Team Trump v/s Everyone

[houndawg]

Rhymes, about that this one ...

trump was sucking putin's cock
the clock struck two
putin shot his goo
and dropped trump off at the next block.

Paraphrasing the Dice Man.

Little boy blue…

He needed the money.

HEY O!

....we'll always have Helsinki

[GannonFan]

So you disagree with the 14th Amendment and due process?

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.

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?

[UNI88]

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.

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?

[SeattleGriz]

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.

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?

Nice call.

[houndawg]

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.

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?

there was indeed

[BDKJMU]

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.

It’s not as much of a - stretching the law to fit politics - slam dunk as you guys think.

Faux conservative Luttig clearly lost his mind.

[BDKJMU]

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.

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.

Wrong.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.

[UNI88]

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.

Wrong.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.

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]

Wrong.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.

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.

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.

[houndawg]

Wrong.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.

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.

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....

[houndawg]

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.

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.

..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.

[UNI88]

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.

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.

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.

[BDKJMU]

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.

..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]

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.

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.

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.

[UNI88]

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.

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.

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.

[BDKJMU]

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.

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.

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.

[UNI88]

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.

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.

Good thing these aren't sham trials.

The closest presidential comps to trump are Nixon and Andrew Johnson.

[BDKJMU]

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.

Good thing these aren't sham trials.

The closest presidential comps to trump are Nixon and Andrew Johnson.

Lol 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.

[kalm]

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.

Wrong.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.

Show me where in the 14th it says he has to be convicted and in which court.

[houndawg]

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.

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.

Because the voters have a right to know if they're voting for a convicted felon before they vote.

Actually we already know - if he had nothing to hide he wouldn't want to delay.

[GannonFan]

Wrong.
It wasn’t.
He hasn’t been convicted of engaging in such even if it was.

Show me where in the 14th it says he has to be convicted and in which court.

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.

[kalm]

Show me where in the 14th it says he has to be convicted and in which court.

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.

Not now. It would require Congress to pass a bill. Criminal court be damned.

[UNI88]

Good thing these aren't sham trials.

The closest presidential comps to trump are Nixon and Andrew Johnson.

Lol 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.

Nixon and Johnson are comps to trump on unethical behavior and leadership.

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.

[GannonFan]

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.

Not now. It would require Congress to pass a bill. Criminal court be damned.

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.

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.

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.

[Caribbean Hen]

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.

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....

Medicated ramblings?

How much have you heard about the bag of coke that was found in the Whitehouse? Hmmm