Trumps Presidency 2025

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, GalagaGuy said:

I believe the state can charge him but that the defense can request it be moved to the Federal system.  Seems that the request is automatically granted from what I can tell.  

From what I understand, that just means it moves to a federal court but the state would still be prosecuting. 

[Tigerbomb13]

I think the issue now is that the feds are refusing to work with the state because they know this doesn’t look good for them. Is the state able to take any legal action against the feds for this type of thing? 

[GalagaGuy]

8 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

From what I understand, that just means it moves to a federal court but the state would still be prosecuting. 

Based on my vast knowledge gained in the last 5 minutes, once the defense requests it be moved to the Federal system, a Federal judge would have to issue a ruling on whether or not the officer was afforded immunity under the supremacy clause.   Based on past cases, that seems to be the overwhelming norm.  

[Sports_Freak]

6 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

Based on my vast knowledge gained in the last 5 minutes, once the defense requests it be moved to the Federal system, a Federal judge would have to issue a ruling on whether or not the officer was afforded immunity under the supremacy clause.   Based on past cases, that seems to be the overwhelming norm.  

Based on my vast knowledge from watching CSI:NY...cities bring charges against murderers. But yeah, that's wrong. I say just dox the guy, let the public get their 5 pounds of flesh...

[Motown Bombers]

 

[GalagaGuy]

17 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Based on my vast knowledge from watching CSI:NY...cities bring charges against murderers. But yeah, that's wrong. I say just dox the guy, let the public get their 5 pounds of flesh...

He's already been doxxed.  Apparently it's because of the information the administration put out about his past incident with a vehicle.  

 

[buddha]

30 minutes ago, GalagaGuy said:

Based on my vast knowledge gained in the last 5 minutes, once the defense requests it be moved to the Federal system, a Federal judge would have to issue a ruling on whether or not the officer was afforded immunity under the supremacy clause.   Based on past cases, that seems to be the overwhelming norm.  

correct, sorry for any confusion.

because of the politics, i would be surprised if they didnt charge him at the state level.  i dont think much of a lot of state level prosecutors who are elected and i certainly dont think much of keith ellison in minnesota.  so i expect them to "do something," no matter how potentially futile it is.

with that said, even if it is umtimately futile, he SHOULD be charged by someone, imo.  and my armchair legal analysis may not be correct, its quite possible a judge finds that the threat was not reasonable and that he should not have immunity.  one can certainly make the argument.  and more facts/angles/videos/ may come out showing something different.

by all means: charge him.  and for god's sake, at least put him on desk duty for a bit.

[pfife]

1 hour ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Grok lol

... And bari wise cbs

 

[pfife]

1 hour ago, GalagaGuy said:

It also could have been avoided if people who claim to be Democrats wouldn't go out of their way to find a reason to be pissed off and not voting or voting third party.  In 2016 it was Bernie not getting the nomination and in 2020 is was Palestine.  

Im very ok with holding Republicans accountable for Republican policies.   YMMV

[LaceyLou]

1 hour ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Grok lol

I've heard that Grok is responsible for a bunch of posts taking pictures and changing them into nudes. Sounds like good old clean fun, eh? 

Anyone know if this is true?

[Edman85]

10 minutes ago, buddha said:

correct, sorry for any confusion.

because of the politics, i would be surprised if they didnt charge him at the state level.  i dont think much of a lot of state level prosecutors who are elected and i certainly dont think much of keith ellison in minnesota.  so i expect them to "do something," no matter how potentially futile it is.

with that said, even if it is umtimately futile, he SHOULD be charged by someone, imo.  and my armchair legal analysis may not be correct, its quite possible a judge finds that the threat was not reasonable and that he should not have immunity.  one can certainly make the argument.  and more facts/angles/videos/ may come out showing something different.

by all means: charge him.  and for god's sake, at least put him on desk duty for a bit.

Next question...

If they charge him, and the rat****ers in the current admin squash it as we anticipate, would he be protected from double jeopardy laws in 2029 when adults are in charge again?

[oblong]

Where all my states rights folks at?

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, LaceyLou said:

I've heard that Grok is responsible for a bunch of posts taking pictures and changing them into nudes. Sounds like good old clean fun, eh? 

Anyone know if this is true?

Yeah ive seen many folks talking about that.   Repulsive 

[LaceyLou]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

Yeah ive seen many folks talking about that.   Repulsive 

So many fine, upstanding citizens we have in this world. Sigh...

[Edman85]

14 minutes ago, oblong said:

Where all my states rights folks at?

They only care about one state's right... Or actually a second until 3.5 years ago.

[buddha]

20 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

Next question...

If they charge him, and the rat****ers in the current admin squash it as we anticipate, would he be protected from double jeopardy laws in 2029 when adults are in charge again?

my initial thought is yes, however we dont know what the feds will do this time.  it feels like uncharted territory, like most of this second trump administration.

[Tigerbomb13]

 

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Next question...

If they charge him, and the rat****ers in the current admin squash it as we anticipate, would he be protected from double jeopardy laws in 2029 when adults are in charge again?

 

2 hours ago, buddha said:

my initial thought is yes, however we dont know what the feds will do this time.  it feels like uncharted territory, like most of this second trump administration.

depends on how far it goes before the charge is dropped or dismissed doesn't it? I suppose they could certainly deliberately try to take the case to the point of jeopardy just to force it to collapse there, if they were that clever. Can't say the legal people around Trump have been all that clever but maybe they could always get lucky, esp when you  have 3 1/2 stooges for the Admin already on the SCOTUS.

Edited 19 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

 

[buddha]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

 

depends on how far it goes before the charge is dropped or dismissed doesn't it? I suppose they could certainly deliberately try to take the case to the point of jeopardy just to force it to collapse there, if they were that clever. Can't say the legal people around Trump have been all that clever but maybe they could always get lucky, esp when you  have 3 1/2 stooges for the Admin already on the SCOTUS.

i think the people around trump in the doj and the legal community have been very smart.  i understand that the twitter idiot sycophants like kash patel, and kristi noem, and (especially) stephen miller and rfk are clowns.  worse, evil incompetent clowns.  but the solicitor general and the legal people at the doj are very smart and very clever.

as for the supreme court, the court must consider what happens post trump.  thomas and alito have always been in favor of a more powerful executive (unitary executive theory) and their writings/decisions reflect that.  barrett/kavanaugh/chief are more on the fence, but obviously do not appreciate the recent trend (on both sides) of going to favorable courts to get nationwide injunctions to stop any legislation and have moved to stop it.

kagan is more center left and usually correct (imo).  gorsuch is a libertarian wild card.  sotomayor and jackson are far left, especially jackson.  and both have decided to wage their twitter battles in their opinions, bringing out the worst aspects of a tradition started by scalia of being derogatory of their opponents, without scalia's flare.

in other words, the demonizing of the court on the left as "doing trump's bidding" is overblown and doesnt see the big picture.  unfortunately, you have a very bad actor in the white house who uses the ambiguity of the legal world to push the boundaries.  but simply pushing boundaries doesnt mean he crosses boundaries, and the court recognizes that.

however, imo, the court is still wrong on occasion.  most recently kavanaugh's fourth amendment writings that have basically legalized racial stops and arrests.  he has tried to walk that back since then, but the mistake is out there and will need more than just footnotes to correct.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

however, imo, the court is still wrong on occasion

one thing they have to fix if US politics is ever going to get better is Sullivan, Which tragically isn't even on anyone's radar really. It has simply destroyed any standard of responsibility in US media and politics. It's one of those relatively obscure 'process' issues that sit below any public conciousness where the general public has no concept of the havoc it wreaks on responsible civil discourse. It was a poorly reasoned decision made for short term purposes in a highly stressed environment and it needs to be fixed. Probably worst in terms of ultimate impact than even CU, though I can go either way on that.....

Edited 17 hours ago by gehringer_2

[guy incognito]

[oblong]

And to think some still think it’s kind of wrong to refer to conservatives as Nazis. Nope. It’s more accurate than it is ever was. 

[Tigerbomb13]

Scary stuff. How did we get here?

[romad1]

This is interesting

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna252892

Quote

Senate advances measure to restrict Trump's power to use military force in Venezuela

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who led the bipartisan resolution, said that Trump's actions in Venezuela are "clearly illegal" because he did not seek congressional approval.