• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Trump Adminstration In The Appeals Court Tomorrow

Cheerful Charlie

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
9,357
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Tomorrow there will be an interesting court hearing involving the Trump Administration. His lawyers have asserted that as a sitting president he can not be taken to court, tried for any possible wrong doing or even investigated. Apparently this appearance in the appeals court by Trump's lawyers will be broadcast on CNN. In the original case, the judge did not buy their arguments and was pretty scathing about it.

Rachel Maddow has said she will be listening all day to this on CNN while working out at the gym on a stationary bicycle. This should prove to be interesting to see how the judges can listen to this with a straight face. The contention that a president cannot be legally restrained or even investigated in any manner whatsoever is a pretty raw power grab by Trump. Hopefully the judges tomorrow will be sober.

Rachel Maddow tomorrow should be a riot.
 
This should be laughed out of court. Why in the world should he be beyond scrutiny?
 
Because Trump. Trump and his lawyers actually have tried to argue that the US president is immune to all legal actions against the president whatsoever. Just because. It cramp's the orange Wonder's style. The point of Maddow's glee is that Trump is going to get humiliated in court. I hope so anyway. If the judge is not one of the far right loonies placed on the court thanks to Mitch McConnell.

It is obvious that this might have a great deal of comedic value watching Trump's lawyers try to offer up weird legal reasoning to support this meglomaniac's legal claims.
 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-shoot-william-consovoy_n_5db07697e4b01ca2a8564aea

...
Donald Trump could shoot someone in the middle of New York’s Fifth Avenue and skirt criminal charges as long as he’s president, Trump’s attorney told a federal appeals court on Wednesday.

William Consovoy, who is representing Trump in a dispute over the president’s tax returns, told U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin that Trump could not be indicted if he shot someone.
“Nothing could be done? That’s your position?” Chin asked Consovoy.

“That is correct. That is correct,” Consovoy responded.
...

Weirdness overload!
 
Remember, the only thing stopping Trump from being indicted is an advisory note in the Justice department. There is nothing in law that says he cannot be.
 
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/ru...-privilege-concerns-in-first-court-appearance
...
Rudy Giuliani’s henchmen appeared in court on campaign finance violations, and they may attempt to claim evidence in the case is protected by executive privilege.
Ukrainian-American businessmen Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who were arrested earlier this month on their way out of the country on one-way tickets, pleaded not guilty Wednesday in their first court appearance, according to Courthouse News.
...
----

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

The idea of the Trumpians that executive privilege extends to any of the thugs or cronies or toadies of a president seems to have been established in the minds of said toadies and minions when in a court of law. The theory of a lawless, and privileged oligarchy marches on.
 
ZiprHead said:
Remember, the only thing stopping Trump from being indicted is an advisory note in the Justice department. There is nothing in law that says he cannot be.
Click to expand...

That argument was found "repugnant" by the US District Court the Southern District of NY on 10/7/19, Case 1:19-cv-08694-VM. From page 47 of the 75 page decision:

The heavy reliance the President places on the DOJ Memos
is misplaced for several reasons. First, though they contain
an exhaustive and learned consideration of the constitutional
questions presented here, the DOJ Memos do not constitute
authoritative judicial interpretation of the Constitution
concerning those issues. In fact, as the DOJ Memos themselves
also concede, the precise presidential immunity questions
this litigation raises have never been squarely presented or
fully addressed by the Supreme Court . See Moss Memo at 237 ;
Dixon Memo at 21. Nonetheless , as elaborated in Section
II. . 3 . ii. c infra, insofar as the Supreme Court has examined
some of the relevant presidential privileges and immunities
issues as applied in contexts , the case law does not
support the President ' s and the DOJ Memos' absolute immunity
argument to its full extremity and ramifications.
Click to expand...
 
Can someone enlighten me? Am I correct that taxpayer dollars are not being used for his lawyers and defense?
 
starwater said:
Can someone enlighten me? Am I correct that taxpayer dollars are not being used for his lawyers and defense?
Click to expand...

You are theoretically correct. These are his personal lawyers that are representing him and his other personal lawyers.. and his other personal lawyers' Russian Mafia henchmen that claim executive privilege (LOL). What Trump may be stealing from taxpayers and funneling to this effort is another story.

Giuliani claimed he was working for Trump for free. As it turns out, he was working for the Russian Mafia Henchman who paid him $500,000 in a sneaky way before he was caught at the airport with a one-way ticket to go see the Boss in Vienna. So Trump's personal lawyer is literally a Russian Agent.
 
starwater said:
Can someone enlighten me? Am I correct that taxpayer dollars are not being used for his lawyers and defense?
Click to expand...

The following footnote appears on the 1st page of the decision:
The Court notes a measure of ambiguity regarding whether the President
purports to bring this suit in his official capacity as President. The
President never explicitly states that he does so, yet his arguments
depend on his status as the sitting President. Whether privately retained,
nonwgovernment attorneys accountable only to the President as an
individual are entitled to invoke an immunity allegedly derived from the
office of the Presidency, raises questions not addressed here. In any
event, the Court finds resolution of this ambiguity unnecessary to its
analysis.
Click to expand...
 
Treedbear said:
starwater said:
Can someone enlighten me? Am I correct that taxpayer dollars are not being used for his lawyers and defense?
Click to expand...

The following footnote appears on the 1st page of the decision:
The Court notes a measure of ambiguity regarding whether the President
purports to bring this suit in his official capacity as President. The
President never explicitly states that he does so, yet his arguments
depend on his status as the sitting President. Whether privately retained,
nonwgovernment attorneys accountable only to the President as an
individual are entitled to invoke an immunity allegedly derived from the
office of the Presidency, raises questions not addressed here. In any
event, the Court finds resolution of this ambiguity unnecessary to its
analysis.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That quote seems to me that he could have both private lawyers and the AG there representing....?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom