What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730195#Comment_121730195

That might prove to be the largest bombshell in the whole scenario: the unanimous verdict now allows the Supreme Court to claim plausible deniability, so can now neatly avoid the political quagmire of being dragged into Donald Trump's shít. I had reckoned that the conservative judges put there by Trump no longer owe him anything, and now with this judgement they even have the convenience to go don't see anything wrong here and back away.

Penn

Saw a tweet though suggesting that the SC might decide to have their official say on it, even if it's just to agree with the District Court, but could kick the can down the road enough that any case against Trump likely wouldn't proceed before the election. A way for the Conservative judges to protect Trump politically while not protecting him legally, because if Trump did then win the election, he's almost undoubtedly protected again.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730007#Comment_121730007

talking heads pointing out they don't HAVE to take it, doesn't mean they won't

a unanimous 60 page decision would be a hard one for them to take up, but doesn't mean they can't.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730466#Comment_121730466

The question, then, is how long would it take for the SCOTUS to give an indication whether or not they will hear the case. If it's something that gets stuck in the pipeline among all the other things they have to do, and will take some time on top of that to study the legal opinion by the D.C. court, then it's still worthwhile for Trump's team to appeal it with respect to running down the clock.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730672#Comment_121730672

They could drag it out to the end of the session in June/July or even put it on the docket for next court term which starts in October. There would be no logical reason for them to in this case but it doesn’t preclude the bare possibility.

PropJoe10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730007#Comment_121730007

I'd be genuinely shocked if the Supreme Court went near that with a barge pole. As others have said, there is no argument here. No dissenting opinion, just an idiotic argument by Trump's legal team being well and truly slapped down.

PropJoe10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730682#Comment_121730682

Dragging it out to October would be openly political and I cannot imagine John Roberts wanting to get involved in that. They might take a month or so to "consider" it but I cannot see it being any longer than that.

everlast75

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730826#Comment_121730826

No doubt the courts can delay if they want, but it's a matter of whether they are prepared to take **** from the public in order to provide temporary cover, and that's all it will be, for oul Seditious Don

robinph

But if the supreme court plays silly buggers around it, doesn't that just sign their own death warrant essentially as unless Trump then gets in and appoints himself king... Whoever the next non crazy administration is will make it a priority to rebalance things and add things like term limits or adjust the numbers... After all, the supreme court would have just handed them immunity, as well as Trump.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730911#Comment_121730911

And in yet more proof that the GOP are utterly craven bootlicking sycophants to their God-King , see the latest attempt by them to do nothing.

The day after the bipartisan compromise on border policy and security aid was unveiled, one Republican after another lined up to announce their opposition. A few hours ago, they were joined by Sen. John Barrasso — the No. 3 Republican in the chamber, and the highest-ranking GOP leader to reject the legislative deal.

“Americans will turn to the upcoming election to end the border crisis,” the Wyoming senator said in a written statement.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan made a similar comment during an appearance on Fox Business:

Let’s say ‘timeout’ and then let the American people decide how we want to deal with this in November, when we have President Trump ... against President Biden. Let the country decide.

So their latest wheeze is "It's an Election year , we shouldn't be making any decisions that a new President might not like, so let's just sit back and wait until the end of January 2025 when the winner of the election gets sworn in"

So - It's an "invasion" and a "crisis" but sure, let's not even attempt to do a single thing for almost a year just so we don't give the other guy a "win".

Leroy42

This is a massive blow to Trump. Had he won this the entire Jan 6th would disappear.

This ruling, and any appeal to the Supreme Court, ensures it stays front and centre.

Another massive legal blow after last week's humiliating damages ruling.

It won't make any difference to his supporters who have shown themselves to not care about the law or responsibility, but this will give massive ammunition to Dems.

Trump will, as usual, attempt to laugh this off or claim a conspiracy but the troubles keep mounting and Trump, apart from the 2016 win, has shown little to think that he has any idea of how to get out of this.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730956#Comment_121730956

So far at least he is behaving himself and has just said that he "respectfully disagrees" with the ruling and has restated his nonsense view that a President cannot function without Absolute Immunity.

When I say "behaving" obviously that's all relative , I mean he did use the whole "Deranged Jack Smith" thing but at least in terms of the Judges he kept his mouth shut and didn't call them "deep state plants" etc.

But I expect we'll see those "truths" tonight when the sun-downing kicks off.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121730952#Comment_121730952

Getting severe flashbacks of 2016 and Obama's SC pick Garland refused by the GOP cos it was an "election year".

And if Biden wins, there'll be another excuse - or else they'll start screaming "why didn't you fix it earlier??"

looksee

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0.pdf

Was this posted? About a week's bedtime reading.

TinyMuffin

He’s always thinking of the country.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111885702922727135

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121731088#Comment_121731088

So basically he's saying "President Biden, please send Seal Team Six after me, you're immune"

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121731088#Comment_121731088

It baffles me that he believes that he is entitled to immunity, but that the incumbent isn't🤷‍♂️

Zero logic and whatever about being an agent of chaos? The man is fast becoming a gibbering idiot. Little rocketman was right back in 2017, when he called Trump a dotard...

Who knew North Korea had such intel 😉

everlast75

https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1754941481180090829?s=20

*Inserts popcorn gif*

everlast75

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1754963055392285020?s=20

This is pretty cool

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121731287#Comment_121731287

Engoron making very clear that he will proceed on a falsus in uno basis regarding Weisselberg's testimony to the court.

If perjury is confirmed, and I'd hazard that if even so much as Weisselberg's seeking a plea deal is confirmed? That Engoron will enforce as punitive a sanction as he can.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121731615#Comment_121731615

Of the four main indictments hanging over Trump right now, do we know which one will conclude the soonest, or is likely to? It's just that the 2024 US general election already looks like it's going to be fraught in a way that modern western politics hasn't really seen even without the trials. Having the business end of them coincide with the business end of the campaign, where I have to think Trump will be doing everything he can to whip his support into a frenzy, is going to be something else. 'Messy' wouldn't adequately cover it, is my guess.

banie01

I haven't yet read the judgement but something that jumps out to me from Kaitlan Collins tweet below.

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1754957549361582245?t=vl6lq1Xw8wfE3SOCtol9kw&s=19

‘take care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those Laws with impunity.”

The consensus decision of the court, quite deliberately and explicitly names the President as an officer. It potentially strengthens the 14th amendment disqualification as it kicks the legs out from under "the President isn't an officer" argument.

It's not just confirmation that Trump is criminally liable but, also that as an "officer" per the constitution that he is subject to the full effect of Article 14 sec 3.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732183#Comment_121732183

I fully agree with you that the POTUS is obviously an officer of the US, but law appears to utterly revel in semantics. I could be fully wrong, here, but the case appears to be about what 'officer' means with respect to A14 sec 3, even though the POTUS is named as an officer of the US in other parts of their constitution. I should think the original authors of that text didn't think it could be interpreted so murkily, but then again they probably didn't envisage someone like Donald Trump happening either. If it were so clear in the nitty-gritty technical sense, it obviously wouldn't have made it as a question to consider before the SCOTUS.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732183#Comment_121732183

If the President wasn't explicitly described as an "officer" then that was an oversight and ,in a Republic he should be considered (and be proud to be so considered) as one.

Good that these 3 judges have described the President as such.

I wonder if that was deliberate?

If so ,well done.

Edit:Doesn't the President take an "Oath of Office"?

How could he or she not be an officer in that case?

PropJoe10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732250#Comment_121732250

The President is an officer. It's just Trump trying every single trick in the book to escape from his legal peril. Expect this to rumble on and on and on.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732250#Comment_121732250

As Briany alludes to, there is a legal theory that has become beloved of Trump supporters that POTUS, isn't an officer under the constitution. It is based on a warped reading IMO and doesn't stand up to any literal or telelogical scrutiny. If the supreme court sees itself as textual originalists? Then the theory should really be disregarded.

We disagree. There is some good reason to think the President is not an “officer of the United States.” President Trump, who swore only one constitutional oath, does not fall within Section 3’s jurisdictional element. Therefore, he cannot be disqualified pursuant to this provision.

In the fraught legal circumstances that Trump finds himself in? Where it's already agreed that January 6th was a couple in search of a legal theory? One that was provided by Eastman, who's career has gone down in flames and who is currently an unindicted coconspirator in legal peril.

It's one of those theories that IMO is only ever useful as a devils advocate position. In a sane court? It would be shot down instantly as absurd.

In the current SCOTUS? Where 5 justices are political conservatives and at least 1 is corrupt and has a spouse involved in the attempted coup?

It could be given enough support to fly as a means of leaving Trump on the ballot.

https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-post-four-2kpz7-7czmg-6fbsx-l9llc-btrht-lkg3w

Cody montana

BREAKING: House Rejects Mayorkas Impeachment Resolution

Someone will be mad.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732441#Comment_121732441

...

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732441#Comment_121732441

This might put some backbone in a few senator's to back the Senate border bill and let the house decide the issue.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121731127#Comment_121731127

You are about to enter a region of political discourse where logic is a menace and truth is the enemy. A region of bluster and venom. You are about to enter The Trump Zone.

Dun-dun-dun....