Donald J Trump

[RoverAndOut 4,086]

I think it all depends on the definition of "official acts", something that will reoccur multiple times over the next 50 years of Supreme Court cases.

[RoverAndOut 4,086]

OK, having dug into this some more, does this mean Nixon was immune from prosecution for Watergate? Because the people he was conspiring with were government employees in official capacities?

[YoungWillz 19,927]

6 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

I think it all depends on the definition of "official acts", something that will reoccur multiple times over the next 50 years of Supreme Court cases.

Order.

 

All acts of mine while I am President or acting President shall be deemed to be official acts within the meaning defined in the Supreme Court ruling of 1 July 2024.

 

Signed

 

Donald J Trump.

[YoungWillz 19,927]

9 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Order.

 

All acts of mine while I am President or acting President shall be deemed to be official acts within the meaning defined in the Supreme Court ruling of 1 July 2024.

 

Signed

 

Donald J Trump.

Easy Peasy.

 

Once that is signed he can't be convicted and I would suggest renders the meaning of high crimes and misdemeano(u)rs meaningless - because he would never be able to have demonstrably committed any.

[MortalCaso 1,475]

34 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Easy Peasy.

 

Once that is signed he can't be convicted and I would suggest renders the meaning of high crimes and misdemeano(u)rs meaningless - because he would never be able to have demonstrably committed any.

It didn't seem that open ended IMO. 

 

It's not necessarily defined by the President what an official act is.

[RoverAndOut 4,086]

7 minutes ago, MortalCaso said:

It didn't seem that open ended IMO. 

 

It's not necessarily defined by the President what is an official act. 

 

On the flip side, it is not clear who does define what an official act is. That point forms part of John Roberts' opinion, detailing essentially why prosecuting a President for crimes while in office will be a long drawn out and complicated process.

[YoungWillz 19,927]

I don't know - I have postulated a scenario. And it isn't necessarily the President deciding - it's the Executive Branch. 

 

You'd have thought after 200 odd years that this sort of stuff would be long decided. It's not that long ago Trump was trampling over all norms, conventions and expected rules of behaviour. And the USA was a basket case politically then. Think what this opens the door to in Trump 2025. And he'll be lame duck in a couple of years anyway, spending his time on the golf course.

 

I just think if you were scared of your government's power now, be afraid of what this invites. Could anyone realistically hold that position in the future without the temptation to now abuse it?

 

Ah, well, over to the American people.

 

 

[RoverAndOut 4,086]

25 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

I don't know - I have postulated a scenario. And it isn't necessarily the President deciding - it's the Executive Branch. 

 

You'd have thought after 200 odd years that this sort of stuff would be long decided. It's not that long ago Trump was trampling over all norms, conventions and expected rules of behaviour. And the USA was a basket case politically then. Think what this opens the door to in Trump 2025. And he'll be lame duck in a couple of years anyway, spending his time on the golf course.

  

I just think if you were scared of your government's power now, be afraid of what this invites. Could anyone realistically hold that position in the future without the temptation to now abuse it?

 

Ah, well, over to the American people.

 

The only thing keeping this point sacred is the fact that three-quarters of the states need to approve a constitutional amendment, so Trump can't change the rules to stand for a third term. Likewise, I would guess he can't "pull a Putin" and claim that the rules is you can't serve more than 2 CONSECUTIVE terms, and since there's been a 4-year gap, he can start a new 8-year term if he wins in 2028.

[arrowsmith 365]

I get most of you are from countries other than the U.S. so let’s clear up a few misconceptions. 
 

@YoungWillz

Executive orders are not laws. They are directives for how federal agencies carry out laws. Any such executive order of this kind would have the same force after this ruling as it did before - none. 
 

As for the other mention an executive order in which Biden is able to disqualify Trump on the grounds of him being a felon, just no. Again that’s not how executive orders work. Felon voting is a state matter. Qualifications for the presidency are explicitly stated in the constitution and only an amendment to said document can change them. 

[YoungWillz 19,927]

Happy to be corrected @arrowsmith .

 

It's not like we haven't been here before in recent years when legal scholars are rushing for the TV studios and the courts about what a President has done. Let's hope that sort of nonsense stops.

 

As I say, over to you guys. Seems to me the Constitution and the institutions need a rest from being tested and the people's priorities put first.

[arrowsmith 365]

50 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

As I say, over to you guys. Seems to me the Constitution and the institutions need a rest from being tested and the people's priorities put first.

From your lips to God’s ears. 

[RoverAndOut 4,086]

Well, if we want to see how Donald J. Trump is going to solemnly and responsibly interpret this new ruling, his lawyers are already saying the hush money conviction needs overturning. 

[TQR 13,459]

[Master Obit 534]

3 minutes ago, TQR said:

It's absolutely horrifying to read that post. Seeing something completely inexcusable and responsible for so much distress in the world. The poster really must learn to put the day first in the date, not the month.

[maryportfuncity 10,259]

So, good to see posts above about how American law actually works

 

The ruling has clearly exposed divisions and a demand on the law the original drafters never thought it would face (i.e., a president behaving like Trump). 

 

If the Democrats succeed in ditching Biden and a much younger candidate steps in, would s/he be able to promise changes in the laws on presidential power and - if so - would that be a vote winner amongst the undecideds? 

 

[jimbean1121 119]

mentioned a completely normal amount of times in new epstein docs

[arrowsmith 365]

5 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

So, good to see posts above about how American law actually works

 

The ruling has clearly exposed divisions and a demand on the law the original drafters never thought it would face (i.e., a president behaving like Trump). 

 

If the Democrats succeed in ditching Biden and a much younger candidate steps in, would s/he be able to promise changes in the laws on presidential power and - if so - would that be a vote winner amongst the undecideds? 

 

Probably not. The ruling is rather broad. What I suspect will happen, if the trial judge is disinclined to drag their feet, is that the judge will take a broad view of the opinion in order to force the DC circuit to make of what they can. Depending on how that ruling goes, the Supreme Court will have to write the decision they avoided writing here. 
 

I don’t want Trump to win for many reasons but the foremost of them has just become clarity on this opinion. I think it was decided rightly but in a cowardly fashion. If he wins it’s all over. He can have the justice department end the investigation. If he doesn’t it will get properly hashed out.
 

The state court trials are a different story. They are nominated/elected in a different fashion and care less about their place in the system/history. 
 

Regardless, it is impossible to prosecute a sitting president. So if he wins there are issues of statutes of limitations and/or political will that will hamper what happens with these prosecutions in 2029.