ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
D.C. circuit’s rejection of Trump’s immunity claim leaves nothing for the Supreme Court to resolve
Here is a link to the opinion.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...
As I expected, the court clearly thought Trump's immunity defense was absurd.
Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in
power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an
unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He
allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President
has no role — the counting and certifying of the Electoral
College votes — thereby undermining constitutionally
established procedures and the will of the Congress. To
immunize former President Trump’s actions would “further . . .
aggrandize the presidential office, already so potent and so
relatively immune from judicial review, at the expense of
Congress.” Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 654 (Jackson, J.,
concurring) (footnote omitted). As Justice Jackson warned:
"Executive power has the advantage of
concentration in a single head in whose choice
the whole Nation has a part, making him the
focus of public hopes and expectations. In
drama, magnitude and finality his decisions so
far overshadow any others that almost alone he
fills the public eye and ear. No other personality
in public life can begin to compete with him in
access to the public mind through modern
methods of communications. By his prestige as
head of state and his influence upon public
opinion he exerts a leverage upon those who are
supposed to check and balance his power which
often cancels their effectiveness.
Id. at 653–54 (Jackson, J., concurring)."
We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a
President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that
would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive
power — the recognition and implementation of election
results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the
Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual
citizens to vote and to have their votes count.
D.C. circuit’s rejection of Trump’s immunity claim leaves nothing for the Supreme Court to resolve
On the substance, this was a huge win for Jack Smith in the same way that the sun coming up this morning was a huge win for him. I can't overstate how dumb Trump's immunity defense was.
Here is a link to the opinion.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/...
As I expected, the court clearly thought Trump's immunity defense was absurd.
The impeachment judgement clause defense had some merit imho, but the court thought otherwise
It wasn't so obvious that impeachment was completely orthogonal to criminal prosecution for the same or very related matters.
You really, really, really love the word orthogonal.
The Impeachment Judgment Clause effectively says that the sole penalty in the case of a conviction in an impeachment proceeding is removal from office but the impeached party remains subject to criminal prosecution. Trump was arguing that if he wasn't convicted in an impeachment proceeding, then he couldn't be criminally prosecuted.
In other words, Trump was arguing that:
If A, then B
implied
If not A, then not B.
That's an obvious formal logic fail, which the DC Circuit unsurprisingly recognized straight away.
You really, really, really love the word orthogonal.
The Impeachment Judgment Clause effectively says that the sole penalty in the case of a conviction in an impeachment proceeding is removal from office but the impeached party remains subject to criminal prosecution. Trump was arguing that if he wasn't convicted in an impeachment proceeding, then he couldn't be criminally prosecuted.
In other words, Trump was arguing that:
If A, then B
impl
Ye i read the opinion, just saying that wasn't the only possible way to read the text
...just asking questions!
I mean if you write a piece of legislation, or an executive order, that your lawyers tell you will probably not pass court muster, and that will plausibly be considered unconstitutional, and you still do that, is that an attempted insurrection? because in that case almost every politician is an insurrectionist...
If the subject matter of that executive order or legislation is being written after the fact in an attempt to stay in power and overturn the vote of the people...yes, definitely yes.
his clear intent is to prosecute his enemies in revenge if he wins office again
“I am your warrior. I am your justice,”
“And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.”
In Trump’s world, his alleged crimes were nothing but politics —
but any acts of politics in opposition to him are inherently criminal.
his clear intent is to prosecute his enemies in revenge if he wins office again
“I am your warrior. I am your justice,”
“And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.”
In Trump’s world, his alleged crimes were nothing but politics —
but any acts of politics in opposition to him are inherently criminal.
Incredible - these sound like the words of a mythical figure with a god complex. I doubt scarier words have ever been said by a US president.
his clear intent is to prosecute his enemies in revenge if he wins office again
“I am your warrior. I am your justice,”
“And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution.”
In Trump’s world, his alleged crimes were nothing but politics —
but any acts of politics in opposition to him are inherently criminal.
Oh there isn't only federal prosecution.
He can also use federal agencies to surgically destroy companies who sided with democrats, to create enormous problems to colleges that take federal money and so on.
IE, exactly what democrats do every time they can, like when they direct the IRS to audit right-wing associations more or when they target Koch companies on purpose and the like.
It wasn't trump who started the weaponization of executive power against political opponents.
Many people rightly want retribution, an apology admins a financial settlement isn't enough.
Previous trump admin was too soft on this
What companies did democratic presidents "surgically destroy"?
Small regional banks with obscene regulations comes to mind, in general a whole lot of SME are unviable anymore thanks to democrat efforts in many sectors because of regulatory capture by incumbents helped by democrats.
The Dodd Frank monstrosity comes to mind but it's in no way unique
Incredible - these sound like the words of a mythical figure with a god complex. I doubt scarier words have ever been said by a US president.
Waiting for, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds", although the chances he knows the Bhagavad Gita or Oppenheimer are rather low I'd think...
"if you stop using federal money to finance the research on queerness among amazonian tribes you are literally a Nazi" -d2_e4
"if you stop using federal money to finance the research on queerness among amazonian tribes you are literally a Nazi" -d2_e4
It's more your militant language. "Not only federal prosecutions", "weaponisation", "retribution". Listen to yourself, man.
Also, presumably, "not only" means that you are in fact calling for political prosecutions, with some extra on top. So let's not get disingenuous and then pretend it was about Harvard endownment tax exemptions, eh, chap?
Dude, it's more your militant language. "Not just federal prosecutions", "Weaponisation", "Retribution". Listen to yourself, man.
The battlefield today domestically is mainly the economic and cultural landscape, so when you pass a rule that financially helps your friends and/or financially damages your enemies (the latter especially), that's weaponization of executive (or legislative) power.
Retribution is the correct word when they did the same when it was their turn.
Using vengeance wouldn't change the meaning or the connotation I think.
Let me rewrite with the same exact meaning, would you prefer this paragraph:
"I think it's absolutely proper and good that republicans are threatening to use all legal measures at their disposal, the full power of the state if given the presidency and/or congress, to target any economical entity which is connected with the Democratic party and damage it financially as much as possible, because democrats tend to do the same when they can and are in power".
Btw why do I hope that happens? Because I hope when that happens, some people can realize the problem is that the state shouldn't have the power to do that... And maybe having the power in the hands of "the most terrible person you can think of" used against something you care about, repeatedly and with full force, will awake them on that matter.
The endgame hope for me is for people to realize you should never give a power to the state if you can't sleep well knowing that power is in the worst hands you can possibly think
Yeah, I'm more concerned about Trump threatening to prosecute his political opponents if he gets back into office, as a "retributive" measure.
Trump is being prosecuted for crimes he committed, his prosecution is not purely political. He is threatening fascism.
