What's a SCOTUS to do?

[kalm]

Didn't they get this one first? I agree, they need to rule on presidential immunity. I think it's clear that it'll be 9-0 on the idea of absolute immunity for everything, which is absurd, but it gets murky when you start going through what are official duties of the President and what aren't. Even with that said, I can't see how what would be the insurrection charge, which was all about working the crowd and sending them off as a mob to attack the capitol, would be covered by immunity. That one, which they haven't charged him for, would seem to be the easiest one to avoid immunity, and would be the quickest one to bar him from office. Again, it would be nice to actually charge him and try him for that.

Again, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?

He could still be charged with insurrection and there are still two unnamed co-defendants.

[Caribbean Hen]

Didn't they get this one first? I agree, they need to rule on presidential immunity. I think it's clear that it'll be 9-0 on the idea of absolute immunity for everything, which is absurd, but it gets murky when you start going through what are official duties of the President and what aren't. Even with that said, I can't see how what would be the insurrection charge, which was all about working the crowd and sending them off as a mob to attack the capitol, would be covered by immunity. That one, which they haven't charged him for, would seem to be the easiest one to avoid immunity, and would be the quickest one to bar him from office. Again, it would be nice to actually charge him and try him for that.

Again, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?

If it was a real insurrection they would of been met with lethal force, big political win for toothless Nancy is what the entire charade was

[BDKJMU]

Didn't they get this one first? I agree, they need to rule on presidential immunity. I think it's clear that it'll be 9-0 on the idea of absolute immunity for everything, which is absurd, but it gets murky when you start going through what are official duties of the President and what aren't. Even with that said, I can't see how what would be the insurrection charge, which was all about working the crowd and sending them off as a mob to attack the capitol, would be covered by immunity. That one, which they haven't charged him for, would seem to be the easiest one to avoid immunity, and would be the quickest one to bar him from office. Again, it would be nice to actually charge him and try him for that.

Again, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?

The voters in November.

[UNI88]

Again, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?

The voters in November.

Or Congress or a court of law.

[BDKJMU]

The voters in November.

Or Congress or a court of law.

Congress already decided it wasn’t.

[houndawg]

Again, who gets to decide it was an insurrection?

If it was a real insurrection they would of been met with lethal force, big political win for toothless Nancy is what the entire charade was

Nikki Haley was in charge of seurity, she had 10,000 troops at her disposal and didn't do anything. Where you been, fool?

[GannonFan]

Or Congress or a court of law.

Congress already decided it wasn’t.

That's not technically what they decided. He got impeached (charged) by the House with what basically amounted to insurrection, and the Senate voted not to convict him of it. But impeachments are criminal trials, they are political trials.

As for who gets to determine if he is guilty of insurrection, it's like most things - a prosecutor decides there is enough evidence to pursue a trial in court, and then there's a court case with a judge and jury and they decide, after hearing the case and the defense countering it, whether he's guilty of insurrection or not. It's not really complicated. But again, no one has actually charged him in a criminal case with insurrection.

[UNI88]

After Trump ballot ruling, critics say Supreme Court is selectively invoking conservative originalist approach

For critics, it was just another example of how the conservative justices appear to selectively apply the legal methodology known as originalism, which focuses on the original meaning of the law at the time it was written.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, was unanimous in ruling that Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment cannot be enforced by states, but critics were quick to point out the absence of originalist arguments.
...
This came as a disappointment to some self-professed originalists, who believe that Section 3 as written and understood at the time is self-executing, meaning that there is no requirement that legislation be enacted for it to be applied.

[houndawg]

Congress already decided it wasn’t.

That's not technically what they decided. He got impeached (charged) by the House with what basically amounted to insurrection, and the Senate voted not to convict him of it. But impeachments are criminal trials, they are political trials.

As for who gets to determine if he is guilty of insurrection, it's like most things - a prosecutor decides there is enough evidence to pursue a trial in court, and then there's a court case with a judge and jury and they decide, after hearing the case and the defense countering it, whether he's guilty of insurrection or not. It's not really complicated. But again, no one has actually charged him in a criminal case with insurrection.

But again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?

[kalm]

That's not technically what they decided. He got impeached (charged) by the House with what basically amounted to insurrection, and the Senate voted not to convict him of it. But impeachments are criminal trials, they are political trials.

As for who gets to determine if he is guilty of insurrection, it's like most things - a prosecutor decides there is enough evidence to pursue a trial in court, and then there's a court case with a judge and jury and they decide, after hearing the case and the defense countering it, whether he's guilty of insurrection or not. It's not really complicated. But again, no one has actually charged him in a criminal case with insurrection.

But again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?

Guessing here…

1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.

2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.

3). They still can charge him with insurrection.

[houndawg]

But again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?

Guessing here…

1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.

2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.

3). They still can charge him with insurrection.

yeah, hadn't thought of that

[GannonFan]

But again: but why? With conduct so blatant that anybody outside MAGA can see it, why isn't he being charged with insurrection? It has to be some sort of technicality in the definition of "insurrection" no? Like the EJ Caroll case wasn't rape - except for how regular folk use the word it was substantially true, according to the judge?

Guessing here…

1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.

2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.

3). They still can charge him with insurrection.

Come on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House. Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.

[kalm]

Guessing here…

1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.

2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.

3). They still can charge him with insurrection.

Come on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House. Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.

That’s certainly a theory but we do not all know it to be the case for sure. It assumes the entire DOJ, FBI, and Dem leadership are in on it.

[houndawg]

Guessing here…

1) To avert further division and schotastic terrorism. Turn Trump into a martyr and feed the political witch hunt conspiracies.

2). Still waiting on certain co-conspirators to turn.

3). They still can charge him with insurrection.

Come on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House.Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.

There's that too

[houndawg]

Come on, we know why. The Dems want him to run. They see it as their ticket to holding the White House. Without Trump on the ticket, the Dems don't really have a great bench and there's no one behind Biden right now that could really step in and win on a national ticket against who the GOP would likely run. If the GOP is so hell-bent on running Trump again, the Dems appear to be more than happy to not get in the way. Heck, the Colorado case wasn't even brought by Democrats, it was Republicans that brought the case. It's simple politics that keeps Trump from being charged with insurrection. People like to win elections, and the Dems think with him on the ballot they can win. Anything else doesn't really matter to political parties. Just the winning.

That’s certainly a theory but we do not all know it to be the case for sure. It assumes the entire DOJ, FBI, and Dem leadership are in on it.

The FBI is who we have to thank for trump in the first place.

[UNI88]

That’s certainly a theory but we do not all know it to be the case for sure. It assumes the entire DOJ, FBI, and Dem leadership are in on it.

The FBI is who we have to thank for trump in the first place.

I'm not sure hildamort would have been better.

Her getting off easy from the email fiasco is more grist for the MAQA yahoo conspiracy grinder.

[houndawg]

The FBI is who we have to thank for trump in the first place.

I'm not sure hildamort would have been better.

Her getting off easy from the email fiasco is more grist for the MAQA yahoo conspiracy grinder.

Wouldn't have had Joe Biden in '20