Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Nice overview of the Roberts debacle:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4757000-supreme-court-trump-presidential-immunity/

This opinion author is silly.  From the column:  "Now, if an ex-president breaks the law while in office, they must decide on a case-by-case basic whether he or she is immune to prosecution."  Maybe just poor writing, but this is the dumbest opening line I have read in a long time.

Consider this: every murder, shoplifting, rape, or any other criminal case has facts that must be decided on a case-by-case basis.  This factual inquiry is of course the heart of due process.  Anything less would constitute 'guilty until proven innocent.'

There is no reason crimes committed by the president should be any different.   The Court details a clear roadmap as to which class of actions are subject to immunity and which are not.  The law is clear, the facts are different in each case.  Of course the factual inquiry must be handled on a 'case-by-case' basis!  Duh!  Unless of course the defendant is Trump, then 'guilty until proven innocent' is just fine with the author and so many like him.

A much better article is here:  
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2024/07/07/highly_misleading_coverage_of_scotus_immunity_decision_626957.html

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I should have stopped when I saw the opinion writer is Jonathan Turley but I subjected myself to it anyway. 

The Roberts cons do not offer up any of  "clearcut roadmap" to sort out their mess and merely refer back to the lower court for exactly what my cited article emphasizes: a circular pathway of appeals back to SCOTUS who will likely side with a president who frames his or her actions as an "official action." SCOTUS essentially sets it up this way so the end result is unrivaled power by the the chief executive.

I don't why you can't see that...

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

This was a long post, but I mean every word of it.  Especially the rhetorical question of "how could it be otherwise?" (while preserving due process).   I would love to hear how this criminal matter could be resolved without adhering to the steps I have described.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Here's one more in depth fact check that includes the politico fact check and more:


https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/politifact/article/fact-check-noncitizens-voting-19476873.php

That aptly explains why MAGA Mike is full of crap...

Hi Rod: I do not think noncitizen voting is much of a problem.  Also, the Houston Chronical article is paywalled to me. 

Still, MAGA Mike may not be entirely full of crap.  To register to vote in Colorado, an applicant must check one box and sign a form stating under the penalty of a Class 1 misdemeanor that they are citizens of the United States and have the residence in Colorado needed to vote.  Most all voter registration applications are supported by a driver's license or State ID card, and these can be handled on-line.  For the few without normal ID a paper form is available:

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/VoterRegFormEnglish.pdf

On page two the form states (emphasis mine):

If I don't have a Colorado driver's license, Colorado ID card, or social security number, may I still register to vote?

Yes. An applicant who is qualified to vote in this state but does not have a driver's license, state-issued identification card, or social security number may still register to vote. In such cases, the person may be required to provide an acceptable form of identification.  A list of acceptable forms of identification can be found at www.govotecolorado.gov.

Most of the acceptable alternate IDs show citizenship (a passport for example...)  Some do not, like a utility bill.
https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/vote/acceptableFormsOfID.html

It is possible that an election judge reviews any application based upon a utility bill (there are almost certainly a vanishingly small number of them.)   I doubt it though, the webpage does not mention review at all.  Even if there is a review process, it would be relatively trivial for an alien with a utility bill to register to vote in Colorado.  So technically MAGA Mike may not be full of it, in this instance.

All that said, I doubt many aliens are trying to vote.  What is the motivation?  To the extent some do register, my guess is that it is the result of aggressive "get out the vote" campaigners going door to door and registering grandma.  I would be OK with a law requiring some sort of proof of citizenship to support an application for voter registration, other than a utility bill.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Because there is a fine line between safeguarding elections and voter suppression and intimidation, and any voter suppression or intimidation is too much, even if it is caused unintentionally.

This is of course a good point James.  I personally think asking for something more than a utility bill is an acceptable compromise.  Also, most of the intimidations you mention happen at the polls, not during the registration process.  Unless your state has same day registration/voting.   

I'm curious what an election judge in CA or TX would do if a candidate approached on election day with no ID, no passport, no SS card, no birth certificate and maybe just a utility bill with or without their name on it.  There must be only a handful of potential legitimate voters, if any, at that point.  I'd be inclined to reject the application and vote, or maybe put it into a provisional pile for tallying subject to subsequent citizenship verification.

Maybe there are lots of citizens out there with no ID, but I seriously doubt it.  So the voter intimidation angle of asking for ID beyond a utility bill seems pretty thin.

I'll readily admit that my thoughts are highly technical and pedantic.  To the extent MAGA Mike or anyone else is making a big deal out of this issue, they are just scaremongering and engaging in low level racism, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

He also said everybody in the crowd has water spots except for Trump. He's drenched up there yet he doesn't have a water spot of his own, whatever that is, so he bitches about it. 

And if I was Don Jr. I'd be wondering when I was I got married since his sweaty Dad said he is.

He is indeed batshit crazy, but his fans expect it. Biden critics, on the other hand, say he's too old and probably has dementia, yet disregard what Trump says as that's just Donald being Donald.

His Maga faithful no doubt feel that way.  Same and equal shame on Biden's enablers who have been hiding the president's physical and mental condition and encouraging him to stay in and fight a hopeless battle.  There is 30% of the country, at least, who do not want to vote for Trump because of his character and do not want to vote for Biden because of his mental and physical condition.  This 30% or so will determine who wins.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

You need help, my friend. This is not a normal outburst. I will be praying for you.

You have a big soul and an incredibly warm heart Russ.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

These assholes and types like them actually came on here and everywhere blaming Trump for the violent rhetoric, saying that Trump supporters and Trump himself brought on this disgusting assassination attempt by a leftist psycho.

It didn't take this religious fraud and prick even an hour to come on here playing his sick blame game.

This never happened Richard.   It is figment of your imagination.    Go re-read, or perhaps read for the first time what Russ  actually posted.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

BTW Greg, my expressed hope that the MAGA movement and Trump would see the wisdom of abandoning inflammatory violent rhetoric and condemning political violence of any kind will probably sadly be met by the opposite. I pray I’m wrong.

Russ, James, Jim:  It is probably true that Trump and MAGA have used violent rhetoric more often than the left.  But as you point out the left is guilty too, all the way back to Kathy Griffin and that severed head.

Violence was not Richard's point though.  The left has perfected the "Trump is a fascist, Trump is Hitler, Trump is literally an existential threat to Democracy" campaign rhetoric and bombarded us with this sort of rhetoric 24/7.  Look at the cover below, from just last week.  As you know, I have pushed back hard against the "existential threat" rhetoric because I know the US Constitutional system is stronger than one man.  

We do not know what motivated the shooter.  Hopefully we find out.  Maybe he actually was deluded into thinking he was saving the world from the next Hitler?  I think (my opinion only) that Greg and Chris's point is that the Left, with their damned "end of democracy rhetoric" is at least as guilty in motivating this assassination attempt as Trump was in motivating Jan 6.  This is certainly Richard's original point, and what triggered him so badly, and probably (my opinion) what caused him and Greg to miss Russ's actual point.

So I agree that implied calls for violence should be dropped from political rhetoric.  I also strongly feel that the left should lose the "Trump is a fascist, Trump is an existential threat to democracy" BS.  In both cases the likelihood of more civil debate happening is "fat chance."  But upon reflection, I bet this is why Richard was so triggered.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

THAT above is what you wrote lowlife!  

Not all the crap that came afterward that you're now putting forth, so what you are is a lying sack of dogshit pal. 

THAT ALONE was YOUR 1ST post.  

You don't even have the character now to own your Bullshit words and YOUR despicable accusations against only ONE side of the poltical aisle.

YOU BLAMED ONLY Donald Trump AND His supporters you vile cretin.

That was YOUR very 1st post pal

I responded Immediately to YOUR sickening, and demented, accusatorial posting.

People LIKE YOU are the problem in this country. 

You and your Leftist media and this disturbed President in office continuously and for 8 SOLID YEARS now have told the world and every psychotic mental case in this nation that Trump IS HITLER reincarnated.  

HE ALONE is destroying Democracy, according to freakshows like you who are the more likely inciters of any violence in this nation.

So when you put up your vile bullshit, I will come unglued asshole.

The only thing you've proven with your crap above is that you're too PUNY an individual to OWN your vile, disgusting words.

And of course we all knew that your buddy here would attempt to fly in with his cape to make excuses for your crap.

That was a given.

Actually Richard, I am "making excuses" for your unhinged reply.   At least explaining why your reply was so vehement.  Don't you see that? 

Russ talked about violence rhetoric.  He hopes it goes away.  Possibly bad timing for making that point, but I get it.  I hope that this attempt on Trump's life does make him reflect on his language and rhetoric, since it is certain that he will be president in 2025. 

You on the other hand are talking about the left's ubiquitous "Hitler/end of Democracy" rhetoric.  Different rhetoric.   You incorrectly thought/think Russ was blaming violent right wing rhetoric for motivating the shooting.  You did miss Russ's point.  On the other hand, you are really upset that it was probably the left's "Hitler/end of democracy" rhetoric that actually motivated the shooter.  So, I think it is understandable that you mis-read Russ's point and got really upset.  It is that simple, I think your posts were and continue to be unreasonable, but I understand why you are upset.  Jim