Trump is really butthurt about having to post an appearance bond, and he’s thinking about his old buddy Vlad.
Holy crap, I actually found his license, to follow up from my previous post. Here is an article about it.
So he had a license issued in 2012 that was set to expire in 2020. That would mean that he was licensed to drive in the video clip I linked to before. My assumption is that he did not renew his license in 2020.
Apparently, presidents and ex-presidents are not allowed to drive. That is one of the stipulations of the 1958 Former Presidents Act. Now, I don’t actually see that language in the act itself, but I see multiple news outlets reporting it as fact that presidents can’t drive, and multiple interviews with presidents who confirm that fact. So, once Trump was inaugurated he would no longer have been allowed to operate a vehicle himself on a public road, and in 2020 his license would have expired.
Sadly, even though we have a photo of his most recent license, much of it is redacted. If his weight was listed there, we can’t see it. We do see that his height is listed as 6’2" (even though he claims he is 6’3", not sure why that inch matters, he’s fairly tall either way).
Hafta admit, that’s actually pretty funny (once you get past the shit about Willis).
Same here. I’d like to see the text.
Moderating:
Once again, we’re getting very far afield. Let’s please drop discussion in this thread pertaining to the strictures against a president driving and Donald Trump’s weight. Thanks.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Please!
On bodycam, with service weapon drawn and the cop shouting, “Kiss the pavement, Scumbag!” twice. Then the cop trips him, knocking him down while shouting, “Quit resisting! Quit resisting!” Then a kick, or two, in the lower back, for resisting, you know, and to make sure he is no longer a threat (and because stomping on his head would be an excessive use of force, doncha think?).
A boy can dream, can’t he?
Speaking to the efforts to remove Fani Willis, the legislation makes it ‘legal’ for various flavors of legal. But if someone were to come forward with evidence (unlikely but possible) that the sole purpose of the legislation was to aid Trump in avoiding justice, would that be actionable?
IANAL but feels like corrupt intent. But again, it was passed all nice and legal. Scummy, but legal.
Can any of our legal eagles elucidate?
The same occurred to me. The thought that a local elected official serves at the pleasure of the state legislature really doesn’t sit well with me.
As I recall, isn’t there a member of the legislature indicted in the GA fake elector scheme? Firing the prosecutor who is going after a member seems doubly wrong. (the whole idea is wrong, but this would be ridiculous)
ETA: Yep, I was right
Georgia state Sen. Shawn Still – who allegedly served as a fake elector for former President Donald Trump in 2020 and was charged in last week’s sweeping election interference indictment out of Fulton County – reached a $10,000 bond agreement on Tuesday.
I can’t answer that, but I’m sure the Prosecuting Attorneys Qualifications Commission was not put in place to protect Trump. It is a response to loads of right wing media articles about allegedly soft on crime prosecutors like Larry Krasner in Philadelphia and some they see as comparable in Georgia, including the progressive prosecutor Willis defeated to gain her present position.
I’ve been googling Stacey Jackson, the appointed head of the Qualifications Commission, and I can’t find any evidence of him being a Trumper, or anything other than the minimal kind of Republican you need to be to have a chance as a local politico in most of Georgia. For example:
Dog the Bounty Hunter. They could film a whole episode on it.
Way I see it, we’re due a new season of Justified.
Where’s Jack Reacher when you need him?
I’m not sure i can remember all the details, but Stacey Jackson was a pretty good defense attorney in Columbus, GA, a relatively blue area. Then he was promoted to DA when the incumbent DA, Mark Jones, was arrested on bribery and corruption charges. So he’s been on both sides of the table.
I doubt anyone would claim that ISNT the stated reason for the legislation. Of course. But there is a large and informed amount of speculation that the legislation and the timing (like moving it up to October as mentioned upthread) is that the stated reasons are for public relations only, and otherwise it serves to protect Trump and (as the charges prove) other GOP officials/politicians in Georgia from further investigation.
My thought was if someone came forward with actual evidence (audio tapes of the sponsors / GOP backroom discussions) that it was for corrupt purposes, whether that intent is actionable or not.
I have to take this back now that I searched some more:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170301175317/www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/article135664898.html
So we’ll see if he gives Fani Willis a hard time. I hope not.
Check Hulu.
To be sure, there are laws like:
But, I feel like that, alone, wouldn’t be sufficient because you’d still be out of a job and it would be on your successor to pursue the case. You probably need a clear admission of intent to interfere with the investigation for corrupt purposes (which would be difficult since most soundbites would be of them saying that it was to prevent politicization of the office) and a separation of powers/enumeration of powers element in the State Constitution in order to void the firing.
The Georgia Constitution is 100 pages long so there’s some chance that it gets into the rights of the Assembly towards agents of the executive branch but it will take me a bit to read through.
Yes, but does it have 517 amendments like the Texas constitution, hmmm?
The first of many:
Okay well… the Constitution (of Georgia) seems to give three different ways to fire a DA.
- Impeachment
- Removal upon conviction of a felony after approval by a grand jury.
- Recall
While the Georgia Constitution gives the Assembly the right to define the process for recall, the dissent from this court case notes that the word “recall” implies an election.
There’s an argument to be made that the Prosecutorial Oversight Commission has no right to remove Willis from office. All they would be able to do is recommend Impeachment or a recall election.
Ignoring removal from office, they might try to sideline her under pretext of “investigation”. This would plausibly fall afoul of the separation of powers rules. The DA, as an elected official, is given power by their electorate. It’s not clear what power the Assembly would be using to tell her what cases she’s allowed to take and whether she’s allowed to use the powers of her office.