Insignificant ruling from a low level state court in a civil case.
Other Federal Courts have already ruled that the President does not have "absolute immunity". He has zero immunity for criminal actions, and he only has civil immunity from cases that involve "official conduct".
he cheats at golf, he cheats on his taxes, and he's cheated on all of his wives.
re covid, in quick succession, straight from the horses' asses' mouth. note that if one is true, the rest must be false. but they CAN ALL be false. "it's a hoax. it will be gone in a week. gone in 2 weeks. in a month. like a miracle, by easter." 1.2 million dead americans beg to differ. https://gisanddata.maps.arc...40299423467b48e9ecf6
he's called veterans "losers" and "chumps" but evaded the draft after attending military school via "bonespurs"
he's repeatedly expressed a desire to override the constitutional limits of his authority via executive fiat.
he continues to lie about how many votes he got in the 2020 and 2016 elections, the latter of which he only won by sleight of electoral college. he has NEVER won the popular vote.
donald trump is a sociopathic criminal and a pathological liar.
I could pick apart a few posts here, but since I don't really give a crap about these people's opinions, I'll just let the pigs continue to play in their own waste.
Anyone that believes half the crap they post anymore is an idiot anyway, and a lost cause in todays world. I believe they would have been called "useful idiots" in the old days, and then executed by the regime first. I'm sure that won't happen this time...
I could pick apart a few posts here, but since I don't really give a crap about these people's opinions, I'll just let the pigs continue to play in their own waste.
Anyone that believes half the crap they post anymore is an idiot anyway, and a lost cause in todays world. I believe they would have been called "useful idiots" in the old days, and then executed by the regime first. I'm sure that won't happen this time...
MidEngineManiac was plainly giddy about this ruling in a Pennsylvania civil court case that goes in Trump's favor. It was as if MEM were under the influence of "laughing gas." It's plain for everyone to see, because he worked "Here come the [liberal] tears" into his little post about it.
I looked at the news report and it didn't look like to me like a signal development in the legal saga of Donald Trump.
Forum member fredtoast, who unlike me is an attorney at law, looked at the news report and had the same idea about it as I did... that this judge's ruling in favor of Donald Trump is not a "game changer" that's going to be making headline news.
Then came "lurker", so was it his remarks that set off Fats, or "triggered" Fats, when Fats posted this decidedly unhinged little screed?
I wonder.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-23-2023).]
The article is over a month old, and unfortunately, I think there was a higher court ruling that said it didn't apply. I also recall in the Nixon tapes, the courts identified that Nixon did not have presidential immunity. But there have been a few other court cases against presidents that have further refined this. So... I don't know. Personally, I don't think anything will come of this stuff in Georgia... I think most reasonable people would see this is largely just politics... which unfortunately (fortunately) now opens the doors for future prosecutions. The Democrats tend to do these "firsts" a lot, and they never, ever, work out for them in the long run... but always end up biting them in the ass every single time.
from the local beat cop to the head law enforcement in a state OR THE NATION all the judges and prostituting government attorneys should be under the laws
as it is NOW a cop does you wrong you can't sue him for most illegal acts as no law was passed just a court ruled [ie made up] this idea
that unless there is a clear ruling in a LOCAL COURT THAN AN OFFICIAL CAN'T DO THAT THE PIG GETS A FREE PASS [IE IS IMMUNE FROM THE LAW] WHILE THE CITIZEN CAN NEVER SAY THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT LAW THE POLICE CAN SAY EXACTLY THAT AND WALK AWAY
FROM THE TRUMP TO THE LOCAL COP THAT IDEA OF IMMUNITY IS EVIL
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 08-23-2023).]
The article is over a month old, and unfortunately, I think there was a higher court ruling that said it didn't apply. I also recall in the Nixon tapes, the courts identified that Nixon did not have presidential immunity. But there have been a few other court cases against presidents that have further refined this. So... I don't know. Personally, I don't think anything will come of this stuff in Georgia... I think most reasonable people would see this is largely just politics... which unfortunately (fortunately) now opens the doors for future prosecutions. The Democrats tend to do these "firsts" a lot, and they never, ever, work out for them in the long run... but always end up biting them in the ass every single time.
REVOLTING IS TREASON
FAKING THE ELECTORS IS AN ATTEMPT RIG A FREE ELECTION
FAKING THE ELECTORS IS AN ATTEMPT RIG A FREE ELECTION
THE RUMP GANG ARE CRIMINALS
the handwaving is disgusting
The truth is somewhere in between... asking Pence to not cast his vote does bother me. Technically, the Democrats used COVID to cheat... we have rulings from multiple state supreme courts on this, that is a fact. We also have Hilary who engaged in political subversion with support of Federal agencies to attack her opponent. So there's a lot here that needs to be determined. The question is... are Trump's words illegal. Did Trump actually take any specific actions that he ordered which led to a subversion of the election process? My impression is that the answer is no. It's not illegal to run your mouth, and it's not illegal to ask Pence to not submit the election results in the Senate.
But we'll see... one thing is for sure, this is yet another "first" from Democrats, and what happens here will set precedent. The precedent that will be used for future (and possibly past) presidents moving forward. If Trump is convicted in any way for using language, it will set a new standard that Democrats will have to reconsider when they claim the election was stolen (like Hillary did in 2016, and Al Gore did in 2000).
i've been a registered independent for over 30 years because neither major party accurately represents my views. want ethnic, racial and gender equality(L)? yes, absolutely, anything else is unamerican. (it's in the declaration, look it up). want a strong defense so our good close personal friends and really smart guys Xi or Putin don't overrun us or our allies(C)? yes, absolutely. no, our system isn't perfect, but it's better than most of the alternatives history has shown us. at the age of 70, do i think medicare for all is a good idea? maybe, if we can afford it. i don't need it personally, but maybe the guy next to me or next to him shouldn't have to die because his grand parents didn't make the same life choices as mine did.
meanwhile, we have this man, so plainly a con man and shyster and aspiring despot that i have trouble understanding why EVERYONE can't see it (ok, no, i know why some people CHOOSE not to see, but that's gist for another post, another time) who's hijacked actual conservatism and turned it into a mockery, a kind of cartoonish faux-patriotism they're all too eager to turn on their fellow americans, and will cheerfully turn on each other for the merest hint of unorthodoxy when the time comes. and his supporters have gotten so twisted up in defense of the Man that they've forgotten the principles they used to claim they stood for. "family values"? you mean like splitting up immigrant families and sending the children off to who knows where? self-determination? like the state deciding whether, where and what you worship? no, you can't have it both ways.
no, i'm not happy with joe biden, either. first, he's too old. they all are. all of these guys and gals (yes, every last one of them) have spent decades building networks of sponsors and supporters who "own" them, and their privileged children, too, and they're completely out of touch with the actual needs of the people they claim to represent. none of this is adequate justification for throwing out the system of constitutional republican democracy ("hang mike pence") our forefathers built. DO NOT PUT CRIMINALS IN THE OVAL OFFICE. plenty of them in congress already. suspect wrongdoing? please, absolutely, by all means, investigate. find evidence of wrongdoing? by all means, prosecute. find defendant guilty? by all means, incarcerate. notice, all completely irrespective of party affiliation or family name.
we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men (which i take to include women) are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
he is literally destroying classic conservatism as we watch. but the real problem is not donald. he's just a symptom, promoted with a dose of privilege and russian money and disinformation. there's a sickness gnawing at the heart of our society, and it's not traditional liberalism or conservatism. he just gave it a voice.
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 08-23-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The truth is somewhere in between... asking Pence to not cast his vote does bother me. Technically, the Democrats used COVID to cheat... we have rulings from multiple state supreme courts on this, that is a fact. We also have Hilary who engaged in political subversion with support of Federal agencies to attack her opponent. So there's a lot here that needs to be determined. The question is... are Trump's words illegal. Did Trump actually take any specific actions that he ordered which led to a subversion of the election process? My impression is that the answer is no. It's not illegal to run your mouth, and it's not illegal to ask Pence to not submit the election results in the Senate.
But we'll see... one thing is for sure, this is yet another "first" from Democrats, and what happens here will set precedent. The precedent that will be used for future (and possibly past) presidents moving forward. If Trump is convicted in any way for using language, it will set a new standard that Democrats will have to reconsider when they claim the election was stolen (like Hillary did in 2016, and Al Gore did in 2000).
pence is a odd man of god with many odd beliefs
but he saved the dark Gop from destroying the rule of law
there was no real cheating except after the election by the rumpers
rump lost the rump pitched a fit the rump tryed to cheat the rump goons did the 1-6 putsch the rump revolt did not gain traction now a few of those who betrayed our nation will answer for the rump revolt
explaining why treason was ok is treason supporting those who committed treason is treason supporting officials who supported treason is treason
we came far to close to the total loss of freedom here with the 1-6 revolt and some of people like the rudi who tryed to make it happen who are going to be tryed and far too many others like ted cruse who helped planed plotted and schemed in congress and likely never will be charged [but is on tape trying to further the putsch] should cast out for their treason
and those who were in or outside the capital on 1-6 trying to rump the nation are pleading to their crimes
too may voices of support for the failed Gop SOB and his minions we know the crimes why don't you if the rump won the 1-6 putsch the rule of the people is over the famous ''IF YOU CAN KEEP IT'' FAILS AT THE GREED ORANGE HANDS CLUTCHING POWER WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THE FACTS ???????????????????????
but he saved the dark Gop from destroying the rule of law
too may voices of support for the failed Gop SOB and his minions
It's not that people like or WANT Trump specifically, but he was the first candidate to actually address some of the serious issues that have plagued politics and the United States for the past couple of decades. So, like me, I see him as the only one willing to actually address these things, and he really worked hard to accomplish it. His list of accomplishments are quite significant... and, I tend to think that's why so many in power do not want him in power.
People really do need to understand, if the establishment is telling you someone is bad, but you know the establishment has been letting you down for 20+ years... then why should you believe them now? This goes for both Democrats and Republicans... what have Democrats done in the past 20 years, that didn't actually cause more problems, or a fix for a problem that they themselves caused? Same goes for Republicans.
Trump Litigation Fantasy League'ers around the country are scrambling to adjust to the latest shakeup
Did you see it coming?
"Trump Shakes Up His Georgia Legal Team Ahead of Atlanta Booking" Richard Fausset, Maggie Haberman and Danny Hakim for the New York Times; August 24, 2023.
quote
Just before his visit to an Atlanta jail to be booked on 13 felony counts, Donald J. Trump has shaken up his Georgia legal defense team, adding Steve Sadow, a veteran criminal defense lawyer who has taken on a number of high-profile cases.
Mr. Sadow filed a document with the court on Thursday stating that he was now “lead counsel of record for Donald John Trump.”
Mr. Trump’s decision comes soon after one of his lawyers, Drew Findling, and his two other lawyers in the Georgia case, Jennifer Little and Marissa Goldberg, negotiated a $200,000 bond for Mr. Trump, who is one of 19 defendants in a sweeping racketeering indictment charging them with engaging in a “criminal enterprise” that sought to overturn Mr. Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia.
Mr. Findling is expected to be let go, according to a person familiar with the matter, while Ms. Little will be retained.
Mr. Trump, who is often dissatisfied with lawyers he hires, had been inquiring for several days about who else he could bring in, according to a person familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to speak publicly. Mr. Trump’s main concern, according to the person, was that he wanted a more “sophisticated” team.
Mr. Sadow said in a statement that Mr. Trump “should never have been indicted,” adding, “He is innocent of all the charges brought against him.”
One bedrock principle of American law that seems to have been thrown away on this Forum, and in the Media, is the presumption of innocence. That goes for DJT, JRB and etc.
Our system does not work on the Court of Public Opinion, no matter how the media (both sides) portrays the news.
The former president and all of his codefendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence from the judges and jurors, in whatever jurisdictions the cases come to trial.
If that presumption of innocence is violated, and if it's seen to be violated, that's "trouble" that should culminate in the reversal (upon appeal) of any convictions obtained against them, on the grounds that they did not receive a fair trial.
No one is entitled to a presumption of innocence from this forum, or from any other forum of this kind, or from the press and news media. Outside of the justice system, the First Amendment's freedom of speech holds sway—not the presumption of innocence that is integral to the judicial branch as established by the Third Article of the Constitution.
Am I wrong?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-25-2023).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: You should be acutely aware of what is said about opinions.
I think I am acutely aware of what is (commonly) said about "opinions."
I have served one time in my life as a juror, and was seated for a civil case. A very small case in county court. The trial went through to completion and I participated in arriving at the jury's verdict.
Would I pass muster as a juror in any of the cases that feature the former president as a defendant? Any of the headline news cases? The Mar-a-Lago documents case?The other "Jack Smith" case, about the 2020 elections, in which Trump is the only defendant? The "Fani Willis" case in Georgia? A hypothetical that most obviously cannot happen.
Maybe—hypothetically—I would pass muster as a juror.
If questioned, I would say that I have read and viewed a "crapload" of press and news media coverage about the case(s). That I am a daily participant in an online political discussion forum, where I frequently post remarks that are not in any way friendly to, or respectful of the former president. That there was never so much as a single moment when I even considered voting for the former president in either of the two elections where I had that possibility. That I think his election to another term as President of the United States, or his ascension to any other significant federal or state level public office would be a setback for the United States and for the entire world.
But I would follow that by saying that if I were selected as a juror, I would do my very best to function as an impartial juror; to focus only on the law and the evidence and arguments that are presented in court, and to begin my service as a juror by granting the former president the presumption of innocence, to the best of my ability to do that.
That's would I would say if I actually wanted to serve as a juror in any of the Defendant Trump courtroom trials. I don't know that it would seem like an attractive option to me, were it to somehow "magically" become a possibility.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-25-2023).]
But I would follow that by saying that if I were selected as a juror, I would do my very best to function as an impartial juror; to focus only on the law and the evidence and arguments that are presented in court, and to begin my service as a juror by granting the former president the presumption of innocence, to the best of my ability to do that.
Not attacking you here Rinse (just stating in general for everyone), but there's a concept known as "moral reasoning." There's a relatively famous UVA professor known as Jonathan Haidt, who (and I quote) states that moral reasoning is, "usually a post-hoc process in which we search for evidence to support our initial intuitive reaction."
So, it would look something like this...
PROBLEM --> EMOTION --> JUDGEMENT --> REASON
...rather than what a normal judgement process would be when there is absolutely no emotion tied to the subject,
PROBLEM --> REASON --> JUDGEMENT
For this reason, it becomes almost inherently impossible for people to have any kind of a reasonable filter for something that they have an emotional bias towards. Unfortunately, a lot of this is based on personality, and there's a large portion of the population that likely through heredity, will almost always take the moral reasoning approach because of our implicit biases. I'm not suggesting all Democrats are like this, it's something that half the population has, but I don't think it applies to any particular party... but something that a very large percentage of the population has. To some degree, everyone has this. And this is why people will often say... "I cannot understand why you cannot see what I see."
In effect, a person has largely made up their own mind before anything has happened. You know I've said before that the vast majority of my friends are ultra-liberals. I asked one of my good friends years ago (back in like 2019 before the pandemic) whether or not he would vote for Donald Trump if he had been running as a Democrat, but all his views were the same. This was at a time when everyone still believed Trump colluded with Russia, etc. And he said... "probably."
He's a very honest dude... so I appreciated his honesty. But consider Haidt's Theorem (as I'm calling it) when you quickly come to a conclusion... just so you can ask yourself if it's emotion driving this, or if it's logic. I've always sought to approach things with logic, but as I am human... I too am biased.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-25-2023).]
I think I am acutely aware of what is (commonly) said about "opinions."
I have served one time in my life as a juror, and was seated for a civil case. A very small case in county court. The trial went through to completion and I participated in arriving at the jury's verdict.
Would I pass muster as a juror in any of the cases that feature the former president as a defendant? Any of the headline news cases? The Mar-a-Lago documents case?The other "Jack Smith" case, about the 2020 elections, in which Trump is the only defendant? The "Fani Willis" case in Georgia? A hypothetical that most obviously cannot happen.
Maybe—hypothetically—I would pass muster as a juror.
If questioned, I would say that I have read and viewed a "crapload" of press and news media coverage about the case(s). That I am a daily participant in an online political discussion forum, where I frequently post remarks that are not in any way friendly to, or respectful of the former president. That there was never so much as a single moment when I even considered voting for the former president in either of the two elections where I had that possibility. That I think his election to another term as President of the United States, or his ascension to any other significant federal or state level public office would be a setback for the United States and for the entire world.
But I would follow that by saying that if I were selected as a juror, I would do my very best to function as an impartial juror; to focus only on the law and the evidence and arguments that are presented in court, and to begin my service as a juror by granting the former president the presumption of innocence, to the best of my ability to do that.
That's would I would say if I actually wanted to serve as a juror in any of the Defendant Trump courtroom trials. I don't know that it would seem like an attractive option to me, were it to somehow "magically" become a possibility.
We will never have to worry about rinselberg being selected for a jury. The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial.
Originally posted by rinselberg: No one is entitled to a presumption of innocence from this forum, or from any other forum of this kind, or from the press and news media. Outside of the justice system, the First Amendment's freedom of speech holds sway—not the presumption of innocence that is integral to the judicial branch as established by the Third Article of the Constitution.
Am I wrong?
Let's find out.
I have been told you were born a male and had a sex change because you had an epiphany, (a moment when you suddenly feel that you understand, or suddenly become conscious of, something that is very important to you) that you were born in the wrong body.
The forum does not believe in giving you the right to innocence. Guilty as charged ?
I have been told you were born a male and had a sex change because you had an epiphany, (a moment when you suddenly feel that you understand, or suddenly become conscious of, something that is very important to you) that you were born in the wrong body.
The forum does not believe in giving you the right to innocence. Guilty as charged ?
"Presumption of innocence" as a legal term has a very strict meaning in a court of law.
"Presumption of innocence" on an individual basis has a much different meaning. Each situation is different based on your personal beliefs and the legitimacy of the claims. For example, if the people who ran the daycare where you send your children were charged with raping babies would you continue to send your kids there until they were convicted at a trial?
Originally posted by fredtoast: For example, if the people who ran the daycare where you send your children were charged with raping babies would you continue to send your kids there until they were convicted at a trial?
"Presumption of innocence" as a legal term has a very strict meaning in a court of law.
"Presumption of innocence" on an individual basis has a much different meaning. Each situation is different based on your personal beliefs and the legitimacy of the claims. For example, if the people who ran the daycare where you send your children were charged with raping babies would you continue to send your kids there until they were convicted at a trial?
The things they know she did alone should have put her in jail. We don't even have to count the things they think she did. Declined to prosecute is bull **** .
You have no ethics if you think she is incent just because she has not been charged and convicted. You are not part of the problem you are the problem.
You have no ethics if you think she is incent just because she has not been charged and convicted. You are not part of the problem you are the problem.
I support the United States Constitution.
You don't. Instead you want to make yourself the supreme authority on everything with unchecked power. Our Founding Fathers kicked the butt of a guy like you to win our independence. Then they set up a system of government to insure that no one like you will ever get power. The fact that you claim something is true does not make it true.
I fully admit that Hillary Clinton was negligent. But she was not found guilty of any criminal behavior. In fact she was never even prosecuted.
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-26-2023).]
This is getting kind of strange. Since you never used the word "understand" in any of your posts why would you ask me if I knew the meaning of the word.
Then you try to accuse me of "playing games" but you won't say what game I am playing. The ONLY way to accuse someone of "playing games" is by exposing the game.
I fully admit that Hillary Clinton was negligent. But she was not found guilty of any criminal behavior. In fact she was never even prosecuted.
neg·li·gent /ˈneɡləj(ə)nt/ adjective failing to take proper care in doing something. "directors have been negligent in the performance of their duties"
?
