Pokebball Posted April 25 Posted April 25 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Gorsuch is making some good points here. He asks: "For every first term president, can't every action he takes be seen as in service of his own reelection." There is a serious issue here, and it's about what are "official acts" and what aren't. Seems to me the SCt is going to send it back to the trial judge to make a determination on what alleged Trump actions were "official acts" and what were "private acts." The devil will be in the details of that decision - how to decide that issue. For example: "actions should be considered official acts if they arguably fall within the President's powers." That would be a huge Trump win. On the other hand, a decision like "actions that are undertaken for a primarily personal electoral motive should be considered private acts" would be a huge win for the Special Counsel. Most attempts at slicing up degrees of actions, be they personal or official is getting into the ridiculous. Viewing this as a Trump win or loss is also ridiculous. The POTUS has to be given much discretion here. 1 1
ChiGoose Posted April 25 Posted April 25 10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Gorsuch is making some good points here. He asks: "For every first term president, can't every action he takes be seen as in service of his own reelection." There is a serious issue here, and it's about what are "official acts" and what aren't. Seems to me the SCt is going to send it back to the trial judge to make a determination on what alleged Trump actions were "official acts" and what were "private acts." The devil will be in the details of that decision - how to decide that issue. For example: "actions should be considered official acts if they arguably fall within the President's powers." That would be a huge Trump win. On the other hand, a decision like "actions that are undertaken for a primarily personal electoral motive should be considered private acts" would be a huge win for the Special Counsel. Since POTUS has no role in administration of elections, what is the theory that Trump’s actions inserting himself into the election process are official acts? 1
Pokebball Posted April 25 Posted April 25 9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Since POTUS has no role in administration of elections, what is the theory that Trump’s actions inserting himself into the election process are official acts? any candidate and their campaigns are in the process, right?
ChiGoose Posted April 25 Posted April 25 3 minutes ago, Pokebball said: any candidate and their campaigns are in the process, right? Anything done at the behest of a candidate or campaign is almost by definition not an official act. Candidates cannot order the government to do anything. They can file suits if they think something is being done incorrectly or illegally (like Gore and Trump did). But they can’t do things like order the DoJ to tell states not to certify electoral slates (like Gore did not but Trump did).
Pokebball Posted April 25 Posted April 25 30 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Anything done at the behest of a candidate or campaign is almost by definition not an official act. Candidates cannot order the government to do anything. They can file suits if they think something is being done incorrectly or illegally (like Gore and Trump did). But they can’t do things like order the DoJ to tell states not to certify electoral slates (like Gore did not but Trump did). Candidates and their campaigns have the right to challenge election results, and even take those challenges all the way to the SCOTUS, IMO
ChiGoose Posted April 25 Posted April 25 2 minutes ago, Pokebball said: Candidates and their campaigns have the right to challenge election results, and even take those challenges all the way to the SCOTUS, IMO Absolutely 100% correct. Candidates and their campaigns, however, do not have the right to tell people to sign fake elector certifications, order the DoJ to tell states not to certify elections, or tell DHS to seize voting machines. 2 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 25 Posted April 25 28 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Anything done at the behest of a candidate or campaign is almost by definition not an official act. Candidates cannot order the government to do anything. They can file suits if they think something is being done incorrectly or illegally (like Gore and Trump did). But they can’t do things like order the DoJ to tell states not to certify electoral slates (like Gore did not but Trump did). Its not really a matter of legality. Its a matter of Constitutional authority. Clearly, the power to certify elections belongs to Congress and not the Executive branch. You could argue it was illegal if the order was executed but I expect that after discussion it was not. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 25 Posted April 25 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Since POTUS has no role in administration of elections, what is the theory that Trump’s actions inserting himself into the election process are official acts? I didn't hear that explained by Trump's attorney. I have heard lawyers who support immunity claim that the general presidential authority to faithfully execute the laws would allow the president to intervene to try to correct some kind of election fraud, but nothing specific.
T master Posted April 25 Posted April 25 16 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Because the Dems, by and large, are feckless cowards. When Biden won, they thought to themselves “well, that’s the end of Trump” because they are dumb. So they drag up what ever they can to try to keep him under raps so he can't campaign he has something like 91 indictments against him & to this point the "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" proof hasn't been there to make a rock solid conviction which tells me they are fishing for any little thing they can get in hopes of stopping him . I remember another case where a Dr. went through some 5 + yrs of fighting with the gov't over certain things until they got 1 tiny thing that they finally found & put him in prison for 2 yrs to stop him from what he was doing which was truly helping people and the gov't took control of all his patents only for him to be released & be under the thumb of the US gov't . This sounds exactly like that and i believe that until they get that 1 tiny piece they will not stop with this nonsense !!
daz28 Posted April 25 Posted April 25 18 hours ago, Pokebball said: This is a pivot. You said it is not hurting him. You don't know that? He's the one who constantly says it's helping him. Him and right wing media. I never claimed anything, but that his followers don't care if he contradicts himself. That way he gets the cake and eats it, too. 1
daz28 Posted April 25 Posted April 25 5 hours ago, Doc said: The Dems thought the lawfare plot would hurt him. It had the opposite effect (not that Biden's terribleness isn't doing the most to help him). It still doesn't mean it isn't a PITA to have to go to court and pay millions of dollars defending himself. Certainly a PITA, but it's helping him, and that offsets it some at the expense of trust in our government. I'm not sure how much is actually coming out of his pockets, but I know he is getting a ton of money donated from it, too. If the Dems really thought that, then they're very unaware of reality. The idea that there's a giant conspiracy is laughable, but I'd concede that there's probably a boatload of people getting away with some of the things they go after trump for. Some people still believe his ridiculous belief that 6 states all conspired to rig the election against him. Those people need help.
daz28 Posted April 25 Posted April 25 5 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: Gorsuch is making some good points here. He asks: "For every first term president, can't every action he takes be seen as in service of his own reelection." There is a serious issue here, and it's about what are "official acts" and what aren't. Seems to me the SCt is going to send it back to the trial judge to make a determination on what alleged Trump actions were "official acts" and what were "private acts." The devil will be in the details of that decision - how to decide that issue. For example: "actions should be considered official acts if they arguably fall within the President's powers." That would be a huge Trump win. On the other hand, a decision like "actions that are undertaken for a primarily personal electoral motive should be considered private acts" would be a huge win for the Special Counsel. This Supreme Court is full of idiots, lead by Alito. He's basically arguing, because it might rain here, you should consider evacuating into a hurricane. Some of his arguments were astoundingly stupid. I would have never thought the handmaiden might be the smartest of them all. 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 25 Posted April 25 Just now, daz28 said: This Supreme Court is full of idiots, lead by Alito. He's basically arguing, because it might rain here, you should consider evacuating into a hurricane. Some of his arguments were astoundingly stupid. I would have never thought the handmaiden might be the smartest of them all. She’s smart and seems to have an occasional pragmatic streak. Alito just seems angry and bitter now, becoming more and more doctrinaire as the years go by. Usually the opposite happens with some experience. 1
daz28 Posted April 25 Posted April 25 23 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Usually the opposite happens with some experience. Classic narcissist.
daz28 Posted April 25 Posted April 25 23 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: "I love the uneducated"- Guy who carries a pizza like a book.
The Frankish Reich Posted April 26 Posted April 26 32 minutes ago, BillStime said: Our tax dollars hard at work... The good, the bad, and the ugly. 2
Recommended Posts