Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 3
Hilarious. But Trump is squealing like a stuck pig. He knows he is guilty of inciting insurrection. So, he goes on the attack with exclamation points and all caps.
BREAKING: Donald Trump has a nuclear meltdown after Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation report is released — revealing that the evidence was "sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction" if the trial had gone to court.
"The department’s view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a president is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the government’s proof or the merits of the prosecution, which the office stands fully behind," Smith wrote.
"Indeed, but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial," he went on.
The 137-page report was delivered by the Justice Department to Congress shortly after midnight on Tuesday and the contents are utterly damning.
The document tears into Trump for repeatedly encouraging "violence against his perceived opponents" in the weeks leading up to January 6th.
Smith wrote that Trump was clearly to blame for the Capitol insurrection and pointed to the fact that numerous convicted rioters testified that they believed they were carrying out Trump's wishes.
The report was the result of thorough investigation and interviews with over 250 people as well as grand jury testimony from over 55 witnesses.
Smith strongly suggested prosecution in the report, citing Trump's "unprecedented criminal effort to overturn the legitimate results of the election in order to retain power."
Trump lashed out at Smith over the report in trademark fashion with a frantic Truth Social post—
"Deranged Jack Smith was unable to successfully prosecute the Political Opponent of his 'boss,' Crooked Joe Biden, so he ends up writing yet another 'Report' based on information that the Unselect Committee of Political Hacks and Thugs ILLEGALLY DESTROYED AND DELETED, because it showed how totally innocent I was, and how completely guilty Nancy Pelosi, and others, were," Trump wrote, lobbing some of his usual baseless lies.
"Jack is a lamebrain prosecutor who was unable to get his case tried before the Election, which I won in a landslide. THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!" he added.
tRump knows that he's guilty and history will judge him accordingly. He may be in the White House for a few months or years, but he'll be a felon forever. borrowed from FB
No. of Recommendations: 2
revealing that the evidence was "sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction" if the trial had gone to court.
I would hope so. If they didn't believe that, they would not have proceeded to indictment and the beginnings of trial.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 9
"Critical rulings, from the Supreme Court and from Judge Aileen M. Cannon of Federal District Court in Southern Florida, tied Mr. Smith’s hands, Mr. Zeidenberg said: “Sadly, the courts and the Justice Department proved themselves to be not up to the task of finding justice when the defendant is this particular former president.”https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/14/us/politics/jac... Felon Trump is guilty as fuck and Smith was going to convict him....but the felon dragged it out and got last minute protection from a corrupt SCOTUS.
No. of Recommendations: 5
No. of Recommendations: 3
The "Atlantic" article is correct. However, the key was Hindenburg granting "dictatorial powers" to the Chancellor. With that, once Hindenburg was dead, the Chancellor could do anything he wanted by decree. Which is how the German democracy (Weimar) was taken apart in less than two month.
The scary bit here is that the SCOTUS has granted broad powers and immunities to the Executive that they never had before. Not quite to the level of dictatorial powers, but with no oversight (due to immunity), the Executive could do all sorts of criminal things, and get away with it because no one could access the evidence. Hence, Sotomayor's concern about using assassins for political enemies with impunity.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Not quite to the level of dictatorial powers, but with no oversight (due to immunity), the Executive could do all sorts of criminal things, and get away with it because no one could access the evidence. Hence, Sotomayor's concern about using assassins for political enemies with impunity.
Again, this seems incredibly unlikely. The President would be immune, but no one else would be. Even if the President might be immune for ordering the FBI director to murder a political rival, the FBI director would not be immune for agreeing to murder the political rival.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Again, this seems incredibly unlikely. The President would be immune, but no one else would be. Even if the President might be immune for ordering the FBI director to murder a political rival, the FBI director would not be immune for agreeing to murder the political rival.
Not immune, but pardonable.
No. of Recommendations: 2
While true, implicit in any such order would be "I'll pardon you".**
Also, I suspect POTUS could declare any relevant records as "privileged" under Executive immunity. With no records, is difficult to prove anything.
**Which is another great error the Founders made...you have this entire judicial process setup, and then you allow one person to say "yeah, that's OK, you're forgiven". Shouldn't be an option. Not for the Felon's criminal cohorts (like Flynn), and not for Hunter, either.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not immune, but pardonable.
Murder and conspiracy to commit murder are state crimes as well. Not pardonable.
Nor would they have the immunity from civil lawsuits the President enjoys to protect them from the wrongful death suits. Can't get a pardon from a civil case either.
Presidential immunity might encourage the President to get up to all sorts of malfeasance, but there's a vast amount of malfeasance that can't be done personally and individually - that requires the participation of other people that don't enjoy any immunity at all. Like assassinating someone. Which makes it incredibly unlikely that any of those sorts of things are going to be more likely just because the President can't be thrown in jail for it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Also, I suspect POTUS could declare any relevant records as "privileged" under Executive immunity. With no records, is difficult to prove anything.
The President doesn't have the power to simply declare relevant records as "privileged." The Nixon case established that.
What SCOTUS said is that those records can't be introduced as evidence against the President in a criminal case against the President. Not that they weren't discoverable, and not that they couldn't be introduced as evidence against someone other than the President.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Even if the President might be immune for ordering the FBI director to murder a political rival, the FBI director would not be immune for agreeing to murder the political rival.Hegseth repeatedly evaded answering the question about shooting people at Trump's request.... the senator asked, iirc, if PervoPete would respect the constitution or do the bidding of a Felonious Trump.
Instead, he described his perception of events during Trump's biblical photo-op walk to pose with a bible at St. John's when the mangomussolini reportedly asked if they couldn't just shoot the protesters in the legs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_o...
No. of Recommendations: 3
Hegseth repeatedly evaded answering the question about shooting people at Trump's request.... the senator asked, iirc, if PervoPete would respect the constitution or do the bidding of a Felonious Trump.
Well, that was his job at that moment. He doesn't need to persuade any Democrats to vote for him, so the correct strategy in his confirmation hearing is to avoid giving any answer that will make it harder for Republicans to vote for him. Evasion is the proper response to any difficult question.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Again, this seems incredibly unlikely. The President would be immune, but no one else would be. Even if the President might be immune for ordering the FBI director to murder a political rival, the FBI director would not be immune for agreeing to murder the political rival.
Let’s take it down a notch, say, from murder to, oh I don’t know, “political assassination” by digging through medical dirt to destroy your opponent. Or maybe fraudulently assigning actions to others to make them appear corrupt or incompetent. Or perhaps soliciting campaign funds in return for favors. Or maybe laundering funds from foreign donors. Or…
Let’s pretend. I’m writing a novel. I’ll create some fictional characters named Haldeman and Erlichman to do the bidding of a manifestly corrupt President, and they will do whatever he asks knowing that they will be criminally liable but he will not.
Nah, I guess that couldn’t happen, because no rational person would undertake criminal activities for someone who could not be prosecuted, but they could. Well that settles that.
No. of Recommendations: 5
The President would be immune, but no one else would be.
I'll see your presidential immunity, and raise you 1000+ January 6 attackers who mostly thought they were doing the President's bidding and didn't think they'd suffer consequences because of that.
IOW, I suspect there are a number of Trump supporters who would be willing to commit murder under the potentially mistaken belief that Trump would protect them.
--Peter
PS - For Federal crimes (probably not murder, but plenty of others) the Immune President could instruct his [Corrupt] Attorney General not to prosecute. So while murder might be incredibly unlikely, there's a whole host of other crimes that could be much more likely.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Nah, I guess that couldn’t happen, because no rational person would undertake criminal activities for someone who could not be prosecuted, but they could. Well that settles that.
The question isn't whether a rational person would undertake criminal activities for someone who could not be prosecuted. The question is whether Presidential immunity changes any of this calculus.
Remember, Haldeman and Ehrlichman and the rest of Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band did the things they did even though Nixon didn't have any guarantee of immunity, and without any guarantee (or likelihood) of pardon. They did them because they thought they wouldn't get caught.
All the stuff you mentioned in your list are the sorts of things that a President can't really do alone, and the other participants to the crime would only do it if they thought that they wouldn't get caught. Ironically, the President's immunity might make them a little bit less likely to participate, because they make it a little less likely that the President will take proper care to avoid being caught. If I am considering bribing the President (for example), my willingness to participate depends in no small part on the odds of my getting caught. Those odds go up if the President is immune from prosecution, not down.
No. of Recommendations: 7
The President would be immune, but no one else would be.
The pardons, boss. You forgot the pardons.
No. of Recommendations: 9
The President doesn't have the power to simply declare relevant records as "privileged." The Nixon case established that.
If there is one sure thing that we can take to the bank, it’s that no SCOTUS would ever overturn established law.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The pardons, boss. You forgot the pardons.
As noted upthread, many federal crimes are also state crimes - which can't be pardoned. Many federal crimes also give rise to civil liability - which can't be pardoned.
Nor any guarantee you'll get a pardon. I mean, a very likely scenario is that your crimes will be first discovered after Trump leaves office, when a successor gets access to all the records that Trump controls while President. Trump's immunity carries on, but his ability to grant pardons has disappeared. And even if not, there's the big chance that he just won't bother - lots of folks asked Trump for pardons that he didn't grant in his first term.
No. of Recommendations: 0
If there is one sure thing that we can take to the bank, it’s that no SCOTUS would ever overturn established law.
A fair point, but this one didn't do that. They could have held in Trump that the materials were privileged from discovery in the first place, rather than merely inadmissible afterwards, but they did not. Which makes it somewhat less likely that Trump (or anyone else) could expect them to do so in the timeframe relevant to his Administration.
No. of Recommendations: 3
All the stuff you mentioned in your list are the sorts of things that a President can't really do alone, and the other participants to the crime would only do it if they thought that they wouldn't get caught.
I can't disagree with that.
But I can point out that rank and file Trump supporters haven't shown themselves to be the best and logical and rational thought. So they may not be the best at judging risks.
He also seems to be pretty good at finding people who know the risks they are taking, but are willing to take them for the right price. Just look at the trail of disgraced lawyers he's left in his wake over the last decade.
--Peter
