....we'll always have Helsinki
Team Trump v/s Everyone
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23481
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
....we'll always have Helsinki
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18123
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Wasn't there someone on here months ago saying how there'd likely be a unanimous SCOTUS ruling against Colorado, or any state, assuming the powers that belong to the federal government by unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot?GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:28 amThe irony is that the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court flies in the face of actual due process. There was no due process here - folks used a rather limited Colorado electoral code law and stretched it to get their desired outcome. And even further ironic, they had a state use the 14th amendment to assume a power that had never been ceded by the federal government. Considering the 14th amendment has historically been seen as the amendment that further asserted federal power over the states, having a state turn that on its head is almost the definition of irony.
At this point, it's not a question of if the SCOTUS will overturn this, they most assuredly will. The question is whether they do it with a unanimous court or if there is any judge who'll dissent. Heck, the Colorado court was entirely democrats and they split 4-3 on this. Getting Trump off the ballot would be a fantastic outcome for America (heck, you could argue that once Trump is off the ballot, the Dems would enact plan B and replace Biden with an actual, lucid candidate), but we can't just wish him off the ballot with such a mediocre attempt at a judicial path to do so.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20351
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:51 amWasn't there someone on here months ago saying how there'd likely be a unanimous SCOTUS ruling against Colorado, or any state, assuming the powers that belong to the federal government by unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot?GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:28 am
The irony is that the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court flies in the face of actual due process. There was no due process here - folks used a rather limited Colorado electoral code law and stretched it to get their desired outcome. And even further ironic, they had a state use the 14th amendment to assume a power that had never been ceded by the federal government. Considering the 14th amendment has historically been seen as the amendment that further asserted federal power over the states, having a state turn that on its head is almost the definition of irony.
At this point, it's not a question of if the SCOTUS will overturn this, they most assuredly will. The question is whether they do it with a unanimous court or if there is any judge who'll dissent. Heck, the Colorado court was entirely democrats and they split 4-3 on this. Getting Trump off the ballot would be a fantastic outcome for America (heck, you could argue that once Trump is off the ballot, the Dems would enact plan B and replace Biden with an actual, lucid candidate), but we can't just wish him off the ballot with such a mediocre attempt at a judicial path to do so.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Nice call.GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:51 amWasn't there someone on here months ago saying how there'd likely be a unanimous SCOTUS ruling against Colorado, or any state, assuming the powers that belong to the federal government by unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot?GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:28 am
The irony is that the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court flies in the face of actual due process. There was no due process here - folks used a rather limited Colorado electoral code law and stretched it to get their desired outcome. And even further ironic, they had a state use the 14th amendment to assume a power that had never been ceded by the federal government. Considering the 14th amendment has historically been seen as the amendment that further asserted federal power over the states, having a state turn that on its head is almost the definition of irony.
At this point, it's not a question of if the SCOTUS will overturn this, they most assuredly will. The question is whether they do it with a unanimous court or if there is any judge who'll dissent. Heck, the Colorado court was entirely democrats and they split 4-3 on this. Getting Trump off the ballot would be a fantastic outcome for America (heck, you could argue that once Trump is off the ballot, the Dems would enact plan B and replace Biden with an actual, lucid candidate), but we can't just wish him off the ballot with such a mediocre attempt at a judicial path to do so.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23481
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:51 amWasn't there someone on here months ago saying how there'd likely be a unanimous SCOTUS ruling against Colorado, or any state, assuming the powers that belong to the federal government by unilaterally removing a candidate from the ballot?GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:28 am
The irony is that the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court flies in the face of actual due process. There was no due process here - folks used a rather limited Colorado electoral code law and stretched it to get their desired outcome. And even further ironic, they had a state use the 14th amendment to assume a power that had never been ceded by the federal government. Considering the 14th amendment has historically been seen as the amendment that further asserted federal power over the states, having a state turn that on its head is almost the definition of irony.
At this point, it's not a question of if the SCOTUS will overturn this, they most assuredly will. The question is whether they do it with a unanimous court or if there is any judge who'll dissent. Heck, the Colorado court was entirely democrats and they split 4-3 on this. Getting Trump off the ballot would be a fantastic outcome for America (heck, you could argue that once Trump is off the ballot, the Dems would enact plan B and replace Biden with an actual, lucid candidate), but we can't just wish him off the ballot with such a mediocre attempt at a judicial path to do so.
there was indeed
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28195
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Faux conservative Luttig clearly lost his mind.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:45 pmIt’s not as much of a - stretching the law to fit politics - slam dunk as you guys think.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:22 pm
Thank you for actually diving into what is going on here. There is a lot of "stretching the law" going on right now in regards to Trump. While one doesn't have to like him, manipulating the law to get your desired outcome is horseshit.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28195
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Wrong.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:54 amOf course Luttig is on a crusade. It’s kind of a big deal and he’s an expert on the matter. You’ve been on a crusade since Jan 7th downplaying the significance.GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:50 pm
Luttig has been on this crusade since 1/7, but that doesn't make him right. He thinks it's a slam dunk the other way, that Trump is automatically barred from running, and anyone can make that determination. But he addresses absolutely zero of the concerns and points brought up by the dissenters in what was, once again, a very split decision by an all-democrat Colorado court. And again, there's a lot of meat in those dissents that goes far further than just the procedural issue you seem to mention. Luttig is a cheerleader at this point, not a serious Constitutional scholar. He may have been once, but he left that track almost two decades ago.
He even says the biggest thing is to get Trump disqualified, no matter what. I agree, I don't want him running for President either, but we can't just make it up, it needs to be grounded in something real. This case hasn't done that and will be overturned.
Are you arguing for how the court will rule or whether or not it was an insurrection?
If it’s the latter, the Colorado SC ruled on it. Just like a court in New Mexico who ruled that a county commissioner must be removed from office for his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th amendment.
So it seems the only questions here are whether a panel of judges comprising a state Supreme Court is sufficient for looking at the evidence and determining whether it was an insurrection and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” vs. a criminal trial with a jury.
The rest is legal sophistry as the 14A is pretty clear with its intent. We should all be rooting for SCOTUS to uphold… regardless of fears over politics and retribution. If it was an insurrection, he should be barred from running.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20351
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Time to expedite the trials just like this was expedited so we can get rulings before the election and then everyone will know if he's been convicted before they vote.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 6:52 pmWrong.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:54 am
Of course Luttig is on a crusade. It’s kind of a big deal and he’s an expert on the matter. You’ve been on a crusade since Jan 7th downplaying the significance.
Are you arguing for how the court will rule or whether or not it was an insurrection?
If it’s the latter, the Colorado SC ruled on it. Just like a court in New Mexico who ruled that a county commissioner must be removed from office for his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th amendment.
So it seems the only questions here are whether a panel of judges comprising a state Supreme Court is sufficient for looking at the evidence and determining whether it was an insurrection and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” vs. a criminal trial with a jury.
The rest is legal sophistry as the 14A is pretty clear with its intent. We should all be rooting for SCOTUS to uphold… regardless of fears over politics and retribution. If it was an insurrection, he should be barred from running.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28195
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Nope, as not enough time for sham political trial conviction(s) (NY & DC) with lib democrat judges, lib democrat juries, and lib democrat prosecutor to be overturned on appellate and/or SCOTUS all before the election. Best to let a jury of 150 million ish decide.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23481
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
I don't get why the Democrats aren't blowing the "..if-he-has-nothing-to-hide.." horn every day. And keep playing the videos of his medicated ramblings..he's losing his shit - and the multi-billionaire can't even post a measley $500,000,000 bond....
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23481
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
..after he gets his ass kicked in November, that's when the fun starts .... what you don't understand is that the Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief over the decision. Both houses of Congress will flip and the WH stays donk.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:01 pmNope, as not enough time for sham political trial conviction(s) (NY & DC) with lib democrat judges, lib democrat juries, and lib democrat prosecutor to be overturned on appellate and/or SCOTUS all before the election. Best to let a jury of 150 million ish decide.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20351
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
150 millionish people don't get to hear all of the evidence and arguments so they can't be expected to justly rule on the merits of the case.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:01 pmNope, as not enough time for sham political trial conviction(s) (NY & DC) with lib democrat judges, lib democrat juries, and lib democrat prosecutor to be overturned on appellate and/or SCOTUS all before the election. Best to let a jury of 150 million ish decide.
If he's elected, will he let the trials run their course or will he interfere and try and put a stop to them, subverting justice for his own selfish needs?
If there's a chance that he'll interfere then the trials need to be expedited so he can't use his position to escape justice.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28195
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
houndawg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:09 pm..after he gets his ass kicked in November, that's when the fun starts .... what you don't understand is that the Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief over the decision. Both houses of Congress will flip and the WH stays donk.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:01 pm
Nope, as not enough time for sham political trial conviction(s) (NY & DC) with lib democrat judges, lib democrat juries, and lib democrat prosecutor to be overturned on appellate and/or SCOTUS all before the election. Best to let a jury of 150 million ish decide.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28195
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Nothing new to be learned about Trump and 1/6.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:22 pm150 millionish people don't get to hear all of the evidence and arguments so they can't be expected to justly rule on the merits of the case.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:01 pm
Nope, as not enough time for sham political trial conviction(s) (NY & DC) with lib democrat judges, lib democrat juries, and lib democrat prosecutor to be overturned on appellate and/or SCOTUS all before the election. Best to let a jury of 150 million ish decide.
If he's elected, will he let the trials run their course or will he interfere and try and put a stop to them, subverting justice for his own selfish needs?
If there's a chance that he'll interfere then the trials need to be expedited so he can't use his position to escape justice.
150 miliion people won’t get to hear if the trials are legit before the election because not enough time for appelate and/or SCOTUS to overturn.
If he’s elected they can have the trials in 2029.
No tbey don’t need to be expedited. They should be allowed to run at a normal speed course, which in a trial such as this wouldn’t be taking place until 2025. Smith and Chutkan have tried to run the DC trial at warp speed because they are hell bent on having Trump tried before the election. Chutkan has only allowed days or weeks for motions and hearings that would normally take months. Smith bypassed a sure win in the full DC Court of Appeals on Trump immunity in order to go striaght to SCOTUS because he is hellbent on having the trial before the election. Fortunately SCOTUS has thrown a monkey wrench on Smith’s and Chrutkan’s scheme.
And then there’s the DOJ’s 60 Day Rule which would preclude a fed trial this Fall. Of course I’m sure they would say that doesn’t apply to Trump because Orange Man Bad something something.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20351
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Who has been trying to drag out the indictment and trials? It's his own fault if he doesn't have time to appeal. An innocent man wouldn't need to worry about appeals.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:30 pmNothing new to be learned about Trump and 1/6.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:22 pm
150 millionish people don't get to hear all of the evidence and arguments so they can't be expected to justly rule on the merits of the case.
If he's elected, will he let the trials run their course or will he interfere and try and put a stop to them, subverting justice for his own selfish needs?
If there's a chance that he'll interfere then the trials need to be expedited so he can't use his position to escape justice.
150 miliion people won’t get to hear if the trials are legit before the election because not enough time for appelate and/or SCOTUS to overturn.
If he’s elected they can have the trials in 2029.
No tbey don’t need to be expedited. They should be allowed to run at a normal speed course, which in a trial such as this wouldn’t be taking place until 2025. Smith and Chutkan have tried to run the DC trial at warp speed because they are hell bent on having Trump tried before the election. Chutkan has only allowed days or weeks for motions and hearings that would normally take months. Smith bypassed a sure win in the full DC Court of Appeals on Trump immunity in order to go striaght to SCOTUS because he is hellbent on having the trial before the election. Fortunately SCOTUS has thrown a monkey wrench on Smith’s and Chrutkan’s scheme.
And then there’s the DOJ’s 60 Day Rule which would preclude a fed trial this Fall. Of course I’m sure they would say that doesn’t apply to Trump because Orange Man Bad something something.
The DoJ's 60 Day Rule does not preclude a fed trial this fall. It's an unwritten policy against "federal prosecutors indicting a candidate or federal law enforcement taking “overt” investigative steps regarding the candidate – such as executing a search warrant or conducting an interview – in close proximity to an Election Day in a party primary or a general election." It does not prevent an already-indicted candidate from being put on trial close to an election.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28195
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Lol an innocent man would need to worry about appeals with unprecedented political sham trials.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:52 pmWho has been trying to drag out the indictment and trials? It's his own fault if he doesn't have time to appeal. An innocent man wouldn't need to worry about appeals.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:30 pm
Nothing new to be learned about Trump and 1/6.
150 miliion people won’t get to hear if the trials are legit before the election because not enough time for appelate and/or SCOTUS to overturn.
If he’s elected they can have the trials in 2029.
No tbey don’t need to be expedited. They should be allowed to run at a normal speed course, which in a trial such as this wouldn’t be taking place until 2025. Smith and Chutkan have tried to run the DC trial at warp speed because they are hell bent on having Trump tried before the election. Chutkan has only allowed days or weeks for motions and hearings that would normally take months. Smith bypassed a sure win in the full DC Court of Appeals on Trump immunity in order to go striaght to SCOTUS because he is hellbent on having the trial before the election. Fortunately SCOTUS has thrown a monkey wrench on Smith’s and Chrutkan’s scheme.
And then there’s the DOJ’s 60 Day Rule which would preclude a fed trial this Fall. Of course I’m sure they would say that doesn’t apply to Trump because Orange Man Bad something something.
The DoJ's 60 Day Rule does not preclude a fed trial this fall. It's an unwritten policy against "federal prosecutors indicting a candidate or federal law enforcement taking “overt” investigative steps regarding the candidate – such as executing a search warrant or conducting an interview – in close proximity to an Election Day in a party primary or a general election." It does not prevent an already-indicted candidate from being put on trial close to an election.
In the last 235 years in the US, besides Trump, going all the way back to GW’s election in 1789, name the other presidential candidates who have had a federal trial trial against them start during an election year.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20351
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Good thing these aren't sham trials.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:28 pmLol an innocent man would need to worry about appeals with unprecedented political sham trials.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:52 pm
Who has been trying to drag out the indictment and trials? It's his own fault if he doesn't have time to appeal. An innocent man wouldn't need to worry about appeals.
The DoJ's 60 Day Rule does not preclude a fed trial this fall. It's an unwritten policy against "federal prosecutors indicting a candidate or federal law enforcement taking “overt” investigative steps regarding the candidate – such as executing a search warrant or conducting an interview – in close proximity to an Election Day in a party primary or a general election." It does not prevent an already-indicted candidate from being put on trial close to an election.
In the last 235 years in the US, besides Trump, going all the way back to GW’s election in 1789, name the other presidential candidates who have had a federal trial trial against them start during an election year.
The closest presidential comps to trump are Nixon and Andrew Johnson.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- BDKJMU
- Level5
- Posts: 28195
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
- I am a fan of: JMU
- A.K.A.: BDKJMU
- Location: Philly Burbs
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Lol are sham trials. In a city of over 700k, Trump just got 676 votes on the DC primary.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:47 pmGood thing these aren't sham trials.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:28 pm
Lol an innocent man would need to worry about appeals with unprecedented political sham trials.
In the last 235 years in the US, besides Trump, going all the way back to GW’s election in 1789, name the other presidential candidates who have had a federal trial trial against them start during an election year.
The closest presidential comps to trump are Nixon and Andrew Johnson.
https://elections2024.thehill.com/prima ... -columbia/
In a political trial The chance he would have someone on that jury who voted for him is close to zero. Throw in a Trumo hating lib donk prosecutor amd judge, they could get Trumo convicted of anything.
There are no comps in US history to the political lawfare against Trump. The answer is zero.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions...But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59651
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Show me where in the 14th it says he has to be convicted and in which court.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 6:52 pmWrong.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 7:54 am
Of course Luttig is on a crusade. It’s kind of a big deal and he’s an expert on the matter. You’ve been on a crusade since Jan 7th downplaying the significance.
Are you arguing for how the court will rule or whether or not it was an insurrection?
If it’s the latter, the Colorado SC ruled on it. Just like a court in New Mexico who ruled that a county commissioner must be removed from office for his participation in the insurrection based on the 14th amendment.
So it seems the only questions here are whether a panel of judges comprising a state Supreme Court is sufficient for looking at the evidence and determining whether it was an insurrection and whether Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the (United States), or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” vs. a criminal trial with a jury.
The rest is legal sophistry as the 14A is pretty clear with its intent. We should all be rooting for SCOTUS to uphold… regardless of fears over politics and retribution. If it was an insurrection, he should be barred from running.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23481
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Because the voters have a right to know if they're voting for a convicted felon before they vote.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:30 pmNothing new to be learned about Trump and 1/6.UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 7:22 pm
150 millionish people don't get to hear all of the evidence and arguments so they can't be expected to justly rule on the merits of the case.
If he's elected, will he let the trials run their course or will he interfere and try and put a stop to them, subverting justice for his own selfish needs?
If there's a chance that he'll interfere then the trials need to be expedited so he can't use his position to escape justice.
150 miliion people won’t get to hear if the trials are legit before the election because not enough time for appelate and/or SCOTUS to overturn.
If he’s elected they can have the trials in 2029.
No tbey don’t need to be expedited. They should be allowed to run at a normal speed course, which in a trial such as this wouldn’t be taking place until 2025. Smith and Chutkan have tried to run the DC trial at warp speed because they are hell bent on having Trump tried before the election. Chutkan has only allowed days or weeks for motions and hearings that would normally take months. Smith bypassed a sure win in the full DC Court of Appeals on Trump immunity in order to go striaght to SCOTUS because he is hellbent on having the trial before the election. Fortunately SCOTUS has thrown a monkey wrench on Smith’s and Chrutkan’s scheme.
And then there’s the DOJ’s 60 Day Rule which would preclude a fed trial this Fall. Of course I’m sure they would say that doesn’t apply to Trump because Orange Man Bad something something.
Actually we already know - if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't want to delay.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18123
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Section 5 of the 14th amendment where it gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment. And then they did with 18 U. S. C. §2383 which almost verbatim recites Sec 3. The mechanism is already there and Congress already gave it to us. Charge Trump with insurrection, get a conviction, and then he's off the ballot. And yet, with all of these various lawsuits, with us now being more than a year since the 1/6 commission issued their final report, we don't have a single case of Trump being charged with insurrection, or with abetting an insurrection. If we did, and if he got convicted, it would be simple that he'd be removed from the ballot.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59651
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Not now. It would require Congress to pass a bill. Criminal court be damned.GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:21 amSection 5 of the 14th amendment where it gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment. And then they did with 18 U. S. C. §2383 which almost verbatim recites Sec 3. The mechanism is already there and Congress already gave it to us. Charge Trump with insurrection, get a conviction, and then he's off the ballot. And yet, with all of these various lawsuits, with us now being more than a year since the 1/6 commission issued their final report, we don't have a single case of Trump being charged with insurrection, or with abetting an insurrection. If we did, and if he got convicted, it would be simple that he'd be removed from the ballot.
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20351
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Nixon and Johnson are comps to trump on unethical behavior and leadership.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:22 pmLol are sham trials. In a city of over 700k, Trump just got 676 votes on the DC primary.
https://elections2024.thehill.com/prima ... -columbia/
In a political trial The chance he would have someone on that jury who voted for him is close to zero. Throw in a Trumo hating lib donk prosecutor amd judge, they could get Trumo convicted of anything.
There are no comps in US history to the political lawfare against Trump. The answer is zero.
What about that trump loving judge Cannon, carrying his water and using her court to interfere with the timing of the DC trial? She can't be trusted to give the people of the United States a fair trial.
You either don't understand civics or you're so blatantly partisan that you expect everyone else to be too. A person who didn't vote for trump is capable of being an impartial juror. It's trump's legal teams' job to find them. Are you saying they're too incompetent to do so? Maybe he should hire better lawyers.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18123
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
No, no, no. Read the opinion from the court. They clearly say existing code, passed by Congress, gives the legal pathway to enact Section 3.kalm wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:38 amNot now. It would require Congress to pass a bill. Criminal court be damned.GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:21 am
Section 5 of the 14th amendment where it gave Congress the power to enforce the amendment. And then they did with 18 U. S. C. §2383 which almost verbatim recites Sec 3. The mechanism is already there and Congress already gave it to us. Charge Trump with insurrection, get a conviction, and then he's off the ballot. And yet, with all of these various lawsuits, with us now being more than a year since the 1/6 commission issued their final report, we don't have a single case of Trump being charged with insurrection, or with abetting an insurrection. If we did, and if he got convicted, it would be simple that he'd be removed from the ballot.
I bolded the end of it. They say, right in the opinion, that Congress already has acted and that the provision from Congress still exists today. That's what makes the concurrence from the liberal side so strange - it's like they wanted to be upset about something, but couldn't really figure out what to be upset over. So they basically said "we agree, but we don't like it". The mechanism to remove a candidate from the ballot is there - Congress passed it - Sec 5 is satisfied, so for Sec 3 to take place all you have to do is convict him of insurrection. Something no one, in all of these lawsuits, has thought, or wanted, to charge him with. Pretending that the opinion says something other than this is a just a lot of teeth-gnashing by pundits that want to complain about something other than what's written.nstead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act
authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in
federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made
holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3
a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35
Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following
ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique
powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending
that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take
or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1,
2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives
§§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act
of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an
additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That
law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among
other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification
from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12
Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the
books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
-
- Level2
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:24 pm
- I am a fan of: DELAWARE
Re: Team Trump v/s Everyone
Medicated ramblings?
How much have you heard about the bag of coke that was found in the Whitehouse? Hmmm