Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122318806#Comment_122318806

There only hope is to down play it, and keep Biden away from unscripted events or interacting with the media till election day and no more debates.

There are problems with that but it may be the only hope for them.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323295#Comment_122323295

If that's their only hope, then they're well and truly fúcked, because there is no way that's going to work. The clips of Biden looking senile are going to be doing the rounds all over social media regardless of what the Biden campaign do. In that way, doing/saying nothing is a worse strategy because it gives MAGA trolls huge control of the narrative. Not that they need to do much spinning in this case. The reality of the situation is fairly plain.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323350#Comment_122323350

When he has the next episode, even if it is just a genuine mistake it'll be a massive story again.

Given his situation, if he is off script. It's going to make the news quickly .

Theyll be able to manage to a significant degree. Auto cue speeches, friendly interviewers with prepared questions, editing and breaks .

Even just limiting the damage he does to the party would be a great success.

briany

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323384#Comment_122323384

This is a zero sum game, as far as I can see. No good for the Biden campaign to be able to say, "Well, we lost the election, but I'll tell you what, we did some job of managing Biden's media appearances in those last few months…"

Not that it even matters. As I've said, they have little to no way of controlling how much hay the Trump campaign will be making hay of Biden's senile appearance at the debate by flooding social media with clips of it. They can give MSNBC a script to use, but it's not going to be enough. The ratings for that debate may have been low as far as debate ratings go, but it's still a hell of a lot more viewers than are going to be watching whatever feeble damage control the Biden campaign can muster on MSNBC and CNN et al in the coming months if they decide to stick with Biden.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323477#Comment_122323477

It may save congress and senate seats.

Look i agree it's horrific but when you are running a candidate with advanced dementia, best options are all absolutely shi7.

The clip of Biden will be part of presidential history and shown for a long time to come.

It may have been watched by a few but everyone will have seen clips or heard about it, as debates go it's the biggest in many years.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323278#Comment_122323278

Have you actually read the ruling, or are you only cross-posting talking points from Democratic Underground?

There certainly are arguments both ways over how to interpret the law because Congress wrote it poorly, but what the opinion doesn't do is say that bribes or gratuities are legal. The prohibitions against bribes and against gratuities (They are categorised differently in the legislation) remain on the books and such things remain illegal for federal employees pursuant to federal law, and any state or local prohibitions against either bribes or gratuities also remain in force.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122324088#Comment_122324088

So you have no issue with a town mayor walking into a company offices, who he had awarded $1 million worth of city contracts to, asking for money and been given $13,000?

Maxface

Regardless of if Biden should even be there because he is too old and cognitively dodgy, the other guy is the same, but also a criminal and abuser. Wants to take all the money and give it to the rich because he thinks people like him deserve it. Does not care one bit about the average American and super dangerous for the rest of the world.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StandUpComedy/comments/1dsamtw/the_presidential_debates/

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122324116#Comment_122324116

As a larger matter, having personal issues is nothing to do with what the law says. Something is either proscribed or it is not.

In this case, federal law prohibits both bribes and gratuities to federal employees under different sections. Indiana State law seems to prohibit both for Indiana "public servants" under a single section (42 IAC 1-5-9). Mr Snyder was tried by a Federal court using Federal law under an interpretation which read that the Federal section was intended to apply against bribery and gratuity to state and local employees, but against bribery only to federal employees, while federal gratuity rule-breaking would have a lesser punishment than if the federal law were applied to the state/local employees (which would get the bribery-level punishment), an odd conclusion. Had he been tried by an Indiana court under Indiana law, the Supreme Court would have not had to say anything at all.

Perhaps you should have more issue with why the Feds decided to try the case and not the State.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122323264#Comment_122323264

I suspect that the ruling will be "Presidential Immunity applies in some cases".

Essentially they will say that the President has immunity for "official acts" but not for personal acts but that whether something is "Official" or "Personal" needs to be clearly documented/codified and potentially argued in court.

Which on its face is the most accurate outcome , but for Trump it's a complete win as it punts any case against him more or less indefinitely as he can tie them all up in endless legal back and forth over the nuance of Official vs Personal.

Of course if he wins in November he'll just cancel all the cases anyway.

Stanley 1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122324457#Comment_122324457

Trump will ask the rich then to donate funds to GOP but also to him personally offshore, intention is to sort out personal finances and Trump Inc., borrowings.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122324626#Comment_122324626

No, I do have an issue however with two Justices, who have received $4,780,720 and $170,095 in "gratuities", not recusing themselves from this case. I also have an issue the conservative members of the court denying the meaning of the word "reward".

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325062#Comment_122325062

How so? From the opinion.

"Consider a bribe where the agreement was made before the act but the payment was made after the act. An official might try to defend against the bribery charge by saying that the payment was received only after the official act and therefore could not have “influenced” the act. By including the term “rewarded,” Congress made clear that the timing of the agreement is the key, not the timing of the payment, and thereby precluded such a potential defense. And think about the official who took a bribe before the official act but asserts as a defense that he would have taken the same act anyway and therefore was not “influenced” by the payment. To shut the door on that potential defense to a §666 bribery charge, Congress sensibly added the term “rewarded.” "

What part of the above do you take issue with?

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325178#Comment_122325178

…because "rewarded" also encompasses gratuities.

JACKSON, J., dissenting

"Dictionary definitions confirm what common sense tells
us about what it means to be rewarded. A “reward” is
“[t]hat which is given in return for good or evil done or received,” including “that which is offered or given for some
service or attainment.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2136 (2d ed. 1957). The verb form of the word is no
different. To “reward” means “to . . . recompense.” Ibid.
(defining “to reward” as “[t]o make a return, or give a reward, to (a person) or for (a service, etc.); to requite; recompense; repay”). Both definitions thus encompass payment
in recognition of an action that an official has already taken
or committed to taking. And neither requires there to be
some beforehand agreement about that exchange, i.e., a
quid pro quo."

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325255#Comment_122325255

But as the majority observed, and Justice Jackson seems to have missed, the verbiage in 666 specifically requires that the reward be made 'corruptly', thus differentiating it as a bribe from gratuities. Jackson's quoted definition encompasses both corruption and non-corruption possibilities. In order for there to be corruption involved, there must be some form of expectation, understanding or agreement, either express or implied.

Ahwell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325387#Comment_122325387

No, you're misrepresenting what Jackson actually stated…

"In short, §666(a)(1)(B) makes it a federal crime for state,
local, or tribal officials to corruptly solicit, accept, or agree
to accept certain payments in connection with business
worth $5,000 or more."

y0ssar1an22

.. .

political analyst

Given not just his age but also his unhealthy diet, it is astonishing that Trump recovered from Covid in 2020. It's also astonishing that his recovery didn't cause many voters to think, "Maybe Covid isn't as serious as it has been claimed to be".

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326245#Comment_122326245

"Man with 24/7 access to the absolute best possible available medical support recovers from illness" is not the same as "that illness can't be all that serious"

Stanley 1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326245#Comment_122326245

Always suspected he never had Covid, he played the popularity PR game to show how tough he was, isn't he a germophobic anyway………unless he was ordering in from Maccy Ds.

Cody montana

SCOTUS has ruled that Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in Trump v. United States.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326377#Comment_122326377

Not that precise; 'official acts' are immune.

crusd

It really is a Banana republic. If the supreme court were ruling purely on the law on not on their political beliefs there is no way 6 conservative Judges would always vote one way and 3 liberal judges would vote the other. Someone would a least some of the time find the opposite ruling to their side

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326377#Comment_122326377

That's some wishful thinking

y0ssar1an22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326377#Comment_122326377

congress should change the law but of course they wont.

odyssey06

From the BBC:

The justices are leaving it to a lower court to decide if two actions taken by Donald Trump were unofficial acts:

1. Trying to convince certain state officials that alleged election fraud meant they should change the state's electoral votes for Trump
2. Creating lists of what are commonly called "false electors" for the states to send to congress to case the electoral votes for Trump

These both relate to charges Trump faces in the state of Georgia.

Trump and 18 others are being prosecuted in Georgia for conspiracy to overturn the state's 2020 election results, which they deny.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cw0y5228v1yt

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326413#Comment_122326413

They don't always. It comes down to the individual cases

y0ssar1an22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326413#Comment_122326413

ACB (apparently the biggest trump supporter) wrote the dissent a few days ago in a 6-3 split.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326383#Comment_122326383

The complexity of determining what is an "Official" act and what isn't can't be under estimated.

For example - Let's say the President decides to re-introduce prohibition on Alcohol and then in another ruling legalises Marijuana.

Technically both those are "official" acts - He's allowed to introduce new laws.

But what if we then find out that he received a massive personal bribe from the Marijuana industry to make those changes?

Is that still an Official act even though it was done for personal gain??

They could spend years arguing the toss over the details here.

Brief_Lives

So, Biden can have Trump murdered now?

crusd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326442#Comment_122326442

They do in cases where its "political"

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326437#Comment_122326437

Given they were happy to point out what were definitely official acts you'd think they would have been able to point out that these obviously aren't 🙄

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326437#Comment_122326437

So , the lower court will say that they aren't official acts and Trump will appeal and we'll be back on the same treadmill and the cases will go nowhere any time soon.

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326477#Comment_122326477

Every topic has been politicised is the US. So every case is political

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326486#Comment_122326486

I know, can't believe that didn't give some indication, and yet… predictable of them.

duploelabs

Taking and then evading a search for classified documents cannot be declared official acts as he'd left office by then. So the case can go ahead (albeit at Canon's slow pace)

As for the Georgia case, didn't Mark Meadows attempt to challenge the case saying that his actions were official actions, yet was rebuffed in his attempt. So the Georgia case can go ahead.

As for the Jan 6th case, I presume what constitutes an official act will be a cornerstone to the arguments made in court.

The resending this back to the individual courts is a loss for Trump as his delaying tactics have run out, he'd better hope he wins this election because the clock has run out, and that's not to say some of them can now progress even before November

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326490#Comment_122326490

He can't appeal now though, he's swung and missed, you don't get a mulligan

duploelabs

Not now as trump isn't president, however Biden could kill Trump presently

hynesie08

With this ruling, and trumps declaration he'd be a dictator from day 1, couldn't Biden have him assassinated and get away with it?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326548#Comment_122326548

Appeal may be the wrong legal term , but he'll delay delay delay with motions and filings etc. etc.

They've just said that the lower court can decide what's "Official" for those two questions. Trump can disagree with their rulings and appeal on the basis of some ridiculous interpretation of some completely unconnected precedent as he has done before , they'll fail but it will take weeks/months to get through the process of telling him that he has no legal basis for it

PropJoe10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326573#Comment_122326573

It seems likely, as Biden could declare Trump a danger to the country and therefore it'd be an "official act". The US is a banana republic and undoubtedly on its way to a pretty dark and dystopian future.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122325431#Comment_122325431

OK, my error. In which case, how does it differ from the majority's practical usage of the word 'rewarded'?

Patrick2010

what’s with this from Trump, fake or not? Comments from the Q nuts are funny

https://x.com/shadowofezra/status/1807555259377635567?s=46&t=I5Ng64p4m8u3ocgC9fbhIA

Patrick2010

Does the ruling mean Biden can now sack the conservative judges and replace them with Democrats?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326778#Comment_122326778

Certainly that would seem to be the case - it would appear that as long as Biden followed the required procedure to have Trump declared "a threat to National security" he could do it and have him renditioned off somewhere never to be seen again.

Basically it would seem that as long as a President frames any action as "Official" and they have enough of the Senate onside to block impeachment , they can now do pretty much whatever they want.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326827#Comment_122326827

He'll probably comment on his media site on the USSC ruling so I'd go there for the "truth".

Edited around the word truth.

Patrick2010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326850#Comment_122326850

Don’t you need a truth social account?

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326876#Comment_122326876

I don't know. The news media sites will re-publish/broadcast on whatever he says [generally verbatim] anyway.

rossie1977

What an absolute laughable decision by the Supreme Court but then many of us saw this coming from moment Garland was denied his rightful place. Republicans have been playing the long game to turn the US into a conservative autocracy since Nixon was ousted.

Democrats should call the Supreme courts bluff and label Trump a threat to national security and have him arrested and barred from upcoming election now. They won't but they should.

aloyisious

The Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision in a major social media censorship case dealing a blow to GOP-led states. The Republican-led states of Texas and Florida passed law to restrain Big Tech giants from moderating 'objectionable' material on their platforms.

The states argued that the social media companies unlawfully tampered the free speech of users, particularly with conservative posts. The tech companies, on the other hand, said that the laws improperly limited their ability to exert 'editorial discretion' over the content on their sites.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion which puts the Republican states' social media laws on ice until the cases snake back through the court system. 'A State cannot prohibit speech to rebalance the speech market. That unadorned interest is not 'unrelated to the suppression of free expression,'' the court ruled Monday in the opinion by liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

Funny thing about this is that it [probably] means that "Truth Social" can't be interfered with or have what Trump publishes infringed on by state laws.