Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[RobF]

Not misrepresenting anything.


“Offices of Profit or Trust” is a fact of history dating back to the 13th century.

Parliament created law the prohibited elected members from holding an “office of profit or trust”. Offices of profit or trust were appointed by executives.

At the writing of the constitution the founders knew the precise meaning and history of this term of art as offices appointed by an executive.

When are you going to get it into your head that essentially just repeating yourself, without introducing any new reasoning or supporting evidence, achieves nothing?

I mean, other than facepalms.

As for your reasoning, no. It's trivial to show that this is a point of contention. Take the Foreign Emoluments Clause saying "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State".

Obviously the founders phrased it that way because they totally wanted their elected officers to be subject to bribes and corruption from Kings, Princes, and foreign states!

But seriously, surely you're not unaware that the clause is quite widely held to apply to the President. Right? You're not unaware of that? Even though it just says "holding any Office of Profit or Trust"?

Hey, let's check in with the Office of Legal Counsel! "The President surely “holds an Office of Profit or Trust"" (President’s Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, December 7 2009). But hey, you know better, right? I must just be hallucinating all this. Since it's such a settled point and not at all contentious and all.

Also, you should hop back in time to 1924 and let James Ferguson know. Because the Texas Supreme Court thought being "disqualified to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the State of Texas" as a result of his impeachment in 1917 meant he'd be "ineligible to hold the office of Governor if he should be nominated and elected thereto."! (https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox).

And just to be really clear before you jump to grab the wrong end of the stick and start beating yourself over the head with it no, I'm not claiming that Texas Supreme Court precedent is somehow binding federally, I'm using it as an example of the reasoning that you claim doesn't exist.

If Roberts believed the impeachment senate trial was legitimate he would have presided.

Conjecture, and pretty wild considering there are glaringly obviously other reasons why he wouldn't have wanted to do it if didn't have to. Which he didn't.

 

[Sendai]

When are you going to get it into your head that essentially just repeating yourself, without introducing any new reasoning or supporting evidence, achieves nothing?

I mean, other than facepalms.

As for your reasoning, no. It's trivial to show that this is a point of contention. Take the Foreign Emoluments Clause saying "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State".

Obviously the founders phrased it that way because they totally wanted their elected officers to be subject to bribes and corruption from Kings, Princes, and foreign states!

But seriously, surely you're not unaware that the clause is quite widely held to apply to the President. Right? You're not unaware of that? Even though it just says "holding any Office of Profit or Trust"?

Hey, let's check in with the Office of Legal Counsel! "The President surely “holds an Office of Profit or Trust"" (President’s Receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, December 7 2009). But hey, you know better, right? I must just be hallucinating all this. Since it's such a settled point and not at all contentious and all.

Also, you should hop back in time to 1924 and let James Ferguson know. Because the Texas Supreme Court thought being "disqualified to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the State of Texas" as a result of his impeachment in 1917 meant he'd be "ineligible to hold the office of Governor if he should be nominated and elected thereto."! (https://casetext.com/case/ferguson-v-maddox).

And just to be really clear before you jump to grab the wrong end of the stick and start beating yourself over the head with it no, I'm not claiming that Texas Supreme Court precedent is somehow binding federally, I'm using it as an example of the reasoning that you claim doesn't exist.


Conjecture, and pretty wild considering there are glaringly obviously other reasons why he wouldn't have wanted to do it if didn't have to. Which he didn't.

We have a distinctly originalist Supreme Court. The Dobbs decision shows how history plays a fundamental part in their decisions. Roberts is on record stating the distinction between appointed officers and elected officials. Historically offices of profit or trust are quite simply appointed positions. And “Widely held” is unlikely to influence the Supreme Court. All widely held shows is the lack of knowledge regarding the history of offices of profit or trust.

I’d say the obvious reason for Roberts taking a pass was that the trial didn’t have the President as the accused. He was a private citizen.

 

[RobF]

We have a distinctly originalist Supreme Court. The Dobbs decision shows how history plays a fundamental part in their decisions. Roberts is on record stating the distinction between appointed officers and elected officials. Historically offices of profit or trust are quite simply appointed positions. And “Widely held” is unlikely to influence the Supreme Court. All widely held shows is the lack of knowledge regarding the history of offices of profit or trust.

I’d say the obvious reason for Roberts taking a pass was that the trial didn’t have the President as the accused. He was a private citizen.

There you go again, just basically repeating yourself. But without reasoning or evidence, that carries zero weight.

And yet it remains the fact that there is nothing inherent in the meaning of an office of profit or trust that requires it to not be elected. I mean, it's not like you guys were going with the whole "let's have a monarch who appoints people" approach.

And speaking of evidence, did you know that Edmund Randolph explicitly stated, "There is another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments... By the ninth section of the first article "No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatsoever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people.""

Yep, there he was, explicitly saying the Presidency is covered by an article referring to "an office of profit and trust". In 1788. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

But hey everyone, we can forget historical evidence and, you know, basic reasoning; @Sendai says "nuh uh," so that's that!

 

[bird]

We have a distinctly originalist Supreme Court. The Dobbs decision shows how history plays a fundamental part in their decisions. Roberts is on record stating the distinction between appointed officers and elected officials. Historically offices of profit or trust are quite simply appointed positions. And “Widely held” is unlikely to influence the Supreme Court. All widely held shows is the lack of knowledge regarding the history of offices of profit or trust.

I’d say the obvious reason for Roberts taking a pass was that the trial didn’t have the President as the accused. He was a private citizen.

Originalism is a false doctrine of which, iirc, Bork was one of the creators. The document prohibits three things: ex post facto laws, bills of attainder and religious tests for office holders. The bill of rights gets into more detail on certain things such as freedom of speech etc. Beyond that? Any SCOTUS decision particularly those rendered by the SCOTUS as currently composed are their personal opinions, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Sendai]

There you go again, just basically repeating yourself. But without reasoning or evidence, that carries zero weight.

And yet it remains the fact that there is nothing inherent in the meaning of an office of profit or trust that requires it to not be elected. I mean, it's not like you guys were going with the whole "let's have a monarch who appoints people" approach.

And speaking of evidence, did you know that Edmund Randolph explicitly stated, "There is another provision against the danger of the President receiving emoluments... By the ninth section of the first article "No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatsoever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people.""

Yep, there he was, explicitly saying the Presidency is covered by an article referring to "an office of profit and trust". In 1788. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

But hey everyone, we can forget historical evidence and, you know, basic reasoning; @Sendai says "nuh uh," so that's that!

What is the Office of Profit?​

An office of profit is a widely used term when it comes to executive appointments under national constitutions. This concept is prohibited in several countries especially in the legislature, from accepting an office of profit under the executive. This is done to secure the independence of the legislature and preserve the separation of powers.

“Profit” normally connotes any advantage, benefit or useful consequences. Generally, it is interpreted to mean monetary gain, but in some cases benefits other than monetary gain may also come within its meaning. “Office of Profit” is one to which some power of patronage is attached or in which the holder is entitled to exercise the executive functions, or which carries dignity, prestige or honour to the incumbent thereof.

Latest on Office of Profit:

1. President Ram Nath Kovind has rejected a plea seeking disqualification of YSR Congress leader V Vijaisai Reddy as Rajya Sabha member on the grounds of holding ‘office of profit’ as special representative of the Andhra Pradesh government in the national capital.

Related issue – A petition was filed seeking disqualification of Vijaysai Reddy as a member of the Upper House of Parliament alleging that the post of special representative of the Andhra Pradesh government at the Andhra Pradesh Bhawan being held by the YSR Congress Party MP was an office of profit.

However, the Election Commission had held that since no pecuniary gain was derived from the said office and Reddy was not entitled to any other perks or remuneration other than enjoying the status of a ‘state guest’ during his travels to Andhra Pradesh in connection with the performance of his duties as special representative, he did not incur disqualification under Article 102(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.

This is an important topic for IAS examaspirants.

Aspirants should begin their preparation by solving UPSC Previous Year Question Papers now!! To complement your preparation for the upcoming exam, check the following links: Daily Video Analysis – The Hindu Newspaper Daily Press Information Bureau (PIB) Analysis for UPSC Civil Service Exam Download UPSC Notes PDF (Free) Download Indian Polity Notes PDF (Free) for UPSC Civil Service Exam Download NCERT Notes PDF for IAS Exam(Free)

Why Should an MLA or MP Not hold an Office of Profit?​

There is a clear statement in the Indian constitution under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a), that an MP or MLA is not allowed to hold any office of profit as this would fetch them financial gains and benefits.

At present, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, bars an MP, MLA or an MLC from holding any office of profit under the central or state government unless it is exempted. However, it does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit.

Holding an office of profit under the government by these members is subjected to grounds of disqualification.

What is the underlying principle for including ‘office of profit’ as a criterion for disqualification?

• Makers of the Constitution wanted that legislators should not feel obligated to the Executive in any way, which could influence them while discharging legislative functions.
• In other words, an MP or MLA should be free to carry out her duties without any kind of governmental pressure. The intent is that there should be no conflict between the duties and interests of an elected member.
• The office of profit law simply seeks to enforce a basic feature of the Constitution- the principle of separation of power between the legislature and the executive.

Aspirants can check out the following links to prepare for the upcoming Civil services Exam more comprehensively –

State Legislature – Powers & Functions of Legislative	Difference between Legislative and Executive in India	Separation of Powers
Union And State Legislative Relations – 7th Schedule	Functions of Parliament in India	How a Bill is Passed in Indian Parliament
Difference Between Unicameral and Bicameral Legislature	Difference between Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha	Sessions Of Parliament, Prorogation And Dissolution

What Comes Under the Office of Profit?​

The 1959 law does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit but the definition has evolved over the years with interpretations made in various court judgments.

The office of profit comprises any place or position that carries or offers some remuneration, financial advantage, benefit etc.

Factors constituting an ‘Office of Profit’

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the test for determining whether a person holds an office of profit is the test of appointment.

Several factors are considered in this determination including factors such as:

1. whether the government is the appointing authority,
2. whether the government has the power to terminate the appointment,
3. whether the government determines the remuneration,
4. what is the source of remuneration, and
5. the power that comes with the position

Where has the Office of Profit Concept been Adopted from?​

The office of profit concept has been adopted from the British Parliamentary model. This concept is based on similar lines with the English Act of Settlement 1701.

The above details would help candidates prepare for UPSC 2022.

Office Of Profit - Important Articles, Grounds of Disqualification

An “office of profit” means employment with fees and emoluments attached to it. Why should an MLA or MP not hold an office of profit? For UPSC 2022 Preparation, follow BYJU'S.

byjus.com

 

[MT15]

We have a distinctly originalist Supreme Court.

No we do not. That’s a conceit of the court, but they throw it all away when it suits them. See the ruling on presidential immunity for one example.

 

[RobF]

What is the Office of Profit?​

An office of profit is a widely used term when it comes to executive appointments under national constitutions. This concept is prohibited in several countries especially in the legislature, from accepting an office of profit under the executive. This is done to secure the independence of the legislature and preserve the separation of powers.

“Profit” normally connotes any advantage, benefit or useful consequences. Generally, it is interpreted to mean monetary gain, but in some cases benefits other than monetary gain may also come within its meaning. “Office of Profit” is one to which some power of patronage is attached or in which the holder is entitled to exercise the executive functions, or which carries dignity, prestige or honour to the incumbent thereof.

Latest on Office of Profit:

1. President Ram Nath Kovind has rejected a plea seeking disqualification of YSR Congress leader V Vijaisai Reddy as Rajya Sabha member on the grounds of holding ‘office of profit’ as special representative of the Andhra Pradesh government in the national capital.

Related issue – A petition was filed seeking disqualification of Vijaysai Reddy as a member of the Upper House of Parliament alleging that the post of special representative of the Andhra Pradesh government at the Andhra Pradesh Bhawan being held by the YSR Congress Party MP was an office of profit.

However, the Election Commission had held that since no pecuniary gain was derived from the said office and Reddy was not entitled to any other perks or remuneration other than enjoying the status of a ‘state guest’ during his travels to Andhra Pradesh in connection with the performance of his duties as special representative, he did not incur disqualification under Article 102(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.

This is an important topic for IAS examaspirants.

Aspirants should begin their preparation by solving UPSC Previous Year Question Papers now!! To complement your preparation for the upcoming exam, check the following links: Daily Video Analysis – The Hindu Newspaper Daily Press Information Bureau (PIB) Analysis for UPSC Civil Service Exam Download UPSC Notes PDF (Free) Download Indian Polity Notes PDF (Free) for UPSC Civil Service Exam Download NCERT Notes PDF for IAS Exam(Free)

Why Should an MLA or MP Not hold an Office of Profit?​

There is a clear statement in the Indian constitution under Articles 102(1)(a) and 191(1)(a), that an MP or MLA is not allowed to hold any office of profit as this would fetch them financial gains and benefits.

At present, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, bars an MP, MLA or an MLC from holding any office of profit under the central or state government unless it is exempted. However, it does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit.

Holding an office of profit under the government by these members is subjected to grounds of disqualification.

What is the underlying principle for including ‘office of profit’ as a criterion for disqualification?

• Makers of the Constitution wanted that legislators should not feel obligated to the Executive in any way, which could influence them while discharging legislative functions.
• In other words, an MP or MLA should be free to carry out her duties without any kind of governmental pressure. The intent is that there should be no conflict between the duties and interests of an elected member.
• The office of profit law simply seeks to enforce a basic feature of the Constitution- the principle of separation of power between the legislature and the executive.

Aspirants can check out the following links to prepare for the upcoming Civil services Exam more comprehensively –

State Legislature – Powers & Functions of Legislative	Difference between Legislative and Executive in India	Separation of Powers
Union And State Legislative Relations – 7th Schedule	Functions of Parliament in India	How a Bill is Passed in Indian Parliament
Difference Between Unicameral and Bicameral Legislature	Difference between Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha	Sessions Of Parliament, Prorogation And Dissolution

What Comes Under the Office of Profit?​

The 1959 law does not clearly define what constitutes an office of profit but the definition has evolved over the years with interpretations made in various court judgments.

The office of profit comprises any place or position that carries or offers some remuneration, financial advantage, benefit etc.

Factors constituting an ‘Office of Profit’

In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that the test for determining whether a person holds an office of profit is the test of appointment.

Several factors are considered in this determination including factors such as:

1. whether the government is the appointing authority,
2. whether the government has the power to terminate the appointment,
3. whether the government determines the remuneration,
4. what is the source of remuneration, and
5. the power that comes with the position

Where has the Office of Profit Concept been Adopted from?​

The office of profit concept has been adopted from the British Parliamentary model. This concept is based on similar lines with the English Act of Settlement 1701.

The above details would help candidates prepare for UPSC 2022.

Office Of Profit - Important Articles, Grounds of Disqualification

An “office of profit” means employment with fees and emoluments attached to it. Why should an MLA or MP not hold an office of profit? For UPSC 2022 Preparation, follow BYJU'S.

byjus.com

1) Copying and pasting a website about offices of profit in India is actually worse than just repeating yourself.
2) The presidency is an office of profit in India (Constitution of India 1950, Article 59, 2) "The President shall not hold any other office of profit.")

How do you not realise that you're bad at this.

 

[FullMonte]

So, what I'm wondering now is....How does Trump get out of this situation he finds himself in.

--The Special Counsel's report on the Florida documents case is complete.
--The judge in that case has blocked its release because there are two individuals (Nauta and DeOlivera) who are still facing charges.
--Trump has a history of pardoning those who broke the law for him (See: Mike Flynn)
--Pardoning Nauta and DeOlivera (or having his DOJ drop the charges) removes the only reason for keeping the report from being released.

So, does Trump save those guys? Or does he say, "Sorry, I can't have this report getting out showing what I did, so you'll just have to suck it up and face the music."

 

[MT15]

So, what I'm wondering now is....How does Trump get out of this situation he finds himself in.

--The Special Counsel's report on the Florida documents case is complete.
--The judge in that case has blocked its release because there are two individuals (Nauta and DeOlivera) who are still facing charges.
--Trump has a history of pardoning those who broke the law for him (See: Mike Flynn)
--Pardoning Nauta and DeOlivera (or having his DOJ drop the charges) removes the only reason for keeping the report from being released.

So, does Trump save those guys? Or does he say, "Sorry, I can't have this report getting out showing what I did, so you'll just have to suck it up and face the music."

He throws them under the bus, no question. They don’t matter one bit to him.

 

[Optimus Prime]

He throws them under the bus, no question. They don’t matter one bit to him.

They never do

But with very rare exceptions (Michael Cohen) after the bus runs over them they are all too happy to jump right up and say “Thank you sir, May I have another?”

One thing my girlfriend has often said is how amazed she is that so many people have so much loyalty to someone who clearly has none to them

 

[Sendai]

1) Copying and pasting a website about offices of profit in India is actually worse than just repeating yourself.
2) The presidency is an office of profit in India (Constitution of India 1950, Article 59, 2) "The President shall not hold any other office of profit.")

How do you not realise that you're bad at this.

Also in the article was the 1701 English parliament law. As I said there is a long history in other governments.

 

[Sendai]

No we do not. That’s a conceit of the court, but they throw it all away when it suits them. See the ruling on presidential immunity for one example.

The one where trump claimed “absolute immunity” and the court said no.

 

[MT15]

The one where trump claimed “absolute immunity” and the court said no.

Yeah, the one where they were happy to strike out on their own and craft a totally original interpretation. That one. Just because they only gave him part of what he wanted doesn’t hide their partiality to him.

 

[Sendai]

Yeah, the one where they were happy to strike out on their own and craft a totally original interpretation. That one. Just because they only gave him part of what he wanted doesn’t hide their partiality to him.

Like when they refused to stop Merchan from sentencing trump. And when they refused to stop the ny da from getting trump financial records. Or their refusal to stop Congress from getting the same financial records. Or all the refusals to engage the 2020 trump election cases. Or when they refused to intervene in the Mar a lago documents case. There is along list of the court stiffing trump.

 

[bird]

Like when they refused to stop Merchan from sentencing trump. And when they refused to stop the ny da from getting trump financial records. Or their refusal to stop Congress from getting the same financial records. Or all the refusals to engage the 2020 trump election cases. Or when they refused to intervene in the Mar a lago documents case. There is along list of the court stiffing trump.

Please. When suffers actual consequences you will have a point. Until then not so much.

 

[RobF]

Also in the article was the 1701 English parliament law. As I said there is a long history in other governments.

So let's get this straight.

1) You dumped an entire page about offices of profit in India - where, let us not forget, the presidency is an "office of profit" - solely for the line "The office of profit concept has been adopted from the British Parliamentary model. This concept is based on similar lines with the English Act of Settlement 1701."

2) You think when the Founders were saying "no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State" they didn't mean the President, despite contemporaries explicitly saying they did, and despite it being glaringly obvious that the Founders would not, in fact, have been down with Kings corrupting the President.

3) And you think this on the basis of an English law intended - well, primarily it was intended to stop Catholics taking the throne, but as far as this goes - intended to stop the monarchy exerting undesired influence over the House of Commons. Because the context in which it mentions "an office of place or profit" is "That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons" (emphasis added).

4) You actually think because an "office of profit" is qualified as "under the King" in that context, that means an "office of profit" in any other contemporary context, including ones where there is no King, can't be elected. That's your reasoning here. Even though there is nothing inherent whatsoever in the concept of an "office of profit" that would preclude it being elected. And regardless of reason, regardless of contemporaries saying otherwise, and even though your own example of India, which also has no King, and which you quote as basing its concept on those lines, the presidency is explicitly an "office of Profit", despite being elected by their houses of Parliament and state and territory legislative assemblies. You think the qualification of an "office of profit" as being "under the King" in England in 1701 means all concepts of "offices of Profit" must be akin to being "under the King", even when there is no such qualification to an individual, and indeed, no King at all. That's your argument.

So to summarise, your argument is, essentially, that, "The Founders intended the President to be able to accept bribes from Kings, because in 18th Century England they passed a law to stop the King bribing members of Parliament by giving them offices or places of profit."

I'm not saying it's not an argument. As stated previously, my view is that this is, technically, not a settled point. But I am saying it's not a great argument. Because it isn't, is it.

 

[MT15]

Like when they refused to stop Merchan from sentencing trump. And when they refused to stop the ny da from getting trump financial records. Or their refusal to stop Congress from getting the same financial records. Or all the refusals to engage the 2020 trump election cases. Or when they refused to intervene in the Mar a lago documents case. There is along list of the court stiffing trump.

Except for the time they made up an entirely new immunity principle for him. My point was that the court is not really originalist - they are more so partisan than originalist because they embrace originalism when it serves their partisanship, and abandon it when they want.

You haven’t really disproven my original point, just because they haven’t given Trump everything. Trump asks for crazy stuff that they cannot possibly do. I don’t believe they care tremendously about Trump personally - except for 2 of them. I do think they are hell bent on carrying out an ideological or partisan agenda, though. And they don’t strictly adhere to originalism at all. Not when it gets in the way of their agenda.