Now the good news. The state judge in the New York case were Trump was found guilty is refusing to vacate the verdict. He is saying while the SCOTUS is saying a president in office cannot be federally charged for official acts, it does not apply to a president elect. Besides, it is a state charge.
No, that’s not what the order (which can be read here) says, nor is what the article to which you linked says—at least not so far as any distinction was made between “federally charged” and “a state charge.”
That this was a state charge is irrelevant, and was not (as far as I can find) discussed in the order.
Short answer: yes. State crimes are different from federal crimes. The lawyers can explain this.
Short answer: you’re wrong. When it comes to presidential immunity after the recent SCOTUS case, presidential immunity, if applicable, would apply in federal court and in state courts.
He has already been charged and convicted by a state court.
The recent SCOTUS case holds that presidents have immunity from prosecution for “official acts” done as president. The court also held that evidence regarding official acts cannot be used in a prosecution where presidential immunity does not exist. That’s what Trump argued happened in this case.
The New York case involves acts related to candidacy and personal acts while president, not to official acts as president. Trump argued that the case should be dismissed because evidence of “official acts” was introduced. The court held that the evidence in question was not evidence of “official acts,” and that even if it was, any error was “harmless error,” meaning that even if the evidence had not been admitted, Trump still would have been convicted because the remaining evidence overwhelmingly established guilt.
Next time I'll try* to shut up till @Nick Tamen shows up to explain things. Something about having gone to law school instead of just watching Law and Order episodes seems to make a difference.
Next time I'll try* to shut up till @Nick Tamen shows up to explain things. Something about having gone to law school instead of just watching Law and Order episodes seems to make a difference.
*Note I said "try."
(To be fair, I’m not sure it always makes as much difference as one might hope, )
Ok @Nick Tamen, my initial comment about the state judge refusing to vacate the verdict in the hush money case, I did say the judge refused to do it because the SCOTUS decision did not apply to an act by a president-elect. I looked back at the report and I see that was the argument by the PA. Yes, the judge did decide the hush money issue was a "deeply personal decision." It looked to me that the judge was agreeing with the PA's argument.
Then, @Hugal, asked "So he can be charged by the state." My answer to the question was Yes, meaning if he violated a state law he could be charged. The hush money case was in violation of a state law, not a federal law. I said nothing about whether the SCOTUS decision would, or would not apply to the case. Since the state judge said the hush money deal was a deeply personal act, the SCOTUS decision does not apply.
Witness the Georgia election interference case. Trump was president at the time. As president he tried to get the Georgia State Secretary to overturn the decision of the people. Now, was that an official presidential act? Prosecutor Willis was acting as if it was not an official act. Even though she has been removed from the case by a state appeals court, the case is still considered active. The appeals court said it is now up to the Council of Prosecuting Attorney's to name a replacement. Of course, Willis still has the right to appeal to the State Supreme Court. AP Report Here.
My bet is that the Georgia Supreme Court will refuse to restore Ms Willis, and the Council of Prosecuting Attorneys will refuse to name a replacement, effectively killing the case.
Moving on--
Now Trump and Elon Musky are interfering with the Congress and the continuing resolution to fund the government through to March. They claim it has too much pork in it. Forget that it would fund relief efforts in the Carolinas, or that it would give him time to set up his own budget proposals by March, or that it would give government workers a steady paycheck into next year.
These twin snakes are like the Grinches who stole Christmas.
Ok @Nick Tamen, my initial comment about the state judge refusing to vacate the verdict in the hush money case, I did say the judge refused to do it because the SCOTUS decision did not apply to an act by a president-elect. I looked back at the report and I see that was the argument by the PA. Yes, the judge did decide the hush money issue was a "deeply personal decision." It looked to me that the judge was agreeing with the PA's argument.
Then, @Hugal, asked "So he can be charged by the state." My answer to the question was Yes, meaning if he violated a state law he could be charged. The hush money case was in violation of a state law, not a federal law. I said nothing about whether the SCOTUS decision would, or would not apply to the case. Since the state judge said the hush money deal was a deeply personal act, the SCOTUS decision does not apply.
Now the good news. The state judge in the New York case were Trump was found guilty is refusing to vacate the verdict. He is saying while the SCOTUS is saying a president in office cannot be federally charged for official acts, it does not apply to a president elect. Besides, it is a state charge. News Report here
As I had said, tRump and Muskie tried to interfere with the Continuing Resolution over the last couple of days. They even had Vance try to work at getting the result they wanted yesterday and today. AND THEY FELL FLAT. But the final vote was 174-235-1. Thirty-eight Republicans flouted Trump and voted against the continuing resolution.
If we are counting. With Gaetz having to withdraw because he did not have the votes, and the loss of the CR, Rump and Company are batting 0% The end is nearer than I thought. Trump will simply not get everything he wants.
Quite so. I was speaking to a Canadian friend today and she was absolutely incandescent at the effrontery of the bloviating cockwomble referring to Canada as a "state" and Mr Trudeau as "Governor". How bloody dare he?
The whimsical thought strikes me that the emoji you've used looks as Trump would look, if the strange furry/hairy animal that lives on his head were to leave him.
He cannot leave NATO without the consent of Congress. He either has to have 2/3 of the Senate to withdraw or Congress as a who needs to pass authorization to withdraw. Of course, Trump is claiming Congress cannot interfere with the president when it comes to foreign policy. But there are enough in Congress who are saying, "Try us."
This will likely end up in the courts; and, if played right can be delayed until the next president.
Of course the US army has a lot more firepower than the Panamanian citizens militia. It would be a walkaway, like Granada. Which is why I think the Panamanians should put dynamite in the earthen cliffs above the narrow parts of the canal. If the US manages to take over, BOOM there goes the canal.
Of course the US army has a lot more firepower than the Panamanian citizens militia. It would be a walkaway, like Granada. Which is why I think the Panamanians should put dynamite in the earthen cliffs above the narrow parts of the canal. If the US manages to take over, BOOM there goes the canal.
It would also probably start a guerilla war. The Unites States does not do very well with guerilla wars.
Actually, I do not think the American people would go for another war, especially since it is a settled issue through the treaty. I would hope the military would also refuse to obey an illegal order.
Of course the US army has a lot more firepower than the Panamanian citizens militia. It would be a walkaway, like Granada. Which is why I think the Panamanians should put dynamite in the earthen cliffs above the narrow parts of the canal. If the US manages to take over, BOOM there goes the canal.
It would also probably start a guerilla war. The Unites States does not do very well with guerilla wars.
Actually, I do not think the American people would go for another war, especially since it is a settled issue through the treaty. I would hope the military would also refuse to obey an illegal order.
The American people are rarely consulted when the President decides to go to war.
Of course the US army has a lot more firepower than the Panamanian citizens militia. It would be a walkaway, like Granada. Which is why I think the Panamanians should put dynamite in the earthen cliffs above the narrow parts of the canal. If the US manages to take over, BOOM there goes the canal.
It would also probably start a guerilla war. The Unites States does not do very well with guerilla wars.
Actually, I do not think the American people would go for another war, especially since it is a settled issue through the treaty. I would hope the military would also refuse to obey an illegal order.
The American people are rarely consulted when the President decides to go to war.
There would be a protest movement never seen since the Viet Nam War, likely much larger, since approximately half of the voters never voted for him. I don't even think he can do it through the War Powers Resolution.
Of course from over here so much of this is just hyperbole. Maybe the ravings of a sad old man. Keep Mr Trump happy with cheeseburgers and better heads can run the country. At least that’s my hope. He may decide to try and do some of them.
I wouldn't count on it. Protesting US wars in my adult lifetime has been a lonely business.
At the start of the Viet Nam war there were only a few protesters, but by the time Johnson announced he would not run for re-election nearly half the population, it seemed, were against the war. In 1972, when the North began its final offensive, Americans were not willing to recommit to saving the South.
In the case of Panama, half the American already do not want to go to war there. So I think the protests will be loud and strong from the very beginning.
I wouldn't count on it. Protesting US wars in my adult lifetime has been a lonely business.
At the start of the Viet Nam war there were only a few protesters, but by the time Johnson announced he would not run for re-election nearly half the population, it seemed, were against the war. In 1972, when the North began its final offensive, Americans were not willing to recommit to saving the South.
Right, when I was 9. The vast majority of Americans have no memory of this.
I wouldn't count on it. Protesting US wars in my adult lifetime has been a lonely business.
At the start of the Viet Nam war there were only a few protesters, but by the time Johnson announced he would not run for re-election nearly half the population, it seemed, were against the war. In 1972, when the North began its final offensive, Americans were not willing to recommit to saving the South.
Right, when I was 9. The vast majority of Americans have no memory of this.
Nothing like taking what I said out of context. The point I was making was when half of Americans were against the war, Johnson realized the war was lost. Half of Americans already indicated they do not support Trump. Trump cannot go to war with half of the Americans already do not support him or it.
I wouldn't count on it. Protesting US wars in my adult lifetime has been a lonely business.
At the start of the Viet Nam war there were only a few protesters, but by the time Johnson announced he would not run for re-election nearly half the population, it seemed, were against the war. In 1972, when the North began its final offensive, Americans were not willing to recommit to saving the South.
Right, when I was 9. The vast majority of Americans have no memory of this.
Nothing like taking what I said out of context.
Well, given that @Ruth said “[p]rotesting US wars in my adult lifetime has been a lonely business” (emphasis mine), and you responded by voting the Vietnam War, I’d say she was very aware of context when she responsed that she was 9 at the time.
Thanks, @Nick Tamen, yes. I think it's very unlikely that we would see protests on anything approaching the scale of the 60s anti-war protests, not least because there is no military draft. The largest war protest in the US since the Vietnam War was the protest against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and while that affected support from other countries, it did nothing in the US.
I am doubtful that large-scale protests make a difference in the US any more anyway. I was at the Women's March in LA in 2017, along with 3/4 million other people - what difference did it make? The protests after George Floyd's murder were the largest in US history - and again, what's changed?
I am doubtful that large-scale protests make a difference in the US any more anyway. I was at the Women's March in LA in 2017, along with 3/4 million other people - what difference did it make? The protests after George Floyd's murder were the largest in US history - and again, what's changed?
Well, we had Biden for four years. He got us out of the longest war we have ever been in. He gave clemency to 37 of those who had been on death row. Trump cannot undo that. Any person condemned to die under Trump will probably not be executed during his term, given the lengthy amount of time it takes to bring a person to trial, and the lengthy appeals that will ensue. He passed some key legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act. Trump may want to undo it, but he can't.
The protest of George Floyd changed many laws. More police have been tried for abuses they would have gotten away with just a few years ago. You will see many changes in blue states in particular.
There were more protests during the first Trump administration. I believe we will see even more. In two years, Congress will change, and I hope to God there will be enough votes to get him out of office before his term in up.
Justice comes in waves. There are crests and there are troughs. We will get through the next few years.
'We will get through the next few years.' Perhaps, but will the rest of the world? I look at events in the Baltic, and ask myself if the fist moves in WWIII may not already have been made. But perhaps I am straying off thread.
@Gramps49: How did the 2017 Women's March contribute to Biden's election? No one names that when discussing why he won in 2020. And what laws changed after the George Floyd protests? What statistics can you marshall to show more police have been tried for abuses?
Early exit polls showed President-elect Biden winning the votes of 57 percent of women, compared to 45 percent of men. In comparison, President Trump won 42 percent of women’s votes and 53 percent of men’s votes. (MSNBC)
I would also refer you to the wikipedia article on the 2020 election
The central issues of the election included the public health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; civil unrest in reaction to the police murder of George Floyd, the Supreme Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, and the future of the Affordable Care Act.[13] Due to the ongoing pandemic, a record number of ballots were cast early and by mail.[14] Thirty-eight states had over half of all votes cast using these methods, and only three states had fewer than 25%.[15]
Fuck me ragged. I learn from the BBC that if you're Donald Trump, the penalty for falsifying business accounts to cover a payment to a porn actor to not talk about alleged services rendered is an Unconditional Discharge.
Fuck me ragged. I learn from the BBC that if you're Donald Trump, the penalty for falsifying business accounts to cover a payment to a porn actor to not talk about alleged services rendered is an Unconditional Discharge.
This crime in itself is a relatively minor one, and clearly the fact of him having committed it was immaterial to voters. I think a custodial sentence was always unlikely, but I'm surprised it doesn't look like there will be even a token punishment. It would be interesting to know what sentences were handed down to others convicted of the same offences.
This crime in itself is a relatively minor one, . . .
That should be crimes, plural. Thirty-four felonies. Usually anything that's a felony is considered a serious crime, not "relatively minor one(s)". And yes, elite impunity can be infuriating, especially when applied to a series of deliberate felonious acts perpetrated as part of a larger conspiracy. What I don't get is why so many people who aren't usually Trump apologists to go out of their way to minimize his criminal actions.
It does mean that a convicted felon will be sworn in as President.
It may make an interesting precedent for defence lawyers: "If a convicted criminal such as trump walks free to pursue his career, my client deserves no less for a lesser offence".
That won't fly, and it would be a desperate lawyer who'd try it. IMHO the judge is bowing to the reality that a) a custodial sentence could not and would not be carried out, given the difficulties, and b) a fine would mean less than nothing to the Individual concerned. (Hate writing that name) I think the judge has decided that if he fined him, quite a few people would assume that he has "paid his debt to society" by simply paying the fine; but if he leaves him unfined and unimprisoned due to forces beyond his control, the social opprobrium will last forever.
It's similar to the tactic some parents use of saying, "Normally I'd ground you, but this offense is too severe for that. In fact, I can't think of anything sufficient to match it. So I'm going to leave it alone." With a normal human being, that provokes severe shame. With this person, of course, it will do no such thing, but it might possibly make a few of those watching re-consider. (Yeah, I know, but hope springs eternal.)
Comments
No, that’s not what the order (which can be read here) says, nor is what the article to which you linked says—at least not so far as any distinction was made between “federally charged” and “a state charge.”
That this was a state charge is irrelevant, and was not (as far as I can find) discussed in the order.
Short answer: you’re wrong. When it comes to presidential immunity after the recent SCOTUS case, presidential immunity, if applicable, would apply in federal court and in state courts.
He has already been charged and convicted by a state court.
The recent SCOTUS case holds that presidents have immunity from prosecution for “official acts” done as president. The court also held that evidence regarding official acts cannot be used in a prosecution where presidential immunity does not exist. That’s what Trump argued happened in this case.
The New York case involves acts related to candidacy and personal acts while president, not to official acts as president. Trump argued that the case should be dismissed because evidence of “official acts” was introduced. The court held that the evidence in question was not evidence of “official acts,” and that even if it was, any error was “harmless error,” meaning that even if the evidence had not been admitted, Trump still would have been convicted because the remaining evidence overwhelmingly established guilt.
*Note I said "try."
(To be fair, I’m not sure it always makes as much difference as one might hope,
Then, @Hugal, asked "So he can be charged by the state." My answer to the question was Yes, meaning if he violated a state law he could be charged. The hush money case was in violation of a state law, not a federal law. I said nothing about whether the SCOTUS decision would, or would not apply to the case. Since the state judge said the hush money deal was a deeply personal act, the SCOTUS decision does not apply.
Witness the Georgia election interference case. Trump was president at the time. As president he tried to get the Georgia State Secretary to overturn the decision of the people. Now, was that an official presidential act? Prosecutor Willis was acting as if it was not an official act. Even though she has been removed from the case by a state appeals court, the case is still considered active. The appeals court said it is now up to the Council of Prosecuting Attorney's to name a replacement. Of course, Willis still has the right to appeal to the State Supreme Court. AP Report Here.
My bet is that the Georgia Supreme Court will refuse to restore Ms Willis, and the Council of Prosecuting Attorneys will refuse to name a replacement, effectively killing the case.
Moving on--
Now Trump and Elon Musky are interfering with the Congress and the continuing resolution to fund the government through to March. They claim it has too much pork in it. Forget that it would fund relief efforts in the Carolinas, or that it would give him time to set up his own budget proposals by March, or that it would give government workers a steady paycheck into next year.
These twin snakes are like the Grinches who stole Christmas.
But yes, let’s move on.
If we are counting. With Gaetz having to withdraw because he did not have the votes, and the loss of the CR, Rump and Company are batting 0% The end is nearer than I thought. Trump will simply not get everything he wants.
And that's really too bad.
Somehow, I can't see many Canadians agreeing with him...
It's often unclear as to what particular parallel universe Trump is in at any given moment.
Canada would cost a few $$$ more, I suspect, but he has friends who own pretty well all the money in the world, so who knows?
And leave the WHO.
And NATO.
This will likely end up in the courts; and, if played right can be delayed until the next president.
This all reminds me of Hitler's expansionist plans: Wanting part of this country, wanting part of that country, threatening to invade another country.
Trump has now said he wants to take back the Panama Canal, receiving Greenland for US security, and jokingly calling Canada our 51st state.
We have seen this picture show before, folks.
It would also probably start a guerilla war. The Unites States does not do very well with guerilla wars.
Actually, I do not think the American people would go for another war, especially since it is a settled issue through the treaty. I would hope the military would also refuse to obey an illegal order.
The American people are rarely consulted when the President decides to go to war.
There would be a protest movement never seen since the Viet Nam War, likely much larger, since approximately half of the voters never voted for him. I don't even think he can do it through the War Powers Resolution.
It does appear so.
Randy Rainbow will have to dig out some obscure show songs. All the obvious ones have been used
At the start of the Viet Nam war there were only a few protesters, but by the time Johnson announced he would not run for re-election nearly half the population, it seemed, were against the war. In 1972, when the North began its final offensive, Americans were not willing to recommit to saving the South.
In the case of Panama, half the American already do not want to go to war there. So I think the protests will be loud and strong from the very beginning.
----
For those who might be interested, here is a list of all the things Trump has said he will do on day one of his administration.
Well, Greece and Turkey have long been in NATO, and they still go at each other now and then.
Right, when I was 9. The vast majority of Americans have no memory of this.
Nothing like taking what I said out of context. The point I was making was when half of Americans were against the war, Johnson realized the war was lost. Half of Americans already indicated they do not support Trump. Trump cannot go to war with half of the Americans already do not support him or it.
I am doubtful that large-scale protests make a difference in the US any more anyway. I was at the Women's March in LA in 2017, along with 3/4 million other people - what difference did it make? The protests after George Floyd's murder were the largest in US history - and again, what's changed?
Well, we had Biden for four years. He got us out of the longest war we have ever been in. He gave clemency to 37 of those who had been on death row. Trump cannot undo that. Any person condemned to die under Trump will probably not be executed during his term, given the lengthy amount of time it takes to bring a person to trial, and the lengthy appeals that will ensue. He passed some key legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act. Trump may want to undo it, but he can't.
The protest of George Floyd changed many laws. More police have been tried for abuses they would have gotten away with just a few years ago. You will see many changes in blue states in particular.
There were more protests during the first Trump administration. I believe we will see even more. In two years, Congress will change, and I hope to God there will be enough votes to get him out of office before his term in up.
Justice comes in waves. There are crests and there are troughs. We will get through the next few years.
Exit polls for 2024 mirror similar results for women voting for Harris https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0
Here is a discussion on how laws changed in the year after the death of Floyd https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-policing-laws-have-changed-in-the-year-since-george-floyd-died-090026902.html.
Now, I would have to say some of those laws have reverted back, but with Tim Walz as governor of Minnesota, it has held firm.
Another discussion on policing reforms. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-policing-reforms-george-floyds-murder
Another discussion on policing reforms https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-policing-has-changed-4-years-after-george-floyds-murder
Unfortunately, significant statistical increases in police prosecutions have not been noted.
Another discussion on police reforms: https://www.police1.com/george-floyd-protest/articles/5-changes-in-le-since-the-death-of-george-floyd-dc9eMHWOtVBAlioi/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c390mrmxndyo
But the offence still stands it is on his record. Not much of a silver lining but at least he didn’t get off totally Scot free
That should be crimes, plural. Thirty-four felonies. Usually anything that's a felony is considered a serious crime, not "relatively minor one(s)". And yes, elite impunity can be infuriating, especially when applied to a series of deliberate felonious acts perpetrated as part of a larger conspiracy. What I don't get is why so many people who aren't usually Trump apologists to go out of their way to minimize his criminal actions.
It may make an interesting precedent for defence lawyers: "If a convicted criminal such as trump walks free to pursue his career, my client deserves no less for a lesser offence".
It's similar to the tactic some parents use of saying, "Normally I'd ground you, but this offense is too severe for that. In fact, I can't think of anything sufficient to match it. So I'm going to leave it alone." With a normal human being, that provokes severe shame. With this person, of course, it will do no such thing, but it might possibly make a few of those watching re-consider. (Yeah, I know, but hope springs eternal.)