I'm the furthest thing from a legal scholar (thank feck for that), but does it really apply to Trump?
As far as I can tell he wasn't any of those.
Donald Trump - GUILTY!
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I'm the furthest thing from a legal scholar (thank feck for that), but does it really apply to Trump?
As far as I can tell he wasn't any of those.
Yes but that's a sentence, 5 years can mean 5 years probation, or any combination of sentences, it doesn't mean he goes to jail for 5 years although he could
First of his co conspirators just surrendered at the Fulton CO. Jail in Georgia. The rest of the trash should be showing up for their mugshots and posting bail in the next couple days up to the Friday deadline.
Question for who knows best in the caf. I thought lawyers and clients have certain confidentiality privileges?
Or they can bable anything that had been said to them under this privilege?
There are certain things not covered, if a third party is present than there's no privilege is one of them, in furtherencene of a crime is another
The president of the United States is an officer of the United States who took an oath.
But not 5 years in jail, it can be house arrest or wearing a tag or probation or whatever right?
As far as I can tell that question is yet to be definitively settled. Probably the Supreme Court would have to make the final call.
That is correct
I mean... maybe, but according to the 14th Amendment, there isn't a need for deliberation. The exclusion from office is self evident.
If you're asking about the "president is an officer of the US" part though, the oath is called an oath of office for a reason, and part of the oath states " I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"
It's all about interpretation, in your opinion, an also mine, he did breech his oath but not everyone would agree, ultimately the SC would have to decide if it was ever invoked
Yeah, I'm talking about the officer part. And from my casual googling, it seems a lot more contentious than just looking at the word "oath of office". I found several papers on just the question of who counts as one, or whether or not the President is covered under the 3rd article. It definitely sounds obvious, but US law seems rarely obvious.
Citation: “well regulated”.
Ermmmmmm.......
The late stage capitalism dynamic of weaponising these kind of dickheads for online revenue is either essential to let moderates see what happens if the wolf gets in the henhouse again… or aplification of insanity that draws more people in.
I think it’s the former. But I don’t think we need to keep mining dickheads for content anymore as it really could be the latter.
Oh, I see. Thank you
But I assume that anything that was told in the privilege lawyer/customer is not obligated to disclose?
Its mad how even if you got all of maga to completely avoid nutter media like fox, oan, newsmax, etc. They'd still get spammed none stop with all the wacko stuff from all other media.
Internet brought us all together. nutters too. These people were rumbling and mumbling in their houses and their town bar mostly ashamed of their thoughts. Now they got interconnected and they self validate and retrofeed in the insanity. and they discovered that there are almost 100 million nutters like them in US and many other millions in the world. So they are out in the open and proud and yes...voting
Exactly that. The system is broken. The views of mentally damaged humans is worth more in eye ball time than actual intelligent adults.
As far as I know, but one of the things that will come up is whether certain things are privileged or not, X will say yes and Y will say no
I see...if you are a Trump lawyer you must be pretty scummy, so I think he will rat him out for his life
It's a grey area, a lawyer can get in a shit load of trouble if he breaks attorney/client rules, scummy or otherwise
I guess he can get disbarred, but maybe is better than go 10 years to prison and not have any job afterwards anyway?
If the United States is anything like Australia, which it probably is as it’s a common law country, the lawyers ultimate master is to the court and therefore if the confidential information is relative to an act or thing resulting in a crime, then privilege is wavered and the lawyer has an obligation to notify the court.
What if Trump is charged in the Georgia case but also wins the election? Be it by him winning before, or after the trial?
Could he serve as President, under house arrest from Mar A Lago?
Could he serve as President, under house arrest from Mar A Lago?
I've heard this discussed. What the panel guessed was that the federal gov't wouldn't hand over the President to a state gov't. So Trump would serve as President and upon stepping down would be sent to prison in Georgia.
Could be the plot of a season of Veep.
Not sure how that would work. If he is convicted pre election, then he would surely be sentenced pre election too.
Mose assume that if sentenced, it would be house arrest.
If he is under house arrest from the Georgia charges, then one assumes that he could potentially be under house arrest at The White House. I wonder if they would let him golf?
If he wins before the Georgia trial, then i cant see how Georgia can get him to face a trial while serving as president.
I have watched both seasons of The Lincoln Lawyer, so I'm pretty sure I've got all the nuances of law figured out.
Anyone that thinks that the charges wouldn’t be dropped if Trump was elected President is very naive. The establishment in US politics isn’t going to let there be a weak and compromised President representing the country for four years with charges/sentences hanging over him. They will make sure it all fizzles out and is handled accordingly.
No one knows really. The Supreme Court at some point would have to weigh in. Eugene Debs, the socialist leader, ran for president from a jail cell. If he is convicted before the election, that would provoke a constitutional crisis only if he ends up winning the election. As has been mentioned, Trump needs 100% of the Republicans to vote for him, plus the majority of voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum. He has to hold onto all of the voters he had, and he's losing them in droves. He may still command loyalty from his stans, but the voters in the middle have grown larger as a group because Trump has veered rightward. It's small margins state by state, but if even 1 or 2% switch their votes away from him, he loses.
No chance the charges will be dropped. None.
Someone would still have to take the step to remove him from the ballot or order his exclusion. Given the political climate it won't be congress, it won't be the executive branch, and it won't be the Republican party itself. Which leaves actors on the state level. Which comes with a whole bunch of problems of its own. If then, someone does actually give the order to remove him from the ballot the courts will become involved. They will pass an immediate injunction to halt the order for the removal until the case has been deliberated. The likelihood of this case being deliberated by the time of the election is slim at best. If they do get to deliberating it "early" we then enter a legal minefield as to how involved Trump was in the "insurrection" - which the courts will likely argue are part of an ongoing criminal case - so we have to await the results of that case. If that case, by some miracle, is done by the election, the issue will again find itself in the courts, and by this time the election has surely passed us by.
If against all reasonable odds the court proceedings of all these processes can somehow be tied up nicely by the election, the case will again be taken up by the courts and eventually make its way to the SC. That process will not make its way to the SC in time of the election, so it won't matter anyway , but let's pretend it did. In 1869 Salmon P.Chase, the sitting SC chief justice, issued a circuit opinion (not a SC opinion mind you) that set the precedent that section 3 of the 14th is not self enforcing, but would need congressional direction through law to be implemented. Given the courts composition, the political climate and what would be a historic decision of preventing a former president from running, the SC would likely lean on that, passing the buck to congress. Which then would do nothing.
However, even in the most optimistic scenario, a final decision in such a case - one that would likely just put the responsibility to Congress anyway - would be done long after the election is over. The only way to prevent the man from being president again is for people to vote for his opponent and to stop voting for him.
I don’t think he will get elected, so we will never find out but it’s a constitutional crisis. We’ve already seen how everything was slow walked and conveniently “handled” when he was President last time. There’s no way he wouldn’t be protected again. Democrats would use it as a fundraising opportunity and Republicans the same but they will find loop holes and ways it can be dropped on turned into lesser charges.
Yes, the states. That’s who the Constitution vests with that power.
This wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. Candidates have been on some ballots and not on others many times… probably most famously in the election of 1860 with Abraham Lincoln absent on ballots across the south.
DC cases will be most likely squashed, but NYC & Georgia won’t budge.
Yes I am aware, that is why I continued the post with a longer description of the issues that would cause. The simplest path by far would be the republicans not nominating him or congress itself disqualifying him through law, hence why I mentioned those as well.
I edited my response after. You’ll hopefully accept the explanation that my lifelong unmedicated ADHD sometimes leads me to post before my thoughts are really fully down on paper, so to speak.
I think you are greatly underestimating the level of antipathy towards Trump. A Republican Attorney General soft-pedaled the Mueller report, and the head of the DoJ determined a President couldn't be charged while in office - but neither of those things will prevail if Biden is re-elected. People have learned the lesson of letting Nixon off the hook.
You seem to be ignoring the whole “if he won the election” part of what’s being said.