Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36178005)

I don’t need to think a) or b) to think the introduction of a new unforeseen factor (a Democrat not selected in the primary process getting the nomination for a reason other than death) combined with prosecutions that could be perceived to be political (and Trump will be adamant it is the case) are bad optics or that Trump won’t link the two to his electoral advantage.

I’m not going to call out a single case - it’s entirely subjective in any case and not relevant to my overarching point. Trump’s role in each is disputed. Despite all this he’s the Republican nominee and either ahead or within the margin of error in almost every poll.

He may well be guilty of all he accused of and every prosecution led by an honest, impartial public servants. That doesn’t matter if his claims to the contrary resonate more against a Democratic party ever increasingly desperate. If ~50% of the country can be convinced, 52% absolutely can too. The politicisation of the justice system allows him to muddy the waters.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36178006)

Because, I Believe, they were ultimately politically motivated.

As I said, Trump was always going to run again. He believed the presidency was stolen from him, and he wants his second term.

I firmly believe that if Trump, after he lost. (and although there were questionable things that went on, he did lose) had said publicly that he had no intention to run again whatsoever……….none of those prosecutions happen.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36178007)

Word salad…

If he says often enough that the Justice System is politicised, and repeated ad nauseam by people like you (who wants Trump in to ensure the end of funding for Ukraine), and who can’t/won’t engage in specifics because generalised complaints are much easier to defend/ignore comments on, whereas specifics can be rebutted…

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36178007)

I actually believe he is running to avoid prosecution, rather than him being prosecuted because he is running…

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36178006)

Because, I Believe, they were ultimately politically motivated.

As I said, Trump was always going to run again. He believed the presidency was stolen from him, and he wants his second term.

I firmly believe that if Trump, after he lost. (and although there were questionable things that went on, he did lose) had said publicly that he had no intention to run again whatsoever……….none of those prosecutions happen.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36178009)

I know you're not an American voter but would you change your mind if people who wanted him to lose, or off the ballot altogether, kept telling you that you are wrong?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36178015)

No, because I have my own two eyes and a brain.

I know what I see. If Trump had lost graciously, congratulated Biden, had a big “I’m retiring from politic” party, and rode off to into the sunset.

None of those prosecutions happen.

And if you try and tell me they would, then I’m calling you an idiot to believe it or think I would believe it. ( not you personally obvs)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36178226)

Biden should go on a crime spree.....

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36178231)

Biden needs to make a Presidential Executive Order removing any convicted felon from a ballot for a federal office.

It might get over-turned but not before the election… ;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36178230)

Here is the story: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-sup...se-2024-07-01/

The question is going to be what is an official act? Would Nixon's Watergate tapings be official?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36178234)

When you think about it there’s nothing really new or unexpected in the ruling. Of course Presidents have immunity as part of their official duties - as head of the armed forces they’re in charge of murderers, rapists and routinely carry out indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in other countries.

The principle has to be absolute or not at all. You can’t have every ambitious prosecutor out to make a name for themselves targeting a sitting President for obvious slam dunk crimes. America’s role as the global policeman, and perhaps largest criminal enterprise in the world as it seizes the assets it “liberates”, depends upon it.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36178235)

Obviously, an official act is anything he’s legally allowed to do. :spin:

If it sounds circular, that’s because it’s meant to be. His place-men on the Supreme Court have one job here, which is to slow down any threat Trump faces until after the election. Any prosecution relating to the day of the insurrection, which occurred while he was still president, will now be mired in appeal after appeal while the question of immunity is resolved.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------



Furthermore there’s no way they could rule that presidents are immune entirely. That could come back and bite them on the bum very quickly. Despite giving the appearance of being not the sharpest tool in the box*, Judge Alito isn’t irredeemably thick.

*What, that insurrectionist flag in my yard? Can’t say I noticed, my wife must have done that…

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36178237)

does inciting a riot