Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Remember the Supreme Court ruled that whatever the President does as president is immune from prosecution?

Well here is the update on one of the indictments.  It clarifies that the Supreme Court ruled that a few specific activities that Trump did which the indictment cited -- those few actions were ruled as Trump acting as president, so therefore those actions are immune -- but the Supreme Court also ruled (in the same ruling) that some of Trump's activities would be kicked back down to the previous (lower) court to decide if those activities were done as presidential function or as a private citizen.

This newly-unsealed document (motion filed by Jack Smith) now released by Judge Tanya Chutkan -- asserts that what Trump did regarding January 6th was as a private citizen acting as a candidate, and not as part of his presidential function. Therefore Jack Smith asserts that those activities are NOT immune.

Edit to add that Jack Smith mentions co-conspirators in his motion.  Many of the names are redacted (but it is clear who some of them are).

I read what I could but it's 165 pages long so ... I'm not sure where/how it goes from here...

 


READ the motion here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.252.0.pdf

 

(edited to fix some terminology errors I had made)

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5990

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3462

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Vance bored me to death. He sounds like an AI robot. Tim answered with heart and soul. He sounded like a human being and not a version of American Psycho.

But... I have to be honest, I fell asleep for a bit during this debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Errol changed the forum settings last week, so that we have 60 minutes from the time we first make a post ... in which to edit that post. (There's a thread about that in the support forum).

I just edited my post about the unsealed motion a few times, catching crucial errors I had made, just in time before my 60 minutes were up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A number of the people praising Vance in the debate (at op-ed pages, or the loathsome Megyn Kelly or Megan McAradle) are women. I don't think he was civil (I think he put on a facade of civility) and I don't think those women speak for all women, but I do think there are a number of white women who tend to break for Trump, and while that may change due to Dobbs, he (and the press) have gone out of their way to whitewash his stance on Dobbs, enough to where I could see it helping (and he does still have his usual portion of their support in some polling).

I don't think Vance is going to make any voter who was disgusted by him suddenly support him or Trump, but I think the sham last night, and the way the press has covered it, help with the shiny facade that gives people (and the press) permission to support such a heinous regime. And right now, with the momentum he already had building up (if we believe polling, and some of the possible reports on early voting) that is what Trump needs. Not enough on its own to make a difference, but one part of the puzzle Trump is putting together.

I saw a Washington Post poll claiming that voters who watched the debate felt Vance was better on climate change than Walz. That is so insane to me that it makes me see just how many out there are desperate enough to get Trump back in. I've seen some claim Walz should have stopped this if he'd been slicker or not as bumbling, but unless Vance had taken a dump onstage nothing likely would have made a difference. Everything was set up for him and all these voters who have amnesia about Trump or are easily swayed fall for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe a fair amount of polling, I just don't think it shows that and I don't see or hear that narrative coming out of most pollsters. In most of the key states Harris is still up on Trump, or at the very least tied in ways that are not good for him. There is a reason pollsters still say she now has the edge and has had it for some time. If that changes then that's another story.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


To clarify my post, I   *KNOW*  that he's evil, and I'm not fooled.

What I meant was that he might have seemed civil/coherent/polished
-- to those who are unaware.

I said that I need that facade to crack, 
but what I meant was that I need that facade to be completely smashed.

It was ENRAGING to me to watch this horrible man pretend to be nice.

Edited by janea4old
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think we need to be wary.  Much of the polling released this week barring a few have been GOP state polls. This is the same *hit they did in 2022 that got the fake red wave narrative moving. Simon Rosenberg has already posted the polls this week that are GOP led polls.   And Tom Bonier has carefully gone over the early voting stats.  I'm not taking anything for granted but I think we all need to be skeptical of anything the media is trying to spoon feed us to keep them viable.

I also think Vance knows Trump is going to lose and I believe everything is about positioning himself as the next savior. Vance is very dangerous.  He's a zealot and true believer and owned by the worst of the worst people on this planet.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Unpopular opinion:  The focus on the soap opera tropes over the mysteries and crimes was partly what did the show in.  Also, featuring characters not involved in the legal, police, and criminal elements also hurt the show and took away what made it unique. Featuring characters like Jody, Raven, Sky, etc hurt the show long term.  The show ABCified starting in 1976/1977 and then went through a youthification period starting in 1981.  
    • I feel like the lawsuit storyline was resolved quickly because the show didn’t want to spring for more sets.
    • It's been a while, but we have seen the foyer to Bill and Hayley's house as well as the exterior entrance to their house. The foyer was first seen in the premiere episode when Hayley met Vanessa at the house.
    • There's still a year or two before Larkin arrives. Joel is there already. EON does noticeably youthify, although I think they carry it off. Admittedly I haven't seen most of the Jody stories, which from what people here have said aren't great.
    • I don't mind the actor who plays Brian. He's fine. The problem for me is that Paige seems so wishy wishy. She doesn't seem to have much of a personality at this point so I don't see why Brian would be so besotted with her. She just lurches from one trauma to the next. Granted, it's only been a month, but she's not as vibrant as April or even Deborah who has had minimal screen time by this point.  I do worry about the influence of GH on the show since I'm in fall of 1979 and characters have conversations and there's not the drive to "youthify" the show. However, I think Marceau (sp?) is gone. He was given a rather tame sendoff. How long was the actor on the show? I hope this is not a sign of things to come. I worry the show is setting up a murder mystery around one of my favorite characters and I will be mightily annoyed. I also noticed in recent Search for Tomorrow episodes uploaded to YT that the actors playing Logan and Eliot showed up. I don't watch the show but they were in the screencaps. When does Larkin Malloy show up or has he already left? Joel Crothers hasn't shown up either unless I've blinked and missed him.
    • Dr Linden. She treated Vanessa's drug addiction (although Vanessa seemed to forget that by Henry's suicide attempt) , and she's mentioned during Reva's PPD. Although I can't recall if she's actually shown right off the top of my head. She probably was temporarily shelved when Sonni was a therapist (between her crazy times) And I think Billy sees her after he falls off the wagon after Reva's death.
    • Kinda agree. I have some issues with the sets. Nicole's living room is bland-looks like a display home. Bill and Hayley's is too small and basically hideous. And neither of them have a front door/entrance or staircase. People just appear from the corridor. Those green accents  at Uptown are way too much. Also,Naomi and Vanessa not having an office or a home .
    • Thanks @Paul Raven  That Grainger story always reads like hog-wild melodrama, not very similar to the more subtle stories for Rita in her last few years. I wonder how Lenore played the material.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy