Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Jessicka]

And this is what will turn off a lot of Republicans.

Bullshit. If a inciting a coup d'etat won't do it, nothing will. They may say they won't in public, but they'll still vote for him. There have been far too many of these "this will turn Republicans off" moments to believe that anything will at this point.

[Kathandira]

Bullshit. If a inciting a coup d'etat won't do it, nothing will. They may say they won't in public, but they'll still vote for him. There have been far too many of these "this will turn Republicans off" moments to believe that anything will at this point.

The conservatives I know would say to me a few years ago that they were afraid to go out in public. This was during the height of the BLM riots. They were afraid that if they said something wrong, they would end up in a youtube video and nationally cancelled.

I bet you many are still afraid to admit that they are going to vote for Trump.

[Paetolus]

Nixon fist pumping in his grave right now. "Official" conduct cannot be used as evidence anymore. The Nixon White House tapes were "official" conversation between him and other officials, therefore, the tapes would have been useless had this ruling existed back then. Absolutely hilarious.

Pretty sure that part of the ruling significantly weakens the impeachment process as well. And Republicans love to point to that as the only way to hold a president responsible for illegal actions.

[Jessicka]

The conservatives I know would say to me a few years ago that they were afraid to go out in public. This was during the height of the BLM riots. They were afraid that if they said something wrong, they would end up in a youtube video and nationally cancelled.

I bet you many are still afraid to admit that they are going to vote for Trump.

I don't think they honestly believe that any of that, and I don't think they're genuinely 'afraid' of anything. It's an excuse. They just know it'll be quieter if they don't say anything.

[Breccia]

None of his crimes he has committed are official acts.

I agree, as do most reasonable people.

Team Trump will claim that anyhow.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty sure that part of the ruling significantly weakens the impeachment process as well.

In theory, it should not. Impeachment is not part of the judicial branch. But, yes, GOP members will defend their own criminal allies by pointing to this.

[Paetolus]

In theory, it should not. Impeachment is not part of the judicial branch. But, yes, GOP members will defend their own criminal allies by pointing to this.

I think the senate trial that actually results in removal would be impacted though, considering that's headed by the Chief Justice. Granted, I guess that's technically after the impeachment part.

[Drutt]

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

Absolutely, and even worse, it's clearly set up to be Schrödinger's Immunity: acts of the same type will be deemed by the Supreme Court to simultaneously have immunity AND to not have immunity until the party box is opened.

[tehealadin]

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.

Part of me kind of hopes he does, sometimes you need to go to the extremes to highlight the absurdity of something.

[Edge-]

Donald is facing some of the biggest consequences ever, finally -

The office of the New Jersey Attorney General (NJAG) office decided not to renew liquor licenses at Donald Trump’s golf clubs in the garden state following the former president’s felony conviction. Two Trump golf clubs had licenses that expired on June 30, and unless the former president successfully appeals the NJAG’s decision, the clubs are likely to be without permission to serve alcohol in the near future.

In early June, the NJAG’s office was reportedly taking a closer look at the Trump liquor licenses. In response, the Trump Organization boasted that the golf courses’ liquor licenses were not in danger, because Trump himself was not an officer or director of any entity that holds a liquor license in the Garden State or anywhere else in the United States.

It now seems that the Trump Organization may have been premature in declaring its lack of concern. A NJAG spokesperson said, “A review by ABC indicates that Mr. Trump maintains a direct beneficial interest in the three liquor licenses through the receipt of revenues and profits from them, as the sole beneficiary of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.”

Does anyone even go golfing sober? Is that even legal?

Trump can still contest the denial of renewal for the liquor licenses at a hearing scheduled for July 19. At the hearing, the former president would have the burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his golf clubs remain qualified to maintain licensure.

[Templar 331]

Do you really think that's going to stop him from serving alcohol? (not tying to be rude, just continuing the conversation)The fat shit stain is willing to start an insurrection and steal nuclear secrets. More than likely he has some convoluted "legal" work around that only he can do and it will take months to prove he doesn't. And in the meantime he'll still be serving alcohol.

He does this shit every-fucking-time. We think we've got him but then he slips away and off to another bullshit scenario that should have never fucking happened in the first place.

But that's the point with these headlines. To give us just a little hope that one day he will face a little bit of consequence and then.....he doesn't. So then we click on the next headline hoping "this time! It HAS to be this time!" It's almost like the freaking "Roadrunner and Wile Coyote" cartoons.

[Underbottom]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hus...2d7c114a04060d

What a shock.

[gondrin]

Do you really think that's going to stop him from serving alcohol? (not tying to be rude, just continuing the conversation)The fat shit stain is willing to start an insurrection and steal nuclear secrets. More than likely he has some convoluted "legal" work around that only he can do and it will take months to prove he doesn't. And in the meantime he'll still be serving alcohol.

He does this shit every-fucking-time. We think we've got him but then he slips away and off to another bullshit scenario that should have never fucking happened in the first place.

But that's the point with these headlines. To give us just a little hope that one day he will face a little bit of consequence and then.....he doesn't. So then we click on the next headline hoping "this time! It HAS to be this time!" It's almost like the freaking "Roadrunner and Wile Coyote" cartoons.

It is less about him being able to sell it and more about his vendors won't want to sell to him. No actual vendor that wants to be legally allowed to sell will do business with him as they wouldn't legally be allowed to. The only way he would be able to get alcohol is to go to a store and purchase it himself and then try and resell that but he would lose any actual markup on it. Not sure if NJ has a legal minimum(I know the state I live in has a state minimum price that any alcohol can be sold at).

[Gorsameth]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hus...2d7c114a04060d

What a shock.

wtf does that have to do with the immunity verdict?
paying off a hooker before he became President cannot be a Presidential act.

[Templar 331]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hus...2d7c114a04060d

What a shock.

And this is my shocked face.......

[Edge-]

wtf does that have to do with the immunity verdict?
paying off a hooker before he became President cannot be a Presidential act.

Remember, when the president does it it's not illegal because it's an official act. Sure the scheme was hatched while he was a private citizen, but all the checks were signed as POTUS. Meaning those were all official actions of the president!

Seriously, Nixon was 50 years ahead of his time. He'd have gotten away with Watergate with this SCOTUS.

[AntiFascistVoter]

Remember, when the president does it it's not illegal because it's an official act. Sure the scheme was hatched while he was a private citizen, but all the checks were signed as POTUS. Meaning those were all official actions of the president!

Seriously, Nixon was 50 years ahead of his time. He'd have gotten away with Watergate with this SCOTUS.

More like, this SCOTUS grew up mad that Nixon didn't get away with it.

Sure the Federalist society has been pushing against civil rights, women's rights for decades. But those were just a means to this end; only the GOP has a right to rule, and it's rule cannot be questioned.


Also the Press grew up feeling guilty about exposing Nixon. Like a ref blowing the whistle on Tom Brady for an obvious foul, spends the rest of the game "making it up" to him.

[Marfrilau]

wtf does that have to do with the immunity verdict?
paying off a hooker before he became President cannot be a Presidential act.

There's a reason why they included the part about not being able to use evidence that are from official acts. In this case the Hope Hicks testimony.

[Paranoid Android]

I mentioned this I believe a long time ago but what's crazy is that the Supreme Court used such a broad interpretation.

The classic case would be a President orders a military strike and kills civilians. Yes, protected from war crimes and flat out murder. I have some pushback but we will leave it be.

This was and should have been focused on President who was trying to usurp, delegitimize the election. You know in if we have to rank crimes destroying our democracy and going against our gawd like Constitution.

But once more they just kicked this down to courts which is the dumbest shit ever. You are the highest court in the land deciding on a President over throwing democracy. But ah well, eff it.

[Jastall]

Nixon fist pumping in his grave right now. "Official" conduct cannot be used as evidence anymore. The Nixon White House tapes were "official" conversation between him and other officials, therefore, the tapes would have been useless had this ruling existed back then. Absolutely hilarious.

Pretty sure that part of the ruling significantly weakens the impeachment process as well. And Republicans love to point to that as the only way to hold a president responsible for illegal actions.

It is ridiculous. A democracy is not preserved by giving its head of State such broadly vague protections that he could claim anything is an "official act", even paying hush money off to a hooker.

Had he know, Clinton should just have said getting a blowjob was an official act. It happened where he was working after all.

[Celista]

I mentioned this I believe a long time ago but what's crazy is that the Supreme Court used such a broad interpretation.

It's so crazy to me that it screams corruption. There is nothing in our Constitution that justifies such broad language. If anything it should be the opposite--that the founding fathers intended that president's powers should be rather narrow in scope.

I think at this point there needs to be some sort of federal investigation into the Supreme Court. Doesn't have to be a huge public spectacle, something preliminary and low key should suffice unless something notable was found. Because this screams outsider influence to me.