International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Criminal Charges Against Trump (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347810)

JoeMorgue 12th January 2021 09:57 AM

Watching the legal quagmire of figuring out how exactly to imprison a former President would be hilarious.

We all get they aren't just going to throw Trump in gen-pop or having him picking up cans by the side of the road, as cathartic as that imagery would be.

Segnosaur 12th January 2021 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13357927)
Andrew Torrez of the Opening Arguments Podcast made a slam-dunk argument that Trump broke Georgia Election Law with his phone call.
If Kemp doesn't pardon Trump, a prosecutor would get to have Trump send to jail for no less than one year.

I guess the question is... would the prosecutors bother.

Despite the recent Democratic success, Georgia still has a large republican influence, and the Georgia Attorney General is a republican. I can see him declining to prosecute Trump for partisan reasons.

JoeMorgue 12th January 2021 10:03 AM

Yeah if we're gonna play cynical, political MoneyBall do it in California or New York, a state you know you are going to keep. Don't do it in a swing state.

Segnosaur 12th January 2021 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13358244)
Quote:

The Secret Service in protecting a former President (or anyone else) acts "Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security" (18 USC 3056(a)). If there is any question, they do what the Secretary of Homeland Security says. And, if it was even questioned, the Secretary will order the Secret Service to allow a lawful arrest.
And who decides when their isn't one of those. There isn't one "now", right? "now" in quotes because I don't know the details of when his resignation is effective.

I think there's always one. Even if the current secretary resigns, some underling becomes "acting" (or at least ends up with their current authority.)

Of course, it is pretty irrelevant... even if things are fast-tracked, Trump wouldn't be charged until after he is out of office, giving more than enough time for Biden to get a new Sec. of Homeland Security approved.

johnny karate 12th January 2021 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13358251)
Watching the legal quagmire of figuring out how exactly to imprison a former President would be hilarious.

We all get they aren't just going to throw Trump in gen-pop or having him picking up cans by the side of the road, as cathartic as that imagery would be.

The thing I always think about when I imagine Trump going to prison is what would happen with his hair. Would he still have access to the physics-defying mechanisms and witchcraft that keep whatever that thing on his head is supposed to be in place?

The Great Zaganza 12th January 2021 11:12 AM

Trump should absolutely keep is Secret Service Detail, but with one slight modification.

Any citizens can go up to Trump, and the Agents will hold his arms while you get to kick him in the balls ... once.

dudalb 12th January 2021 11:22 AM

He might well have addeed more charges of Incitement to Riot with his speech today.

RecoveringYuppy 12th January 2021 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13358244)
And who decides when their isn't one of those. There isn't one "now", right? "now" in quotes because I don't know the details of when his resignation is effective.

Here's the name of his replacement:

"In the middle of a national security crisis, Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Pete Gaynor -- whose extensive experience in emergency management has been cited as a benefit -- assumes the role of acting secretary."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/polit...hip/index.html

Resume 12th January 2021 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13358373)
He might well have addeed more charges of Incitement to Riot with his speech today.

But . . . but what if we lose?

Trebuchet 12th January 2021 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13358353)
Trump should absolutely keep is Secret Service Detail, but with one slight modification.

Any citizens can go up to Trump, and the Agents will hold his arms while you get to kick him in the balls ... once.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

As for imprisonment, I'm guessing it would wind up as some sort of house arrest. Let him stay at Mar a Lago in a designated suite. No golf outings. No rallies. Let him pay for the security costs.

Mader Levap 12th January 2021 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resume (Post 13358409)
But . . . but what if we lose?

Let him get away with it or... else!!!

Squeegee Beckenheim 13th January 2021 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13358444)
Assumes facts not in evidence.

As for imprisonment, I'm guessing it would wind up as some sort of house arrest. Let him stay at Mar a Lago in a designated suite. No golf outings. No rallies. Let him pay for the security costs.

I've seen it suggested that he would go in one of those wings where people who are old, frail, and/or disabled are kept because they are at risk from the rest of the population. Either that or solitary.

Norman Alexander 13th January 2021 05:06 AM

One of the smaller islands in the Rat archipelago of the Aleutians seems more appropriate. No bars, all to himself, all the seagulls he can eat.

alfaniner 13th January 2021 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 13359245)
One of the smaller islands in the Rat archipelago of the Aleutians seems more appropriate. No bars, all to himself, all the seagulls he can eat.

Plus, it's close to Russia.

Darat 15th January 2021 11:29 AM

The case for the misuse of funds has been expanded: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1787727.html

...... Washington DC attorney general Karl Racine said Mr Trump Jr had been notified of the request, which was sent after new evidence emerged in court filings earlier this week......

Segnosaur 15th January 2021 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13362218)
The case for the misuse of funds has been expanded: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1787727.html

...... Washington DC attorney general Karl Racine said Mr Trump Jr had been notified of the request, which was sent after new evidence emerged in court filings earlier this week......

Note: The 'misuse of funds' was referring to the inauguration funds back in 2016/2017.

Basically they were holding events at Trump hotels, and charging higher-than-market rates. (Which would be a way to move political donations for the inauguration into Trump's pocket.)

DevilsAdvocate 15th January 2021 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 13359212)
I've seen it suggested that he would go in one of those wings where people who are old, frail, and/or disabled are kept because they are at risk from the rest of the population. Either that or solitary.

The Fletcher Memorial Home

Skeptic Ginger 15th January 2021 07:57 PM

4 days, 17 hours more for Trump to produce those pardons.

Segnosaur 15th January 2021 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13362746)
4 days, 17 hours more for Trump to produce those pardons.

Less than 1/2 scaramuchi.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Mader Levap 16th January 2021 07:39 AM

IMO there won't be any pardons, at least not for suckers that stormed Capitol.

Paul2 16th January 2021 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13362751)
Less than 1/2 scaramuchi.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Counting whole days, it's .363636363636... scaramuchis.

The Atheist 17th January 2021 06:40 PM

Handy list here of potential charges against Trump, just from NY: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...-leaves-office

DevilsAdvocate 17th January 2021 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 13364660)
Handy list here of potential charges against Trump, just from NY: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...-leaves-office

We need to get an office pool going on when the first civil suit will be filed. Who's got January 20, 2021, 12:01 PM?

RecoveringYuppy 17th January 2021 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate (Post 13364667)
We need to get an office pool going on when the first civil suit will be filed. Who's got January 20, 2021, 12:01 PM?

You have to mean the next. There is at least one active civil suit right now. The one that Barr tried to step in on.

Bob001 18th January 2021 01:34 AM

The case for prosecuting Trump:
Quote:

A chief reason states prosecute their most powerful public officials is that prosecutions help deter future lawbreaking. Insofar as the law is applied consistently—without regard for the profile of the person in question—prosecutions send clear signals. Beliefs about the probability of punishment operate forcefully on people’s decisions.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...branch/617647/

dirtywick 18th January 2021 02:11 AM

shouldn’t have to explain that to the guys that brought federal executions back, since it’s their only argument for them.

Athyrio 20th January 2021 10:33 AM

Let the litigation begin.

eerok 20th January 2021 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athyrio (Post 13367847)
Let the litigation begin.

This is the moment I bought all that popcorn for.

smartcooky 20th January 2021 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eerok (Post 13367964)
This is the moment I bought all that popcorn for.

And me.

Go after the whole crime family.

alfaniner 20th January 2021 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athyrio (Post 13367847)
Let the litigation begin.

I don't want to be hearing about that just yet. Just let us have a day or two where he's not dominating the news.

Then throw the book at him.

Fast Eddie B 20th January 2021 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13358353)

Any citizens can go up to Trump, and the Agents will hold his arms while you get to kick him in the balls ... once.

Perfect. An update on Idiocracy’s “OW MY BALLS”.

smartcooky 20th January 2021 07:53 PM

https://www.dropbox.com/s/muupcvr5w1...ower.jpg?raw=1

dudalb 20th January 2021 11:46 PM

I would not be surprised if the private lawsuits and litagation from people to whom Trump owes money proves to more damaging to him then the criminal charges.

Segnosaur 25th January 2021 11:26 AM

Not exactly 'crimes' by Trump, but part of the 'emoluments' clause of the constitution...

From: CTV News
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought an end to lawsuits over whether Donald Trump illegally profited off his presidency. The justices threw out Trump's challenge to lower court rulings that had allowed lawsuits to go forward alleging that he violated the Constitution's emoluments clause by accepting payments from foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel and patronize other businesses owned by the former president and his family.

No comments were given by the supreme court, and it looks like there were no dissenters. (Probably just a case where it is no longer relevant once Trump left office.)

A shame that Trump was able to run out the clock like that before the case was properly decided.

The Great Zaganza 25th January 2021 12:12 PM

People will take note that the Supreme Court has no problem with a for-profit Presidency.

dudalb 25th January 2021 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13373498)
People will take note that the Supreme Court has no problem with a for-profit Presidency.

Or maybe a narrow technical issue?

ponderingturtle 25th January 2021 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13373521)
Or maybe a narrow technical issue?

Yes a what is now normal is a Republican for profit presidency. A democrat would of course get stamped down real fast.

Segnosaur 25th January 2021 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13373521)
Re: Supreme court ending emoluments lawsuits against Trump...
Quote:

People will take note that the Supreme Court has no problem with a for-profit Presidency.
Or maybe a narrow technical issue?

That is likely the case. Given the fact that there were no dissenters, it appears that even the left-leaning judges on the court agreed with ending the lawsuits. (If it were split along ideological lines, like 5-4 or 6-3 then it would be more suspicious)

ponderingturtle 25th January 2021 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13373576)
That is likely the case. Given the fact that there were no dissenters, it appears that even the left-leaning judges on the court agreed with ending the lawsuits. (If it were split along ideological lines, like 5-4 or 6-3 then it would be more suspicious)

The courts don't want to make a ruling and say if it was constitutional or not. They really are lazy at a fundamental level and will look for any excuse to avoid doing their job.

No Other 26th January 2021 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13373498)
People will take note that the Supreme Court has no problem with a for-profit Presidency.

I can't think of one politician that came out of Congress barely making ends meet. I don't like the idea of ANY politician making money due to being elected but we are stuck with it, all the Court did was codify it. People didn't seem to have any problem when Hillary (as Secretary of State) arranged for meetings with her and others when those who wanted to meet donated to the Clinton Foundation.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.