Trump's Trials (4 in all, April 2024)

[Dukasaur]

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?
What would that be?

Obama ordered drone strikes against alleged terrorists who were U.S. citizens.

It's execution without trial. American law does allow its government to murder foreigners on thin pretexts, but it does require a trial for its own citizens.

He could, at least in theory, be prosecuted. And yeah, your point is well taken. Bush slaughtering 100,000 Iraqis on the basis of fabricated claims of WMDs and similar fairy tales is far, far worse. But the issue is not how severe a war crime has to be before public opinion allows a prosecuation to go forward. The issue before the Supreme Court is just whether a former president can be prosecuted for them. On that question (to get back to the original subject) Dreeben should have simply given a whole-hearted and unequivocal "Yes!"

The examples that Dreeben was questioned on include:

• Could Roosevelt have been prosecuted for illegally incarcerating Japanese-Americans?
• Could Bush be prosecuted for invading Iraq based on falsified intelligence?
• Could Obama be prosecuted for illegal drone strikes on American citizens?
• Could Biden be prosecuted for his handling of the border crisis?

On the latter, I'm not sure exactly what law they are alleging that Biden has broken, but the first three were clearly illegal. They weren't prosecuted because they involved fairly popular presidents and prosecuting them would have led to a huge public backlash, but they could have been prosecuted, and Dreeben should have said so.

His case rests on the basic principle that in a democracy, nobody, NOBODY, is above the law, and he should have been reiterating that at every breath, instead of getting lost on side arguments about whether there was enough evidence to charge Obama. He let Gorsuch and Kavanaugh bog him down with those, and he sounded like he was equivocating.

[saxitoxin]

It's doubtful Biden could be charged with anything over the border.

However, in Berenson vs. Twitter, it emerged in discovery that Alex Berenson's Twitter account was suspended by Twitter under intense pressure from the White House over Berenson's criticism of the government. Berenson is now suing Biden personally (Berenson vs. Biden). If the court finds that the suspension was personally ordered by Biden, he could face charges under Section 241 of the criminal code, Conspiracy Against Rights.

• If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
  
  If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
  
  They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
  

[jusplay4fun]

The Judge in charge game money to Biden. His daughter is a big Fund Raiser for Democrats. Tell me that Trump can get a FAIR trial under THOSE conditions.

So it's your position that judges with family members who outwardly raise funds for and promote empowering one party over the other should recuse themselves?

I don't care about blatant corruption at the highest federal level of the court system or that a supreme court justices wife tried to organized an insurrection, I'm only concerned that a state judge donated $35 once and that precludes them from being impartial... iT'S tHe lAAw

It is a bit unclear here, but there is more than the biased judge that I criticized about this case. Is that all Mookie has, despite being shown that such contributions should have caused the Judge to recuse himself? This guilty verdict, if it ever comes, will be tossed out on appeal due to the at least one of MANY issues that I raised.

[saxitoxin]

It's doubtful Biden could be charged with anything over the border.

However, in Berenson vs. Twitter, it emerged in discovery that Alex Berenson's Twitter account was suspended by Twitter under intense pressure from the White House over Berenson's criticism of the government. Berenson is now suing Biden personally (Berenson vs. Biden). If the court finds that the suspension was personally ordered by Biden, he could face charges under Section 241 of the criminal code, Conspiracy Against Rights.

• If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
  
  If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
  
  They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
  

Of course, as a first time non-violent offender, the Sentencing Guidelines say Biden should only get 27-33 months in jail.

https://www.sentencing.us/

Though at his extremely advanced age that's basically a life sentence.

[Pack Rat]

Where did you get your Law Degree from...Trump University[/color]?[/b]

As expected, here is ANOTHER useless post and ineffective, impotent response from the petty-rat. He failed to ADDRESS ONE issue that I raised and instead continues his personal attacks of me.

I continue to point to the drivel posted by our resident petty-rat. WORTHLESS junk.

Jusplay4MAGA, we all have a problem understanding your stance on anything you post here. All you do is fall back on your usual word salad in responding to anything who has a different opinion. As far as you are concerned, all judges in Trump's trials are biased. All different opinions outside of yours is FAKE NEWS and LIES!

You should pay Saxi to tutor you on how to post opinions and how to respond with a bit of wit (you are running on empty) and using humor to captivate those reading your posts.

I thought you have placed several of us on your ignore list...what happened?

Your posts are boring and your long copy/paste articles is a monumental dose of sleeping medication

[pmac666]

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?

Prosecutions in the ICJ relate to international law, not US law.

And since it would be a political stunt

War can only legally be declared in self-defence and/or if the UN Security Council authorises the use of force. The declaration of war by Bush and Blair fits neither of those criteria and was therefore illegal. There would be nothing 'political' about any prosecution of either of them.

GL with that, the USA isnt part of the ICJ.

And what would be the exact crime?

I never said I could see a prosecution achieving anything. You asked what crime Bush could be indicted for, so I told you. I actually told you the exact crime in my previous post, which you quoted in full. I'm not sure what's confused you.

The UN Charter is the document that makes the invasion illegal, and the US is signed up to the Charter. Bush can't be tried in the ICJ (given the US refuses to be held accountable by the international community for its actions) but the US Government could prosecute him in US courts using the Charter.

I asked about Obamas crime.
Duk gladly got it.

[bigtoughralf]

You were also talking about Bush in the post I replied to.

Glad you've managed to find your resolution. The answer: pretty much every US president in modern history is a war criminal!

[pmac666]

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?
What would that be?

Obama ordered drone strikes against alleged terrorists who were U.S. citizens.

It's execution without trial. American law does allow its government to murder foreigners on thin pretexts, but it does require a trial for its own citizens.

He could, at least in theory, be prosecuted. And yeah, your point is well taken. Bush slaughtering 100,000 Iraqis on the basis of fabricated claims of WMDs and similar fairy tales is far, far worse. But the issue is not how severe a war crime has to be before public opinion allows a prosecuation to go forward. The issue before the Supreme Court is just whether a former president can be prosecuted for them. On that question (to get back to the original subject) Dreeben should have simply given a whole-hearted and unequivocal "Yes!"

The examples that Dreeben was questioned on include:

• Could Roosevelt have been prosecuted for illegally incarcerating Japanese-Americans?
• Could Bush be prosecuted for invading Iraq based on falsified intelligence?
• Could Obama be prosecuted for illegal drone strikes on American citizens?
• Could Biden be prosecuted for his handling of the border crisis?

On the latter, I'm not sure exactly what law they are alleging that Biden has broken, but the first three were clearly illegal. They weren't prosecuted because they involved fairly popular presidents and prosecuting them would have led to a huge public backlash, but they could have been prosecuted, and Dreeben should have said so.

His case rests on the basic principle that in a democracy, nobody, NOBODY, is above the law, and he should have been reiterating that at every breath, instead of getting lost on side arguments about whether there was enough evidence to charge Obama. He let Gorsuch and Kavanaugh bog him down with those, and he sounded like he was equivocating.

Thx Duk, didnt know that.
Read up on it now and to me it sounds like a accident. More like shit happens in war.

Bit of a stretch calling that a war crime, esp when you root for Putin. lol

[pmac666]

You were also talking about Bush in the post I replied to.

Glad you've managed to find your resolution. The answer: pretty much every US president in modern history is a war criminal!

Yeah thats why its a bit silly whining about Obama and one accident.

[bigtoughralf]

Accident? The US citizen killed by US drones was deliberately targeted. Obama went out and defended it in the press himself.

Whether or not the victims were US citizens isn't really the point though. The US Government carried out thousands of drone assassinations under Obama, including killing hundreds of civilians in the crossfire.

[pmac666]

Accident? The US citizen killed by US drones was deliberately targeted. Obama went out and defended it in the press himself.

Whether or not the victims were US citizens isn't really the point though. The US Government carried out thousands of drone assassinations under Obama, including killing hundreds of civilians in the crossfire.

No, he wasnt deliberatly targeted, his dad and his buddy was. And it doesnt seem its a great loss...



Well, ofc all that wouldnt have happened if Bush hadnt set the middle east on fire. Think you have the wrong starting point.
And then they are still layers to it. A few drone kills, as bad as thea are, are still better than boots on the ground, right?
And ofc, Trump killed even more......
Will get crowded at that trial that never happens. lol

[saxitoxin]

Ralf is correct. It was no accident.

Anwar al-Awlaki (not his son -- though it's likely there is undisclosed evidence he was also intentionally targeted) was placed on a "kill list" and only the president had the authority to do so. The ACLU sought to intervene as Awlaki's legal counsel to prevent Obama from carrying-out his execution without trial. Their efforts did not proceed fast enough and Obama succeeded in executing Awlaki without trial.

The ACLU subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against Obama on behalf of Awlaki's father. The court dismissed the lawsuit only because Awalki's father did not have standing, but they did not reach a decision on the case's merits nor did they foreclose the possibility of later criminal prosecution of Obama on the charge of Deprivation of Rights, which has no statute of limitations.

Awlaki vs. Obama

In June 2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government’s decision to authorize the killing of his son, a U.S. citizen who had been placed on secret “kill lists” maintained by the CIA and the U.S. military’s covert Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) earlier that year. Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury designated Anwar al-Aulaqi a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist,” which made it a crime for lawyers to provide pro bono legal services for his benefit without first seeking a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). CCR and the ACLU sought a license, but after the government’s failure to grant one despite the urgency created by the outstanding authorization for Al-Aulaqi’s killing, CCR and the ACLU brought suit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the licensing scheme. The government thereupon provided the license.

In August 2010, CCR and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of Nasser Al-Aulaqi, challenging the government’s decision authorizing the CIA and JSOC to target and kill his son in Yemen. Outside of the context of armed conflict, the Constitution and international human rights treaties the U.S. has ratified prohibit the state from depriving persons of life without due process, except as a last resort to protect against an imminent threat of deadly harm. Anwar Al-Aulaqi was being targeted far from the United States’ war in Afghanistan, and the standing order for his killing flew in the face of the plain meaning of the law’s imminence requirement. This case is part of CCR’s work challenging unlawful drone killings by the United States and other fundamental rights violations being committed in the name of national security.

https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/ ... qi-v-obama

This is separate from the matter of the need to manacle Obama and have him dragged before an international tribunal for his crimes against the Libyan people.

[Pack Rat]

Ralf is correct. It was no accident.

Anwar al-Awlaki (not his son -- though it's likely there is undisclosed evidence he was also intentionally targeted) was placed on a "kill list" and only the president had the authority to do so. The ACLU sought to intervene as Awlaki's legal counsel to prevent Obama from carrying-out his execution without trial. Their efforts did not proceed fast enough and Obama succeeded in executing Awlaki without trial.

The ACLU subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against Obama on behalf of Awlaki's father. The court dismissed the lawsuit only because Awalki's father did not have standing, but they did not reach a decision on the case's merits nor did they foreclose the possibility of later criminal prosecution of Obama on the charge of Deprivation of Rights, which has no statute of limitations.

Awlaki vs. Obama

In June 2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government’s decision to authorize the killing of his son, a U.S. citizen who had been placed on secret “kill lists” maintained by the CIA and the U.S. military’s covert Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) earlier that year. Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury designated Anwar al-Aulaqi a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist,” which made it a crime for lawyers to provide pro bono legal services for his benefit without first seeking a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). CCR and the ACLU sought a license, but after the government’s failure to grant one despite the urgency created by the outstanding authorization for Al-Aulaqi’s killing, CCR and the ACLU brought suit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the licensing scheme. The government thereupon provided the license.

In August 2010, CCR and the ACLU filed suit on behalf of Nasser Al-Aulaqi, challenging the government’s decision authorizing the CIA and JSOC to target and kill his son in Yemen. Outside of the context of armed conflict, the Constitution and international human rights treaties the U.S. has ratified prohibit the state from depriving persons of life without due process, except as a last resort to protect against an imminent threat of deadly harm. Anwar Al-Aulaqi was being targeted far from the United States’ war in Afghanistan, and the standing order for his killing flew in the face of the plain meaning of the law’s imminence requirement. This case is part of CCR’s work challenging unlawful drone killings by the United States and other fundamental rights violations being committed in the name of national security.

https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/ ... qi-v-obama

This is separate from the matter of the need to manacle Obama and have him dragged before an international tribunal for his crimes against the Libyan people.

Are we trying to derail this thread Saxi?

Where is all the MAGA supporters around the court house? Where is Trump's wife and his kids?

[saxitoxin]

Where is all the MAGA supporters around the court house?

Some guy lit himself on fire there a few days ago. The crowds moved here, where it's safer:

[mookiemcgee]

Yeah but woulnt they need a actual crime against US law first?
What would that be?

Obama ordered drone strikes against alleged terrorists who were U.S. citizens.

It's execution without trial. American law does allow its government to murder foreigners on thin pretexts, but it does require a trial for its own citizens.

He could, at least in theory, be prosecuted. And yeah, your point is well taken. Bush slaughtering 100,000 Iraqis on the basis of fabricated claims of WMDs and similar fairy tales is far, far worse. But the issue is not how severe a war crime has to be before public opinion allows a prosecuation to go forward. The issue before the Supreme Court is just whether a former president can be prosecuted for them. On that question (to get back to the original subject) Dreeben should have simply given a whole-hearted and unequivocal "Yes!"

The examples that Dreeben was questioned on include:

• Could Roosevelt have been prosecuted for illegally incarcerating Japanese-Americans?
• Could Bush be prosecuted for invading Iraq based on falsified intelligence?
• Could Obama be prosecuted for illegal drone strikes on American citizens?
• Could Biden be prosecuted for his handling of the border crisis?

On the latter, I'm not sure exactly what law they are alleging that Biden has broken, but the first three were clearly illegal. They weren't prosecuted because they involved fairly popular presidents and prosecuting them would have led to a huge public backlash, but they could have been prosecuted, and Dreeben should have said so.

His case rests on the basic principle that in a democracy, nobody, NOBODY, is above the law, and he should have been reiterating that at every breath, instead of getting lost on side arguments about whether there was enough evidence to charge Obama. He let Gorsuch and Kavanaugh bog him down with those, and he sounded like he was equivocating.

It seemed like alot of time was spent on a president acting in a 'governmental capacity' or a 'personal capacity' when they committed the 'act' alleged to be illegal though. It's fairly rational legal position to hold that a president is immune from prosecution in his own country for doing something illegal but actually performing a governmental function (Invade Iraq, Biden and the border, Obama killing americans overseas), while also being able to hold the view a president isn't immune from prosectution for illegal acts done in a personal capacity (shooting someone on the 5th avenue simply to prove they are immune from prosecution, tampering with elections, paying off hookers using campaign funds and not properly reporting it and lying about it). I think any court in the last 100 years or so prior to this one would have probably formed their opinion around this, with this court I'm not so sure.

[saxitoxin]

shooting someone on the 5th avenue

Donald Trump has not been indicted or accused of shooting anyone in any location, let alone 5th Avenue.

tampering with elections

According to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the 2020 U.S. election was "the most secure in American history" and there is no evidence of any tampering. The Brennan Center for Justice at Harvard University reports that "the 2020 general election was one of the most secure elections in our history" and affirms any claims of election tampering are baseless. A PBS investigation also finds no instances of election tampering.

paying off hookers using campaign funds and not properly reporting it and lying about it

This is a state charge that predated the presidency and would not be impacted by the forthcoming SCOTUS decision to declare our Lord and Liege immune from the witch hunt of the evil and dim-witted Jack Smith.

[saxitoxin]

What Trump is actually charged with is lying about something in a way that ultimately made no difference to anything since our solemnly revered experts and journalists have affirmed the election was "the most secure in history."

Whether or not he lied is irrelevant, anyone has an absolute right to say anything, with three exceptions none of which apply here. I have an absolute right to claim the Earth is flat or the Moon is made out of cheese as much as I want.

Immunity is simply a way to deep-six these dishonest, politicized, unconstitutional, and baseless charges using the path of least resistance and most minimal expense. Trump does not fundamentally care about immunity. (Nor should he as there will be no need for further presidents after he retakes the White House.)

[2dimes]

shooting someone on the 5th avenue simply to prove they are immune from prosecution,

Donald Trump has not been indicted or accused of shooting anyone in any location, let alone 5th Avenue.

I think this was an exaggerated example that was made up to inject humour and a slight bit of shock into the conversation.

"Tampering with elections." Seems to be used in jest by many people, partially because both sides actually throw that accusation around often. Do I believe there is probably some shenanigans? Yeah, a little, but I suspect it's not significantly affecting outcomes.

Mook could just as easily have additionally wrote, "Riding an unregistered uninsured Honda CRF 250 around the national mall." This would be outlandish since the Donald has probably not rode a bicycle let alone a high performance dirt bike.

Much like "paying off hookers" sounds like a joke, except that one's an actual accusation.

[mookiemcgee]

shooting someone on the 5th avenue

Donald Trump has not been indicted or accused of shooting anyone in any location, let alone 5th Avenue.

...but he could, according to him. Because Presidential immunity has no limits.

tampering with elections

no evidence of any tampering.[/quote]

Apologies, I mispoke. The indictment doesn't say tampering, it says 'criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury.' Now it's a Rico indictment so it's not specifically saying trump actively participated in the act of all of these personally, just that he would be guilty as a member/organizer of the conspiracy in which these crimes were committed.

paying off hookers using campaign funds and not properly reporting it and lying about it

This is a state charge that predated the presidency and would not be impacted by the forthcoming SCOTUS decision to declare our Lord and Liege immune from the witch hunt of the evil and dim-witted Jack Smith.[/quote]

noted.

Can you pardon yourself from prison? How do pardons work, is it like declassifying documents? do you just think about pardoning someone and then is just happens or does paperwork need to be filed? How can you sign paperwork if your aren't allowed a pen because your in prison? would he have to sign his own pardon with his feces?

[pmac666]

Paying off hookers is quite silly imo.
Especially when you already married one.

[jusplay4fun]

A few, p-rat in particular, have not dealt with one issue I posted that is wrong about the NYC Trump case, except that the judge presiding the case gave money to Biden. Saxi effectively dealt with that.

I listed several factors and all that has posted to "refute" my point is simply obfuscation, subterfuge, and drivel.

And, contrary to p-rat falsehood, there was no copy and paste when I made my points. Typical liberal response, do not answer facts with facts; simply distract from the matter at hand.

What is the NYC trial for Trump about? I already answered that, but I will reiterate. Trump paid for silence from a woman (a porn star) to stay quiet. The allegation is that Trump tried to HIDE this expense as "Legal expenses" but in the process, violated Campaign Laws, that the NYC DA Bragg has NO jurisdiction for. So this attempt to hide a crime, is to cover a crime UNFOUNDED by

1) the Feds in charge of election violations, including the FBI, and

2) Braggs predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr.

This is the same DA Office that just had their conviction of Harvey Weinstein overturned on appeal. Well done, Bragg. Also, this is the DA who ran his election pledging to "get Trump." Yes, that is JUSTICE in NYC.

If Trump is convicted on these flimsy allegations, the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

All this smacks of election interference by the Democrats who feat their man Biden is too feeble, old, and incompetent to get re-elected. Let's Go, BRANDON..!

[Pack Rat]

Jusplay4MAGA, who pays 130,000 dollars for no sex? This quote is coming from Republican Senator Romney.

Stop being silly jusplay4MAGA pussy costs money. Just ask Pecker!

[GaryDenton]

I can't quite digest that a former and possibly future American president's lawyers are telling the Supreme Court that he should have immunity to kill political rivals. Utterly surreal.

Whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and that involves giving them heard at a respected platform.

This is just the start, if a Republican victory starts Project 2025.

Project 2025 (officially the Presidential Transition Project) is a collection of policy proposals to reshape the executive branch of the U.S. federal government at an unprecedented scale in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Established in 2022, the project seeks to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to Washington, D.C. in order to replace existing federal civil service workers whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state", to further the objectives of the next Republican president. Although the project cannot promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and the Trump 2024 presidential campaign. The plan would perform a swift restructuring of the executive branch under a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory — a dubious legal theory proposing the president of the United States has absolute power over the executive branch — upon inauguration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

[ConfederateSS]

--------They are accusing Trump of using Campaign funds, to pay off someone....
--------Like always Democrats do, what they accuse others of doing...
-------- The Biden Administration, knowing thanks to Arabics in Michigan/Anti-Israeli protesters will lose Michigan in November...Not to mention EV, the Auto Workers, upset...
-------- So Biden has signed an Executive Order, which includes the SBA(Small Business Association...
-------- The SBA and the State of Michigan (Department of State)...Have made a deal...By Using Federal Funds /Federal Agencies for Campaigning, when it is against the law...
------- Michigan is the 1st State to work with the SBA...To expand voter registration in Michigan/Democratic counties...For Biden...Look who is using Tax payer dollars, Federal Agency to get re-elected....Biden ,the Democrats.... Breaking Federal Law , for real...Yet, Trump is on trial, for spending his own money...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...
------When, 48% Michigan families are struggling to survive...The very people the SBA, tax money is supposed to help...NOT GET BIDEN RE-ELECTED!!!...

[jonesthecurl]

You're drooling on your keyboard.