2024 Presidential Election thread

[pfife]

4 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

This case wasn't going to be heard before the election anyway though, that's the weird thing to me.

The easy way to kick the can was already lined up by the Supreme Court. Prosecuting a former President will now take months, if not years, of evidentiary hearings to suss out the line between official acts and unofficial acts. That wasn't going to happen before November.

This one maybe not.   Didn't all of the theft happen after he was president so he couldn't possibly have been acting in official presidential capacity?

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, ben9753 said:

Getting his judge assigned to the case was luck. The rest played out as expected. 

OK

[mtutiger]

Just to tie what happened here to some of the comments made after the events of Saturday, I do think this ruling reminds us that some of the comments that dismiss the concerns about our government (ie. "no, the country isn't going to end if Trump is elected) seem a little too dismissive of the idea that another Trump term would drastically alter what this country looks like going forward.

[Motown Bombers]

If Trump wins, no ally is going to share intelligence with the US. It puts national security at risk. 

[mtutiger]

Such a unifying message

[Hongbit]

44 minutes ago, pfife said:

It's obviously bad, but it will be appealed and she may have removed herself from any further jurisprudence in the case if it survives appeal. 

I’ll be shocked if she’s even a judge in a few years.  I expect her to resign and take a ridiculously high paying job with the Adelson Family Foundation. 

[MichiganCardinal]

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

This one maybe not.   Didn't all of the theft happen after he was president so he couldn't possibly have been acting in official presidential capacity?

Depending on the evidence that was being used, they would have needed to litigate who was going to say what. When a number of the government's witnesses were probably people close to him during his administration (e.g., Nauta), there are arguments to be made that those statements are official acts.

Likewise, if an element of any of the charges is that he have personally delivered the documents to their improper location, he can argue that when the documents were delivered (when he was President) they were official acts, so the government can't prove that element.

It's the same reason the sentencing on the Stormy Daniels case is delayed. If any of the evidence used was evidence of official acts that SCOTUS now says shouldn't have been used against him, he may get a new trial, without that evidence being introduced.

[Edman85]

I'm gonna go on a limb and suggest dropping that case today has been the plan since the moment she was assigned the case.

[pfife]

45 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Depending on the evidence that was being used, they would have needed to litigate who was going to say what. When a number of the government's witnesses were probably people close to him during his administration (e.g., Nauta), there are arguments to be made that those statements are official acts.

Likewise, if an element of any of the charges is that he have personally delivered the documents to their improper location, he can argue that when the documents were delivered (when he was President) they were official acts, so the government can't prove that element.

It's the same reason the sentencing on the Stormy Daniels case is delayed. If any of the evidence used was evidence of official acts that SCOTUS now says shouldn't have been used against him, he may get a new trial, without that evidence being introduced.

Good stuff, thanks.  I had forgotten that the SCOTUS had judicial restrainted themselves into also taking the evidence off the table too, as the constitution says.

Of course even if it was obvious that none of it was official duty stuff they still litigate it.   

[Motown Bombers]

 

[pfife]

I think denying that he knows E Jean is what cost him 85 million before.   My apologies if that's wrong

[CMRivdogs]

My uninformed prediction...Burgham, Vance is a close second, Youngkin is the long shot

 

 

[romad1]

King and Queen of England were subject of security scare just now.  

[Tigeraholic1]

2 minutes ago, romad1 said:

King and Queen of England were subject of security scare just now.  

Proly had it coming. Shrug.....

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Hongbit said:

I’ll be shocked if she’s even a judge in a few years.  I expect her to resign and take a ridiculously high paying job with the Adelson Family Foundation. 

The federal courts, like too much of government itself, has become just another career grift.

[chasfh]

14 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

My uninformed prediction...Burgham, Vance is a close second, Youngkin is the long shot

 

 

They are probably presenting their final offers right now.

[mtutiger]

30 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

My uninformed prediction...Burgham, Vance is a close second, Youngkin is the long shot

 

 

The game show framing is... yikes

[pfife]

.......   For one of the most dangerous jobs in all of the land......

[1776]

21 minutes ago, pfife said:

.......   For one of the most dangerous jobs in all of the land......

I’ve been very impressed at how Kamala was able to navigate such a difficult assignment. 😉 

[CMRivdogs]

It looks like Marco will not be house, seat shopping

 

[mtutiger]

19 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Now the Republican Speaker...

Looks like Politico had a legit angle here

[CMRivdogs]

 

[Motown Bombers]

Bergum was probably the safest of the candidates. Vance would be a disaster. Lot to work with there. 

[Hongbit]

It’s gonna be Vance.  

He’s the worst of the lot so of course it’ll be him.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

I think Youngkin is his best choice and I could see it ending up being him. The Trump team may think they have a shot at Virginia with Youngkin on the ballot.