Kansas Crimson

as the appeals court laid out, if such were to be the case (ultimate immunity), there would be nothing to prevent a president from jailing without cause or even go so far as to seek assassination of political opponents

They have a point!

From the ruling: (my emboldening)

...We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power - the recognition and implementation of election results…

It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity...

...At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches...

Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive coud not prosecute and the Judiciary cold not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter...

Everyone knows Trump is going to win in November. Even if he is charged with "something", there's no law that says he cannot be president. The insurrection thing is a joke and we all know that's not going to stick. I mean, I would rather have Vivek or RFK be president, but there's no signs it's going to be anyone different than Trump.

poor, poor lobs

A for effort, buddy

That lobs’ scenario is even remotely plausible demonstrates how much of a dire situation it is, as a nation; as a civilization.

zsn wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 1:34 pm That lobs’ scenario is even remotely plausible demonstrates how much of a dire situation it is, as a nation; as a civilization.

^^^

Now that King, I mean, "citizen Trump", as he was referred to in today's ruling, has lost his immunity, i.e., Get Out of Jail for Anything and Everything In Perpetuity card, Moscow is currently edging out Budapest and substantially ahead of Pyongyang as to where we'll hear that Trump's plane has landed, on a one-way trip...

They didn't take his passport?

Cassandra wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 12:37 pm Everyone knows Trump is going to win in November. Even if he is charged with "something", there's no law that says he cannot be president. The insurrection thing is a joke and we all know that's not going to stick. I mean, I would rather have Vivek or RFK be president, but there's no signs it's going to be anyone different than Trump.

No, "everyone" does not know, or believe, that is going to happen.

My fear is that Orange Julius Caesar wins through massive intimidation at the polls

Fulton County DA Fani Willis about to testify (on TV) in her trial.

Streaming it on PBS thru Youtube is possible. (As well as with MSNBC, etc.)

She's taking the stand.

Fani has an attitude.

(I don't think anyone would have assumed that...)

F___ing A.

Just my impression, so far.

Fani is making the attorney questioning her look very lame. Fani's biggest problem thus far is deciding whether to dice or Julienne her. That attorney is the attorney for one of the defendants Fani has charged with trying to "steal" the election.

Paraphrasing:

Fani:

I'm not a hostile witness. I want the opportunity to correct the lies she, (the attorney questioning her now), told about me in the press...

I'm not on trial here, as much as you want to make it look like I am. The person who's on trial is that man over there who tried to steal the election...

Fani is not to be denied when it comes to answering the questions.

Wow, it's getting better with time. They just took a 5 minute break because things were getting so heated.

Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 2:48 pm F___ing A.

Just my impression, so far.

Fani is making the attorney questioning her look very lame. Fani's biggest problem thus far is deciding whether to dice or Julienne her. That attorney is the attorney for one of the defendants Fani has charged with trying to "steal" the election.

Paraphrasing:

Fani:

I'm not a hostile witness. I want the opportunity to correct the lies she, (the attorney questioning her now), told about me in the press...

I'm not on trial here, as much as you want to make it look like I am. The person who's on trial is that man over there who tried to steal the election...

Fani is not to be denied when it comes to answering the questions.

Wow, it's getting better with time. They just took a 5 minute break because things were getting so heated.

This is not a fair fight.

Today In: The first law of holes! "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

As poorly as it went for the defense yesterday, a reasonable person might think they'd want another crack at Fani today. (But then, "as poorly as it went for them yesterday", who can blame them?)

'What a shock': Lawyers decline further questioning of Fani Willis

Unfortunately for the defense:

The second law of holes is: "When you stop digging, you are still in a hole."

In case you haven't had enough Court TV yet today:

The Verdict in Trump's NY Civil Fraud Case is supposed to be handed down today.

Will the Trump Corp still be able to do business in NY state after today?

How much of the $370 million the AG asked for will Trump have to pay?

Shirley wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 9:31 am Today In: The first law of holes! "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

As poorly as it went for the defense yesterday, a reasonable person might think they'd want another crack at Fani today. (But then, "as poorly as it went for them yesterday", who can blame them?)

'What a shock': Lawyers decline further questioning of Fani Willis

Unfortunately for the defense:

The second law of holes is: "When you stop digging, you are still in a hole."

If I understand right, it was actually the state's side (the side in favor of NOT disqualifying Willis) that declined to put her back on the stand (because it would give the other side another bite at the apple).

It's a (good, in my opinion) bet that - for all the salacious stuff - the court has simply not been presented legal evidence of an actual conflict of interest that would justify disqualification.

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention so pardon my dumb question. Why would Willis sleeping with a coworker and traveling with that person on some vacations be a conflict of interest in these cases involving people attempting to steal an election? These seems like nothing more than lame attempts at slander and some delay tactics to push this out past the election.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:03 am Maybe I just haven't been paying attention so pardon my dumb question. Why would Willis sleeping with a coworker and traveling with that person on some vacations be a conflict of interest in these cases involving people attempting to steal an election? These seems like nothing more than lame attempts at slander and some delay tactics to push this out past the election.

What you have described might be a lot of things, but it is not a disqualifying conflict of interest.

What would be a disqualifying conflict of interest would be self-dealing - but so far there is not (in my view) evidence of that occurring.

President Donald Trump and his companies to pay nearly $355 million in a ruling in the New York civil fraud case. The former president is also barred from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation or other legal entity in the state for three years. Trump's attorney said he plans to appeal the decision. Read the full ruling.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:09 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 11:03 am Maybe I just haven't been paying attention so pardon my dumb question. Why would Willis sleeping with a coworker and traveling with that person on some vacations be a conflict of interest in these cases involving people attempting to steal an election? These seems like nothing more than lame attempts at slander and some delay tactics to push this out past the election.

What you have described might be a lot of things, but it is not a disqualifying conflict of interest.

What would be a disqualifying conflict of interest would be self-dealing - but so far there is not (in my view) evidence of that occurring.

I slept in a Holiday Inn lat night:

They want to prove that Fani was motivated by $$$ to bring charges against the defendant(s). That she didn't do it so much based on the merits of the evidence, but as an opportunity to hire her boyfriend to be the lead prosecutor for a high-salaried job, and then benefit from him spending large sums of that $alary picking up the tab for their traveling and lavish lifestyle.

They maintain they were not yet romantically involved, and that Fani paid him back anytime he put something on a credit card, etc. And, the former governor of GA testified this morning that Fani had tried to offer the job to him first, but he turned it down because of the danger and violent threats he knew would come from it.