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 October 2, 20241 yr by janea4old

 

 

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. 

10 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I was going to add this to the other post but apparently I can't edit it...

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.

7 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

I think people first of all are overestimating this debate. Some of you sit here are claim Vance was civil. How many of you are women? What was evident to me was his overtalking 2 female moderators and trying to do the mansplaining.  Now let me backup. Is he a skilled debater yes. Hell he was a debater at Yale. But any women watching this knew what we saw.  

People have forgotten how often GWB was beaten in debates. Didn't the pundit class declare it so. It's why people have come to despise these people. I can't tell you especially as a woman how much I have come to despise these people. Because many of them in fact including many women are so condescending to other women it makes me scream. But getting back to GWB, he underperformed.  But people thought he came across as authentic and real.  As the debate progressed Walz got better.  He came across as authentic but he was too prepped with facts.  No damage was done and the end is the debate was a draw.  Vance IMO did not improve himself at all. He came across as a slick used car salesman.

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.

Charles Manson and Ted Bundy had groupies after they were in prison. Just saying.  

Disturbing, but... these people exist.  

18 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

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.

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 October 2, 20241 yr by Vee

19 hours ago, janea4old said:

Vance seemed way more coherent and polished than expected.
He was hiding the fact that he's an evil lunatic, with terrible plans for all of us.

I need that facade to crack badly.

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 October 2, 20241 yr by janea4old

Just now, janea4old said:

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

That's never going to happen for some people, but he remains dramatically unpopular. I don't need him to be fully destroyed, I just need him to lose.

Meanwhile:

 

7 minutes ago, janea4old said:

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.

He is a psychopath and that's what they love to do best. 

29 minutes ago, Vee said:

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.

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 October 3, 20241 yr by JaneAusten

56 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

I also think Vance knows Trump is going to lose and I believe everything is about positioning himself as the next savior.

I agree. That's what a lot of the debate was about IMO. He's trying to look past MAGA, but I don't think it will work out for him down the road any more than others.

1 hour ago, janea4old said:

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

 

1 hour ago, Maxim said:

He is a psychopath and that's what they love to do best. 

 

1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

Vance is very dangerous.  He's a zealot and true believer and owned by the worst of the worst people on this planet.

 
horrible pretending to be nice, psychopath, zealot owned by the worst of the worst.  Yeah, all of that.

Edited October 3, 20241 yr by janea4old

 

a masterpiece of as* kissing:

vance “analysis”