The Trump Crime Family - Legal Issues

[donquixote99]

^^^ Morality is for slaves, not for the strong! They are nietzschean supermen!

[Chicks]

Special counsel wants Trump election subversion case to begin on January 2, 2024
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/polit...sal/index.html

This judge is no corrupt MAGAMoron, so she just might grant the DOJ's wish. The right to a speedy trial and all that, yes Whell?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Special counsel wants Trump election subversion case to begin on January 2, 2024
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/10/polit...sal/index.html

This judge is no corrupt MAGAMoron, so she just might grant the DOJ's wish. The right to a speedy trial and all that, yes Whell?

I don't agree that a trial date needs to be pushed off until after the election, as Trump's team may want. Beyond that, there are a couple things in the article that I'd think CNN would at least call out if writing an objective article.

“A January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial – an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes,” prosecutors wrote.

The right to a speedy trial is granted to the accused under the Sixth Amendment, not to the government. The judge should know this as well, in particular making sure that both sides have been granted reasonable amounts of time to depose witnesses, request additional subpoenas based on information disclosed during discovery, etc. To that extent, since neither you or I are involved in the process, there's no objective way to gauge the appropriateness of a January 2nd trial date.

One other item:

The special counsel’s office also said it is ready to turn over “the majority” of evidence it has collected to Trump’s legal team for their trial preparations.

Certainly, if I were the defense counsel, I'd motion to delay setting the trial date until the gov't had turned over all evidence they have in the discovery process, not just a subjective "majority" of it.

[Chicks]

'Immediate disqualification': Conservative law professors say Constitution bans Trump from presidency
https://www.alternet.org/amp/immedia...ors-2663233577

Sounds right to me. Whell, these guys are WAY smarter than you; do you agree with them on this?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

'Immediate disqualification': Conservative law professors say Constitution bans Trump from presidency
https://www.alternet.org/amp/immedia...ors-2663233577

Sounds right to me. Whell, these guys are WAY smarter than you; do you agree with them on this?

Sounds like some law professors getting out over their skis.

Two leading, highly-credentialed conservative constitutional law professors say the U.S. Constitution already “disqualifies former President Donald Trump” from holding office, including being President, because of his “participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”

Trump has not been convicted of the "attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.” He's been indicted for this, but there's no general agreement that the case will be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

So, if convicted for "the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election”, sure, take him off the ballot. But we're not anywhere near that point yet.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

So, if convicted for "the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election”, sure, take him off the ballot. But we're not anywhere near that point yet.

Hope springs eternal.

It is funny that he's claiming election interference when the MAGA hordes (as opposed to the regular hordes of the party) will vote for him anyway no matter what.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Sounds like some law professors getting out over their skis.

Two leading, highly-credentialed conservative constitutional law professors say the U.S. Constitution already “disqualifies former President Donald Trump” from holding office, including being President, because of his “participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”

Trump has not been convicted of the "attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.” He's been indicted for this, but there's no general agreement that the case will be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

So, if convicted for "the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election”, sure, take him off the ballot. But we're not anywhere near that point yet.

Hah! NOW you say 'sure, take him off.' But if it happens you'll be all 'It wasn't done right, and it wasn't an insurrection, and what about the appeals, and what about the Biden crimes, and blah blah blah.'

[Chicks]

Jack Smith can prove Trump used Twitter to 'manipulate' followers into a frenzy on Jan. 6: experts
https://www.rawstory.com/amp/jack-sm...ter-2663206610

Not looking good for your Dear Leader, Whell.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Sounds like some law professors getting out over their skis.

Two leading, highly-credentialed conservative constitutional law professors say the U.S. Constitution already “disqualifies former President Donald Trump” from holding office, including being President, because of his “participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.”

Trump has not been convicted of the "attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.” He's been indicted for this, but there's no general agreement that the case will be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

So, if convicted for "the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election”, sure, take him off the ballot. But we're not anywhere near that point yet.

Their argument is that he need not be convicted, but that the 14th Amendment is simply yet another qualification to run for President (beyond age and citizenship). All that would need to occur would be a successful lawsuit which Congress could override with a 2/3 vote per the 14th Amendment. What is puzzling is why the GOP wants to stick with an adjudicated rapist, malignant narcissist, coup plotter and career criminal.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Their argument is that he need not be convicted, but that the 14th Amendment is simply yet another qualification to run for President (beyond age and citizenship). All that would need to occur would be a successful lawsuit which Congress could override with a 2/3 vote per the 14th Amendment. What is puzzling is why the GOP wants to stick with an adjudicated rapist, malignant narcissist, coup plotter and career criminal.

They are trying to save America by first ensuring their job security.