Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Of course I see it, I also understand that this is exactly the way the law must be applied to assure due process.  How could it be otherwise?  

Step 1.  The Supreme Court identifies and details the law.  In this particular case the law is:

A.  The president has absolute immunity for official acts within his/her exclusive authority.
B.  The president has a rebuttable presumption of immunity for official acts that are not within his/her exclusive authority.
C.  The president has no immunity whatsoever for unofficial acts.

That is the law.  Any act for which the president is charged with a crime thus raises fact questions.  For example, was this act an official act?  Or for example, was this act within the scope of the president's exclusive authority?  In Trump's case no court has ever addressed these questions of fact!  None!  Do you see that?  

Step 2.  So, the SC sends the case back to the trial court for the necessary factual determinations.   This is how it is always done, and any pundit who thinks that the step of a factual determination at the trial court can be skipped or short-circuited is a legal imbecile.

Step 3.  The trial court makes appropriate factual determinations and decides specifically w/n immunity apples.

Step 4.  If the defendant is dissatisfied with the decision, he/she will have a right to appeal.  Might be before or after trial, that too is a tricky issue.  On appeal, the appellate courts will typically accept the facts as determined by the trial court, and weigh in on the question of whether the law was correctly applied.

The next time a president is charged with a crime, the trial court will have the benefit of knowing the law in advance based upon their knowledge of Robert's clear roadmap in US v. Trump.  So the trial court can make the necessary factual determinations before any first appeal might be filed.  So there is no circular pathway, except in this instance of a novel question of law where a return to the SC is possible if the trial court misapplies the Roberts Court's clear instructions.

I repeat - no finding of fact has been made in this particular case as to whether any or all of Trump's acts are official acts, or whether he was acting within the scope of his exclusive authority.   The trial court must make those determinations in the first instance, and anyone who thinks that this step can be skipped or short circuited is, in my opinion, far more vested in "getting Trump" than they are interested in due process.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Of course I see it, I also understand that this is exactly the way the law must be applied to assure due process.  How could it be otherwise?  

Step 1.  The Supreme Court identifies and details the law.  In this particular case the law is:

A.  The president has absolute immunity for official acts within his/her exclusive authority.
B.  The president has a rebuttable presumption of immunity for official acts that are not within his/her exclusive authority.
C.  The president has no immunity whatsoever for unofficial acts.

That is the law.  Any act for which the president is charged with a crime thus raises fact questions.  For example, was this act an official act?  Or for example, was this act within the scope of the president's exclusive authority?  In Trump's case no court has ever addressed these questions of fact!  None!  Do you see that?  

Step 2.  So, the SC sends the case back to the trial court for the necessary factual determinations.   This is how it is always done, and any pundit who thinks that the step of a factual determination at the trial court can be skipped or short-circuited is a legal imbecile.

Step 3.  The trial court makes appropriate factual determinations and decides specifically w/n immunity apples.

Step 4.  If the defendant is dissatisfied with the decision, he/she will have a right to appeal.  Might be before or after trial, that too is a tricky issue.  On appeal, the appellate courts will typically accept the facts as determined by the trial court, and weigh in on the question of whether the law was correctly applied.

The next time a president is charged with a crime, the trial court will have the benefit of knowing the law in advance based upon their knowledge of Robert's clear roadmap in US v. Trump.  So the trial court can make the necessary factual determinations before any first appeal might be filed.  So there is no circular pathway, except in this instance of a novel question of law where a return to the SC is possible if the trial court misapplies the Roberts Court's clear instructions.

I repeat - no finding of fact has been made in this particular case as to whether any or all of Trump's acts are official acts, or whether he was acting within the scope of his exclusive authority.   The trial court must make those determinations in the first instance, and anyone who thinks that this step can be skipped or short circuited is, in my opinion, far more vested in "getting Trump" than they are interested in due process.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

We must acknowledge the limitations of these grandiose promises made before elections.  Rarely does anything but a watered down version ever get implemented.   That said, there are plenty of good reasons to prefer that Trump not be reelected.

Which gets us to the only US political news that matters this week.  What are the Ds going to do with Biden?  He did not rehabilitate himself in the Stephanopoulos soft-ball interview.  All we learned is that he'll not take a cognitive test and that he'll give this election the old "college try."  He can not rehabilitate himself, he is too far gone and we all saw it in real time.  It is a crime his family and advisors are propping him up.

Democrat Van Jones has acknowledged that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, since Biden certainly can not complete a second term.  Is this a viable election strategy?  Jones does not think so, he thinks Harris needs to run directly if she is going to beat Trump.  I agree with the strategy, although I doubt Harris beats Trump. 
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/07/07/van_jones_democrats_are_running_kamala_harris_for_president_
one_way_or_another_lets_do_it_right.html

Democrat Ezra Kline quoting Democrat Jim Clyburn is endorsing a mini-primary, to the best that some sort of contest can be cobbled together.  I think this is a great idea.  A lot better than just anointing Harris or running Biden and hoping that Harris can step in if Biden wins then immediately retires or dies.  https://dnyuz.com/2024/07/07/jim-clyburn-is-right-about-what-democrats-should-do-next/

Many Republicans and some media critics have pointed out that the White House (and some media outlets) have been lying to our faces about the President's mental health.  This is a lie of importance.  According to one of my favorite Democrats, Nate Silver, this is a lie "orders of magnitude" more important to the country than lying about hush money payments to a porn star.  In view of the following point, it seems small potatoes to worry about this scandal aspect of the underlying lie, but in other times we would (or should) be.  https://www.natesilver.net/p/blaming-the-media-is-what-got-democrats

Last, who is running the country now?  What happens if the pudding hits the fan in one of the ongoing wars?  There have been several disturbing, and credible, accounts out there indicating Jill and Hunter Biden are the President's closest advisors.  I always laugh when you guys say in response to Richard's latest Hunter rant that "you won't vote for Hunter Biden..."  Touché and point to you.  But now - what if Biden is really taking advice from his crack-addled dipshit son?  There have reportedly been serious discussions about removing Biden under the 25th amendment.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2024/07/06/25th-amendment-talk-grows-to-replace-biden-as-president-digs-in-his-heels/  I hope it does not come to that, but not nearly as much as I hope there is no new international crisis when Dr. Jill, Hunter, or some unnamed sycophant is really at the helm.  

Bottom line, there are really important political things going on, far more important than any far-right campaign wish list without much chance of being enacted.  No chance really, unless of course that Ds do nothing about Biden, and Trump landslides the election winning the House and the Senate on his coattails.  If that happens, it is the Democrat's fault for hiding Biden's condition until it was far too late and thus lying to the people in a matter of supreme importance.  J

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Honestly, Rod, I would not worry about project 2025. If Trump is elected, he will not have to run for reelection again whether we have elections in the future or not lol. I’d be more worried about religious conservatives frankly because Trump lothes them. He would much rather stay in the good graces of people that he likes instead of continuing the charade of catering to people he despises. None of this is going to get implemented from a Trump that does not need anything from the religious right again.

Originally Posted by James Brown

This is a little extreme, don't you think?  I'm not a big fan of Trump and I'm not going to vote for him, but I surely do not expect a reintroduction of slavery, child labor, mass starvation, rampant disease obliterating the working classes, and the elimination of indoor plumbing after he is elected.