of the term.

That is weird, disturbing and unprecedented... Specially scary because no one in the Republican party seems to care about it and nobody dares to call out Trump or his lawyers for even putting such distasteful legal scenario on the table and in front of judges... This kind of stuff will only continue to divide the country, in my opinion.

Forget about Trump for a second.  I know it's hard, but try.  Being objective is good.

What kind of punishment do you think would be appropriate for someone who doesn't have any security clearance to keep classified documents (important ones, with Nuclear secrets) at their home, defy a federal subpoena and obstruct the governments attempt to secure them?  

Do you think the government should punish civilians that lie to the FBI about highly classified documents (important ones, with Nuclear secrets) in their home after being served with a subpoena?

Remember, don't think about Trump.  It shouldn't matter who does it.  It could be anyone.

So Trumps fraud trial wrapped up this week in NYC.  On deck for next week:  Another civil trial in NYC, where a jury will decide if Trump defamed a woman on the very same day (or within a day I think?) that another jury found him liable for defaming her and sexually assaulting her.  



That's right, he was found liable for the assault and defamation, ordered to pay millions, and he went right over to CNN and repeated the same lies that he got sued for the first time - and so he got sued again.  He also bragged about how the jury did not find him liable for raping her (he didn't mention it was because he used his fingers, and in NY State for it to be rape you gotta use the penis).

Some may argue it would be against the law or the constitution to have tests for candidates, either because could be some kind of exclusion against certain kinds of personalities or because there could be some bias against the one being tested and the one performing the test.
Anyways, as far as I know there has not been any precedent in the history of the north American Democracy about some presidential candidate being subjected to psychological tests.
Here in my country there are laws which allow such tests to happen but only to sitting presidents whose ability to govern is being questioned by the parliament. If the team of doctors are specialists believe the president is not capable of governing, then he/she is supposed to be removed from the position.
In general terms, I have learnt that in the United States anyone can be a presidential candidate, and Kanye West is a living proof of it. If there is someone needing to be evaluated would be him but it does not happen.

He'll almost certainly get off lighter than he ought to.  But if he doesn't face at least some jail time for that many crimes across that many states, then the American Judicial System is a sham.

You do know there's two kinds of justice systems in corporate America now, right?

One for the rich and powerful and one for the rest of us.

Trump's trials are a manifestation of the former.

Or, better yet, the voting public could stop fawning over dangerous narcissists who were never fit to hold office in the first place.  Trump was always going to answer to his ego first and the rules last.  You're either with him and what he wants, or you're against him.  Morality and law don't enter the equation.  What he wants is always "right" and that's as far as the line of thought goes in his brain.  That's why he's so adamant that he's innocent.  He can't even see why he's wrong.  Even now that it's all been spelled out to him over the course of all these court appearances.  And it still won't register when he's behind bars either.

I'm of the view that potential candidates should have to sit a test to ensure they don't suffer from sort of chronic personality disorder before they're cleared to run for leadership.

You know. The most bizarre fact about the Trump indictment on the holding of Secret information, is how he could have easily prevented all this criminals allegations from happening to him.
All he had to do was to give back all documents when the people from federal government asked him to do so.
It is completely out of the character of a president of former president to illegally hold that amount of classified documents in that way and assume no one is going to care or seek for them.

The defense he has wield ranges from not actually being aware of those documents being in his property to actually being aware of them but saying he has the right to have them. Pretty wacky stuff, not proper for a country like the United States.

Trump has been effectively indicted of 42 counts regarding the classified documents case.


In your view, if he is guilty, what should be the punishment? This is a very simple question you are being asked... have you got an answer or another excuse?

If you ask me, if the Rossembergs were killed by the US government on a simple declaration by Ethel's brother - in fact for nothing proven, then I do not see why Trump, who send people to assault the Capitol and killed several people, should not be given the needle.

There you go, again. Trump hasn't been adjudicated of any wrongdoing in declassifying government docs. Wake up. Even if he is adjudicated to have done something wrong, he is certain to appeal it. It's not over until it's over.

Now, I realize that you are simply asking questions and voicing your opinion in a way that makes it look like you are slandering when you really aren't. Or are you? slandering Trump, I mean?

If you want to see what the punishment has been for people giving away government secrets, simply get over to a law library and find info on Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg. Neither you nor I are close enough to the Trump trials to understand the investigation that has gone into them. There is no way to answer your question without knowing the details.

What kind of punishment would fit the crime of retaining government documents that are classified at the highest level that included foreign and domestic nuclear secrets, and then refusing to give them back, defying a subpoena for them, and obstructing an investigation into their whereabouts by lying about them, all violations of the espionage act and committed by a civilian after having their security clearance revoked.

Forget it's Trump that did all this.  Just in general, what should the punishment be for someone that does this, regardless of any political affiliation.

Squirm away.

Your problem is that you don't have a leg to stand on... except maybe your mouth, and the desire for corruption.

If Trump or anybody personally breaks the law, let the punishment fit the crime. So far, the only thing Trump has been convicted of is doing good as President. So, everything you say is slander. And why is it slander? Because you like to see Ukrainian soldiers killed off, and the Ukrainian population reduced that way.

Look at Trump's record in the Presidency. It's peace and prosperity. Then look at what Biden started doing the first day of his presidency. He nullified a whole bunch of Trump's good things. Because of it, we see maybe 600,000 Ukrainian and Russian soldiers killed and maimed. And you seem to like it that way.

By the same standards that you judge Trump (without findings of guilt), you are calling yourself a murderer... and accomplice to the murdering that the Biden Team and the Dems have done by sending $billions to Ukraine

As said, does any of this not match the main characteristics of a Narcissistic Personality disorder? I can break the law because it is me, I can threaten and harass my political opponents (please not that Nacy Pelosi's husband, in his 80s, was attacked at his own home!) and anyone criticising is (underline those applicable: deep-state, crooked, Chinesse, anti-USA, wrong, corrupted, democrat,...) The law has to be changed to favour me, ... If something goes wrong is never my fault is because (deep-state, democrats, judges, ...) are against me.

I mean ... textbook + a bit of other diagnosable mental health issues in the pot. The type of personality that attracts moths like dumBAss.

On the moderate support, look, the problem is not Trump, the problem is that Republicans have been kidnapped by trump for several years and unfortunately candidates not endorsed by his have mostly lost. There is no "moderation" there is simply desire to grab the Presidency to ban abortion, try to stop migration flows and go on with the protectionist + low tax agenda.

On the other hand, I see Trump as a high-risk candidate. I wonder why the donors have not chosen another horse already - no fan of conspiracies, but there are parts missing in the puzzle.

Not only hate, he has something more dangerous within him himself and that is a complete disregard for the future of the politics in the United States and democracy in that country. If he cared at least a bit, then he would have realized he is undermining the trust people have on elections and that may continue to hurt the country, even after he steps down his political career, but no.
Besides of that, I would have not expected Trump to start to make excuses for the posibility of him being defeated, because he seems to have a good chance to actually get his second term in the White House. It makes me wonder whether he actually believes he could lose because he won't have the support of the moderates or he just wants to further fearmonger his followers into the election fraud theories.
Regardless of it, he has said a little bit of everything in his speeches, being amount the worst the way he mocked the husband of Nancy Pelosi after being brutally attacked with the hammer. Not the kind of stuff one is supposed to find in serious politics, to be honest.

Some of us still remember that he was saying that he would not accept any result in the previous elections other than a win. And accept he did not indeed.

It is a textbook example of a Narcissist Personality disorder: unable to accept critic, will go into aggression mode towards anyone challenging him. Everything he does is "the biggest, the greatest, the what-ever-est of all times". When he fails, breaks the law or is in trouble, it is not ever because he fuck*ed up, it is because "XYZ excuse".

He is not making a excuse, he is a miserable excuse from implanted hair to polished thumbnail.


dumBAss, provide any proof that you are actually American (meaning an US citizen) or shut up about the topic, because your line of posting seems pretty much what a Chinese troll would be saying to weaken and divide the US.

Again, you are not answering because you are lying. Juries do not "strike down laws" and you barely can tell your thumb from your teeth, so do not bother saying that "others do not understand" - It is just way out of your personal possibilities.

Meanwhile, Trump's trials progress and March & April are going to be busy dates for Trump and likely for the supreme court. Until now, no judge has disputed the fact that Trump engaged in insurrection.

Actually, there were two cases. The first case was for the whole group... the Bundy brothers and their partners. The second case was for the two Bundy brothers only.

In the first case, the others - not the Bundys - accepted plea deals. But the Bundys didn't. The jury ruled in favor of the Bundys and let them go. The judge simply followed through with what the jury decided.

In the second case, which was only against the Bundys, the jury ruled in favor of them and let them go. Again, the judge simply followed through with what the jury decided... a dismissal.

In jury trials, where the jury comes back with an innocent verdict, the judge is required to sign off on it by dismissal... or to recuse himself from the entire case. That's what the judge is there for in jury trials... simply to acknowledge the verdict of the jury.

In other words, the judge was simply following through with his job, and rendering a dismissal according to the jury verdict. The judge wasn't making a verdict of his own. He was simply signing off on what the jury decided. That's what his duty is in jury trials.

Court records all around the US are replete with this in jury trials. There are also a few that have extenuating circumstances where a mistrial is declared for one reason or another, and it all goes back to the jury as though the trial had never happened in the first place. But mistrial isn't how it went for the Bundy brothers.

Lets clean some mud out of the water with a quick recap:

You: Jurys can strike down laws
Me: No they can't
You: Yes they can
Me: Could you provide one example
You: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Bundy+Brothers+Acquitted+in+Takeover+of+Oregon+Wildlife+Refuge&ia=web.
Me: The judge dismissed the charges in that case.  (No law was struck down and the jury didn't even get to deliberations.) Try again?
You: 'Now why in the world do you want me to show you some court cases?'

In his speech, Trump seemed to be making excuses for his 2024 loss already.    A lot of hate in that person.

Now why in the world do you want me to show you some court cases? You wouldn't believe them anyway, just like you don't seem to believe much of anything I say. I DID show you the Bundy brothers' case. But you obviously don't believe it. Do your own research.

Everything you say is insignificant. Why? Because you sit over there, and you don't know how things work in America.


Clinton-Appointed Judge Dismisses Trump Ballot Disqualification Case 'With Prejudice'

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/clinton-appointed-judge-dismisses-trump-ballot-disqualification-case-prejudice
On Wednesday, [Clinton appointed] District Judge David Carter granted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit "with prejudice," which means that it can't be submitted to the same court again, according to court papers.

A plaintiff attempted to argue that they suffered "emotional injury" due to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and watched the events unfold on television, on the radio, and in various publications. They then argued that the incident caused them "severe emotional distress" and then filed a lawsuit to keep the former president from California's ballots.

But the judge wrote that because the events occurred "more than two years before the plaintiff" filed suit, it was outside of the two-year statute of limitations.

The decision by Judge Carter, a Clinton-appointed jurist who has ruled against President Trump in a separate case, was posted online by former Republican National Committee for California chairwoman Harmeet Dhillon.

"The remnants of the last California case to keep President Trump off the ballot here were dismissed today by Judge David O. Carter!!" she wrote on X on Wednesday.

In recent days and weeks, there have been a number of lawsuits filed in different states to try and bar President Trump from appearing on the ballot ahead of the 2024 election. Those suits have claimed that the former president engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States under an interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment's Section 3, which was written in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. Civil War.
...

---