Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Trump's first indictment

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Trump's first indictment
Post by isaac_newton   » Tue Apr 04, 2023 9:03 am

isaac_newton
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1182
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:37 am
Location: Brighton, UK

Well, well.. the long awaited day finaly arrives :)

AND looks like many, many more to come :D :D

couldn't have happened to a nastier piece of ****

""When troubles come, they come not single spies but in battalions." (Claudius, Hamlet Act IV, Scene V).
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by Michael Everett   » Wed Apr 05, 2023 11:45 pm

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2610
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

And judging from multiple comments (including CNN's description of it being "underwhelming"), the prosecutors were so keen to get Trump into court that they forgot to check that their case was structurally sound.

This has several hallmarks of a slow-motion trainwreck already, one that Trump may yet emerge from with bruises and contusions, but otherwise unharmed.

Relevant XKCD...
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by zyffyr   » Fri Apr 07, 2023 5:12 am

zyffyr
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 5:26 pm

There are so many major flaws in the indictment that no competent judge will let the case survive a motion to dismiss. So, even if the trial judge were to let things go forward there is basically no chance that things survive the appeal process.

Doing it this way will actually make things harder for any other prosecutor that tries to go after him. Unfortunately, this particular case is nothing but short sighted political posturing.
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by Daryl   » Fri Apr 07, 2023 6:02 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3482
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

To a distant observer the whole angst about should we or shouldn't we charge an ex President is strange. Many developed countries have legitimately charged ex leaders be they President's or Prime Ministers. Done properly it should strengthen your democracy. Obviously no free society should support political witch hunts, but it does appear that Trump should be up to his a**e in alligators by now.
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by Joat42   » Fri Apr 07, 2023 9:13 pm

Joat42
Admiral

Posts: 2138
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

Daryl wrote:To a distant observer the whole angst about should we or shouldn't we charge an ex President is strange. Many developed countries have legitimately charged ex leaders be they President's or Prime Ministers. Done properly it should strengthen your democracy. Obviously no free society should support political witch hunts, but it does appear that Trump should be up to his a**e in alligators by now.

The trick with avoiding getting eaten by alligators is throwing the nearest person into the water while you run off.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by n7axw   » Sat Apr 08, 2023 12:52 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Michael Everett wrote:And judging from multiple comments (including CNN's description of it being "underwhelming"), the prosecutors were so keen to get Trump into court that they forgot to check that their case was structurally sound.

This has several hallmarks of a slow-motion trainwreck already, one that Trump may yet emerge from with bruises and contusions, but otherwise unharmed.

Relevant XKCD...


Hi Michael, I guess from my point of view, it would seem that there are so much evideñce that it would take a very poor prosecutor to not build a very strong case with it.

Don

_
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by Daryl   » Sat Dec 02, 2023 3:43 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3482
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

I attend this site for a number of reasons. Being a fan of Weber is obviously front and centre.
However another interest in trying to map the difference in societies between the US and other countries (like the US. UK, EU and my own Australia). No disrespect implied or meant, just genuine interest. The old adage of, "'ÜS and UK, two countries divided by a single language, comes to mind"'.
A current `situation is how the Trump camp seems to be saying that ex Presidents have different rules applying to them than other citizens.
Not saying that we are correct, but in Australia, the thought of an ex Prime Minister being treated differently would be treated with derision.
Possibly in the UK, their Royal Family might get a pass, but I doubt that also.
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by Michael Everett   » Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:38 am

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2610
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

Daryl wrote:Possibly in the UK, their Royal Family might get a pass, but I doubt that also.

we have a Prince or two who can confirm that they didn't get away scot free for errors of judgement...

And of course, there's the historical precedent of King Charles the First...
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: Trump's first indictment
Post by The E   » Sat Dec 02, 2023 11:43 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Daryl wrote:A current `situation is how the Trump camp seems to be saying that ex Presidents have different rules applying to them than other citizens.
Not saying that we are correct, but in Australia, the thought of an ex Prime Minister being treated differently would be treated with derision.
Possibly in the UK, their Royal Family might get a pass, but I doubt that also.


Turns out, at least one US court doesn't think being or having been President is a "get out of jail" card.

Defendant contends that the Constitution grants him “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility” while he served as President of the United States, so long as he was not both impeached and
convicted for those actions. Immunity Motion at 8, 11–13 (formatting modified).
The Constitution’s text, structure, and history do not support that contention.
No court—or any other branch of government—has ever accepted it. And this court will not so hold. Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong “get-out-of-jail-free” pass. Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.
Top

Return to Politics