U S A

Joined
14 Aug 2005
Messages
3,304
Reaction score
238
Location
Lancashire
Country
United Kingdom
Oh deary me.
Folk who know me will know how I tend to mention sometimes that I believe that in many respects the USA is the most uncivilised country in the world.
Well that court ruling has strengthened it.
A serving President is immune from prosecution.
You just could not invent this.
Our politicians are bad enough but America is on another planet.
Not all the Americans by the way, there are some good decent folk there too but Wow - a lot of them!
Yes they do some good stuff, put men on the Moon (unless you believe conspiracy theorists) , Computer Technology, etc etc then they do this kind of thing and the world becomes disheartened.
Ooh Dear!

Makes our ancient belief of "The Divine right of Kings" look sensible?
 
Oh deary me.
Folk who know me will know how I tend to mention sometimes that I believe that in many respects the USA is the most uncivilised country in the world.
Well that court ruling has strengthened it.
A serving President is immune from prosecution.
You just could not invent this.
Our politicians are bad enough but America is on another planet.
Not all the Americans by the way, there are some good decent folk there too but Wow - a lot of them!
Yes they do some good stuff, put men on the Moon (unless you believe conspiracy theorists) , Computer Technology, etc etc then they do this kind of thing and the world becomes disheartened.
Ooh Dear!

Makes our ancient belief of "The Divine right of Kings" look sensible?
Only for presidential acts while in office. I don’t think he'll get off the hooker for hire/fiddling his income tax charge.
 
It's a bit broader than that. The position is,it's for the prosecution to argue that his acts were not within the scope, not the other way around. In his hush money trial, the burden was on him, which is weekend. He might get somewhere with this. Had he not been the president, he would not have needed to hide the blackmail payment.

I'm no trump fan, but had this been anyone else, it would have been seen for what it was. Blackmail.
 
So your view is that Trump effectively blackmailed stormy daniels then? Ok that`s one viewpoint.
It was really the claim to have things thrown out I was interested in, scandalous in my opinion for what it`s worth, I think it proves not justice at all but so called justice being mostly political.

I prefer at least some pretence of "No man is above the law" kind of thingy that we try to have here
 
It's a bit broader than that. The position is,it's for the prosecution to argue that his acts were not within the scope, not the other way around. In his hush money trial, the burden was on him, which is weekend. He might get somewhere with this. Had he not been the president, he would not have needed to hide the blackmail payment.

I'm no trump fan, but had this been anyone else, it would have been seen for what it was. Blackmail.
That's a hell of a leap, and incorrect. He purchased the story and hid the details as legal expenses when he wasn't president. As for selling a tell all about a prominent person who actively seeks publicity, find another vaguely similar example that was treated as blackmail.

Are you sure you're not on the supreme court?
 
The US president now arguably has more power than the Kings of England had at the time of the revolution.
 
The main thing in Trump's favour is that the ruling means no chance of court hearings before the election. Then a court needs to consider just what offences he has committed on a somewhat different basis than they had been doing.

LOL Me. I decided a while ago that the US is a somewhat alien country compared with our population etc. However who chooses our supreme court people - the secretary of state. Some in the US said don't form one as they can be a pain at times. It was them that knocked Rwanda on the head. I wonder if they would do this again,
 
That's a hell of a leap, and incorrect. He purchased the story and hid the details as legal expenses when he wasn't president. As for selling a tell all about a prominent person who actively seeks publicity, find another vaguely similar example that was treated as blackmail.

Are you sure you're not on the supreme court?
You understand that the idea of paying money to prevent something coming out in public, is that it doesn't come out in public
 
You understand that the idea of paying money to prevent something coming out in public, is that it doesn't come out in public
Is paying someone to kill or bury a story exactly the same as paying someone not to tell the story, in the first place?
I suppose as far as the law is concerned, if either of those bribes were fraudulently concealed, then you are criminally culpable regardless.
 
No - one is Blackmail the other Bribery.

Paying someone (who is an official) to influence them - Bribery
Receiving or demanding money etc to not expose a person's wrong doing - blackmail.

But in her case - He bought her confidentiality and its not too much of a stretch to see this as "legal costs"

As I said, I am no trump fan, but the whole case stinks on both sides.
 
Is paying someone to kill or bury a story exactly the same as paying someone not to tell the story, in the first place?
I suppose as far as the law is concerned, if either of those bribes were fraudulently concealed, then you are criminally culpable regardless.
kill and bury a story now would that be the 51 security experts some still employed by the CIA( which is forbidden) who lied and said hunter bidens laptop was false russian information weeks before the last election .
Now its been proven its genuine and been admitted into evidence lets see how sleepy joe gets on with hunters up coming tax evasion case and the ten percent to the big guy
 
You understand that the idea of paying money to prevent something coming out in public, is that it doesn't come out in public
... so no one ever pays, goes to the police or otherwise fails to comply?

And when it is out, why is no one ever prosecuted for blackmail?

This is only different to any other kiss and tell story sold to the press because Trump decided to buy it himself.
 
fraudulently conceal the payment.
Which he does seem to have done. Seems that case is going ahead but his lot have asked for it to be quashed. Can't see that the ruling has any effect on this case.
 
No leader of a democratic country should be immune from any type of prosecution. Surely if they're squeaky clean they'd have nothing to worry about? After all, that's what is mere mortals keep getting told.
 
Back
Top