Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Celista]

The thing is, according to the wording the ruling had, all Trump would have to do is make it an official act of the office of the Presidency. And yes, there is nothing other than an executive order, that a previous president put in place, that stops a sitting President from carrying out an assassination.

Specifically these Executive Orders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11905
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12036
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

However, there is nothing stopping a current or future President from rescinding those orders outright as, while they are considered law, they aren't something that is made by Congress.

Exactly. Expecting people to do the right thing because of morals in this day and age is frankly and sadly ridiculous. Especially when it involves Trump.

[Jastall]

That is correct. I do trust them to not be complete lunatics though.

They won't be.

Not sure I can say the same about the Republicans if Trump is re-elected. This is a very, very concerning decision. You don't preserve a democracy's checks and balances by having a politically appointed Supreme Court say that the President can do basically whatever he wants in an "official capacity" and then fail to actually define that for the sake of plausible deniability.

[ati87]

Quote from the dissent:
"It then goes a step further: “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” Ante, at 18. It is one thing to say that motive is irrelevant to questions regarding the scope of civil liability, but it is quite another to make it irrelevant to questions regarding criminal liability. Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small."

Yes but nothing fundemanttly changes is my point because in the end the US president always had a lot of powers that is assumed to be used for the good of the country and not for personal gain.

Thats why I went to my Obama example because thats a real world example of a president doing something questionable since the target was a US Citizens accused of terrorism. The assumption is that the President orderd/gave the green light for the drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki because thats whats best for the US and not his person gain.

[PosPosPos]

It's actually weird that people are committed to such weird fantasies. Yes, it's true that if has the complete loyalty of a military apparatus willing to murder all opposition, we're fucked. That would be true regardless of whether such behavior could technically be prosecuted.

Spark of Insight Spectral letting us know he's also the Ignoramus of History.

Acting like as if there aren't heaps of historical precedence of people going "well it's too ridiculous for x authoritarian to abuse their power as they have publicly pronounced" and then be all shockedpikachu when said authoritarians do in fact abuse their power right after.

[Marfrilau]

Yes but nothing fundemanttly changes is my point because in the end the US president always had a lot of powers that is assumed to be used for the good of the country and not for personal gain.

Thats why I went to my Obama example because thats a real world example of a president doing something questionable since the target was a US Citizens accused of terrorism. The assumption is that the President orderd/gave the green light for the drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki because thats whats best for the US and not his person gain.

A lot has changed. Before, a court could question the motive behind that decision. Now they have explicitly stated that they can't. The decision is not even up for review.

Edit: A good example of this is that they are now moving to get the case in Manhatten overturned. Why? They are saying that his conversation as president with an aide is an official act (Hope Hicks testimony). The contents of the conversation were merely about his mindset and intent of an illegal act when he wasn’t president. And even though the conversation establishes his intent on the criminal acts, you cannot use it to establish his intent because the conversation by itself is an official act.

Similar to how the ruling said that trump having a conversation with his AG where he threatened him to be fired if he didn’t announce the investigation into election fraud, was merely a part of his official acts as president and presumptively immune.

[Jessicka]

Fuck it, Biden should just use this new found power to do something absurd just to prove a point and force a change in the law.

[Gigantique]

Yes but nothing fundemanttly changes is my point because in the end the US president always had a lot of powers that is assumed to be used for the good of the country and not for personal gain.

Thats why I went to my Obama example because thats a real world example of a president doing something questionable since the target was a US Citizens accused of terrorism. The assumption is that the President orderd/gave the green light for the drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki because thats whats best for the US and not his person gain.

And when those lines are blurred? If say Trump deems a political rival a threat to national security, or not even a direct rival like Biden but say a judge that judged for "open borders"

According to this document motives cannot be questioned and the immunity is presumed until proven otherwise. How do they prove otherwise?

[tehealadin]

Fuck it, Biden should just use this new found power to do something absurd just to prove a point and force a change in the law.

This would be a very interesting move. Can't help but feel this decision wasn't intended for the likes of Biden to make use of. Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of those who agree with this should Biden decide to make use of it, if they would still consider it a good idea.

Well, one thing is for sure, you Americans can't call us Europeans names for having monarchs. Yea yea, what you have now isn't technically a monarchy, and there are some important differences, however, at least for the term of a presidency, you now have one in all but name.

[Jessicka]

This would be a very interesting move. Can't help but feel this decision wasn't intended for the likes of Biden to make use of. Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of those who agree with this should Biden decide to make use of it, if they would still consider it a good idea.

Well, one thing is for sure, you Americans can't call us Europeans names for having monarchs. Yea yea, what you have now isn't technically a monarchy, and there are some important differences, however, at least for the term of a presidency, you now have one in all but name.

Of course it wasn't, but can you imagine next debate, Biden just pulls out an M4 to deal with a "threat to national security"? The fash wouldn't know whether to cry or cheer.

[Gigantique]

Of course it wasn't, but can you imagine next debate, Biden just pulls out an M4 to deal with a "threat to national security"? The fash wouldn't know whether to cry or cheer.

Let's be real here, he'd take so long and act old about it Trump would be back in Mar-a-Lago shivering under his stolen docu- I mean blankets by the time he pulled the trigger.

[Elder Millennial]

I read the ruling yesterday, had a chance to sleep on it, so I can articulate my take aways better.

1. The ruling is clearly tailor made for Trump. It's a partisan document with absolutely no foundation in any precedent or jurisprudence.

2. The Hamilton Federalist Paper references used, LITERALLY say the polar opposite as to how the court interprets it. Like there's virtually no way you could ever interpret the text the way the court has without refusing to read past halfway through the paragraph.

3. The case law reference is based on a civil case ruling. The court for the absolute first time reinterpreted "category" definitions. A reasonable argument can now be made that in the US there is no meaningful legal distinction between civil and penal law.

4. The ruling is so intentionally vague that it is essentially demanding that the lower courts to sit down and attempt to categorize every possible permutation of actions the president makes into "official" or "unofficial". This alone would virtually allow Trump's legal team to break up his cases into an infinite number of tiny immunity challenges that the court would have to weigh and rule on, causing a virtual legal deadlock.

5. In other areas the ruling is custom written to make the existing overwhelming evidence against Trump inadmissible in court.

Even the absolute most generous reading of this is insane.

I would argue that this ruling in conjunction with the Chevron and the J6 ruling amounts to a Judicial Coup d'etat.

Another thing that stood out to me were the constant weird references to "bold and decisive action". This seemed profoundly un-American to me. While the president is meant to lead, and sometimes must act boldly, that boldness ought to be restrained and occasional. The President isn't our Fuhrer.

[Shadowferal]

Don't let Maga fool you.
There are a lot of Republicans that despise this ruling as much as Democrats. And the more outlandish Trump behaves, revealing how much of a rotten shit he is, the less likely those Republicans will vote. At this point today I've even money that a lot of them will sit election day out.

[Resurgo]

I read the ruling yesterday, had a chance to sleep on it, so I can articulate my take aways better.

1. The ruling is clearly tailor made for Trump. It's a partisan document with absolutely no foundation in any precedent or jurisprudence.

2. The Hamilton Federalist Paper references used, LITERALLY say the polar opposite as to how the court interprets it. Like there's virtually no way you could ever interpret the text the way the court has without refusing to read past halfway through the paragraph.

3. The case law reference is based on a civil case ruling. The court for the absolute first time reinterpreted "category" definitions. A reasonable argument can now be made that in the US there is no meaningful legal distinction between civil and penal law.

4. The ruling is so intentionally vague that it is essentially demanding that the lower courts to sit down and attempt to categorize every possible permutation of actions the president makes into "official" or "unofficial". This alone would virtually allow Trump's legal team to break up his cases into an infinite number of tiny immunity challenges that the court would have to weigh and rule on, causing a virtual legal deadlock.

5. In other areas the ruling is custom written to make the existing overwhelming evidence against Trump inadmissible in court.

Even the absolute most generous reading of this is insane.

I would argue that this ruling in conjunction with the Chevron and the J6 ruling amounts to a Judicial Coup d'etat.

Another thing that stood out to me were the constant weird references to "bold and decisive action". This seemed profoundly un-American to me. While the president is meant to lead, and sometimes must act boldly, that boldness ought to be restrained and occasional. The President isn't our Fuhrer.

the Supreme Court just made Biden and all future presidents an elected 'king'...

That single ruling has guaranteed I will forever research and find out whether any candidate has even come close to breathing the air of a Federalist Society member.

[Breccia]

Trump says Biden will 'pay a very big price' for 'weaponization' of justice system as Bannon heads to prison

"Oh, this is pure weaponization," Trump said during an interview on WRVA, a local radio station in Richmond, Virginia, Monday morning, claiming Bannon's prison sentence is an attempt by his opponents to silence him.

"What they've done in this country is unthinkable, and Biden is going to pay a big price for it, I believe," Trump continued, "Because I think that people are gonna say, ‘Well, wow, you've opened up a Pandora's box.' This is a terrible thing that they've opened up. They've unleashed this."

"Wait, when did Bannon refuse to testify before the White House?"

He didn't. Bannon refused to testify before the House. The House formally recommended charges Oct 19, 2021. And then, the House voted on Oct 21, 2021 and found he had, indeed, committed contempt.

Biden was not involved in either of these -- as President, he's not part of Congress, he could not have been involved if he wanted to be.

"Surely Biden's weaponized DoJ threw Bannon in jail the next day!"

No, the DoJ did follow the vote of Congress and did indict him the following month. He was then found guilty by a jury and sentenced by a judge in 2022.

"That damn Obama judge!"

US District Judge Carl Nichols was a Trump appointee.

In other words, Bannon's actions were specifically and directly sanctioned by all three branches of the government, twelve American jurors, and Trump by proxy.

"But you're not allowed to arrest members of the Cabinet for acting as members of the Cabinet! Bannon was protected by Executive Time!"

Bannon was never a Cabinet member and left the White House in 2017. He was never protected by Executive Privilege, and even if he was, he wasn't for the actions in question.

Mr. Bannon’s exit, the latest in a string of high-profile West Wing shake-ups, came as Mr. Trump is under fire for saying that “both sides” were to blame for last week’s deadly violence in Charlottesville, Va. Critics accused the president of channeling Mr. Bannon when he equated white supremacists and neo-Nazis with the left-wing protesters who opposed them.

“White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve’s last day,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. “We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.”

This was not Biden weaponizing anything. This was Bannon breaking the law on purpose in public, and going through every aspect of due process and then some.

[Kathandira]

Congrats on finally having a king!
I guess having a president got boring after around 250 years?

I always joke that the Conservatives color being Red is not a coincidence. They are just the Red Coat party trying to return us to that which we escaped from to create this country in the first place.

[Elder Millennial]

I always joke that the Conservatives color being Red is not a coincidence. They are just the Red Coat party trying to return us to that which we escaped from to create this country in the first place.

Most constitutional monarchs have more extensive legal limitations on their rights and privileges than the POTUS would have under this ruling.

Like the fucking King of England couldn't order the execution of his rivals. Not since the fucking Magna Carta.

[Breccia]

Team Trump Says Fake Electors Scheme Was 'Official Act'

Speaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, Will Scharf, an attorney for the former president, laid out the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith's case following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts but no immunity for private acts.

In a federal indictment filed in August, Trump is facing four charges pertaining to his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He has denied all wrongdoing.

Trump's team is alleged to have created and submitted fraudulent certificates to falsely claim Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states to disrupt President Joe Biden's victory.

Speaking to Collins, Scharf said that Smith's "case should be dismissed" because it concerns official acts not private ones.

"We've admitted consistently that there are acts alleged in the indictment that would constitute private conduct but we believe that if the official conduct, the immune acts in the indictment are stripped away, that Jack Smith doesn't have a case, that this case should be dismissed on that basis," he said.

When pressed by Collins whether using a "false slates of electors" would constitute enough for a trial, Scharf denied that the Trump team had used false slates and said using "alternate slates" was an "official act."

He said: "We would say alternate slates of electors and as we argued before the Supreme Court, alternate slates of electors have been a method used by previous presidents."

He continued: "We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency."

"In what part of the Constitution does it say the White House's core duties include their own re-election?"

It does not say that.

"Elections are run at the state level and the electors are state members. At what point does the White House have control over either?"

In this context, none.

As everyone here has mentioned, the ruling SCOTUS handed down suggests that everything Trump did will now be covered under presumptive immunity and prosecution will have to prove otherwise. Now, in this case it seems pretty obvious. The lawyer in question is just objectively wrong.

"What if the lawyer is not wrong?"

Then Biden can, as a tool to re-elect himself, start having people voting against him killed.

"That sounds like a very serious crime!"

It does. So does fraud.

"Wouldn't he be impeached for that?"

Biden could have Congress killed, too.

[Kathandira]

Most constitutional monarchs have more extensive legal limitations on their rights and privileges than the POTUS would have under this ruling.

Like the fucking King of England couldn't order the execution of his rivals. Not since the fucking Magna Carta.

Indeed, this has the potential to be far worse. Perhaps they are making up for the lost time (250 years)

Combining this decision with Trump's statement that he will be a dictator on day one, Its pretty terrifying to think about.

[postman1782]

Team Trump Says Fake Electors Scheme Was 'Official Act'



"In what part of the Constitution does it say the White House's core duties include their own re-election?"

It does not say that.

"Elections are run at the state level and the electors are state members. At what point does the White House have control over either?"

In this context, none.

As everyone here has mentioned, the ruling SCOTUS handed down suggests that everything Trump did will now be covered under presumptive immunity and prosecution will have to prove otherwise. Now, in this case it seems pretty obvious. The lawyer in question is just objectively wrong.

"What if the lawyer is not wrong?"

Then Biden can, as a tool to re-elect himself, start having people voting against him killed.

"That sounds like a very serious crime!"

It does. So does fraud.

"Wouldn't he be impeached for that?"

Biden could have Congress killed, too.

None of his crimes he has committed are official acts.

[Shkar]

Making the whole "assassinate rivals/critics" issues even worse, is that issuing pardons is undoubtedly a presidential act. What is stopping a president from just saying "I will pardon anyone who fights against judicial activists/'traitors'" right before the election? As long as they don't actively organize it, it's purely presidential actions.

Doesn't even require the military in his pocket. Just an angry mob capable of overwhelming security.