Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 19: Law and Odour

Remove this Banner Ad

ShanDog

ShanDog

Premium Platinum
Veteran Podcaster
Aug 12, 2012
21,291
40,376
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Last edited by a moderator:
swingdog said:
It's always been amusing for outsiders listening to Americans extol the virtues of their political structures based on the 'wisdom' of the founding fathers over 200 years ago.

They're slowly waking up to the fact that these creaky institutions are ridiculously outdated and vulnerable to a group with the will to ignore or overturn them.

Any country can slip from democracy to autocracy. The fact that it is happening to the US is both satisfying and disappointing.
Click to expand...
2 things Americans hold so dearly and misread and misinterpret both

The Constitution and the Bible
 
I thought they would do something like this, but they have made the bounds of the protection an order of magnitude wider than I believed they would in my nightmares. Fools blinded by their arrogance believe that the leopard will not eat their faces.

This ensures there will be no trial on the events of Jan 6th before the election. Instead, there will be a long process of deciding what acts were official. Appeals on said, evidence thrown out as unusable due to being part of an official act. He now is unlikely to ever be convicted re Jan 6th.

Trump will believe that he can do anything he likes, ANYTHING. Sure the decision does not protect unoffical acts, but does anybody think Trump will care about or even understand that some acts of the person who is president are not offical acts of the president. If he becomes president again, expect him to go full Mussolini from day one.

As always with Trump, complaints are projection, the justice department has been weaponised, a president is fully immune if he orders the justice department to go after somebody with made-up cases. Furthermore, his blackshirts will know the supreme court has his back & they will believe he has theirs, should they overstep than he can pardon them. Note even if he loses in Nov they will try to steal the election, they might succeed.

The decision made official acts so wide and the protection so strong that a stake has been driven into the heart of democracy in the US. Even if Trump fails to become president again, the next would-be dictator has been impowered. This reminds me of the Dred Scott v Sandford decision, a decision that lit the fuse of the civil war.

We live in interesting times.
 
Last edited:
The word “unbelievable” doesn’t really cut it anymore with regards to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Both they and the Republicans have been disgraceful, incompetent, corrupt and utterly loathsome cheats for years.

Future of America literally is with the next election. Trump wins, they’re finished.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DickieKnee said:
How would that stand up if the documents were very top secret sensitive stuff like military and nuclear stuff?
I guess the only thing stopping charging a president with gross negligence is impeachment and that's never going to happen with the corrupt GOP. Shit he could sell all this stuff to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...
It now only requires a Judge - lets call her Eileen - to interpret the ruling widely
 
Baldur said:
Trump will believe that he can do anything he likes, ANYTHING. Sure the decision does not protect unoffical acts, but does anybody think Trump will care about or even understand that some acts of the person who is president are not offical acts of the president. If he becomes president again, expect him to go full Mussolini from day one.
Click to expand...
Todays briefing with Trump

'' Mr President the SC ruled in your favour - but be warned its only in limited terms. You have some immunity but overall the SC accepted our case. The President has immunity''

What Trump heard

'' The President has immunity''
 
Want to read a book in a library, only if you are 18, and or accompanied by a Parent/guardian willing to sign an affidavit anytime you want to enter a library. GOP/Trumps America.

jhptq7gx6z9d1.jpeg
 
Elroo said:
Want to read a book in a library, only if you are 18, and or accompanied by a Parent/guardian willing to sign an affidavit anytime you want to enter a library. GOP/Trumps America.

View attachment 2036568
Click to expand...
restrictions on libraries? lucky there is no where else one can get unfettered access to information
 
Malifice said:
You cant just claim an act is official and it becomes official.

If he whipped out a gun and shot someone during his morning coffee, he would be in strife. If he ordered a drone strike on a US citizen who was engaged in combat against the USA, he's fine.

I expected a level of immunity. Our Crown has the same immunity. It didnt come as a surprise.

And I use the Drone strike example, because Obama literally ordered a drone strike on a US citizen (who was fighting for ISIS). No trial etc. That's murder if you or I do it.

Obama was (and should remain) free from prosecution for it. He was acting within the scope of his Constitutional role as the Commander in chief against an adversary of the USA.

The real kicker is going to be if the SCOTUS rule that 'conspiring to overturn a lawful election and install yourself as an unelected dictator for 4 years' is 'within the core duties and constitutional responsibilities' of the office of President.

For mine, such an act is repugnant to the core duties of the President. And if the SCOTUS somehow reason themselves into thinking the Framers of the Constitution intended for a President to act in such a manner, free from criminal prosecution, they're absolutely cooked.

Can a President simply order a rival election candidate killed without any repercussions?

The SCOTUS interestingly specifically called out some of his alleged conduct as being immune (conversations he had with the VP and others about the election) but left open some of the other conduct he engaged in as being potentially not covered by immunity.

It now goes back to the lower courts for them to argue what conduct is covered and what conduct is not (which by no co-incidence pushes the trial past the election date).
Click to expand...
Yet that is why he will install his own people in any department and office he can so that they will back him up. The push back to any borderline actions will come first from Congress, then DoD or DoJ. Loyalists will do whatever he demands to justify anything as 'official'. He won't just control the top spots, he'll get in people as deep as he can so the lower tiers can't threaten mass resignation like last time, which was one of the crucial points of fight back. He'll sack a lot more judges and appoint more Cannons, make his AG change local AGs and DAs. This is the point of Project 2025.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GreyCrow said:
Todays briefing with Trump

'' Mr President the SC ruled in your favour - but be warned its only in limited terms. You have some immunity but overall the SC accepted our case. The President has immunity''

What Trump heard

'' The President has immunity''
Click to expand...
Yeah, expected, but those shits at Fox etal will spout the same and the zombies will lap it up.
 
Mick F said:
Regarding the President as a sacred creature, above the ordinary legal process, is an antipathy to the principle of natural justice and ‘no bias’ rule.
Click to expand...

Mate, you already live in a country where the Crown (in both senses of the word, the King in person and the Executive government) are immune from Criminal prosecution.

In the case of the King, it's absolute immunity. Charles could literally murder someone in their bed and he cant be prosecuted.

In the case of the Crown (the government), most Acts of Parliament (laws) do not bind the Crown, unless the Act says it does.
 
Malifice said:
Mate, you already live in a country where the Crown (in both senses of the word, the King in person and the Executive government) are immune from Criminal prosecution.

In the case of the King, it's absolute immunity. Charles could literally murder someone in their bed and he cant be prosecuted.

In the case of the Crown (the government), most Acts of Parliament (laws) do not bind the Crown, unless the Act says it does.
Click to expand...
Is this just for the Monarch or the family as well (Prince Andrew) ?
 
Malifice said:
Mate, you already live in a country where the Crown (in both senses of the word, the King in person and the Executive government) are immune from Criminal prosecution.

In the case of the King, it's absolute immunity. Charles could literally murder someone in their bed and he cant be prosecuted.

In the case of the Crown (the government), most Acts of Parliament (laws) do not bind the Crown, unless the Act says it does.
Click to expand...
I guess the difference is is that this Monarchy exception has always been known (just like diplomatic immunity).

For the past 250 years the Yanks have been telling everyone they are super special coz they have no king and everyone is equal, but now that isn't true.
 
happy_eagle said:
Is this just for the Monarch or the family as well (Prince Andrew) ?
Click to expand...

The Monarch is immune from all criminal prosecution, and civil actions.

The Royal family are only immune to civil arrest:

The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases; members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.[45] No arrest can be made "in the monarch's presence", or within the "verges" of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.[46]

The monarch's goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another's land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.[47]

As of 2022, there were more than 160 laws granting express immunity to the monarch or their property in some respects.[48] For instance, employees of the monarchy cannot pursue anti-discrimination complaints such as those under the Equality Act 2010.[48] The monarchy is exempt from numerous other workers' rights, health and safety, or pensions laws.[48] Government employees such as environmental inspectors are banned from entering the monarch's property without their permission.[48] The monarch is also exempt from numerous taxes, although Queen Elizabeth II did pay some taxes voluntarily.[48] Some of the odder exceptions for the monarch are included in laws against private persons setting off nuclear explosions, or regulating the sale of alcohol after midnight.[48]
Click to expand...

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

In Criminal proceedings in Australia, the cases are conducted as 'R (the Crown) v (the accused)'.

You can't have a criminal proceeding where its 'R' v 'R' (the Crown prosecuting itself).

In reality, should Charles or anyone else engage in a blatant Criminal or Civil wrong, it's likely immunity would be waived by the Royal Family in any event (or they would pay out the wronged party via a large settlement).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gough
Trump Bibles and trainers, what products should other Presidents have endorsed?
Replies
2
Views
521
Todman
Todman
Financialpanther
USA 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Biden II
38 39 40 41 42
Replies
1K
Views
18K
Festerz
Festerz
Satan
Mid East Helicopter crashes in Iran killing President and FM
Replies
17
Views
816
Satan
Satan
Geoff
Australia - US Relationship (If Trump Wins 2024)
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Syd
Syd
FireKrakouer
Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot!
Replies
9
Views
811
carltonchelsea
carltonchelsea
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Ballarat Bob
B
Geoff
The Post Office, Horizon Scandal. Aka Mr Bates v The Post Office
Replies
3
Views
355
Chief
Chief

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top