Shiftless2
Well-known member
So the laws against falsifying business records aren't valid? Or are you just saying that they're valid but the law doesn't apply to Trump?
Obituary: ... there they go !
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Trump party to violent insurrection, Jan. 6, 2021? Yes. BUT !
Trump's lawless Republican chums in congress lead by Majority Leader McConnell [R-KY] dismissed Trump's second impeachment. https://guides.loc.gov/federal-impeachment/donald-trump
"The mob* was fed lies. They were provoked by the president [Trump] and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear & violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the [U.S.] federal government which they did not like."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in proper decorum, reading written text on the senate floor, addressing Trump's 21/01/06 armed insurrection: broadcast PBS Tues. 21/01/19 (the day before Biden's inauguration), video-sound bite corroborated & extended by FOX FNS 21/01/24
note: Broadcast title credit to McConnell has been listed both as "Majority" Leader, and "Minority" Leader. "Republican Leader" substitutes
*the mob of armed insurrectionists that ransacked the capitol including Speaker Pelosi's office, ostensibly intending to delay or prevent the Biden inauguration
During Prohibition the feds were eager to arrest Al [scar face] Capone for violating the 18th Amendment to our Constitution.
But on June 5, '31 the charge was not rum running, but tax evasion. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Al-Capone
Trump has already perpetrated very serious crimes.
The law applies to Trump as much as any other citizen. For reasons not entirely clear, enforcement against Trump allows Trump to continue.
Trump's lawless Republican chums in congress lead by Majority Leader McConnell [R-KY] dismissed Trump's second impeachment. https://guides.loc.gov/federal-impeachment/donald-trump
"The mob* was fed lies. They were provoked by the president [Trump] and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear & violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the [U.S.] federal government which they did not like."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in proper decorum, reading written text on the senate floor, addressing Trump's 21/01/06 armed insurrection: broadcast PBS Tues. 21/01/19 (the day before Biden's inauguration), video-sound bite corroborated & extended by FOX FNS 21/01/24
note: Broadcast title credit to McConnell has been listed both as "Majority" Leader, and "Minority" Leader. "Republican Leader" substitutes
*the mob of armed insurrectionists that ransacked the capitol including Speaker Pelosi's office, ostensibly intending to delay or prevent the Biden inauguration
During Prohibition the feds were eager to arrest Al [scar face] Capone for violating the 18th Amendment to our Constitution.
But on June 5, '31 the charge was not rum running, but tax evasion. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Al-Capone
"Falsifying business records" indeed.
Trump has already perpetrated very serious crimes.
Trump has no exemption in law. The opposite is true. Art. 2 Sects. 1 & 3 enumerate Trump's obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
The law applies to Trump as much as any other citizen. For reasons not entirely clear, enforcement against Trump allows Trump to continue.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Even McConnell said that Trump was responsible for the January 6th riot.
"McConnell said".
Problem is, it doesn't redeem McConnell's impeachment vote, or
McConnell's political party leadership in insuring Trump would go unpunished for what may be the worst crime any U.S. president has ever perpetrated in office.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
He actually made that statement immediately after voting to acquit
Read the law more carefully.
It does not say that falsifying business records itself is a crime.
Instead it says that falsifying business records to support another crime is also a crime.
Specifically what the law intended to do was to make it a crime to inflate the value of a property or business that was for sale, by padding the accounting to make it look better.
Here is a better perspective from an article in Forbes Magazine:
{...
The $130,000 Trump and Cohen paid to silence Daniels is not actually illegal in itself: “Hush money” agreements that both parties enter into consensually, in which one party pays money to stop the other party from revealing information, are actually perfectly legal in themselves, University of Pennsylvania law professor Tess Wilkinson-Ryan told Slate.
Hush money payments can be illegal if they’re done to cover up a crime, or if it’s not a consensual agreement, such as in the case of blackmail or bribery, Wilkinson-Ryan noted.
...}
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Obviously the courts thought that the hush money payments were illegal.
I doubt it, since there logically is no violation of the rights of others to protect.
Did everyone have a right to know about Trump's private sex life?
Of course not.
So the courts had to be in violation of the law, and convicting Trump based on either political bias or lies.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
If the courts didn't think they were illegal (or more accurately his falsifying business records was illegal) he wouldn't have been found guilty of 54 felonies.
Usually a judge instructs the jury as to what the law means, and either jury already was intent on railroading, or the judge lied to them as to what the law meant.
Grounds for appeal?
I doubt Trump would shy away from a courtroom.
The reports I've read of indicate Trumps been involved in literally thousands of court cases over the decades.
Seems to me the main reason Trump would not appeal would be because:
a) He knows he'd lose again, &
b) it would just mean more bad publicity.
You have something else in mind?
Appealing would take time and money that Trump likely preferred to spend on the campaign instead, so he went with the cheaper route of getting elected into immunity.
It is also possible Trump could not have gotten a fair jury anywhere in NY, depending on what public opinion is like?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
The Supreme Court only granted him immunity for acts he performed as part of his duties as President.
Of course, he did try to claim that this was part of his duties because he'd mentioned her to one of the White House staff - that one got laughed down.
I have not encountered any reports of blackmail between Trump and our judiciary, though we know Republicans have been packing our law courts for years.
But it appears Republicans are treating government authority less as a means to administer justice faithful to our Constitution,
and more as a tool to impose their vision on the nation, the People, the world.
For U.S. patriots, the United States Constitution is the inviolable standard to which we must adhere.
For Trump / MAGA Republicans the Constitution is a series of obstacles to be circumvented.
There's more than one possible explanation.
But it appears Republicans are treating government authority less as a means to administer justice faithful to our Constitution,
and more as a tool to impose their vision on the nation, the People, the world.
For U.S. patriots, the United States Constitution is the inviolable standard to which we must adhere.
For Trump / MAGA Republicans the Constitution is a series of obstacles to be circumvented.
When re-elected as president, then while in office, the president automatically has immunity over everything.
That is why presidents have to first be impeached before than can be charged with anything.
The immunity the SCOTUS is referring to is what is permanent, even after out of office.
Here is an example of what is not covered, but was delayed.
{...
Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton in 1994 for several counts related to allegedly sexually harassing her when he was governor of Arkansas. Clinton, by then the president, sought both to dismiss the case with prejudice on the basis of immunity and to toll the statute of limitations for the duration of his presidency. The court declined to dismiss, but stayed the trial until Clinton's presidency ended. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, and in Clinton v. Jones the U.S. Supreme Court in turn affirmed the Eighth Circuit, holding that presidential immunity generally does not extend to lawsuits over matters that predate the president taking office.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_immunity_in_the_United_States#cite_note-18"><span>[</span>16<span>]</span></a>
...}
Last edited:
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Last of the Famous Quintuplets Born During the Great Depression Dies at 91 of Complications from Alzheimer’s Disease
Annette Dionne died at a hospital in Canada on Wednesday, Dec. 24, according to a family spokesperson:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/Annette-dionne-Cecile-dionne-122725-89f6e35706164e9baf2265b81263b499.jpg)
Last of the Famous Quintuplets Born During the Great Depression Dies at 91 of Complications from Alzheimer’s Disease
Annette Dionne, the last of the famous quintuplets born at the height of the Great Depression, died of complications from Alzheimer’s disease on Wednesday, Dec. 24, a family spokesperson confirmed. She was 91 years old.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Not quite - the immunity you're referring to is due to policy that says a sitting President can't be charged while in office.
Yes, that is what I was referring to.
The fact Trump got re-elected is what caused Jack Smith to give up.
I tried to find the actual wording in the Constitution, but only found it for legislators.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
And all that did was give him "a stay" until he's no longer in office. Have to admit that I don't know if the Statute of Limitations keeps running during that time period - think it's also stayed but not sure.