Presumptive immunity? That's a huge gray area.I can't possibly imagine how this would help him in the docs case, but I'm sure they will try.
Presumptive immunity? That's a huge gray area.I can't possibly imagine how this would help him in the docs case, but I'm sure they will try.
None of it applies to the docs case, because he's not charged for any actions he took while still in office.Presumptive immunity? That's a huge gray area.
I'm not a huge fan of AOC - I think she plays into the winner-take-all/bloodsport of politics way too much - but I'd take her word any day over someone like catturd. Some people here treat that person's tweets like gospel.A lot of the tweets that make it here make it from a Russian computer center. I don't know if that is better or worse than a bartender.
I have zero idea if this is relevant, but I wonder if Trump having those classified documents and being indignant about not returning them as a private citizen matters. I don't see how taking boxes of classified documents on your way out the door fits into official duties of an outgoing president.Presumptive immunity? That's a huge gray area.
Wrong. FL and likely NY now gone.None of it applies to the docs case, because he's not charged for any actions he took while still in office.
What am I wrong about? Don't give me a tweet. Explain it with big boy words.
Watch ny judge give him a max sentence now 🤣🤣What am I wrong about? Don't give me a tweet. Explain it with big boy words.
The payment to Stormy occurred while he was President. Also, they allege he committed this act while President so that he could remain President. Some of the evidence introduced like his conversations with Hope Hicks were Presidential. And Merchan never had a hearing to decide what falls under immunity and what doesn't. It will be thrown out.What am I wrong about? Don't give me a tweet. Explain it with big boy words.
That has nothing to do with the docs case.The payment to Stormy occurred while he was President. Also, they allege he committed this act while President so that he could remain President. Some of the evidence introduced like his conversations with Hope Hicks were Presidential. And Merchan never had a hearing to decide what falls under immunity and what doesn't. It will be thrown out.
Sure sounds like the NY case is dead too as Merchan never did the factual analysis for what is and what isn't a Presidential act before going to trial which this decision requires.
No, it didn't. You are wrong.The payment to Stormy occurred while he was President. Also, they allege he committed this act while President so that he could remain President. Some of the evidence introduced like his conversations with Hope Hicks were Presidential. And Merchan never had a hearing to decide what falls under immunity and what doesn't. It will be thrown out.
The argument was about Trump paying her off to avoid looking bad to voters in the 2016 election. Hence, he had to pay her off before being elected.The payment to Stormy occurred while he was President. Also, they allege he committed this act while President so that he could remain President. Some of the evidence introduced like his conversations with Hope Hicks were Presidential. And Merchan never had a hearing to decide what falls under immunity and what doesn't. It will be thrown out.
Because he rules...I'm not a huge fan of AOC - I think she plays into the winner-take-all/bloodsport of politics way too much - but I'd take her word any day over someone like catturd. Some people here treat that person's tweets like gospel.
Correct. He's confusing the payment to Daniels with the reimbursement Trump made to Cohen, which occurred after he was elected.The argument was about Trump paying her off to avoid looking bad to voters in the 2016 election. Hence, he had to pay her off before being elected.
![]()
When Did Donald Trump Allegedly Pay Stormy Daniels Hush Money?
Donald Trump, who allegedly paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money in 2016 before the U.S. Presidential elections, is now on trial. Daniels claimed in her Peacock documentary, Stormy, that Trump’s then-lawyer-turned-fixer Michael Cohen made the payment on the former president’s behalf. The...www.yahoo.com
Cannon will still accept briefs and hold hearings. There's got to be a loophole in there somewhere.Not that that matters. No serious person would claim that Trump's hush money payment from his own pocket (or that of his company) was an official act of the Presidency. Merchan had no responsibility to even entertain such a frivolous argument, even if it were brought up.
According to CNN legal analyst and Harvard law grad, Elie Honig, the immunity decision threw a big wrench into Bragg's case. Wait and see. You're all the same buffoons that said he'd never get immunity in the first place.Correct. He's confusing the payment to Daniels with the reimbursement Trump made to Cohen, which occurred after he was elected.
Not that that matters. No serious person would claim that Trump's hush money payment from his own pocket (or that of his company) was an official act of the Presidency. Merchan had no responsibility to even entertain such a frivolous argument, even if it were brought up.
You're wrong again. I never said Trump wouldn't "get immunity in the first place." Go back and check.According to CNN legal analyst and Harvard law grad, Elie Honig, the immunity decision threw a big wrench into Bragg's case. Wait and see. You're all the same buffoons that said he'd never get immunity in the first place.
The Hope Hicks testimony was barred according to this decision. Mistrial.
If you'd like to place a wager about whether or not any court will hold that Trump's payment to Daniels, reimbursement to Cohen, or how it was described in his books is immune from criminal prosecution because they are presidential acts or occurred during his presidency, I will gladly do so.According to CNN legal analyst and Harvard law grad, Elie Honig, the immunity decision threw a big wrench into Bragg's case. Wait and see. You're all the same buffoons that said he'd never get immunity in the first place.
The Hope Hicks testimony was barred according to this decision. Mistrial.
We as a country have to vote for Biden. Democracy as we know it will in. The Supreme Court is another arm of maga. It is bought and paid for. It should no longer be called the Supreme Court, it is called trumps court.
We have different standards for 'he rules...'
If you'd like to place a wager about whether or not any court will hold that Trump's payment to Daniels, reimbursement to Cohen, or how it was described in his books is immune from criminal prosecution because they are presidential acts or occurred during his presidency, I will gladly do so.
I'm currently sitting on one BTC. I'll put that up. You can put up a BTC, or a cash equivalent. Snarlcakes can escrow our money. Up for it?
If given the choice between Biden and Trump, yes, I'll vote for Biden.We as a country have to vote for Biden. Democracy as we know it will in. The Supreme Court is another arm of maga. It is bought and paid for. It should no longer be called the Supreme Court, it is called trumps court.
That’s itI’m not reading anything hard now. So let me guess and tell me where wrong
Official acts immunity. Private acts no immunity. Sent down to try which won’t happen before election. If it gets tried judge will decide what acts have immunity and it will go back up again for the s.Ct. to decide on those acts
?????
Liberals aren't just extremely stupid they're clinically insane. This clown is on Biden's payroll.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure your priorities are in order.
The PRA will make some of his decisions official therefore giving him a presumption. The opinion does not provide much guidance in rebutting the presumption.I can't possibly imagine how this would help him in the docs case, but I'm sure they will try.
He's not being charged for any actions taken while president in the document case, so how could his decisions be "official?"The PRA will make some of his decisions official therefore giving him a presumption. The opinion does not provide much guidance in rebutting the presumption.
Except for the actions after the 20th. Attempts to hide documents will have no presumption. Plus, the fact he tried cover it up would indicate he did not believe it to be official actions.The PRA will make some of his decisions official therefore giving him a presumption. The opinion does not provide much guidance in rebutting the presumption.
He's not being charged for decisions he made in designating his own records while he was still in office. He's being charged for what he did with records after he left office. There is no definition of "official act" that touches those actions.The PRA will make some of his decisions official therefore giving him a presumption. The opinion does not provide much guidance in rebutting the presumption.
Absconding with state secrets isn't allowed under the PRA.The PRA will make some of his decisions official therefore giving him a presumption. The opinion does not provide much guidance in rebutting the presumption.
Focus on the time period.Absconding with state secrets isn't allowed under the PRA.
Strictly speaking, it's also not crazy, simply from reading the majority opinion. The court makes it clear that those constitutional authorities that are designated as the conclusive and preclusive purview of the executive are subject to absolute immunity. And although they only go into detail with pardons and removal of officers, it's clear that command of the armed forces is part of that list. Under the logic used in this ruling, the President can ignore posse comitatus, can direct the military to carry out covert (or overt) actions on US soil, and he cannot be touched.Isn't that quote directly from Sotomayor's dissent?
I think they simply dodge the issue and hypo, call it "rhetoric of doom" or some such description, and say they are only addressing, for now, presidential discussions with his AG and VP. I looked and couldn't find a direct response to that argument.Strictly speaking, it's also not crazy, simply from reading the majority opinion. The court makes it clear that those constitutional authorities that are designated as the conclusive and preclusive purview of the executive are subject to absolute immunity. And although they only go into detail with pardons and removal of officers, it's clear that command of the armed forces is part of that list. Under the logic used in this ruling, the President can ignore posse comitatus, can direct the military to carry out covert (or overt) actions on US soil, and he cannot be touched.
Now, those actions may very well be illegal, and the military members who carry them out could very well be court martialed, and others involved charged criminally, but the President himself could not be touched.
He's not being charged for decisions he made in designating his own records while he was still in office. He's being charged for what he did with records after he left office. There is no definition of "official act" that touches those actions.
If he made decisions under the authority of the PRA i think they are official acts. As I understand it, the PRA covers some post presidency records issues.He's not being charged for any actions taken while president in the document case, so how could his decisions be "official?"
That wouldn't be an immunity issue; it would be an affirmative defense.If he made decisions under the authority of the PRA i think they are official acts. As I understand it, the PRA covers some post presidency records issues.
Strictly speaking, it's also not crazy, simply from reading the majority opinion. The court makes it clear that those constitutional authorities that are designated as the conclusive and preclusive purview of the executive are subject to absolute immunity. And although they only go into detail with pardons and removal of officers, it's clear that command of the armed forces is part of that list. Under the logic used in this ruling, the President can ignore posse comitatus, can direct the military to carry out covert (or overt) actions on US soil, and he cannot be touched.
Now, those actions may very well be illegal, and the military members who carry them out could very well be court martialed, and others involved charged criminally, but the President himself could not be touched.
Hm. Fair point. When talking about qualified immunity, that distinction comes fuzzy. Maybe the same for presumed immunity.That wouldn't be an immunity issue; it would be an affirmative defense.
It was a glaring dodge. To include the armed forces in the list, and then pretend it wasn't there while discussing pardons and firing people, that was judicial cowardice.I think they simply dodge the issue and hypo, call it "rhetoric of doom" or some such description, and say they are only addressing, for now, presidential discussions with his AG and VP. I looked and couldn't find a direct response to that argument.
I thought they would analogize to Latin phrases and common law concpets such as ultra vires, etc. (there is one for state officials being unable to act unconstitutionally in their official capacity and I can't recall it because I'm losing it mentally), and offer a way out for that example.
By the way, he could be "touched"--he could be impeached and removed.