Trump's Troubles

Fani Willis: MAGAts say, "big conflict of interest. Toss the case!"
Ginni Thomas: Rational people say, "this woman was involved in the planning of 1/6. Clarence should recuse from anything insurrection related." MAGAts say <crickets>.

 

Because contrary to what he wants people to believe, it's not actually a witch hunt and they treated with him kid gloves because he's the former President.

 

FBI: What's in that locked closet and your secret room, Donald?
DJT: Nothing but some nudes of Mike Johnson in some very compromising situations.
FBI: OK, no need to go in there.

 

DC circuit Court unanimously rules that Trump is not immune from prosecution. A couple highlights:


"It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity."

"We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results."

 

OK, getting closer to justice...

 

Should have been settled law a long time ago that a potus or former potus or a candidate for potus is not. above. the. law. Yet here we are.

 

A conservative SC still has to agree. Then he has to be prosecuted before the election in case he wins the presidency, and convicted, and the case(s) need to survive appeals.
So a step or two is left.

 

Hopefully the SCOTUS will end this delaying stunt by Trump's attorneys once and for all by denying his request for a writ of certiorari.

 

This would seem to be one of the founding principles of our country- that no man is above the law. Not sure what the argument could be that would cause us to overlook that.

 

They're trying to put forth a strawman argument that if the President isn't immune from prosecution, then he could be prosecuted for executing his duties like authorizing split second drone strikes that result in casualties. Trump's actions obviously don't fall into that category, but that's the argument they're trying to make from what I've seen.

 

Yep, I see the basis for that argument yet W. Bush found legal support for “enhanced interrogation” and was not charged.

 

Funny

 

I’m not so sure it should have been settled “long ago.” How many times have we been faced with a president oblivious to any semblance of the law? The only one we can really point to is Nixon, who was quickly pardoned before criminal prosecution. Trump is the first one whose arrogance, hubris and contemptuous disregard for any law or authority that has brought us here.

 

Point taken, but why is it even a question? No one is above the law. We either stand for that or we don't.

 

The relevant question is whether he performed these alleged crimes in service of the country or as part of his day to day job. As mentioned, he can’t get sued or prosecuted for legal government activity. A mother can’t sue for sending her kid to die in a war for instance. That’s a perfectly logical precedent to keep or anlmost everything he passed or did would result in a suit. Just about every law has winners and losers.
The obvious answer here though is that he performed them in service of himself and his delusional needs. Which is why it was an obvious call for any non biased court. The USSC though has a more ideological tilt, and he appointed three of them. So we will see.

 

His service to the country was, as POTUS, to uphold the Constitution. You could say he had a duty to investigate voter fraud, which he did. But when Trump lost all the cases in court, and his own experts came back saying there was nowhere near the amount of fraud to overturn a single state's election, let alone multiple states, then it was Trump's duty to abide by the election results. Jan 6 and the coordinated attempts to overturn an election is the opposite of upholding the Constitution.

 

I think we are ultimately saying the same thing. Nobody would expect a President to act the way he did, all because he lost an election.

 

There is no role for the POTUS as an investigator of election outcomes.

 

The POTUS, as head of the Executive branch, has control of the Attorney General. We want the AG to be independent, but as part of carrying out election laws and ensuring elections are free and fair, I would say it falls upon the POTUS to investigate should there be any questions. Having Barr investigate wasn't improper. Hiring an independent company wasn't an awful idea either, as this is election integrity we're talking about. It's important. But when Barr came back and told Trump there was no major fraud, and the expert came back and confirmed, Trump should have dropped it.

But Trump didn't. And in fact, he attempted an illegal, Unconstitutional autogolpe attempt. Which is what the trial should be about.