4 4
Phil1111

Post trump Legal Actions, Including his Enablers

Recommended Posts

Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudolph W. Giuliani, the lawyer for Donald J. Trump over his lies about vote rigging. They are asking the courts for more than $1.3 billion. "Taken together with a lawsuit the company filed this month against Sidney Powell, another lawyer who was allied with Mr. Trump, the suit represents a point-by-point rebuke of one of the more outlandish conspiracy theories surrounding last year’s election."

IMO this is just more of the trump promises to create "more great jobs".

I anticipate more legal matters to clean up trump's messes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, Faicon9493 said:

Where emoluments are concerned, the SCOTUS has allowed Trump to take the money and run. People were asking if Democrats should stack the SCOTUS. Maybe they should. If the shoe was on the other foot, what would Mitch McConnell do?

No dissent noted with the decision though.

Nothing is more American than ensuring that absolutely everything one does is about money.

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 1:10 AM, Phil1111 said:

IMO this is just more of the trump promises to create "more great jobs".

I anticipate more legal matters to clean up trump's messes.

I recall I said this very thing at the beginning of his term:  that DOJ lawyers would have a lot of job security, as DOJ would have plenty of violations to investigate.  Of course, there were way too many violations TO investigate (and they were prohibited from doing their jobs), but we're still seeing that uptick in legal work thanks to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Trump will have actual legal liability from the insurrection.  Will he be able to claim immunity as he was performing an "official act" as President?  I would like to see him charged and tried in court.  The impeachment and Senate trial is purely political of course, with no criminal penalties.  If I, as a private citizen, was to organize or participate in a crime and as a result people were killed, I would be charged with felony murder. It's not necessary to be the "trigger man" to be charged or convicted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I wonder if Trump will have actual legal liability from the insurrection.  Will he be able to claim immunity as he was performing an "official act" as President?  I would like to see him charged and tried in court.  The impeachment and Senate trial is purely political of course, with no criminal penalties.  If I, as a private citizen, was to organize or participate in a crime and as a result people were killed, I would be charged with felony murder. It's not necessary to be the "trigger man" to be charged or convicted.

Hi Don,

That makes at least two of us.

Also, how about the families of the dead simply suing him in civil court?

Again, that would be just find for me.

Jerry Baumchen

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I would be happy to see him rendered destitute I don't see that happening.  His whole life has been spent around lawsuits, even when he loses he just appeals until the other side runs out of money.  At his age he can easily use legal games to run out the clock.  I would hope that felony criminal charges including incitement of insurrection and felony murder would be a different matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I wonder if Trump will have actual legal liability from the insurrection.  Will he be able to claim immunity as he was performing an "official act" as President?  I would like to see him charged and tried in court.  The impeachment and Senate trial is purely political of course, with no criminal penalties.  If I, as a private citizen, was to organize or participate in a crime and as a result people were killed, I would be charged with felony murder. It's not necessary to be the "trigger man" to be charged or convicted.

What immunity are you referring to?

Congress critters have immunity from prosecution, that's in the Constitution.
The President cannot be indicted while in office, that's the opinion of the Justice Dept from the Nixon crap. 
However, it doesn't confer immunity for crimes committed while in office.

And I'd love to see the justification that 'incitement of insurrection', and blatant lies trying to stay in office count as 'official duties'. 

In theory, he could be tried for 5 counts of 'felony murder'. 
For certain, two. Probably 4. 
The cop killed and the woman shot were certainly 'homicides' (one justified). The guy who stun gunned himself into a heart attack and the woman crushed in the crowd are deaths that wouldn't have occurred had the insurrection not happened. I don't know enough about the 5th death to have an opinion that it was a direct result of the insurrection attempt, and therefore available as a 'felony murder' charge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

What immunity are you referring to?

I agree with you that what he did to incite the mob and send them to attack Congress to stop the count of the electoral votes and to go after Pence, Pelosi, and other so-called "traitors" was obviously criminal.  However Alan Dershowitz is already arguing that what Trump did was "protected political speech", perfectly legal under the first amendment.  I expect that to be the main line of defense at the Senate trial, perhaps alongside the argument that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try an ex-president.  Dershowitz, you may recall, argued at the first impeachment trial that a president could violate any law so long as he believed that it would be in the interests of the country for him to do so, even if the President would also benefit.  That was the ultimate get out of jail free card of course.  In Dershowitz's world it seems the President can do anything, perhaps including leading an insurrection, as long as the President believes that the country will be better off if he stays in power (even as a dictator) rather than let Biden take over. 

The President, congresscritters, and many government officials enjoy broad immunity from prosecution or being sued for things they do while exercising their lawful duties.  If it were not so, everyone in government would be buried alive under lawsuits brought by any and everyone who disagreed with their decisions and government could not function. The question re Trump is, will his lawyers (Dershowitz et al) be able to convince a court that he was acting in his legal capacity as President to summon a mob, get them enraged, and sic them on Congress to block an essential government function (the peaceful transition of power).  This might be where we get to see if there really are "Trump judges" on the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I agree with you that what he did to incite the mob and send them to attack Congress to stop the count of the electoral votes and to go after Pence, Pelosi, and other so-called "traitors" was obviously criminal.  However Alan Dershowitz is already arguing that what Trump did was "protected political speech", perfectly legal under the first amendment.  I expect that to be the main line of defense at the Senate trial, perhaps alongside the argument that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try an ex-president.  Dershowitz, you may recall, argued at the first impeachment trial that a president could violate any law so long as he believed that it would be in the interests of the country for him to do so, even if the President would also benefit.  That was the ultimate get out of jail free card of course.  In Dershowitz's world it seems the President can do anything, perhaps including leading an insurrection, as long as the President believes that the country will be better off if he stays in power (even as a dictator) rather than let Biden take over. 

The President, congresscritters, and many government officials enjoy broad immunity from prosecution or being sued for things they do while exercising their lawful duties.  If it were not so, everyone in government would be buried alive under lawsuits brought by any and everyone who disagreed with their decisions and government could not function. The question re Trump is, will his lawyers (Dershowitz et al) be able to convince a court that he was acting in his legal capacity as President to summon a mob, get them enraged, and sic them on Congress to block an essential government function (the peaceful transition of power).  This might be where we get to see if there really are "Trump judges" on the Supreme Court.

Hi Don,

IMO none of can really know where this will end up.  For me, I can only hope.

Re:  Dershowitz, . . .  argued at the first impeachment trial that a president could violate any law so long as he believed that it would be in the interests of the country for him to do so

And this:  Richard Nixon: 'But when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal' - Bing video

I really doubt anyone today believes what Nixon said.

Jerry Baumchen

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I agree with you that what he did to incite the mob and send them to attack Congress to stop the count of the electoral votes and to go after Pence, Pelosi, and other so-called "traitors" was obviously criminal.  However Alan Dershowitz is already arguing that what Trump did was "protected political speech", perfectly legal under the first amendment.  I expect that to be the main line of defense at the Senate trial, perhaps alongside the argument that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try an ex-president.  Dershowitz, you may recall, argued at the first impeachment trial that a president could violate any law so long as he believed that it would be in the interests of the country for him to do so, even if the President would also benefit.  That was the ultimate get out of jail free card of course.  In Dershowitz's world it seems the President can do anything, perhaps including leading an insurrection, as long as the President believes that the country will be better off if he stays in power (even as a dictator) rather than let Biden take over. 

The President, congresscritters, and many government officials enjoy broad immunity from prosecution or being sued for things they do while exercising their lawful duties.  If it were not so, everyone in government would be buried alive under lawsuits brought by any and everyone who disagreed with their decisions and government could not function. The question re Trump is, will his lawyers (Dershowitz et al) be able to convince a court that he was acting in his legal capacity as President to summon a mob, get them enraged, and sic them on Congress to block an essential government function (the peaceful transition of power).  This might be where we get to see if there really are "Trump judges" on the Supreme Court.

Don, we can not even hope for justice in the Senate or from the Supreme Court. What we can hope for is a drawn out and well presented case that proves Trumps guilt to any logical mind. Then, with luck, that truth can be hung around the necks of enough R senators who voted not guilty to cost them in their next election. The sad reality is that our Constitution and our system of government has been shown to be something less than a beacon of democracy to the rest of the world. Worse, we apparently also don't have the mechanisms to fix it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Don,

IMO none of can really know where this will end up.  For me, I can only hope.

Re:  Dershowitz, . . .  argued at the first impeachment trial that a president could violate any law so long as he believed that it would be in the interests of the country for him to do so

And this:  Richard Nixon: 'But when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal' - Bing video

I really doubt anyone today believes what Nixon said.

Jerry Baumchen

Well, there is that one sleazy asshole with Nixon's face tattooed on his back. He probably believes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I wonder if Trump will have actual legal liability from the insurrection.  Will he be able to claim immunity as he was performing an "official act" as President?  I would like to see him charged and tried in court.  The impeachment and Senate trial is purely political of course, with no criminal penalties.  If I, as a private citizen, was to organize or participate in a crime and as a result people were killed, I would be charged with felony murder. It's not necessary to be the "trigger man" to be charged or convicted.

I felt/feel the same about Hillary, but I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

I felt/feel the same about Hillary, but I digress.

Well, there have been a number of investigations into Hillary Clinton. What (other than the result) were your objections to them? Most were conducted by people who were incentivized to find issues.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Good luck with that!  How many Q-Anon adherents are there in Congress now?

He's been impeached, again, now it's just the Senate trial. I'm not sure any of those are out as Q believers but I wouldn't bet they're aren't any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

I agree with you that what he did to incite the mob and send them to attack Congress to stop the count of the electoral votes and to go after Pence, Pelosi, and other so-called "traitors" was obviously criminal.  However Alan Dershowitz is already arguing that what Trump did was "protected political speech", perfectly legal under the first amendment...

The President, congresscritters, and many government officials enjoy broad immunity from prosecution or being sued for things they do while exercising their lawful duties...

It was ruled a long time ago that certain types of speech are not 'protected'. Incitement to riot is one. 

And the immunity is (as you note) for exercising their lawful duties. I find it hard (not impossible) to believe a court would consider Trump's trying to usurp a lawful election, incitement to insurrection and basically wiping his ass with the Constitution to be part of his 'lawful duties'.

2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

I felt/feel the same about Hillary, but I digress.

What crimes was Hilary charged with?
What lawsuits did she weasel out of claiming 'immunity'?

I find it rather amusing how many of the Alt-Right folks keep on pretending that she committed all these crimes, and all the other lies.

Why wasn't she prosecuted?
Trump had his little toadies in charge of the Justice Dept for FOUR YEARS. Yet they weren't able to find anything to charge her with.

Were they that incomptent?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Good luck with that!  How many Q-Anon adherents are there in Congress now?

There's a congresswoman now who believes that the California fires were started by secret Jewish space lasers.  So given that, it wouldn't surprise me to find that a lot of congresspeople believe in a cannibal pedophile pizza-basement-dwelling cabal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, billvon said:

There's a congresswoman now who believes that the California fires were started by secret Jewish space lasers.  So given that, it wouldn't surprise me to find that a lot of congresspeople believe in a cannibal pedophile pizza-basement-dwelling cabal.

IMO direct evidence of such representations is necessary to ascertain the entirety of the GOP component of US laws and social policy. I quote from The Times of Israel. Americans wonder why Putin and Xi is trusted more than the US.This publicity gets worldwide coverage.

Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed deadly forest fire on Rothschilds and space lasers  "Republican congresswoman and QAnon supporter posted anti-Semitic conspiracy on Facebook; she has also attacked ‘Zionist supremacists,’ George Soros

Among the many posts being unearthed in renewed scrutiny of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s social media history is one in which the new congresswoman implicated “Rothschild Inc” in connection with a deadly forest fire that, she wrote, was started using laser beams from space.

Greene, a freshman Republican from Georgia who made waves during the campaign for her promotion of the baseless, convoluted QAnon conspiracy theory, made the accusation in a 2018 Facebook post that is no longer visible....Suggesting that the Rothschild family is conspiring to cause damage for profit is a longstanding anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, and one that is baked into the QAnon mythology. ...

In 2018 she shared a video, also on Facebook, that lambasted “Zionist supremacists” and advanced the “great replacement” theory, which falsely alleges that Jews are conspiring to undermine white-majority countries by bringing in non-white immigrants.

Like others who have amplified the QAnon theory, Greene frequently calls George Soros, a Hungarian-American Jewish billionaire and mega-donor, an enemy of the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, billvon said:

There's a congresswoman now who believes that the California fires were started by secret Jewish space lasers.  So given that, it wouldn't surprise me to find that a lot of congresspeople believe in a cannibal pedophile pizza-basement-dwelling cabal.

That same congresswoman also thinks the Sandy Hook Elementary and Parkland High School massacres were fake.  She's now on the House Education Committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

That same congresswoman also thinks the Sandy Hook Elementary and Parkland High School massacres were fake.  She's now on the House Education Committee.

When the national Republican party thinks it's acceptable to play such a sick joke on the citizens they represent, you really do have to wonder what it is they actually stand for.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A New York judge on Friday increased pressure on former President Donald J. Trump’s family business and several associates, ordering them to give state investigators documents in a civil inquiry into whether the company misstated assets to get bank loans and tax benefits.

It was the second blow that the judge, Arthur F. Engoron of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, had dealt to Mr. Trump’s company in recent weeks.

In December, he ordered the company, the Trump Organization, to produce records that its lawyers had tried to shield, including some related to a Westchester County, N.Y., property that is among those being scrutinized by the New York State attorney general, Letitia James."

Little by little justice is starting to catch up with trump and his mobbed up family of misfits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, jakee said:

When the national Republican party thinks it's acceptable to play such a sick joke on the citizens they represent, you really do have to wonder what it is they actually stand for.

Donald J. Trump, best I can tell. What's terrible is that she won her seat 2:1 over the next best candidate after a Trump endorsement. That means she likely has a permanent seat in the Georgia 14th district. So even if she's expelled she's likely to be right back in 2022. Given that it seems equally unlikely that she'll be censured we're likely looking at a future Senator, too. What a goat rope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

4 4