Donald J Trump

[YoungWillz 21,024]

On 04/08/2023 at 04:14, Joltin Joe said:

 

Arrowsmith did a good job explaining, I hope. Out of curiosity, how are crimes that cross boundaries within the UK treated? Which court would get say a case of treason, espionage, or the kingpin a drug ring or corrupt enterprise that operates in both England and Scotland for example. From what I see on Wikipedia, the Crown court seems like roughly the equivalent of US district court.

It has been a while since I was in practice, but as I recall, there are various jurisdiction rules, the main one being the place of commission of the crime. There are subsidiary rules which can allow crimes to be prosecuted elsewhere - for example a dispute of property might be tried where the property is located.

 

If the enterprise crosses borders, it can be tried in either jurisdiction - yes, folks, Scotland has different system of law from England. (Do not get me started on the attempts by politicians to homogenise the rules in Scotland by ridding of double jeopardy, the not proven verdict, etc - I could scream at the shite systems of other jurisdictions being imposed on us!). Generally there will be a look at where the greatest of the crimes were committed and an agreement as to jurisdiction in that event.

 

I hope that helps. Surely in the US there must be something similar in cross-state felonies/crimes that are not Federal offenses (sic)?

[arrowsmith 444]

2 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

I hope that helps. Surely in the US there must be something similar in cross-state felonies/crimes that are not Federal offenses (sic)?

Not really. Oftentimes crossing state lines during the commission of a felony creates a federal crime where none existed before (drug possession becomes drug trafficking - kidnapping becomes human trafficking, etc.). Otherwise, such as in the case of a serial killer, each state tries the crimes in their jurisdiction separately or elects not to as the case may be. 
 

Edit: That being said federal courts have original jurisdiction over certain civil suits which would otherwise be argued in state courts. Often when states are suing one another etc. 

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

7 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

I wouldn't go that far tbh. Banana republics also lock up their political opponents. Which is what a lot of Republicans are claiming is occurring here.

 

Look, I'm no fan of Agent Orange and another 4 years of him should scare to death everyone in the free world. But he is entitled to due process. I believe there is absolutely no doubt that he would be convicted in many many courts in the USA, simply because he is incapable of taking the stand in his own defence - something which a political prisoner would be more than content to do to get his message to those who could protest his incarceration. And he would have to take the stand to rebut the charges against him.

 

What he has done is expose the horrendous gaps in the Republic - Executive privilege, the inability to prosecute except through a political process, the political appointment of judges, etc etc. As a still relatively young country, the USA is still to find its feet on its internal processes and demons. He can rightly claim the process is biased against him simply because of all the politics everywhere - and the mistrust of politicians in general.

 

The whole system needs to look at this aberration - for that is what it is - in its history and take steps to ensure this never happens again, removing the politics from a whole swathe of its establishment infrastructure.

 

On a further point, when you are the one complaining the system, the judges, the jury, the election process and everything else is against you, maybe you are the one in the wrong. Defendants in the Jan 6th prosecutions soon found that out and their main line of defence is they were duped. By this guy. They didn't get to fly in on their own plane, play golf 90% of the time, have state secrets in their home or rally hundreds of folk to their aid.

 

In all honesty, the banana republic line was somewhat tongue in cheek. But even so, he's trying to win the election simply so he can pardon himself of the crimes for which he may be convicted. That's not how a democracy or the rule of law is meant to work. Being a politician does not mean you can act without consequence. The Republicans arguing this is politically motivated are the same ones who were shouting "lock her up" during the Republican Convention in 2016. And I know Hillary was not arrested during Trump's time in office - mainly because she did not commit a crime. The simple fact is he is accused of serious and very real crimes. You can't declassify a document by the power of thought. You cannot use business funds to pay off your ex-mistress to help your presidential campaign. And you certainly cannot incite a mob to attack a legally required ratification of an election which has been certified because you lost. And that's before we get to those wonderful phone calls telling the Georgia election officer to "find" some extra votes for him (charges which have yet to be filed). I am perfectly happy for him to have due process, he should of course be allowed the opportunity to defend himself. He is not allowed to claim the process is rigged, he is not allowed to claim the very real charges are politically motivated and he is not allowed to threaten prosecutors with what will happen if he wins the election.

 

Doesn't mind the politics when it comes to appointing more circuit court judges than any of his recent predecessors (mainly because the Senate wouldn't allow any to be appointed until he came to office). Doesn't mind the politics when it comes to appointing 3 justices to the Supreme Court giving it a 6-3 conservative majority which has rowed back Roe v Wade, rowed back on gay rights, and is doubtless set to row back on plenty more besides. And I understand this is the point you're making, that it's preposterous that the legal system in America is completely based on your political persuasions, from the district courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. But the same process existed in the 70s and Nixon could easily have been convicted of multiple felonies had Ford not stepped in to pardon him. (And I don't see why Biden or Pence or anybody else coming next should pardon Trump, the first man to incite a rebellion on the Capitol Building in God knows how many years (if ever?)).

 

I also think your suggestion that this is something the USA needs to wrangle with is wishful thinking at best. A mob invaded Congress, causing the Secret Service to shoot a woman intruder and the Vice President and the Speaker of the House's safety to be in severe jeopardy. And, in the aftermath, there were very few Republicans prepared to put any of the blame at the door at the President of the United States. They were also perfectly happy to acquit him in an impeachment trial and not even move to censure him for his language during the rally. If there can be no remote agreement on the egregiousness of his actions there, then what hope is there of reaching any consensus on removing the politics from the process entirely? I shudder to think what would have to happen for such a consideration to take place. Presumably the Second American Civil War.

[YoungWillz 21,024]

7 hours ago, RoverAndOut said:

I also think your suggestion that this is something the USA needs to wrangle with is wishful thinking at best. A mob invaded Congress, causing the Secret Service to shoot a woman intruder and the Vice President and the Speaker of the House's safety to be in severe jeopardy. And, in the aftermath, there were very few Republicans prepared to put any of the blame at the door at the President of the United States. They were also perfectly happy to acquit him in an impeachment trial and not even move to censure him for his language during the rally. If there can be no remote agreement on the egregiousness of his actions there, then what hope is there of reaching any consensus on removing the politics from the process entirely? I shudder to think what would have to happen for such a consideration to take place. Presumably the Second American Civil War.

Thing is, it wasn't always like it is today. I mean, sure there were political disagreements but when it came down to the very basics of democracy, both Republicans and Democrats knew where to draw the line. Especially with Nixon.

 

Now it is nuts. It is positively medieval, one side seeking the favour of the "king" and the other desperately trying to usurp him. They may all try and cloak it in democracy but let's face it on many occasions the public are electing populist people whose only intention is to become famous/infamous. I'm sure there are many good folk in Congress, but beating the crap out of each other for party purposes gets the USA nowhere.

 

I'm saying the USA will have to deal with the politics in its establishment at some point. Maybe not in our lifetimes. It took long enough for the UK to divide out the patronage of politicians in appointing judges, it may take a long time, but there are things which don't work for the people which eventually may need to change. You don't need a war for that, you need leaders with vision and determination and they do pop up from time to time.

 

I still do not understand a system that actively countenances giving the nuclear codes to a possible prison inmate.

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

Always worth reminding ourselves...

 

 

 

[dodrade 94]

On 01/08/2023 at 23:36, LovelyVincent said:

and yet Trump will still run throughout this. He's a petulant child and won't ever withdraw. what if he's in custody late in 2024 after hes won the election and cant attend the inauguration in person....im fairly sure that wont happen in a million years. But i wonder what would happen....

Presumably the Chief Justice would have to visit him in his cell to administer the oath, then he could immediately pardon himself and walk free.

[YoungWillz 21,024]

11 minutes ago, dodrade said:

Presumably the Chief Justice would have to visit him in his cell to administer the oath, then he could immediately pardon himself and walk free.

Again, what's with the self-pardoning thing?

 

In most jurisdictions of a "respectable" nature you cannot be judge and jury in your own case (nemo iudex in causa sua). Is this really the case in the USA? I thought that was up for dispute.

[arrowsmith 444]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

Again, what's with the self-pardoning thing?

Definitely an untested legal theory. It is not envisioned by the constitution. In the event it happened it would definitely be challenged. More likely is the outgoing president would see it as their duty to pardon a president elect who is in prison. 

[Tango854 278]

1 hour ago, arrowsmith said:

Definitely an untested legal theory. It is not envisioned by the constitution. In the event it happened it would definitely be challenged. More likely is the outgoing president would see it as their duty to pardon a president elect who is in prison. 

Why would the outgoing president pardon the incoming president who is in prison?

[arrowsmith 444]

Just now, Tango854 said:

Why would the outgoing president pardon the incoming president who is in prison?

For the sake of political stability and to allow the will of the voters to be carried out. Anyone old enough to remember the election in 2000 clearly knows that a prolonged period of not knowing who the president will be in January is a recipe for disaster. No president who holds that office in the appropriate regard would allow such an event if they could prevent it. 

[Tango854 278]

14 hours ago, arrowsmith said:

For the sake of political stability and to allow the will of the voters to be carried out. Anyone old enough to remember the election in 2000 clearly knows that a prolonged period of not knowing who the president will be in January is a recipe for disaster. No president who holds that office in the appropriate regard would allow such an event if they could prevent it. 

If that outgoing president is say the opposite party of the incoming president (who is in prison) why would he pardon him? 

[MortalCaso 1,624]

43 minutes ago, Tango854 said:

If that outgoing president is say the opposite party of the incoming president (who is in prison) why would he pardon him? 

Supposedly love of country is greater than love of party. What unifies us is greater than what divides us.

Etc. Etc.

 

If the situation were reversed, Trump wouldn't touch Biden with a 10-ft pole. That doesn't matter though I suppose.

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

Can I just point out the utter absurdity of suggesting that 70 million Americans would consider voting for an ex-President who has been incarcerated for either a) hoarding classified government documents or b) inciting a riot on the Capitol and who has promised to subvert the constitution and the rule of law by pardoning themselves and taking office? I mean, that's what we've been discussing for the past 7 posts. I mean, actually discussing it. Whether it's legal, whether it's ethical, whether it's morally appropriate or politically expedient. IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

Independents might not love Biden, but if the Republicans insist on nominating Trump, they're not going near him. The man is a walking talking dumpster fire that has taken the Republican Party with him. Just think: in an alternate universe, President Hillary Clinton is coming to the end of her second term of office and Trump owns a more extreme version of Fox whose lead anchor is Alex Jones. 

[Tango854 278]

8 hours ago, MortalCaso said:

Supposedly love of country is greater than love of party. What unifies us is greater than what divides us.

Etc. Etc.

 

If the situation were reversed, Trump wouldn't touch Biden with a 10-ft pole. That doesn't matter though I suppose.

I feel like your understanding of this comes down to a misunderstanding of why Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. 

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

A good overview of how hard the trials are that Trump is facing over the coming months: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66404233

 

TLDR:

Florida, classified documents - definitely a crime, jury may be favourable to him though

New York, porn star payments - difficult to make a felony, easier to make a misdemeanour

Washington, election fraud - lots of evidence in support, jury will likely be hostile but crucial to prove intent, and this may be the key thing to prove

[maryportfuncity 10,639]

1 hour ago, RoverAndOut said:

A good overview of how hard the trials are that Trump is facing over the coming months: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66404233

 

TLDR:

Florida, classified documents - definitely a crime, jury may be favourable to him though

New York, porn star payments - difficult to make a felony, easier to make a misdemeanour

Washington, election fraud - lots of evidence in support, jury will likely be hostile but crucial to prove intent, and this may be the key thing to prove

 

 

Yeah, and we may well have one more - specifically that attempt to find more than 11,000 votes in Georgia - to come. 

 

I know there are loads of hard working people happy to donate cash to the Trump cause, but given the cost of electioneering and fighting massive legal cases in different states at the same time, this is still going to hit his finances, right?

[Charlotte's Controller 195]

Whatever the result of the Trump court cases I can see him being eventually set up a la Futurama politicians.

 

A disembodied head in a glass vessel of formaldehyde with a basic AI set up set up to rant with a limited vocabulary. He could live forever at Mar a Lago and be worshipped by his followers who probably would not see any change in his appeal. A bit like a modern day Elvis.

 

https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_M._Nixon's_Head

[maryportfuncity 10,639]

1 hour ago, Charlotte's Controller said:

Whatever the result of the Trump court cases I can see him being eventually set up a la Futurama politicians.

 

A disembodied head in a glass vessel of formaldehyde with a basic AI set up set up to rant with a limited vocabulary. He could live forever at Mar a Lago and be worshipped by his followers who probably would not see any change in his appeal. A bit like a modern day Elvis.

 

https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_M._Nixon's_Head

 

 

Great point, if a bit harsh on the enigmatic and ever-morphing Elvis. 

 

 

[Death Impends 7,953]

1 hour ago, Charlotte's Controller said:

Whatever the result of the Trump court cases I can see him being eventually set up a la Futurama politicians.

 

A disembodied head in a glass vessel of formaldehyde with a basic AI set up set up to rant with a limited vocabulary. He could live forever at Mar a Lago and be worshipped by his followers who probably would not see any change in his appeal. A bit like a modern day Elvis.

 

https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_M._Nixon's_Head

 

I love the backstory behind Nixon in Futurama.

 

His voice actor Billy West was watching the 1960 presidential debates as a kid, and thought Nixon was turning into a werewolf because of his 5 o'clock shadow. The image stuck with him, and would lead to Futurama Nixon frequently howling "haroo".

[TQR 14,384]

Charged with conspiracy to commit forgery by Georgia state prosecutors (who are WOKE LEFTY FAKE NEWS LEFTY BIDEN LEFT LOSERS. SAD.)

[Whitehouse 872]

A year after she became fertilizer for her ex-hubbie's Bedminster Golf Course in New Jersey, Ivana Trump's grave is looking overgrown and neglected. It tells a lot about the Donald. She's just a taxbreak six feet down. Out of mind and out of sight.

[MortalCaso 1,624]

21 minutes ago, Whitehouse said:

A year after she became fertilizer for her ex-hubbie's Bedminster Golf Course in New Jersey, Ivana Trump's grave is looking overgrown and neglected. It tells a lot about the Donald. She's just a taxbreak six feet down. Out of mind and out of sight.

I've yet to see any proof this is real. These pictures were on Reddit/Twitter before Dailymail snatched them. 

[gcreptile 10,963]

There's a theory he buried her there for tax reasons, there exists a tax reduction for cemeteries.

[Joltin Joe 149]

On 09/08/2023 at 08:22, maryportfuncity said:

I know there are loads of hard working people happy to donate cash to the Trump cause, but given the cost of electioneering and fighting massive legal cases in different states at the same time, this is still going to hit his finances, right?

It already is. He's spending more than he's bringing in and I think there is at least a 50/50 chance his legal bills hit 100 million. I'm sure he himself becomes the target of some opportunistic con-men along the way. He who lives by the grift, dies by the grift. As you stated earlier, this is certainly not going to help his state of mind, or his blood pressure being an obese exercise phobic near 80 year old with a shit diet. I guess he does have being a teetotaler and life long nonsmoker going for him though.

 

https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/11/spiraling-legal-bills-threaten-trump-with-a-cash-crunch/

[maryportfuncity 10,639]

Georgia charges as expected, along with a slew of former staff. Be interesting to see whether anyone lower down the Trumpian food chain will cop a plea bargain.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66505804