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

 

[horse2H5]

I bet you that if the republican house implements a national abortion ban as Trump has promised, then it is suddenly legal according to the current SC

Let's find a bookie that takes that action. You could be rich if it proves to be the case.

 

[TampaJoe]

Anything that is in the bill of rights are federal and the right to privacy is in the bill of rights - so wrong.

Which amendment in the Bill of Rights mentions the right to privacy?

 

[Dragon]

Which amendment in the Bill of Rights mentions the right to privacy?

4th

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."

 

[TampaJoe]

4th

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."

Unreasonable search and seizure does not equate to a general right of privacy. That was the crux of the case. There is no constitutional “right to privacy”.

 

[Dragon]

Unreasonable search and seizure does not equate to a general right of privacy. That was the crux of the case. There is no constitutional “right to privacy”.

This one has not been overturned. In Doe v. Abortion Clinics (2001), the Court highlighted that a patient's medical privacy, including abortion-related information, should be protected from unauthorized disclosure.

 

[horse2H5]

This one has not been overturned. In Doe v. Abortion Clinics (2001), the Court highlighted that a patient's medical privacy, including abortion-related information, should be protected from unauthorized disclosure.

Is that a US case or a case from Denmark? Maybe I found it. Is it Doe V Bolton? No that isn't the one.

 

[TampaJoe]

This one has not been overturned. In Doe v. Abortion Clinics (2001), the Court highlighted that a patient's medical privacy, including abortion-related information, should be protected from unauthorized disclosure.

That may well be true. I would imagine such case law is based on legislation and not some non existent right specifically enumerated in the constitution. I am routinely required to furnish all kinds of private confidential personal information. I was required to do many things during the pandemic that I didn’t personally agree with. Where were all these folks concerned about individual liberties and right to privacy. The medical community, state law routinely regulate all kinds of medical procedures.

Abortion, IMHO is an equal protection issue. It’s a debate with having and maybe some day both sides will sit across the table and have that discussion without all the vitriol.

 

[horse2H5]

That may well be true. I would imagine such case law is based on legislation and not some non existent right specifically enumerated in the constitution. I am routinely required to furnish all kinds of private confidential personal information. I was required to do many things during the pandemic that I didn’t personally agree with. Where were all these folks concerned about individual liberties and right to privacy. The medical community, state law routinely regulate all kinds of medical procedures.

Abortion, IMHO is an equal protection issue. It’s a debate with having and maybe some day both sides will sit across the table and have that discussion without all the vitriol.

Were you able to locate that case?

 

[TampaJoe]

Were you able to locate that case?

I didn’t look. It’s a discussion so I accept that there may be such a case as it concerns medical information.

 

[horse2H5]

I didn’t look. It’s a discussion so I accept that there may be such a case as it concerns medical information.

Unfortunately, false/slanted info has been presented as counter argument a couple times and I have only been posting a day. I like to read what they actually claim. Many times, their headline matches their claim but the interior doesn't. I could not find this particular case. Though I am not saying it doesn't exist, I just have not been able to locate it.

 

[horse2H5]

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/12/g-s1-42365/jack-smith-has-resigned-from-the-justice-department-after-submitting-his-trump-report

The department disclosed Smith's departure in a court filing Saturday, saying he had resigned one day earlier. The resignation, 10 days before Trump is inaugurated , follows the conclusion of two unsuccessful criminal prosecutions against Trump that were withdrawn following Trump's White House win in November.

"You come at the king, you best not miss". Omar

 

[MT15]

It seems to me that the right wants to fixate on a single phrase in the 2nd Amendment to justify their support for having 3x as many guns as people in this country and not even trying to keep guns out of the hands of violent people, yet they want to gloss over a phrase in the 4th Amendment and minimize it because it doesn’t support their position on women’s rights to control their own bodies.

No woman who is forced to give birth against her will can ever be “secure in her person”. When the state decides what medical procedure you are allowed to have and what procedure or medication you are not allowed to have - you are not “secure in your person”.

This is exactly why I think this Court is a sham.

 

[horse2H5]

It seems to me that the right wants to fixate on a single phrase in the 2nd Amendment to justify their support for having 3x as many guns as people in this country and not even trying to keep guns out of the hands of violent people, yet they want to gloss over a phrase in the 4th Amendment and minimize it because it doesn’t support their position on women’s rights to control their own bodies.

No woman who is forced to give birth against her will can ever be “secure in her person”. When the state decides what medical procedure you are allowed to have and what procedure or medication you are not allowed to have - you are not “secure in your person”.

This is exactly why I think this Court is a sham.

obama care limits all kinds of medications. what are you talking about?

On gun control. Do you support mandatory jail with no exception, if you are caught with an illegal gun or commit a crime with a gun?

 

[Dragon]

obama care limits all kinds of medications. what are you talking about?

On gun control. Do you support mandatory jail with no exception, if you are caught with an illegal gun or commit a crime with a gun?

"obama care limits paying for some kinds of medications. what are you talking about?" Fixed it...

"The ACA does not make procedures illegal. Like all other insurance plans, it has limitations on what it will cover. Comparing this to determining what types of medical care a woman is allowed to receive is a false equivalence—and you keep making that mistake.

Please stay on topic. You’ve been asked repeatedly to do so, yet you continue to derail the discussion.

 

[Optimus Prime]

We all know that the GOP, right wing media and MAGA Nation could give a shirt what this report says

Judge clears the way for release of special counsel Smith's report on Trump's Jan. 6 case

A federal judge says the Justice Department can release special counsel Jack Smith’s investigative report on President-elect Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case.

apnews.com

 

[horse2H5]

"obama care limits paying for some kinds of medications. what are you talking about?" Fixed it...

"The ACA does not make procedures illegal. Like all other insurance plans, it has limitations on what it will cover. Comparing this to determining what types of medical care a woman is allowed to receive is a false equivalence—and you keep making that mistake.

Please stay on topic. You’ve been asked repeatedly to do so, yet you continue to derail the discussion.

If we have a right to health care. And we have a right to determine what is best for our own bodies, how do we NOT have a say in the meds that we get? The left always seem to have advocacy problems when you just ask a few questions.

I apologize and don't mean to derail any discussion. I am just answering in a back in forth manner, much like a conversation. My day to day conversations are not limited to threads, so I am adjusting. I will try and do better.

 

[Dragon]

If we have a right to health care. And we have a right to determine what is best for our own bodies, how do we NOT have a say in the meds that we get? The left always seem to have advocacy problems when you just ask a few questions.

I apologize and don't mean to derail any discussion. I am just answering in a back in forth manner, much like a conversation. My day to day conversations are not limited to threads, so I am adjusting. I will try and do better.

Your arguments don't stand up to fact and "the left" is just a cope out. That ACA will not pay for something does not mean that you can get the medicin. It just means that you have to pay for it yourself. The difference is between NOT being allowed and having to pay for that care yourself is NOT the same. There is a huge difference between those two things which you already know.

 

[horse2H5]

Your arguments don't stand up to fact and "the left" is just a cope out. That ACA will not pay for something does not mean that you can get the medicin. It just means that you have to pay for it yourself. The difference is between NOT being allowed and having to pay for that care yourself is NOT the same. There is a huge difference between those two things which you already know.

Fair, but you can go to a different state to get an abortion. What if someone can't afford to pay for the experimental caner drug. Do they have a right to it, if they can' afford it?

Wait, this is the wrong, thread, i will stop replying. I just looked and this is about Trump indictments. My bad. I guess this got off track when the SCJ came into conversation. This will be my last reply on this particular subject in this thread.