Of course, if he gets indicted he will say it was corrupt and all rigged one second later.
2:20 PM · Mar 29, 2023
He posts as if he had the transcripts of the hearings in his hands
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:52 pm
by Slim Cognito
Like he knows what the word preponderance means.
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:00 pm
by pipistrelle
Is that petulant kid look supposed to be flattering?
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:08 pm
by Dr. Ken
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:55 am
by RTH10260
does he even have a right to intervene? the denial of executive privilege needs to be raised by the witness, not? Or, of course, the sitting president.
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:12 am
by Gregg
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:55 am does he even have a right to intervene? the denial of executive privilege needs to be raised by the witness, not? Or, of course, the sitting president.
FFS, this exact point was settled law in 19741 and Trump has lost this exact point AT LEAST 4 times. "Will no one rid me the vexatious litigator?
1] US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:17 am
by Dave from down under
But Nixon wasn’t God-Emperor of ‘merica!
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 6:40 am
by RTH10260
David Pakman comments on the recent interview the former guy had with Hannity
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:24 am
by Tiredretiredlawyer
Gregg: FFS, this exact point was settled law in 19741 and Trump has lost this exact point AT LEAST 4 times. "Will no one rid me the vexatious litigator?
RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:55 am does he even have a right to intervene? the denial of executive privilege needs to be raised by the witness, not? Or, of course, the sitting president.
FFS, this exact point was settled law in 19741 and Trump has lost this exact point AT LEAST 4 times. "Will no one rid me the vexatious litigator?
1] US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
I thought that it was well-settled law that Executive Privilege rests ONLY with the sitting President, not former holders of that office.
Even if the witness is claiming EP from testifying against/about a sitting president, I don't think that the witness can claim it if the sitting prez does not. IOW, a witness can only refer to a pre-existing claim of privilege made by the sitting prez. He can not raise the issue of EP himself.
If TFG were still the sitting prez, I believe that he would have standing to file a request with a grand jury, claiming EP for one of his associates who has been called to testify. As a former POTUS, I do not believe that he has standing to make such a request.
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:21 pm
by Gregg
No, the courts have ruled that an ex President MIGHT have input on privilege.
But Executive Privilege is not in the Constitution or even in any written law. It is a custom, and exists only because it's an inherently good idea.
But even if he was the current President, it is settled law that a criminal court is entitled to the best evidence in a given case, even if that information is being withheld under a claim of Executive Privilege.
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:28 pm
by Phoenix520
pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:00 pm
Is that petulant kid look supposed to be flattering?
pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:00 pm
Is that petulant kid look supposed to be flattering?
That’s his badass, resolute look.
He's trying to look like this, and failing miserably:
This is the famous portrait of Churchill by Karsh.
The Roaring Lion is a black and white photographic portrait of a 67-year-old Winston Churchill as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The portrait was taken in 1941 by Armenian-Canadian photographer Yousuf Karsh in the Centre Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
NEW: Former confidantes and associates of former president Donald Trump say the bluster and bravado he's exhibited in the face of possible indictments from four separate grand juries is hiding an inability to process what being a criminal defendant means.
One person who spoke with The Independent about the ex-president’s mindset — a former associate who enjoyed a close relationship with the Trump family for years but who asked not to be named because of Mr Trump’s tendency to lash out and send his followers after his critics — said it will be nigh-impossible for the former president to abide by even the most lenient conditions because he doesn’t understand the law like normal people.
The former Trump family confidante said Mr Trump’s moral compass is so non-existent that he can’t fathom how and why a judge would be able to tell him what to do, what he can and can’t say, or where he can go.
Add to that the ex-president’s contempt for the very idea that he would be held to account by prosecutors in the first place, and you get a high probability that Mr Trump ends up on the wrong side of a gag order — or worse.
pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:00 pm
Is that petulant kid look supposed to be flattering?
That’s his badass, resolute look.
He's trying to look like this, and failing miserably:
Ya I've said before he was been trying to look like that in his official photo.
What he does not get is that that photo is iconic because it was Churchill, not because Churchill was making an iconic look. Trump imitating it looks like a loser with a bad combover having constipation.
Spoiler for those sick of looking at him
► Show Spoiler
trump (the former guy)
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:25 pm
by Slarti the White
That, of course, is in addition to the problem that what he says in one case under oath can be used in another case too. also. I've always thought that the way to get Trump was to pin him down on the record trying to avoid culpability for multiple crimes. He might be able to come up with stories that excuse his actions for each offense, but not all of them simultaneously.
@RonFilipkowski
does he even have a right to intervene? the denial of executive privilege needs to be raised by the witness, not? Or, of course, the sitting president.
I knew I’d seen it somewhere before.
@RonFilipkowski
