• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump is reindicted.

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
In the Trump's election interference case he has been reindicted taking in the corrupt USSC's attempt to make him immune from prosecution:


It is the same case, the same charges, but they are dropping minor parts of the case where he could have supposedly claimed he was immune from those actions. This had to be done due to the USSC court ruling and it takes that into account. And now that Judge Cannon foolishly dismissed the Mar a Lago documents case (and that action is being appealed) it vacated the case from the docket and Smith can go forward with this case. As a result evidentiary hearings are apt to be publicly held before the case goes to trial. That this is happening during the election season is Trump's own doing. If he had not continually opposed the cases they would have been over by now. He has no grounds for complaint when it comes to the timing of the resurfacing of this case.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ebionite said:
Zero self awareness.

x.com

x.com x.com
Click to expand...

Yes, an excellent example of someone mentioning Trump's zero self awareness. Here let me quote the tweet that you linked:

"Former President Trump also delivered remarks that were in character but still dangerous. His claims about expelling warmongers, driving out globalists, casting out communists, and throwing off those who hate our country echo classic #antisemitic rhetoric."
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
What happened to you can't be charged twice for the same crime?
Click to expand...
That was never a thing. You cannot be tried twice for the same crime. And even then there are exceptions. For example you have heard of a "hung jury" I assume. When a jury cannot decide a mistrial is often declared. If that happens the prosecution is free to bring up exactly the same charges again.

A person cannot be tried, found not guilty, and then charged for the same crime again.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Subduction Zone said:
That was never a thing. You cannot be tried twice for the same crime. And even then there are exceptions. For example you have heard of a "hung jury" I assume. When a jury cannot decide a mistrial is often declared. If that happens the prosecution is free to bring up exactly the same charges again.

A person cannot be tried, found not guilty, and then charged for the same crime again.
Click to expand...
Not saying your wrong but it still sounds like double jeopardy.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Twilight Hue said:
Not saying your wrong but it still sounds like double jeopardy.
Click to expand...
No, there are times that the prosecution screws up really badly and the defense can ask for a mistrial. If that happens and the jury has been hearing testimony that will usually end up in the case being dismissed with prejudice. That means that the prosecution cannot bring up the charges again. But once more that has to be after the jury has been hearing testimony. That is what happened in the James Baldwin case. The prosecution withheld possible exculpatory in that case and the defense found out after the trial started and brought it up to the judge. The judge was PO'ed immensely. The prosecutor tried to act as a witness for herself and that only made matters worse. All of his charges were dropped with prejudice as a result.

But there was nothing like double jeopardy in this case. Trump never went to trial for this case. It was waiting for others to finish:

Double jeopardy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Twilight Hue said:
What happened to you can't be charged twice for the same crime?
Click to expand...

This is a reindictment designed to take into account a Republican-engineered Supreme Court ruling aimed at helping Trump avoid criminal charges based on evidence that could be considered "official acts". The SCOTUS ruling was an entirely new theory of constitutional law that has been roundly criticized by legal scholars for extending extraordinary power to presidents. So the formal trial itself didn't really happen. No jury was empaneled and no verdict rendered. It was restarted under the same charges based on evidence that Trump's actions were not actions of a President, but private actions in his capacity as an ordinary citizen. For example, his January 6 rally was privately funded and organized, not a government activity. No double jeopardy would apply, because no verdict had yet been rendered on the charges, and the case was not formally dismissed. Trump's lawyers will try to contest the claim that all of his behavior can qualify as official government activity, because that is Trump's only defense for his reprehensible attempt to overturn an election.
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Copernicus said:
This is a reindictment designed to take into account a Republican-engineered Supreme Court ruling aimed at helping Trump avoid criminal charges based on evidence that could be considered "official acts". The SCOTUS ruling was an entirely new theory of constitutional law that has been roundly criticized by legal scholars for extending extraordinary power to presidents. So the formal trial itself didn't really happened. No jury was empaneled and no verdict rendered. It was restarted under the same charges based on evidence that Trump's actions were not actions of a President, but private actions in his capacity as an ordinary citizen. For example, his January 6 rally was privately funded and organized, not a government activity. No double jeopardy would apply, because no verdict had yet been rendered on the charges, and the case was not formally dismissed. Trump's lawyers will try to contest the claim that all of his behavior can qualify as official government activity, because that is Trump's only defense for his reprehensible attempt to overturn an election.
Click to expand...
This will definitely not go to trial before the election. It may go to trial after the election. That is if Trump loses. If he does so I cannot see his MAGA justices sticking their necks out for him any longer. They may try to meekly tone down their activities because if there ever was a time when it was justified to stack the court by a new administration it would be now. Clarence Thomas would be wise before a Democratically controlled Congress decides to impeach him for all of the funds he got from his billionaire friend and did not report.
 
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Subduction Zone said:
This will definitely not go to trial before the election. It may go to trial after the election. That is if Trump loses. If he does so I cannot see his MAGA justices sticking their necks out for him any longer. They may try to meekly tone down their activities because if there ever was a time when it was justified to stack the court by a new administration it would be now. Clarence Thomas would be wise before a Democratically controlled Congress decides to impeach him for all of the funds he got from his billionaire friend and did not report.
Click to expand...

I wish that they would impeach Thomas, but I don't see even a Democratically controlled Congress doing it. Even if the Senate does not allow an impeachment trial to be filibustered, the act of removing a SCOTUS justice requires a supermajority of the Senate. It would be impossible to get that in the foreseeable future, and such a trial would be hopelessly mired in political controversy. I think that a more feasible way to handle that is through reform of the Supreme Court to enforce ethical standards and perhaps expansion of the number of justices.

However, none of that is going to affect this particular trial. If Trump wins the election, Jack Smith will be fired and the charges dropped. Everyone knows that. One of Trump's main reasons for running is to keep himself out of the hoosegow. It is a question of whether he will ever be held accountable for trying to overthrow the past election. Right now, some of his supporters are back in open daylight trying to pull off the same election shenanigans--voter suppression, refusing to certify election results, ballot manipulation, etc. Trump has already promised to pardon lawbreakers from the January 6 insurrection and will likely promise pardons to those seeking to break laws on his behalf now. And I doubt he will follow through on those manipulative promises. He didn't in 2021, before he left office. He let all of those people stand trial and go to jail then. He promises to pardon them out of their jail cells now.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Copernicus said:
I wish that they would impeach Thomas, but I don't see even a Democratically controlled Congress doing it. Even if the Senate does not allow an impeachment trial to be filibustered, the act of removing a SCOTUS justice requires a supermajority of the Senate. It would be impossible to get that in the foreseeable future, and such a trial would be hopelessly mired in political controversy. I think that a more feasible way to handle that is through reform of the Supreme Court to enforce ethical standards and perhaps expansion of the number of justices.

However, none of that is going to affect this particular trial. If Trump wins the election, Jack Smith will be fired and the charges dropped. Everyone knows that. One of Trump's main reasons for running is to keep himself out of the hoosegow. It is a question of whether he will ever be held accountable for trying to overthrow the past election. Right now, some of his supporters are back in open daylight trying to pull off the same election shenanigans--voter suppression, refusing to certify election results, ballot manipulation, etc. Trump has already promised to pardon lawbreakers from the January 6 insurrection and will likely promise pardons to those seeking to break laws on his behalf now. And I doubt he will follow through on those manipulative promises. He didn't in 2021, before he left office. He let all of those people stand trial and go to jail then. He promises to pardon them out of their jail cells now.
Click to expand...

Do you remember way back when he first ran that he was being audited? What he was being audited for finally broke this year, but with everything that was going on that audit was pretty much ignored. He is looking at owing the IRSS $100 million dollars. And who knows what else. It appears that he double dipped on some debt on one of his hotels to keep from paying taxes:

www.propublica.org

IRS Audit of Trump Could Cost Former President More Than $100 Million

The tax agency concluded in its long-running investigation that Trump effectively claimed the same massive write-off twice on his failed Chicago tower.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ignatius A said:
After 8 years and all the labels you nitwits have put in him he's still there. No one has ever said leftists are quicker learners.
Click to expand...
Oh my, such projection. The "leftists" are not the slow learners. You really should not name call since by your standard people should be able to call you a fascist. Why can't you deal with the facts? Trump is an adjudicated rapist. He is a convicted felon. His companies have been found to be guilty of tax evasion. He has bragged about peeping on underaged girls. Just about anything that Christians think of as vile and wrong he has done except for murder, and if it was found that he did I would not be surprised. And yet the MAGA still believe all of his lies. That simply makes no sense.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Copernicus said:
I wish that they would impeach Thomas, but I don't see even a Democratically controlled Congress doing it. Even if the Senate does not allow an impeachment trial to be filibustered, the act of removing a SCOTUS justice requires a supermajority of the Senate. It would be impossible to get that in the foreseeable future, and such a trial would be hopelessly mired in political controversy. I think that a more feasible way to handle that is through reform of the Supreme Court to enforce ethical standards and perhaps expansion of the number of justices.

However, none of that is going to affect this particular trial. If Trump wins the election, Jack Smith will be fired and the charges dropped. Everyone knows that. One of Trump's main reasons for running is to keep himself out of the hoosegow. It is a question of whether he will ever be held accountable for trying to overthrow the past election. Right now, some of his supporters are back in open daylight trying to pull off the same election shenanigans--voter suppression, refusing to certify election results, ballot manipulation, etc. Trump has already promised to pardon lawbreakers from the January 6 insurrection and will likely promise pardons to those seeking to break laws on his behalf now. And I doubt he will follow through on those manipulative promises. He didn't in 2021, before he left office. He let all of those people stand trial and go to jail then. He promises to pardon them out of their jail cells now.
Click to expand...
And not only would the disturbed criminal candidate get off of his federal criminal indictments he could order his DOJ to settle the $100 million lawsuit against the DOJ in his favor, and the USA would have to pay him. He could keep suing the DOJ for other gripes and order more settlements. Who would stop him? He could be impeached again but without a senate willing to remove him why would he care?

Seriously, why would Trump not sue the USA for a billion dollars if his DOJ head will settle the lawsuit in his favor? Why would he stop at a billion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top