Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[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.