Donald Trump - Business and tax stories

[Knobby22]

This is the best the US can come up with?

100%

I was just watching Liz Mair, Republican strategist and she was vitriolic on Fireside Chat.

She said Biden should not be allowed to run. Terrible. Democrats are stupid to let him run, no wonder they are panicking now.

But she also said Trump was looking bad also and only got away with it because the other guy was older and more infirm than him but he is pushing 80 and fading badly.

She said if you compared Trump to the previous debate with Biden he is not looking good.
For instance he got H2O mixed up with CO2 etc. She thinks he is in a bad way.

Basically, she is hoping that whoever gets in is quickly replaced by the Vice President.

And Heidi Heitkamp, was also interviewed.
Now she is a close friend of Biden who helped get her where she is now. And she said Biden needs to go. But how do you tell your Dad he shouldn't drive anymore??? Jeez Americas in the sht. Its effing ridiculous.

If anyone is a severe political nerd like me and interested in seeing the interviews, link below.

ABC iview

iview.abc.net.au

 

[finicky]

I was just watching Liz Mair, Republican strategist and she was vitriolic on Fireside Chat .

But she also said Trump was looking bad also and only got away with it because the other guy was older and more infirm than him but he is pushing 80 and fading badly.

Just on my always objective, studious and humble opinion but Bullsh*t Knobby.

Firstly there are a bunch of establishment Republicans (rinos) who oppose Trump because he takes up a lot of their oxygen. They're not against the swamp and probably Liz Mair speaks for them (future work)

Secondly how would any of us look if we'd been under Trump's level of stress. He was non stop campaigning in the gaps between enforced court presences by a ratchet Demo judge. Trump's been non stop working if you choose to believe reports from those close to him. Biden went on a holiday and therapy camp. There's no equivalence.

Guess I better watch it now.

P.S Liz Mair (vomit)
Do you think she's a proud strong and independent feminist.? What's the take of the sisterhood on grab em by the pussy Donald?

 

[DB008]

​

 

[finicky]

To be a credible liar you have to immerse yourself and trick yourself into believing the lie.
Or more succinctly, the sage, George Costanza:

 

[finicky]

 

[sptrawler]

Yes the World is changing, anyone who thinks people are offended by dirty language, haven't ridden on public transport. Males, Females, kids both boys and girls, they all use what I would call disgusting language.
But times move on, political commentators need to move with them and pick up their act, they are useless.
That lady in the clip showed what a goose the presenter was, it is o.k to have disgraceful behaviour like Clinton did, because it was past tense, absolutely shows their flexible moral bar.

 

[DB008]

 

[DB008]

​

 

[DB008]

Don't worry, the 2020 Election was legit...

380k ballot images doubled up, missing in Fulton County, Georgia.

This hearing was 30 days ago, June 2024

 

[mullokintyre]

I find some of the comments about this latest court case nothing short of amazing.
I can understand the partisan shills making ridiculous statements, but I thought that most people with half a brain would have had a better understanding of what actually the decision says.
Firstly, the convention that the POTUS is immune from prosecution for things done in his official duties has always been there.
From Constitutional Law

In Mississippi v. Johnson,1 in 1867, the Supreme Court placed the President beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial.2 An application for an injunction to forbid President Johnson to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, was answered by Attorney General Stanberg, who argued, inter alia, the absolute immunity of the President from judicial process.3 The Court refused to permit the filing, using language construable as meaning that the President was not reachable by judicial process but which more fully paraded the horrible consequences were the Court to act.

Further, the article goes on to say that the president is not immune from activities prior to becoming president.

In Clinton v. Jones,28 the Court, in a case of first impression, held that the President did not have qualified immunity from civil suit for conduct alleged to have taken place prior to his election, and therefore denied the President's request to delay both the trial and discovery. The Court held that its precedents affording the President immunity from suit for his official conduct – primarily on the basis that he should be enabled to perform his duties effectively without fear that a particular decision might give rise to personal liability—were inapplicable in this kind of case.

The latest SCOTUS pronouncement changes none of the above, it specifically states that the president has immunity for “absolute” immunity for clearly official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.
What this means is that they have sent the various cases back to the lower courts for them to determine what or what not is an official act.
It will no doubt cause countless appeals to the SCOTUS when lower courts take a partisan approach to that determination.
A number of pending cases will return to lower courts for deliberation.
So all the cases pending against Trump will need to be looked at in terms of the outcome.
Some that took place before he became president will not be applicable .
The Fraud case against Trump in NYC will need to be looked at, but its fairly easy for the judge to say its not applicable as the events took place before even became president.
The charges over the J6 riot will be more problematic.
Either way, none of these cases will be concluded before the election, as appeals will be lodged, or have already been lodged.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Dissenting judgements are always where the risk is stated in Trumps case pretty extreme IMHO.


And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting judgement backed by two of the other justices, warned it elevates the president to "a king above the law".

"When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

 

[mullokintyre]

Dissenting judgements are always where the risk is stated in Trumps case pretty extreme IMHO.


And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting judgement backed by two of the other justices, warned it elevates the president to "a king above the law".

I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.
Justice Sotomayor and the other justices are just as partisan as the other 6.
The president has always had immunity.
Nothing has changed.
if it were otherwise the murder of American enemies such as Arkan Al Alawi , Abu Bakr, Osama Bin laden and Abu Ibrahim to name but a few would have resulted in charges, but previous precedents had given presidents immunity from prosecution.
If a lower court backed up by the SCOTUS rules that a particular action was not in the Presidents official capacity, the president can be charged.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.
Justice Sotomayor and the other justices are just as partisan as the other 6.
The president has always had immunity.
Nothing has changed.
if it were otherwise the murder of American enemies such as Arkan Al Alawi , Abu Bakr, Osama Bin laden and Abu Ibrahim to name but a few would have resulted in charges, but previous precedents had given presidents immunity from prosecution.
If a lower court backed up by the SCOTUS rules that a particular action was not in the Presidents official capacity, the president can be charged.
Mick

Well I guess all the nonsense that goes on in the U.S, puts the Australian republic debate back another 50 years.

 

[moXJO]

I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.
Justice Sotomayor and the other justices are just as partisan as the other 6.
The president has always had immunity.
Nothing has changed.
if it were otherwise the murder of American enemies such as Arkan Al Alawi , Abu Bakr, Osama Bin laden and Abu Ibrahim to name but a few would have resulted in charges, but previous precedents had given presidents immunity from prosecution.
If a lower court backed up by the SCOTUS rules that a particular action was not in the Presidents official capacity, the president can be charged.
Mick

Exactly this. Those three judges obviously pandering.

 

[wayneL]

What people should do is carefully read the judgment, what it actually says, instead of relying on hot takes, whether from a dissenting judge or not.

 

[DB008]

 

[DB008]

From Bioclandestine -

The Supreme Court broke Maddow.​

​

She claims that the immunity ruling is a “death squad ruling”, and that Trump has activated “paramilitary groups” and compares them to “literally Right-wing death squads”.​

​

Maddow needs to be checked into a psych ward immediately.​

​

 

[IFocus]

I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.

Below is where the change appears to be in the judgement that allows overreach if there was no change then the case wouldn't have run and no judgement given clearly that's not the case.

In Trumps case its something he shouldn't be trusted with or any other US president.

With the on going mess with Biden Trump is pretty much a shoe in for the coming election that means Trump runs the Republicans and the Supreme court.

"The verdict additionally grants presidents presumptive immunity “from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility”, meaning a president is presumed to enjoy immunity from prosecution if his action pertains even just a small amount to his official status."

 

[moXJO]

.

"The verdict additionally grants presidents presumptive immunity “from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility”, meaning a president is presumed to enjoy immunity from prosecution if his action pertains even just a small amount to his official status."

It's always been that way though until Trump came along. If anything it will protect Biden when he gets out.

 

[Knobby22]

It's always been that way though until Trump came along. If anything it will protect Biden when he gets out.

I wonder how this ruling would have effected Nixon?
Found this opinion:

"Nixon's conduct -- telling the FBI to shut down an investigation of himself, which seems front and center self-dealing and the kind of thing you don't want a president to do -- absolutely, he couldn't have been prosecuted for under yesterday's opinion," Litman said. "He wouldn't have needed to be pardoned."

There are Federal laws relating to use of domestic troops within the USA requiring permission from the Parliamentarians - and as it is a law and not the Constitution then they can safely be ignored now.

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes which limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.