Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
Going back to the topic of the thread, an update about witnesses Jack Smith plans to call, relating to phones on January 6.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohjwSWNwAZAConsider this perspective: If the Supreme Court determines that the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot press charges against Trump, the efforts put into his case and the testimony of witnesses might lose much of their significance. While he retains the ability to disclose information as he sees fit, there's a potential risk that this will be interpreted as his original intent. The optics of the situation are becoming increasingly unclear.
It's worth noting that Smith, being a highly skilled attorney, may have been aware from the outset that charging Trump was not a likely outcome. This raises questions about whether taxpayers inadvertently funded a kind of campaign-oriented investigation, possibly providing material for the Democrats to use in their political endeavors. I mean Smith certainly is schooled well on the Constitutional rights of a president.
I always felt this investigation has the same Russia Russia Russia grift that the Dems used in 2016. I mean one needs direct evidence to prove anything in a court of law. Not hearsay "he said this, and she heard this outside a door while listening to another conversation. I admit it will be very interesting to see a report from Smith. I think it made read like the Jan 6th committee report, all smoke.If Smith actually believed he couldn't charge a former president, he would not have filed briefs arguing the exact opposite. In fact, not charging someone for crimes that fall withing the statute of limitations goes against every principle of our rule of law.
And the Supreme Court in US v Nixon has pretty much already ruled that a president is not immune from the laws when they stated, 'While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." And in that case, Nixon was still the actual sitting president.
So if the courts have ruled that sitting presidents are not immune from the judicial process, not sure how you think a former president, or one who was acting as a political candidate would be. That's the smoke in this instance, not the conspiracy theory that Smith was appointed special counsel by Democrats for dirt digging - which you have zero evidence to substantiate.
And calling the Russian Election Interference a grift is an interesting term considering it was proven beyond a doubt that Trump's Campaign Chairman was meeting with a known member of Russian Intelligence during 2016 and passing along campaign strategy and internal polling data. Now, to sane Americans, that is collusion. To those programmed by Trump, they will deflect away from those facts in any way possible to avoid talking about those actions which clearly debunk the fact that it was a hoax or a grift.
The section you need is in voulme 5, pages 53-91.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/pub … e-measures"If Smith actually believed he couldn't charge a former president, he would not have filed briefs arguing the exact opposite. In fact, not charging someone for crimes that fall withing the statute of limitations goes against every principle of our rule of law. "
This is true... However, do you feel Smith would not be aware of the laws that cover all US Presidents? Why after so many months has he now decided to question if he can charge a president who may have committed a crime while in office?
"And the Supreme Court in US v Nixon has pretty much already ruled that a president is not immune from the laws when they stated, 'While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." And in that case, Nixon was still the actual sitting president. "
If this is the case, precedence was set, and Smith will be able to make the case of charging Trump if he has evidence of crimes committed.
I believe anyone who has committed a crime should be charged with that crime and given a trial.You view Smith as questioning the laws surrounding a president? Pretty sure he's just citing the precedent that he's certain allows him to charge a former president. And his filing is simply in response to Trump's legal team trying to apply the laws governing civil suits and their false attempt to conflate those to criminal charges. It's not Smith who instigated this issue, which anyone actually following the details of the case should know.
If US v Nixon is the case? It's the one Smith is relying on to make his argument as it sure does seem like precedence.Again - I firmly believe that anyone who has committed a crime should be charged and given a fair trial, including a sitting president who should not have immunity if they have committed a crime.
In light of Special Counsel Jack Smith's recent request to the Supreme Court regarding the potential prosecution of former President Donald Trump for his alleged involvement in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, I raise the question of whether this legal consideration should have been addressed prior to Smith's investigation. It seems pertinent to inquire whether the issue of presidential immunity should have been resolved before appointing a special counsel to investigate Trump's role in the events of January 6th, and his refusal to accept the election results. While I acknowledge the relevance of the question posed by Smith, I assume that the Department of Justice (DOJ) should have preemptively addressed this matter months ago, before initiating the special counsel's investigation. It appears that the sequence of events may have been somewhat hasty.
I am encouraged by the Supreme Court's swift response to the matter, as indicated by their decision to expedite consideration of whether to hear the case. The justices have set a deadline for Trump's legal team to respond by December 20, demonstrating an intention to address the issue promptly.
It is worth noting that, traditionally, Congress is responsible for handling the crimes of a sitting president through the impeachment process, as they did in this case, albeit without success. I am uncertain whether this could impact the likelihood of Trump facing charges for the crimes addressed during the impeachment proceedings. However, if Special Counsel Smith has uncovered new offenses that were not included in the impeachment charges, the Supreme Court may face the challenging decision of determining whether a president can be indicted for post-office revelations of crimes committed while in office."...be addressed prior to Smith's investigation. " - Smith can't bring it to the Court until Trump raises the defense.
The issue had already been litigated in US v Nixon and Trump's lawyers were trying to use the civil suit rules for his criminal case - which is another reason why it's not applicable and did not need to be adjudicated prior to filing any charges. And also why Chutkin did not feel it applied in this case. To say that a president has immunity would mean that he could just shoot his rival for reelection and get away with it. Does that sound like something the courts would be willing to allow? It's a stupid argument, which is why only Trump's lawyers have proposed it. Hire stupid people, get stupid interpretations of the law.
Second, impeachment is for the removal of a president from office for crimes, there is nothing in any statute that alleviates any criminal culpability under federal laws.
Second, there's other precedent with Aaron Burr after his duel with Alexander Hamilton. Burr was the sitting Vice President and was indicted for murder after he killed Hamilton.This case will be weeded out in the Supreme Court. It is very complicated due to the uniqueness of the case. You certainly have made valid points that make a lot of sense.
I think that the time has come for the matter of how far a president's immunity will or should or should not go.
Why after so many months has he now decided to question if he can charge a president who may have committed a crime while in office?
Trump launched the immunity claim, not Smith. It's his lawyers that generally never understand the law. Judge Chutkan already ruled that that Trump cannot be shielded from criminal prosecution after his presidency for alleged actions that occurred while he was in the White House.
Smith is asking SCOTUS to weigh in rather than bring the issue to the appeals court. We know that regardless of the ruling either side would would be headed for the Supreme Court after an appeals court ruling anyway. It's an effort to get this case started before the election."Trump launched the immunity claim, not Smith. It's his lawyers that generally never understand the law. Judge Chutkan already ruled that Trump cannot be shielded from criminal prosecution after his presidency for alleged actions that occurred while he was in the White House."
I doubt that Smith would not have anticipated that Trump would fall back on immunity, as well as appeal after appeal. Is it your judgment he would not?
It would appear that Smith asked the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s attempts to have the election subversion charges dismissed on his claim of executive immunity before a lower appeals court even has the chance to consider the issue.
Yes, I agree, Smith has requested that the justices consider a legal issue they have never looked at before whether the United States Constitution confers absolute immunity on a former president against a federal prosecution for crimes he committed while in office. And yes, both sides were bound to end up laying this all on the Supreme Court.
My point they all knew this from day one... Perhaps this question needed to be considered before a lengthy, expensive investigation started. Smith's question was and still is the ultimate question.
It certainly is, in my view a political venture to speed up the trial. Which is not a bad thing. If there is factual evidence that Trump committed crimes, "we the people" have the right to assess that evidence.As was pointed out, a lower court DID make a ruling, and it was against Trump. Trump is appealing. Smith is by-passing the appeal to save time. If the Court doesn't like that idea, they can rule that it has to go through the appeals process first.
The thing is though, this particular Court is famous for by-passing the appeals process.
Because Trump is making this the pillar of his defense, that the Constitution puts him above the law (in his mentally ill mind, anyway). So Smith needs the Court to finalize an answer so as not to delay the trial any longer.
Trump is also asserting, contrary to the actual wording in the Constitution, that because he was impeached without a conviction (says nothing about guilt, only partisanship) then he is immune from prosecution. Fortunately, the Constitution specifically disagrees with him. Smith needs the Court to verify that.
What Smith has asked the Court to determine is if, in fact, Trump and the Presidency is above the law. In other words, once you are elected president, you are king and can do no wrong that you can be held accountable for.
That is the day that America stops being America and just another dictatorship.
As to direct evidence, there is plenty of it. More than Smith needs.
The bottomline is this: the whole thing sounds very complex. The Law, the Courts, and the Judges must have a hard time. This one man called 'real' Donald Trump? No man has parallel him in American Constitutional, or political history.
I beg to differ. No where in the Constitution does it let one man be above the law. That is a very simple concept. If it is there, please point it out.
The rest of what you say is very true.I don't ever mean that Trump, was above the. Constitution, the Courts, and the law. Trump cases can't be compare with any other American president. I don't see a parallel or comparisin with Richard Nixon. And it can't provide the legal precedent.
How can you not see the comparison? Both men broke the law while president.
I agree. Both presidents took the law into their hands. Has Nixson ever been accursed of sexual sins? Think. Watergate is Nixson's down fall.
I feel much the same, we have never had a president who was so vocal and shared his ideologies without hesitation. A president who has been accused of many forms of misconduct. A president who has been accused of many crimes against our Constitution. So I think your comment rings true regarding no other president being parallel to Trump.
Finally! One of the Republican candidates starts speaking the truth about Trump.
"The economy? Trump “set the stage” for rising inflation, DeSantis said." (I only partly agree with that. He set the stage for how bad it got. It was going to happen regardless.)
"The border crisis? Trump didn’t complete the wall, and Mexico didn’t pay for it, DeSantis said. "
"Abortion? Trump is “flip-flopping on the right to life,” the Florida governor claimed"
Trump is responsible for the Satanic Temple of Iowa’s display at the state Capito when DeSantis said "Lo and behold, the Trump administration gave them approval to be under the IRS as a religion,” [sic]
"Shutting down the country was a huge mistake," - DeSantis (it wasn't, it was critical to save lives)
"... printing trillions and trillions of dollars was a huge mistake,” - DeSantis (it wasn't)
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/12/politics … index.htmlGood that DeSantis, has presidentiat ambitiox, like any other candidate. But how far has Ron DeSantis gone in the presidtial poll? Behind or in front of Trump? Shuting down the country may be wrong. But is America, the only nation in that instance? That don't make sense at all.
Much of what DeSantis says doesn't make sense. Even less of what Trump says makes sense.
What is wrong with the far-right? Even in Poland they do disgusting things.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/1 … c-orig.cnnTalk about hitting the nail on the head,
"But having a clear-eyed view of what is really driving the Trump base is critical. For one thing, the less credulity shown the "just joking" argument, the harder it is for the small-but-crucial number of swing voters to convince themselves there's nothing to worry about with Trump. More importantly, it will help progressives and Democrats conserve their energies. Trying to convince Trump's loyal supporters that he's a fascist is not worth your time. They know — it's why they like him. That's time and energy that needs to be directed towards turning out the vote for Democrats and educating the persuadable voters to take the Trump threat seriously. And that will be much easier to do if we don't get bogged down with bad faith arguments that he's "just joking."This makes for an interesting read about the secrecy about the planned March to the Capitol on January 6:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … &ei=17Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from their ballot. One domino has fallen. Let's see how many more go down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFF91kDwJWgCome on, the Supreme Court will overrule. Which will shut the other states down that want to take him off the ballot --- The Constitution can be such a stumbling block for leftists. Colorado Supreme Court are the ones violating the U.S. Constitution.
From the video, it sounds like the Colorado Supreme Court laid out their ruling pretty well. It will be interesting to see if the US Supreme Court backs them or not.
Currently, Trump faces accusations without having had his day in court, rendering the accusations essentially inconclusive in any legal context thus far. It appears likely that the Supreme Court will adopt this perspective, especially given their lack of a ruling on Jack Smith's inquiry about presidential immunity for Trump. The notion of fairness comes into play here – it seems premature to prejudge the situation.
My concern with Smith's request to the Supreme Court lies in its timing. As a skilled lawyer, he was surely aware that this issue would necessitate a Supreme Court ruling. It raises questions about the motives behind the request and hints at a strategic move to create confusion or sow seeds of doubt, perhaps as a political ploy.
In light of these considerations, I believe the most equitable course of action would be to let the American people decide whether Trump should be a candidate or not at this juncture.
You will see States ignoring whatever the Supreme Court decides on this.
This is to be expected, just as Democrat controlled states wantonly disregarded the Constitution regarding the election process in 2020, not to mention their own State regulations.
Just like the Biden Administration tells States and Universities to ignore the Supreme Court on other Decisions.
Biden Urges Schools to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling
Aug 18, 2023 · The Biden administration is openly encouraging colleges and universities to ignore a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that forbade discrimination on the basis of race.
https://www.newsmax.com/michaeldorstewi … d/1131227/
Trump is merely the excuse they are going to use to change the rules, bend the laws, and turn on those citizens of the country most willing and able to stand up to the tyranny they are bringing into being.
The citizens can't be trusted to make the right decisions... they can't be trusted to vote for the right people. It is imperative that they only be allowed select options approved by the establishment and funded by the 1% to vote for.
The Supreme Court certainly can't be trusted. Its decisions must be ignored.
It takes extreme measures to defeat extremists such as this!
Remember Trump has already promised he will be a Dictator!
He has quoted Hitler! He has promised a fascist America!
He will return minorities to Slavery! He will force women out of the workplace! He will consume the world in war!
No matter what... the ends justify the means... he must be stopped... he must be eliminated... his supporters silenced, shut out and if must be even eradicated wherever they are found!
Only through Tyranny can our Democracy be saved!!!!"You will see States ignoring whatever the Supreme Court decides on this."
Ken, I respectfully differ in opinion regarding the possibility of states disregarding a Supreme Court ruling. Such an action, if taken, would undoubtedly attract the attention of citizens. I believe it could also be viewed favorably by Republicans if Democratic states or courts chose to overlook decisions from our highest court. This disregard could potentially serve as an awakening for more independents to the perceived imprudence of the Democratic party. Polls show independents are not happy with the status of the Country, can the Dems afford more to tweak their noses any further?
Constitutionalists have already expressed their concerns about the Colorado ruling, while I perceive other left-leaning viewpoints as mere distractions. I sense that the general public is increasingly disenchanted with Joe Biden and what is perceived as off-the-wall leftist rhetoric. There is a prevailing sentiment that Biden may not be fully cognizant of the events transpiring around him, evident in his confusion when faced with unscripted questions.
While I share your apprehensions, I believe there has been a shift in dynamics. A majority of Americans still hold a deep appreciation for the values America represents, as well as our constitution, and many are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs in Washington. This sentiment is reflected not only in polls but also prominently on social media. It appears that the tide has turned.States rights, right? This is a state preliminary.
SCOTUS leans Originalist/Textualism as we saw clearly in Dobbs. I don't see the word "convicted" of insurrection any where in the Constitution but we'll see how they take it. It will be very telling of they stray from their past foundations for decision making.
This could prove tricky for Gorsuch . One of his past decisions was used in the current Colorado decision. Might be awkward for Gorsuch as it would force him to go against his own previous opinion.
The opinion found that "a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."
Sure does sound like states rights to me.
So if Gorsuch had any logical consistency he would likely uphold the Colorado state court's opinion.
Although we may be about to see just how hypocritical and unserious this court is.I appreciate your sharing your view. However, I am sticking with Alan Dershowitz on this one, and other constitutionalists. He has more than often been correct in his views.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6343600961112The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency under the Constitution's so-called insurrection clause (Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment). But the issue divided the seven justices all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors.
It appears it will be up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if he is guilty of insurrection or not. The only way this stands, IMO, is if the Supreme Court DOES find Trump guilty of insurrection, to allow for his exclusion from the ballot, as he would then be constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.
Everything else is just political wet panties knotted up in a bunch because people don't like what he said, or says, or what they believe he represents... which is NOT the same as what can be shown in his actions, to this point, as either President or candidate.
Again... we run into this problem where the Progressive Left (aka Democrats) increasingly substitute what they feel, for fact. His words make me feel threatened, his words can be construed as racist, or sexist, therefore he is a criminal.
I realize that some states are literally making words and language crimes. For instance when Michigan's statehouse passed a bill to make it a hate crime to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.”
But these efforts are against the Constitution, various laws, and the highest decisions made by the Supreme Court.
Just because words hurts someone's feelings... they cannot be made illegal. Just because someone's words may make you feel threatened, does not make them illegal. No matter how many Executive Orders Biden signs or changes to the regulations within the Federal Government the Biden Administration makes trying to make it so.
I recognize that the Biden Administration is the closest thing to an open Tyranny America has seen to date... the world recognizes this as well by the way... but that doesn't make it right... it doesn't make their decisions legal or Constitutional.But the issue divided the seven justices all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors
What? And there's just no way they could be impartial? Why is justice only legitimate if it is handed out by conservatives?
I'm expecting philosophical consistency from SCOTUS. If philosophical consistency could be expected when it collides with partisan self-interest, any justice who believes in originalism or states’ rights would support the Colorado decision. The court can’t credibly pretend that the Constitution does not say what it clearly says. The principle of equal justice under law means it should apply to presidents if they betray their fundamental oath by engaging in an attempt to overturn our government.
The district court in Colorado heard the evidence presented against Trump and ruled that he did engage in an insurrection. The Supreme Court of Colorado upheld that part of the case.
"The state supreme court upheld that Trump engaged in insurrection AND determined “Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court committed reversible error.”When the words that the commander in chief uses are direct threats to people if they do not engage in illegal acts, we are not talking about how we feel. If his words help orchestrate fraudulent documents being filed, those are not feelings. If they lead to subordinates breaking into voting machines and stealing voter data in violation of the laws of a state, those actions are not feelings. Maybe it's the far-right that should learn to judge the differences between threats and illegal acts as opposed to what they think others feel or believe (which they are usually pretty wrong about).
Did I miss something -- has SP Jack Smith charged Trump with insurrection? I trust he if anyone has done a thorough investigation, and it appears he found no evidence that Trump committed insurrection.
It just seems wiser to look to clear evidence, and what Trump has been indicted for.
I think we should at this point leave this in the hands of the Supreme Court. I trust they will weed through any evidence, and we will soon know Trump is guilty of insurrection. Hey, they may also have a look to see if Trump has immunity against Smiths' charges.
This can go two ways --- One side will have a great line to add to their campaign.Again, you are shifting the goalposts to ignore that two courts have already found that Trump did indeed engage in (which could mean organize, which could mean further incite an already violent crowd) insurrection or rebellion, or gave aid or comfort.
What would be wiser, is if you would look at the two rulings that were based in evidence and testimony and actually look at the things that were presented for two courts to arrive at the same conclusion.
Sure, the Supreme Court has the final say, but the Colorado Supreme Court came to their conclusion using an originalist take, which would mirror the views of many of the conservative justices on the court."Again, you are shifting the goalposts to ignore that two courts have already found that Trump did indeed engage in (which could mean organize, which could mean further incite an already violent crowd) insurrection or rebellion, or gave aid or comfort."
I certainly looked over both Colorado court rulings. Then I sought to investigate what several Constitusiona Attornies views were. I am not an attorney, so I think it wise to lean toward what well-educated Constitutionalist individuals are saying.
"Dershowitz on Colorado: 'Never Seen a Decision That's So Anti-Democratic,' 'Absurd'
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan … d/1146629/
Turley Gives Single Reason All 9 SCOTUS Justices Should Cut Down Trump Ballot Ruling Without Any Dissenters
https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/20/jona … do-ballot/
The seven-member Colorado Supreme Court was divided 4-3 on the ruling, All appointed by a Democratic governor. This is my view reads that even three Dems were not in agreement with the ruling. This kind of split makes me stop and think.So Dershowitz's argument goes to impeachment as the process for barring a president from holding future office. Well, Trump is not a president, he is a regular citizen. And like other regular citizens who have to be naturally born and over 35, they must also have not engaged in insurrection - all of these according to the Constitution. Perhaps Dershowitz is confused about who the current president is by making his argument.
And Turley is making the same argument you've attempted to make, by reading in the words convicted of into the 14th Amendment, which just don't exist. Nor did they exist when the Amendment was originally passed but was made clear that confederates would be barred by engaging in or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Let alone that a court did hear arguments about Trump's actions that pertained to engaging in or giving aid or comfort to those on January 6, a trial where Trump did have representation, and the judge found that he had done just that.This is my view reads that even three Dems were not in agreement with the ruling. This kind of split makes me stop and think.
"Dems?" Are you assuming the judges hold Democratic views, that they are political and cannot be unbiased?How often do courts make unanimous decisions? Or even close decisions?
Again, such a shame that many in our country only think legitimate Court decisions can come from judge's appointed by their party of choice.Well, 3 Democrats did not agree with 4 Dems in this case. A bit refreshing.
In my view, rarely do we see unanimous decisions if the court is split by ideologies.
Regrettably, a considerable number of us have become disillusioned with the bias we see in courts. Perhaps due to observing courts displaying bias and favoritism towards the party they are associated with. This wasn't the situation many years ago.
This Colorado SC decision does make me feel hope."Regrettably, a considerable number of us have become disillusioned with the bias we see in courts. Perhaps due to observing courts displaying bias and favoritism towards the party they are associated with. This wasn't the situation many years ago."
That is inclusive of the Supreme Court as well, right? I know it is for me. I have always been suspicious of them over the years and I think history has proved it so. Don't you?
I don't mean that in the sense of argumentative, only that history has shown that politics does hold sway on the courts as you shared inclusive of the Supreme Court. For instance Plessy vs. Ferguson.
Curious, I did some poking about finding an interesting Gallup Study on the Supreme Court that perhaps can be used for the pulse of the nation's thoughts/feelings of the court. It appears the last date of the survey was Sept 1, 2023 and goes back to 2010. Worth a peek if interested.
Supreme Court A lengthy study all graphics
https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx
The first graphic shows 58% disapproves of the court with 41% approve from the Sept 1 survey. However, the next graphics shows that 40% have trust/confidence in the Judicial Branch with 32% not very much followed by 19% for not at all. Also, 17% say the court is to liberal, 39% to conservative, and 42% about right. For the Supreme Court specifically for confidence it is:
Great Deal = 11%
Quite a lot = 16%
Some = 37%
Very little = 34%
None = 1%
Another breakdown I found interesting is from Ballotpedia for the state courts, yet it is for 2020.
Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship/Breakdown of Justices by Confidence Categories A short read giving clarity.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Cou … Categories
Total of justices = 341
Strong Democrats = 10.20%
Mild Democrats = 22.90%
Intermediate Justices = 14.40%
Mild Republicans = 36.70%
Strong Republicans = 15.80%
Whelp, when the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with that judgement we can all breathe a sigh of relief and Trump will be summarily relegated to the history books of politics.
And if it doesn't, Colorado will just have to recognize that decision, right?Ken, obviously Colorado will have to recognize a reversal.
If scotus upholds Colorado then so be it. Trump will have received Justice plain and simple.
I don't want to see philosophical wavering on the part of the conservative justices though. Polls already show that the majority of Americans have little faith in the court and that they have become political.
The members with the originalist bent better well find it in the text of the Constitution to support overturning Colorado if that is what they decide.
If they strike down colorado, how do you think that will be perceived?I think the Democrats will perceive it as biased and rail against it and suggest that Colorado ignore the decision.
I think Trump supporters will perceive it as justice well served.
I think the people in the middle will consider it balanced, so long as it appears balanced, whichever way it goes.
"The district court in Colorado heard the evidence presented against Trump and ruled that he did engage in an insurrection. The Supreme Court of Colorado upheld that part of the case."
Did Trump appear in the District Court in Colorado to defend the charge that this court levied? Has Trump even been charged with insurrection in any court? He was impeached for insurrection and found not guilty. Has the Jack Smith Chrages been heard in court as of yet? His charges did not include insurrection.
"Trump is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and claimed Smith is politically biased.
The indictment alleges Trump disseminated false allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election "to make his knowingly false claims appear legitimate, create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger, and erode public faith in the administration of the election," ultimately culminating in the Jan. 6 attack."
It would seem to me if anyone had seen evidence of an insurance it would have been Smith.
Insurrection is a serious charge --- a violent uprising against an authority or government.
These judges will end up being overruled... There is no evidence or charges that have proven Trump was involved in any form of insurrection.
He has not been charged in any court of insurrection... Not sure how this fact is not more glaring to those who feel this court has done
ruled using any form of law or common sense.In her decision, Judge Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact “engage in insurrection” on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys’ arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech. He was represented in court. Looks like he chose not to show up though himself. He may have been in court with his New York fraud trial at the time.
In a 102-page ruling, Wallace accepted many of the plaintiffs’ core claims about Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, and rejected arguments from Trump’s legal team that his messages to his supporters, including incendiary social media posts and a speech at the White House Ellipse just prior to the violence at the Capitol, were protected speech under the First Amendment.
“The Court concludes … that Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 and therefore ‘engaged’ in insurrection within the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” Wallace wrote.Thank you, Sharlee0, for your critical analysis, and presdntation. The whole thing now amplified, and simple make sense. Truely, Trump, has not been charge for insurrection, or convicted. Some here like many other wish he was. This very 'real' or 'whacking' Donald Trump, is now ahead of every presidential ambtious guys. Run on, Trump, run on.
Ah, yes. Biden gives his opinion on a Supreme Court ruling, and someone writes that Biden is telling people to ignore a Supreme Court ruling based on these words:
From the opinion article, the author writes - Within hours of the court’s decision, he {Biden} urged colleges to ignore the ruling, stating that “diversity should be considered, including students' lack of financial means.”
So Biden gave his opinion and this author, and Ken by extension, took that as Biden 'urging colleges to ignore the ruling.' Maybe the author needs to understand the meaning of words and opinions before trying to create an action that Biden certainly did not state directly to any college.
Here is the White House link to what Biden actually said about the ruling, not some far-right opinion author's warped interpretation of Biden's remarks:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … 0students.
Is it any wonder why many of us feel the far-right gets programmed by distortions? This is a pretty stark example of it, for sure.
And I love how it was only Democratic led states who altered their election processes in 2020. Not Greg Abbott who, without the consent of his state legislature, added 10 days to the early voting period to try and protect his constituents. Or in 2018, when hurricanes hit Florida, Governor Rick Scott altered election processes to help his constituents exercise their right to vote, again, without consulting his state legislature.
Talk about a failed attempt to gaslight us about who was actually altering elections processes in an attempt to protect voters. 31 different states modified processes, many GOP led as well. And likely why courts sided with state attorney generals. Let alone not understanding which states actually have it written into their laws that gives the attorney general the power to modify election processes in times of emergency.The whole thing is now a complex twist to an outsider like me. Does a State in the USA has a Supreme Court? Not so in Nigeria, my coumtry though she copy the American Constitution. Nigeria, has only one Supreme Court, which is a final court of Appeal.
He does not need to be charged to conclude that he engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Which is what the Amendment requires. And in the trial that took place, it was determined that Trump's actions have fit into the Amendment. One action alone was that after the insurrection began, Trump tweeting out to his followers that Pence was not going to go along with his coup plan. Let alone the fact that he organized the mob and had a secretive plan to have them march to the Capitol at the exact moment that Congress was to gavel in to certify his loss.
Valeant, it would be a lot easier and less likely for the weasel to slip away again if he could be convicted in a court of law of being guilty of not only fomenting insurrection but actual engaging in a crime of denying JoeBiden his rightful victory and cheating the voters with the fraudulent electors scheme which he is most assuredly behind. His being guilty or not guilty will no longer be interpreted as just a partisan difference. That is why Smith is going to prosecute and this trial is a must do. The crime has nothing to the with official duties of the president or any other elected official of government. With a rightwing oriented Supreme Court, anything that can be consider nebulous they are going to rule in favor of Trump.
We need to continue to cut off any possible avenue of escape for the serpent.You really think that MAGA will accept a jury finding Trump guilty of anything? They will dismiss it as easily as they did a jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, even a jury that had multiple Trump voters as that one did. They will remain in their alternate reality and still cling to Trump as if he's the leader of their cult.
MAGA is far beyond reason in these matters, I don't care what they think. A conviction against Trump may well be that "nail in the coffin" for independents and those who would consider another less encumbered Republican candidate. He can't win solely on the support of his hard core followers. Haley and others' fortunes will rise because of this. I don't care for Republican politics but at this point, anyone is a better alternative to Trump.
I'm also just wondering how many of those confederate soldiers had trials to determine if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, before being barred from seeking public office after the Civil War. In this case, the facts were presented and the Trump side was represented, before a judge came to her ruling and the Supreme Court of the State upheld her finding pertaining to insurrection.
No, i am sure that none of them did, just coming from a Civil War, with their roles as confederates with the very definition of the Confederacy, as treason and insurrection. There was no question and no doubt as to the guilt of these men. Can Trump be placed into a similar position where there is no doubt, thus no spin?
An interesting take:
https://news.yahoo.com/david-frum-color … 17318.htmlReally? And without translaton? How interestingly would you take it if I post in my mother tongue?
It's not that complicated.
I have been flippant with my comments in this thread, regarding this issue, because of its absurdity.
How America Works:
The people elect the government leaders, via an electoral process.
The Democrats have a system that thwarts this in their primaries, they have Super Delegates, they have means of ensuring the popular choice is not who represents the Party. A prime example of this is Clinton being chosen over Bernie Sanders in 2016.
The Republicans do not have mechanisms in place to outright steal a primary election from the people, this is how/why they ended up with Trump in 2016 and will likely end up with him in 2024... despite all the big money/donors and the establishment itself getting behind anyone/everyone other than Trump.
This decision by the Colorado Supreme Court is bigger than just this election, it is bigger than Trump, it is about the very core principles of this country and its future... about abuse of power and authority.
If four unelected judges, using their own theory of law, that has no precedence, can remove someone from a ballot, who has not even been charged, let alone convicted, of the crime they are using to determine the reasoning for his removal... we no longer have anything resembling a Democracy, just a facade, an illusion, a mockery of one.If four unelected judges, using their own theory of law, that has no precedence, can remove someone from a ballot, who has not even been charged, let alone convicted, of the crime they are using to determine the reasoning for his removal...
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.
The Colorado decision sure has left the justices of SCOTUS in the very uncomfortable position of having to prove that they have the courage of their stated convictions.
If four unelected judges, using their own theory of law
This IS how the judicial system works. Conservatives didn't complain when it was applied in Dobbs. A strict reading of the Constitution was applauded. But now different judicial philosophy should apply because it's Trump? You can't have it both ways, it's hypocritical.
It's calling the Originalists' bluff. Let's see if they follow through on their stated beliefs.
Just polled..
YouGov surveyed 3,492 U.S. adults on Wednesday. The polling company found that 54 percent agreed with the decision, while 35 percent disagreed.Do you really think I care what a poll says?
Do you think a poll is the way to decide the fate of the nation?
Do you believe 4 Judges have a right to determine the fate of the nation?
Because this is what you are arguing, whether you realize it or not.
You are taking the choice out of the people's hands.It's interesting that when the court came down with its Dobbs decision it was heralded as a fair reading of the Constitution by those whose mandate is to do so. Yet Trump must be treated differently?
As the final arbiter of the law, the Court IS charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. Would you have it differently? Seems like conservatives questioning that pesky old Constitution. But yes Ken the judicial branch is a co-equal branch of our government.The Federal... not the State.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that this is not within the purveyance of a State to decide if a candidate can be removed from a National ballot based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
I think it is pretty clear cut which way this is going to go, however, if I am wrong it will certainly impact far more than Trump, Colorado or the election.It certainly would have red states making the same efforts to remove Biden from the ballot. We would see many red states stepping up to the plate. As well as Blue states to remove Trump.
The Supreme Court will shoot this down, if they don't it would mean anyone could be removed from a ballot just on mere accusations of wrongdoing.
To quote Willow - Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.But what you guys keep ignoring is the initial trial that led to this appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court. Evidence was presented pertaining to actions taken that Section 3 covered and Trump's people had a chance to defend him. A judge found his actions fit into Section 3. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld those findings. It was not just accusations, it was the presentation of evidence to make the case. And they did make that case as numerous actions, while not necessarily rising to the level of criminality, fit the definition of engaging in insurrection, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Some of those actions cited included Trump tweeting out to his followers, an hour and a half after the violence began, that Pence was not going to stop the certification. Secondly, that while the insurrection was taking place, Trump was calling members of congress and asking them to stop the certification.To quote Willow - Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary.
This is the crux of the case:
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to disqualify someone who has already held a public office from holding "any office" if they participate in an "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.
It has been determined and upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court that Trump engaged in insurrection. This section of the 14th amendment does not specify conviction. It is not in the text. I would therefore assume that our originalists on the court will agree that he is not eligible to be on the ballot.
He is as ineligible from serving as president as if he was not yet 35 years old or not a natural born citizen, two other constitutional requirements for holding the presidency. Biden, on the other hand meets all of the eligibility requirements. And there would be no grounds for states to bar him from being on the ballot.
Now that he has put us all in this situation, the Supreme Court and especially the Roberts majority has a real dilemma on its hands. It has advertised itself as being a textualist and originalist court, in which the words say what they mean and were intended to mean when adopted. And as several Federalist Society aligned law professors have written persuasively, and as Judge J. Michael Luttig, who comes out of the same legal school of thought as the Supreme Court majority, has argued, the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment by its terms and intent was to bar someone who did what Donald Trump did from holding office again.
We are certainly at a difficult crossroads but we have Trump to blame. But for his actions, none of this comes to pass. Second, he brought this all upon us because he refused to accept defeat when he lost the 2020 election and his continued refusal to accept that he lost is straining our institutions and our civic fabric. Sort of poisoning the blood of the country...I think you might consider saving your words on this one. What scares you more, Trump winning in 2024, or the people just being heard in 2024?
Should section 3 of the 14th amendment be set aside?
I will leave that to the Highest Court in the land, and as I shared I will stick with the well-educated constitutionalist.
You mean like the renowned Conservative Judge Michael Luttig who thinks Colorado was spot on with their decision and thinks it should have come sooner?
I have taken many opinions under consideration, and it is clear there are debates between constitutionalists. This is my sound reasoning to have faith that the SC will make a solid constitutional ruling. Yes, I have made my prediction after lots of reading, and reading the two Colorado rulings.
I have let common sense reign, after having a look at the rulings.In case you are interested, against the only two "connotational scholars" you list, both decidedly pro-Trump, This is who I considered:
* Conservative and very well regarded retired judge, Michael Luttig
* Conservative former White House Counsel John Dean
* Conservative Federalist Society Legal Scholar William Baude of the University of Chicago
* Conservative Federalist Society Legal Scholar Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas
(The last two wrote "“They note that more people died and were injured as a result of the January 6, 2021, attack than in the 1861 Battle of Fort Sumter that began the Civil War.” )
* University of Baltimore law professor Kim Wehle (affiliation unknown)
* Liberal Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe.
* Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama)
* Judge Amit Mehta (Obama)
* Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Obama)
* Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi (appointed by very conservative Democratic WV gov)
* Judge David O. Carter (Clinton)
* Judge John D. Bates (G.W. Bush)
* Judge Beryl Howell (Obama)
* Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Clinton)
* Judge Reggie B. Walton (G. W. Bush)
So there you have a large selection of liberal and conservative judges and constitutional scholars who all agree that the Colorado decision was correct or that Trump was involved in a democracy destroying insurrection.
Nest up, dissecting the opinion.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that this is not within the purveyance of a State to decide if a candidate can be removed from a National ballot based on their interpretation of the Constitution.
This is not true. Let's look at one example from a member of our current court, Neil Gorsuch.
The majority in the Colorado Supreme Court's decision quoted Justice Neil Gorsuch directly, for example, writing that "As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized ... it is a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process' that 'permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office."
Do you think he will stick by his principles?
Chief Justice John Roberts, too, has expressed reluctance for federal courts to interfere in state election law matters during his time on the bench.Then why are states permitted to keep candidates off a ballot if they don't pay a filing fee? Doesn't that contradict what you just stated?
BTW, why would it impact beyond Sec 3? The Constitution says if you engaged in or supported in any way an insurrection AND you have taken an oath of office to the Constitution, THEN you may never hold a federal or state public office again. Seems pretty clear cut to me. If future presidents don't engage in insurrection like Trump clearly did (according to a dozen or so federal and state judges so far) then they have nothing to worry about.
Apparently many on your side in this forum think exactly that.
Remember, the People, through their representatives DID VOTE to ratify the 14th Amendment. So yes, those four judges have EVERY RIGHT to (hyperbolically speaking) determine the fate of the nation. That is their job, just as it is for the nine UNELECTED Supreme Court Justices to decide whether those four judges got it right or wrong. That is the way our Constitution set things up.Apparently many on your side in this forum think exactly that.
Remember, the People, through their representatives DID VOTE to ratify the 14th Amendment. So yes, those four judges have EVERY RIGHT to (hyperbolically speaking) determine the fate of the nation. That is their job, just as it is for the nine UNELECTED Supreme Court Justices to decide whether those four judges got it right or wrong. As Willow said - That is the way our Constitution set things up.
"If four unelected judges, using their own theory of law, that has no precedence, can remove someone from a ballot, who has not even been charged, let alone convicted, of the crime they are using to determine the reasoning for his removal..."
True
"Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly require a criminal conviction, and historically, one was not necessary."
The Supreme Court will now interpret this section. However, it will also cite -- The Constitution uses the phrase in the 5th and 14th Amendments, declaring that the government shall not deprive anyone of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
The 14th Amendment is more widely depended on.
One more thing while talking about the judicial system, Trump has the right to appeal to the highest court in the land, which he will do.
One could also and should realize if the Colorado court ruling stands --- Biden will be meted out the same justice, the same justice that Trump was offered in Colorado, but in Red states. Guess we would be left with brand-new candidates...
Supreme Court may have wanted to avoid Trump. Colorado's ballot ruling won't let them. Oh well,'One could also and should realize if the Colorado court ruling stands --- Biden will be meted out the same justice, the same justice that Trump was offered in Colorado, but in Red states. Guess we would be left with brand-new candidates...'
Based on what? Nevermind, just like the ongoing 'impeachment inquiry,' we all realize the GOP doesn't need a violation of law or evidence of an actual violation of the law to take an action.
In Colorado, six republicans brought a case based on Constitutional law that Trump's actions violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and as such, multiple courts have found that it made him ineligible for future public office.I must laugh -- Based on Judges that lean right. Yeah good for the goose.
But you need not worry, this ruling is already dead on the floor.Good of you to admit that judges that lean right are so corrupt then. In Colorado, they applied the law to a new precedent, and the judges that were appointed by Democrats were split almost evenly, making different arguments for and against.
And you should worry as this ruling was written in the logic of the far-right justices of the Supreme Court. It could just as easily be upheld.I have read both very lengthy rulings of the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court of Colorado ruling. Both, in my view as a bystander, won't stand up as anything but biased BS. A; though, I am very biased when it comes to left-leaning courts. After taking time to read the rulings, I am more convinced the Supreme Court will make a hamburger out of both rulings.
I now after reading the rulings feel the SC decision may be unanimous.
Thanks Ken, thanks. Your last two paragraphes has make sense to me. I read today an opera.com news source, that 'whacking' or 'real' Donald Trump is appealing the decision of the 4 un-democratic Colorado judges, in the USA Supreme Court. May his appeal be fairly access.
Please factor in to your approval that the four judges who correctly found against Trump were elected, contrary to what you were led to believe.
The use of "precedence" is misleading. Of Course there is no precedence. No other President of the United States has committed insurrection. How can there be precedence.
There is no need to be "charged and convicted". Where in the Constitution does it say that? I'll save you the time looking, it does not.
I will agree that Trump's world is as anti-Democratic as it can get.
I agree with enumerable Conservative legal scholars and judges that it is high time that Trump be held accountable in this way and I am relatively confident that the textualist Conservatives will side with the ELECTED Colorado Supreme Court Justices.In Colorado, supreme court justices are initially appointed by governors.
Whatever voting process they go through to maintain their positions is almost irrelevant, as I doubt many people pay much attention, as these judges never have to run to be put on the Supreme Court.
So once again, you fail to leave out critical information.
Continuing in your failings, you try to make a claim that Trump is guilty of insurrection... according to who?
Section 3 of the Civil War-era 14th Amendment says: “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion."
Yes, there are many people who want to say what Trump did constitutes as such, and there are plenty of people who see that as BS.
Since there is a large portion of the country that believes this is nothing more than a political witch hunt against Trump, allowing four left-winged loonies to remove him from a State ballot isn't really beneficial to the country.
I am sure those judges got in touch with their inner feelings and felt the big bag Trump was too dangerous to be allowed on the ballots, but its not really their place to decide... its the people of America who should decide."as these judges never have to run to be put on the Supreme Court." - Do you also hold that Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito should be disallowed from doing the job that they were appointed (and in the case of the Colorado judges, re-elected) to do, interpret the Constitution?
As to the "since there is a large portion" claim, I think somebody else posted that a majority (54%) of Americans agree with the Colorado decision Clearly, your claim is wrong and the reverse is true.Wow... they were able to get the opinion of all Americans, I am sure only those of voting age, still that is quite impressive.
I remember telling Credence a couple years back, not to worry about Trump, he would be removed from a handful of States' ballots. Some of this stuff is so predictable, and wala, here we are.Yes, you did tell me that, Ken.
Trump is going to be harder to dispense with than this. He is the most slippery of serpents. If there is any room for a pro Trump interpretation by the SC, they will stretch "strict construction" as far as they need to.
By the way, it should be "Voila"... (fr.)Actually, they will have to turn "strict construction" on its head and totally disavow the concept in order not to agree with Colorado.
If you knew how terrible he was back then, why do you support Trump now?
Also, did you get the opinion of ALL Americans when you made your claim? I think not. At least YouGov, a respected polling organization, did a proper survey.
Hey, don't call out Ken for making it up as he goes along by claiming the larger portion agrees with him, despite it not even being close. And surely don't call him out for not knowing that these justices do have to get re-elected by the people of Colorado after just two years on the bench.
But it was especially nice of him to make the claim that you said Trump was guilty of insurrection - which I didn't see in your post at all. I called him out for something like that a few days ago, he seems to jump on board with twisting words into meanings that weren't actually meant, as he did when trying to say that Biden told colleges to ignore the ruling about racial considerations, which was Biden just giving an opinion on the ruling and nothing even remotely close to a direct address to colleges.
"This decision by the Colorado Supreme Court is bigger than just this election, it is bigger than Trump, it is about the very core principles of this country and its future... about abuse of power and authority.
If four unelected judges, using their own theory of law, that has no precedence, can remove someone from a ballot, who has not even been charged, let alone convicted, of the crime they are using to determine the reasoning for his removal... we no longer have anything resembling a Democracy, just a facade, an illusion, a mockery of one."
Needed repeating... This is the dumbest scam these fools have pulled.
It is very apparent they are panicking, The Democrats could not look more pathetic. Sorry, but come on they have pulled every grift in the book, none really worked, and now telling Americans ya just can't vote for him... Last I knew we had the choice of writing in a name.
As usual, Ken's post contains some misinformation that he's failed to check. The Colorado judges may have been appointed, but they have to run in the general election with something called a retention vote, where the people do actually re-elect them to their post every ten years. So, they do begin as 'unelected,' but after two years, the people actually do elect them to retain their positions.
And those four judges had to rule on an unprecedented aspect of the Constitution because no president in the history of the United States has rebelled against his own country the way Trump did when he organized, incited, and praised those who participated in the insurrection that he sent to the Capitol to 'Stop the Steal,' that he created from thin air to shield his bruised ego.
When we do not have accountability for someone who tries to steal an election that they so clearly lost, by using fake electors, trying to steal voter data, threatening election officials, defaming election workers, and finally using a violent insurrection to stop the certification in the hopes to get the vote kicked to state legislatures where they have the edge, the next person will just try any one of the same tactics, and that is what would actually end our democracy. What many of us cannot fathom is how so many can support such criminal actions against our country and our Constitution.The choice is often taken out of the people's hands by this thing called the Constitution. And who interprets the Constitution - judges. So yes, whether it be four or five judges, many of us believe it is exactly that amount of judges who often 'determine the fate of the nation.' They did so in Bush v Gore and Gore accepted the decision.
You may really like a 34-year old candidate. But the Constitution takes that choice out of your hand. You may really like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, but the Constitution takes that choice out of your hands because he's not a natural-born citizen. And you may like Trump, but multiple courts have found he engaged in insurrection, or given aid and comfort to those who did, and the Constitution prohibits people from running for office who have done that.
Difference here is that people under 35 and people who are not natural-born citizens often realize they are ineligible based on the law. Trump doesn't believe our laws should apply to him, which in and of itself should be disqualifying. Courts have looked at the facts about Trump's role in the insurrection, in a trial where Trump had legal representation, and they found he took actions that ban him from running for elected office ever again. Next, we will see if the Supreme Court agrees with that decision.Your first line is a reality that the other side refuses to accept - that judges, elected or unelected (like the Supreme Court), are the ones who the Constitution designates as the arbiters of such questions.
The Executive Branch does not have the power from Article II to determine whether something is constitutional or not. The Legislative Branch from Article I does not have that power either. ONLY the Judicial Branch is given that duty.
Yeah, I've already started investing in Kleenex just in case, so that I can reap the rewards from all the MAGA tears that'll need to be cleaned up.
So what do we MAGA supporters receive when the SC shoots down Colorado's ruling? A lot of sand being kicked around or listening to screams of "oh the injustice"?
Trump's 2016 win --- Russia Russia Russia --- impeachment one - impeachment two --- I think the landfill holds lots of kleenex with Demacratic tears.
Nah, we accept it and show up en masse to vote like we did in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Or we show how Trump's Campaign Chairman was colluding with Russia, to try and show the Trump cult that his campaign was secretively working directly with a hostile foreign nation. Something that apparently doesn't concern the MAGA cult at all. As every time I mention the numerous meetings where campaign strategy and internal polling data was passed to the Russians, suddenly the topic gets changed.
I am afraid that they rule in favor of Trump and say that their interpretation was consistent with a strict constructionist approach. That is what conservatives always do.
The ramifications of having several states remove Trump from the ballot would compel the Supreme Court to weigh in. If enough states follow Colorado's lead, particularly in what have been considered battle ground states, Trump is through.
Smith is smart in asking the SC to determine if Trump is entitled to immunity over his charges regarding the election process and mishandling of classified documents.
Trump knows that that is a non starter for him so he wants to stall their involvement for as long as he can, but Smith knows this and is determined to take that option away from him.
A conviction in a court of law will take the ambiguity away from the idea that Trump is being subject to partisan bias, another excuse that we could do without. It would leave no doubt that he can be be disqualified under Section 3. That is why he must do everything and anything to avoid a trial.It is misleading and misinformation to claim categorically that the Democrats Superdelegates are there to thwart the will of the people. (BTW, 7% of the Republican delegates are superdelegates as well.)
In any case, here is a good source of the history and purpose of superdelegates in the political process.
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-supe … es-3367439"They (the Plaintiffs in this case) claimed that Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“Section Three”) disqualified President Trump from seeking the presidency. More specifically, they asserted that he was ineligible under Section Three because he engaged in insurrection on January 6, 2021, after swearing an oath as President to support the U.S. Constitution."
There are several things that must be proved in order for the Court to agree with their claim. But, to lay the ground work it must be noted that the lower court, after a five day trial where Trump's lawyers represented him the judge found that:
1) "by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three. Anderson v. Griswold, No. 23CV32577, ¶¶ 241, 298 (Dist. Ct., City & Cnty. of Denver, Nov. 17, 2023)."
2) "But, the district court concluded, Section Three does not apply to the (a) President." because Section 3 does not specifically say the office of the President is an "office" (even though the Constitution does refer to the Office of the President as an office more than 20 times in other sections.)
Consequently, the judge found that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to a President of the United States.
The Colorado Supreme Court held that she was correct regarding Trump engaging in the activity of insurrection (notice, it says nothing about being found guilty of it in a court of law, something NOT required by the amendment, only that he engaged in it - of which there was clear and convincing evidence.) But, the Court also held that the trial judge erred in her opinion that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the nations executive.
The Court began its analysis an overview of Section Three. They then addressed threshold address threshold questions regarding:
(1) whether the Election Code provides a basis for review of the Electors’ claim,
(2) whether Section Three requires implementing legislation15 before its disqualification provision attaches, and
(3) whether Section Three poses a nonjusticiable political question."
After concluding that these threshold issues do not prevent the Court from reaching the merits, they considered
"whether Section Three applies to a President." and if it does:
1) address the admissibility of Congress’s January 6 Report (the “Report”)
2) reviewing the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its determination that President Trump engaged in insurrection.
3) consider President Trump’s argument that his speech on January 6 was protected by the First Amendment."[/i]
To be continued..."Reconstruction ushered in the Fourteenth Amendment, which includes Section Three, a provision addressing what to do with those individuals who held positions of political power before the war, fought on the side of the Confederacy, and then sought to return to those positions.[/ii]. It reads:
[i]"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
The first thing the Court considered is whether this language was clear on its face or was ambiguous. If it is clear, then they can use the accepted meanings of the words without having to look elsewhere to understand what the drafters intent was. (This is strict constructionism, the right's favorite goto.) They determined that Section Three was not ambiguous in its meaning or intent, which to any fair-minded reader is obvious.
Next up is whether the State has the authority to adjudicate this question. This is a point brought up by opponents in this forum and one of the dissenting judges (I think).
The Elector's (the Plaintiffs) claim is that under Colorado law, it would be a breach of duty for the Secretary of State to put a name on a ballot that was not qualified to be there. For example, if a candidate did not pay their application fee or gain enough valid signatures then their name could not be placed on either the primary or general election ballot.
Trump argued that 1) the Elector's claim is a "constitutional claim" and therefore out of the purview of State law, 2) the state Secretary of State lacks the authority to interfere with a political party's decision-making process, 3) she also lacks authority to interfere with a Party's First Amendment right of association to select its own candidate, and 4) " President Trump argues that the expedited procedures under section 1-1-113 are insufficient to evaluate the Electors’ claim". The Court considered each of these arguments.
To be continuedInteresting. But I'm yet to form an opinion, or expression. Waiting when you conclude.
To answer these questions, the Court first reviewed the Colorado State Constitution. They found that "Article VII, Section 11 of the Colorado Constitution commands the General Assembly to “pass laws to secure the purity of elections, and guard against abuses of the elective franchise.”. It further establishes that the " the Secretary’s duties under the Election Code include supervising the conduct of primary and general elections in the state and enforcing the provisions of the Election Code.".
It further found that " Part 12 of article 4 of the Election Code governs presidential primary elections. See generally §§ 1-4- ... [which] explains that “it is the intent of the People of the State of Colorado that the provisions of this part 12 conform to the requirements of federal law and national political party rules governing presidential primary elections.” . This reference indicates that the legislature envisioned part 12 as operating in harmony with federal law."
So, bottom line, do Colorado courts have jurisdiction to hear the kind of case the Electors brought be for it. Obviously, it does.
Next, do the Electors have "standing" meaning can they bring an action to the courts? Well, given the above, the Court found that "Electors have stated a proper claim under sections 1-4-1204 and 1-1-113."
This section answers the first two objections Trump presented: 1) the Elector's claim is a "constitutional claim" and therefore out of the purview of State law, 2) the state Secretary of State lacks the authority to interfere with a political party's decision-making process, The Courts conclusion is that the state does have "purview" and that the Secretary of State does have, by state statute, the authority to oversee a political party's decision-making process.
To be continued.At the end of the day, Laws, Rules, Regulations, Statutes, are only as good as the people who enforce them.
When those who are enforcing them are biased, corrupt, and evil, then the laws are twisted to commit wrongdoing and evil.
Joseph Stalin killed at least 9 million people through mass murder, forced labor, and famine, but the true figure may be as high as 60 million. From the 1920s through his death in 1953, Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union through fear and Law, everything done was affirmed and supported by the law of that regime at that time.
In Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, under the leadership of Pol Pot, the government caused the deaths of more than one million people from forced labor, starvation, torture, or execution while carrying out a program of radical social and agricultural reforms. Lawful according to the ruling government at that time.
They can throw all the legal reasoning they want to at this, at the end of the day they are stealing the choice from the people. They are ensuring the people are restricted in their choices of who can become President.
They are denying a former President, and current Front Runner, more popular than any other politician in the race, from either Party, from running.
That, no matter how you want to slice it, is un-Democratic and un-American.You do realize, don't you, that the only brainwashing that has happened is by Trump. There is even scientific evidence to back that up, which I have presented several times earlier and therefore won't repeat.
"They can throw all the legal reasoning they want to at this, at the end of the day they are stealing the choice from the people. They are ensuring the people are restricted in their choices of who can become President." - AS IT SHOULD BE when someone who is not qualified to run attempts to do so.
I take it you oppose, filing fees, a requirement to gather signatures, and the like to be equally wrong as you apparently think keeping a constitutionally prohibited insurrectionist off the ballot is?If only you could proven that he is guilty of insurrection. It would make an enormous difference...but of course that has never been determined in a court. Only in the media, and in the minds of those with TDS that will concoct any reason at all to remove him from politics.
TDS - Trump Demagogue Syndrome. Denoted by those denying the reality that evidence was presented and a lawyer was there to defend Trump at a trial about whether his actions constituted engagement in insurrection, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Then a judge, after hearing that evidence, was able to conclude that his actions constituted insurrection. The shifting of the goalposts of those that suffer from Trump Demagogue Syndrome that demand a guilty conviction, despite that not being a necessity of the Amendment that is written into the Constitution, is typical inventing of new standards for their cult leader to absolve him of culpability for his actions.
Who says you have to PROVE anything? The Constitution certainly doesn't. Remember, he is not being tried and put in jail for committing insurrection, which does require a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Several judges have found that Trump committed insurrection by the preponderance of the evidence.
What these good Americans are doing is applying the Constitution to his actions which are unquestionably part of an insurrection.LOL Of course you don't need a conviction if someone is not on trial. OR if you just state it was "unquestionably part of an insurrection" without bothering to have a trial over it. Certainly that's what Colorado appears to have done, with the result Trump lost his Constitutional rights.
Well done, Colorado! It's not difficult to take someone's rights away with the right court - is the next step to take away the right to freedom if you wear a MAGA hat?Why do you keep lying about there not being a trial in Colorado where a Trump attorney represented Trump and the attorneys for the six Republicans who brought the suit presented their evidence? Actually, don't bother answering - if you're going to deny these basic facts of the case and fail to read the actual results of the case, you're just inventing things that aren't relevant to the discussion.
'the Court first reviewed the Colorado State Constitution'. This is eye opening in the legal system of the USA. States have constitutions? Not so in my country, Nigeria. The only 1999 Federal Constitution of the Republic of Nigeria, apply to all the 36 states, including the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, which isn't a state. Critically, it'll be interestly for me to noted if the Supreme Court of a state like Colorado, has equal status in the interpretation of a case per Trump, as the Supreme Court of USA.
The US Constitution establishes a "federal democratic republic" form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States led by a federal government Originally, there were 13 independent sovereign states. The Constitution banded these states together and created a federal organization made up of an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch with the responsibilities laid out in the Preamble to our federal Constitution -
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
As to status - yes and no. There are things that are solely the purview of the States. There are other things that are solely the purview of the federal government. And finally, there are things that are shared by both.
Critical to this discussion are the shared responsibilities laid out in Section 4 or Article 1 of our Constitution.
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."
Consequently, each states constitution and implementing regulations set up how each state conducts its elections (subject to change by the US Congress). That is what gives the state judicial branch and state Secretary of State the authority to oversee or make judgement regarding the Colorado election process.
Here, the Colorado Supreme Court has the authority to make a ruling, but the US Supreme Court, if it chooses to do so, can make a superseding ruling.Thank you. My question is now clear by your last paragraphy. In my Nigeria, the Colorado constitution, is what's supposed to be called state law. The Federal laws had a upper hand over all states, and local government laws, where the laters conflicted with the federal status, and the federal constitution. In Nigeria, certain laws are shared by the 3 tiers of government. And all have equal jurisdiction. A state can bench press the federal government. But local governments hardly had the power.
It looks like Trump was successful in avoiding justice a little longer. The Supreme Court turned down Smith's request to by-pass the appellate process. After reading CNN's analysis and can see why they did.
No doubt Smith will not make his March 8 date so it will be interesting to see how they juggle calendars. Oral arguments are due Jan 9, I think, and the DC Appellate Court is fast-tracking it themselves (probably why the SC didn't take it up).It appears the SC wants Smith to go through the correct pathway to be heard at SC level. Appears they do things by the book much of the time.
I seem to recall that this Court has made a practice of by-passing appellate courts, especially when Republicans ask for it; more than any Court before it. In fact, since 2019, the Court has accepted 14 Writs of Certiorari. Between 1991 and 2018, the Court accepted only 3!
It appears this Court DOES NOT do things by the book much of the time. Don't you agree?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/the- … -judgment/
That said, I am not sure why Smith chose this route. Since he is an honest and smart prosecutor, I trust his reasons.Yes, and I wonder what aspects of this court we can expect to not do things by the book?
If this is not partisanship to explain the "difference"? Could we really be surprised if the Court decides to issue a ruling contrary to "the book" on Trump being removed as a candidate under Section 3?
The restraint we were all anticipating from the court has not come to pass. I would have thought that the immunity issue would be an important one to determine right away, but Smith will be stuck not being able to get a trial underway as long as this remains an open question. So, why the delay?The appellate process could take months with needless and interminable delays. I still do not trust the jurisprudence and integrity of a hard right wing oriented judiciary.
Trump is feeding on the endless wrangling and delays to avoid being prosecuted before the election
Deja vu?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/history-bad- … 20681.htmlI think Colorado is different from Roe. We do know this Court doesn't give a damn about precedence, hell, some of them outright lied to Senators regarding their belief in it. So we can't count on the Nixon decision to provide any guidance, they'd as soon throw that onto the trash heap of history just like they did Roe,
* Citizens United v. FEC overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC
* South Dakota v. Wayfair overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas v. Department of Revenue of Illinois
* Janus v. AFSCME overturned Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (a big win for anti-union forces)
* Bell Atlantic v. Twombly overturned Conley v. Gibson
Those are some of the precedents that the Roberts' Court overturned.
All that said, I think the Roberts' Court will rule against Trump in the immunity issue as well as the Colorado Court issue.
1. I just can't envision even idiots like Thomas (who out to recuse himself) and Alito agree that a president can be above all laws including the Constitution.
2. As others have pointed out here, it makes no sense whatsoever that the strict constructionists on the Court would all of the sudden shed themselves of that trait and rule that 1) Office of the President IS NOT an executive office as specified in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (maybe Thomas would) and 2) the actions of Trump around January 6 does not constitute insurrection as defined in Section 3 (Alito may join Thomas on this one in order to protect Trump).
Plenty of reasons for them to deny skipping the appellate level. The first being they will have a more pressing case pertaining to Colorado to contend with now. Second, Chutkin's ruling is pretty self-evident in that if they grant Trump's immunity claims, they basically say that a president is free to commit crimes while in office, including having his opponent in any upcoming election murdered. They can let the appeals court handle that one, as it does have some precedent with US v Nixon to fall back to, and then refuse to hear it after that if they get it right. Lastly, there is the fact that the appellate court is already expediting the case and will have a hearing in early January.
Of course, if I was part of the far-right, and this was a liberal court, I might say that they are trying to delay to assist Trump in pushing the case past the 2024 election. But I don't think that is the case here.
There was precedence for Smith attempting to circumvent the appellate Court. It is obvious that the case will be heard by the Supreme Court after that.
New audio (he really should keep his mouth shut) of Trump reveals that he and RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel coerced two Republican canvassers not to sign the certification of Wayne County votes.
They initially voted no on certifying the results (wonder who got to them before hand) but after discussion changed their vote to yes. Then Trump and McDaniel called and they refused to sign. What stops this from being a crime is that they had already voted yes, so their signatures were not needed.
However, this is wonderful evidence Special Counsel Smith can use in his case against Trump attempting to overthrow the 2020 election. It is a shame McDaniel can't be charged with election interference. Instead, MAGA will probably give her an award for trying.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/politics … index.htmlTurns out Trump and Ronna McDaniel probably DID bread the law (I didn't realize this originally). It turns out they told the two canvassers to not sign the certification (which they obeyed) and Trump and Ronna will take care of their legal bills. That is called bribery - offering something of value to accomplish an official act.
The Michigan Attorney General is definitely looking into this and I bet Special Counsel Smith and the Atlanta DA are as well.
At the end of the day, Laws, Rules, Regulations, Statutes, are only as good as the people who enforce them. When people have been brainwashed to think that those who are enforcing them are biased, corrupt, and evil, then they no longer believe in a democracy with three co-equal branches and have instead pledged their loyalty to a dictator.
A former President, and current Front Runner, more unpopular than any other politician in the race, from either Party, one indicted on 91-counts of illegal activity, has through his own actions robbed his faithful cult following of the ability to vote for him in 2024.
If he had only accepted his defeat in 2020, engaged in the peaceful transfer of power, and not used lies to foment an attack on his own Congress at the very moment they were to certify his loss, he would not have prevented himself from appearing on Colorado's ballot.
The Republican Party - clearly not the party of personal responsibility any longer. Everything is someone else's fault.If the second amendment is sacrosanct, so is the fourteenth. And anyone who ever took the oath "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" cannot in keeping with that oath support Trump. Period. Full Stop. No excuses.
Are you saying that anyone who would vote for Trump today does not support the Constitution? Makes sense.
How do you come about Trump being an "insurrectionist"?
Who has the authority to determine this, to decide that a particular tweet, or sentence taken out of context from a speech is what constitutes an insurrection?
Since there is no clear and agreed upon determination that Trump is an "insurrectionist" then there is no reason why a judgement by any single Judge or judges should be able to act against Trump and the citizens of the United States to take their choice, their self-determination, away from them.
This is not justice, this is political malpractice through the judicial system and anyone who ever took the oath "to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" cannot in keeping with that oath support anyone who supports taking Trump off the ballot of any State. Period. Full Stop. No Excuses.Our system does trust judges, at multiple levels, to have the authority to determine if conduct violates the law or the Constitution. It's kind of what you sign up for by living in this country. Unless you are MAGA. Then, you unquestioningly accept the word of a known conman found liable for fraud and sexual abuse.
So far, two different courts have agreed that Trump's actions were an act of engagement in insurrection, or giving aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. It's not lost on all of us on the left how many times the commentors on the right in these forums leave out the second half of Section III to try and alleviate the culpability of Trump's acts.
So to state that 'there is no clear and agreed upon determination that Trump is an "insurrectionist" is just not accurate in any sense.' It would have been more accurate to state that MAGA does not agree with the findings of the courts, and they do not believe in court rulings that go against their cult leader."Our system does trust judges, at multiple levels, to have the authority to determine if conduct violates the law or the Constitution."
True. With, of course, the caveat that an active defense is permitted. No judge has the trust or authority to declare guilt without that active defense.True, and someday we all hope that MAGA realizes that Trump had an attorney present in the original Colorado case to make his defense, and that he did not need to be there since it was not a criminal trial. So, Trump was able to present his defense through his representative, and because this was a finding of fact and not a case 'to declare guilt,' as MAGA continues to confuse the type of trial that this was. After both sides presented their cases, the judge ruled.
How do I come about it? I use my eyes, ears, mind, and common sense. I am also guided by several court rulings, the opinions of multiple conservative legal scholars, and trial/appeal judges handing our sentences to other members of the insurrection.
It is the Constitution that is act[ing] against Trump and the citizens of the United States to take their choice, their self-determination, away from them.. Are you saying the Constitution is not just? Are you saying the Constitution should simply be ignored in order to keep your preferred candidate on the ballot?Let alone that there is precedent from 2022 where the courts ruled another insurrectionist permanently ineligible for public office:
https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-sie … urrection/I'll go out on a limb here and guess that he was convicted of the Jan riot. Now show me where Trump was convicted of a crime (specifically "insurrection") in that affair?
Here, I'll spoon-feed the pertinent information as always.
“The Court concludes that the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol and the surrounding planning, mobilization, and incitement constituted an ‘insurrection’ within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the ruling states.
The ruling said that Griffin helped “mobilize and incite thousands across the country to join the mob” in Washington, D.C., where he was a speaker in a multi-city bus tour organized by the group Stop the Steal.
“Applying these principles, the Court concludes that Mr. Griffin ‘engaged in’ the January 6 insurrection,” the judge said.
Does that sound like anyone else who helped plan, mobilize, and incite the crowd that day? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler? And then for Trump, you've got the inciting tweet at 2:24pm telling the already-violent crowd that Pence is not going to help them 'stop the steal.'
Of course, after that, the judge also noted Griffin's acts on January 6. But, if you had bothered to read the ruling at the link I so generously provided, you could have noted that engaging in insurrection had already been established before any actions on the 6th.And you forgot to mention that Trump was tried for insurrection in the Colorado lower court and she found clear and convincing evidence as (as you said several times) a matter of fact that Trump had been involved in an insurrection as meant by Section 3.
There are select Americans that seem to be unaware of the fact that the Justice system can be weaponized.
They do not believe that the FBI can be weaponized either it appears.
When testimony and documentation are provided that show that there were FBI agents within the Jan 6th protest that were agitating the crowd into action that is to them irrelevant.
When one goes further and looks into the efforts of those who were part of that crowd who were acting on behalf of the FBI (DOJ) efforts to 'save their own skins' then it appears even more like this was instigated deliberately.
Everything needs to be questioned, everything needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is by default a necessity that we give the benefit of the doubt to Trump, not because we like him, but because this is about more than him, it is about how much self-determination the citizens of America have over their country.
We live in a country that we know is corrupt... we have had a President assassinated in living memory, under suspicious circumstances that has left questions in many people's minds, even now... despite 60 years to determine the truth of the matter.
We have a President sitting in the office today that we know has relatives that have seen incredible sums of money flow to them through unjustifiable board positions in foreign nations and in vast sums being given to them through investment firms... we have a President who has supported senseless avoidable war, while allowing hundreds of billions to flow to a nation that want nothing more than our total destruction that funds terrorists to war against our interests.
Most importantly IMO... we have a President that came out and said that the greatest threat to 'Democracy' were Americans. Labeling Trump supporters 'domestic terrorists'... at a time when they have changed the rules so that anyone labeled a terrorist by the FBI has forfeited all rights and protections that are promised to them by the Constitution.
For example, the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act “mandates that the State Department develop a strategy for countering white identity terrorism globally.” To be a Trump supporter is to be a white supremacist.
FBI Director Christopher Wray said a couple years back "We elevated racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism to our highest threat priority, on the same level with ISIS and homegrown violent extremists, where it remains to this day."
Applying the label, terrorism, is saying the government has carte blanche to use every asset and every resource and endless amounts of money without any real critical thought applied to that decision.
Hard to imagine that we live in a country, where the current President has voiced his opinion, that to be a Trump supporter is to be a terrorist, therefore leaving open the possibility that upwards of 75 million Americans are now considered terrorists by their own government.No, many Americans are aware of the weaponization of the Justice system - they watched Trump do it for four years!!! Biden has spent the last three years "unweaponizing" it. Of course, it is necessary for their sanity for MAGA to PROJECT onto Biden what Trump is guilty of.
Trump supporter is to be a terrorist," that are simply lies. SADThe Biden Administration has weaponized the DOJ (and hence the FBI) like no Administration in U.S. History.
Fully biased attacks not just against Trump, but anyone they consider an enemy to their progressive efforts to change America.
Even as Biden accuses Trump of threatening our democracy, he is employing agencies of the federal government to harass and punish Elon Musk.
Why?
Because Musk has the temerity to criticize Biden and champion free speech.
In addition, Musk released the infamous Twitter files, which showed the White House conspiring to censor communications on platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
Exposing truth is of course the biggest crime one can commit against the Biden Administration, truth is threat #1 to our 'Democracy'.
Biden is throwing everything it can find at Musk, hoping that the endless barrage of regulatory, reputational and legal attacks will cause the world’s wealthiest man to kneel before its authority.
The viciousness of the investigations being conducted by the Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service against a successful American business leader is unprecedented.
It says much more about the corrupt and vindictive nature of Joe Biden than it does about the founder of Tesla, SpaceX and the Boring Company.
This Administration, also uses the excuse of "equity" and "identity" to clean out positions throughout the government of people who do not kneel to their ideology, to evolve America into a fascist tyrannical State it is fast becoming.
There is only one word fitting to describe this Administration and its efforts, and that is evil the likes of which has lead nations in history down dark and horrific roads of destruction."The Biden Administration has weaponized the DOJ (and hence the FBI) like no Administration in U.S. History." - EVERYBODY needs to know that that is not true. It is the figment of someone's imagination and has zero, nada, none, no basis in FACT.
If Musk is championing free speech, why does he suppress it so much?So much conspiracy theory in those posts. I'm glad some have chosen not to respond to me any longer. Most of the stuff in those posts just shows how radicalized people of this forum have become. Calling Biden evil and posting all that anti-FBI rhetoric that is basically a repeat of the same stuff that led to them being attacked in Cincinnati.
I find that stuff very unamerican and a continuation of what we saw on January 6 - the incitement through social media to justify violence against law enforcement. It's why people like you and I see MAGA as the threat that they are. They complain about being called the greatest threats to democracy while turning a blind eye to the hundreds of death threats their cult is lobbing at judges, prosecutors, and election officials - as well as violent attacks on the government, police and the FBI, all for doing their jobs and having someone as vile as Trump make up falsehoods about them.
No one would care about them living in a world of alternative facts - except those alternate facts and the violent rhetoric from their cult leader is turning many of them violent. It's why many sane Americans remove MAGA people from their social circles, because it's gets tiresome deprogramming the lies and distortions like we just saw above. It's part of what undermines the credibility of this site, the amount of misinformation that passes through this forum particularly.Let me reemphasize your point about the MAGA propensity to violence. We got a minuscule taste of what so many thousands of law-abiding, just-doing-their-jobs Americans have had to suffer through with the Ruby Freeman - Wandrea Moss fraud trial was just concluded.
The vileness of the Trump inspired MAGA vermin who attack our election workers and judges and anyone else who opposes Trump in the name of saving our nation is driven by some of the rhetoric we see on this forum.
Further, let me point out that, to use Trump's own words, it is a plurality of white MAGA cult members that are "poisoning the blood of our nation!"
I agree, alternative facts are fine - until they become dangerous and destabilize our nation.
He wasn't and as I explained earlier, he doesn't need to be convicted of a crime to be disallowed from being on the Colorado ballot. Show me where in the Constitution, federal or Colorado, that is says he must be convicted of a crime to be kept off the Colorado ballot.
Trump never brought that up at his trial in Colorado. He didn't mention it as a defense in front of the CO SC. How come? Did his lawyers simply forget to raise that defense or is it that it doesn't matter?
We all know you can't find such a thing otherwise you would have offered it already.
It is not the right of a single Judge to determine a matter of this magnitude. Or even a handful of Judges.
I recognize this is beyond you... and those on here that support your position... the ends justify the means... whatever it takes to remove Trump.
The people cannot be allowed the choice, even a sliver of a chance that he be elected by the people is too great to be allowed.
That is not justice and that is not Democracy.
Support the few in their tyranny over the many, if you want, for that is what our system is today... as it wars against nations without the people's consent, as it spends trillions of dollars indebting the people to a future of economic hardships that never had to occur.
As the Biden Administration forces Americans to accept millions of non-citizens by the millions every year. As the Biden Administration put Equity above Equality... Identity above Merit... Feelings above facts.All I get from the above is you don't like our system of government and justice. That, of course, is your right. You are obviously wrong in your conspiracy theories, but it is OK to be wrong.
14 Amendment - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
So what is factual, is the Colorado Court of Appeal's decision was Trump's name could remain on the ballot, However, the Judge stated in her opinion Trump was guilty of insurrection. Yet she did not take away his privilege to be on the ballot. GO FIGURE.
The Colorado Supreme Court made the unprecedented decision to keep former President Donald Trump off of the state's 2024 presidential Republican primary ballot and prohibit the counting of any write-in votes for him, ruling that the former president violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
So, it will be up to the United States Supreme Court if Trump is guilty of insurrection and determine if his name will be allowed on the ballot.
At this point, this seems very fair. There will be no reason for the question if Trump committed insurrection. I would also think the SC decision will weigh heavily on the Smith Trial.It is interesting to note that the Colorado Supreme Court found Trump guilty of insurrection...without ever hearing any defense of any kind. Trump's rights have been abridged without any defense being permitted - his constitutionally guaranteed rights at that!
Just not true in any way. Trump did have counsel there to present his defense in the original trial. Let alone that the Colorado Supreme Court did not find him guilty of anything. They upheld a finding of fact that Trump's actions constituted engagement in insurrection, or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Trump had his day in court, he just chose not to appear there personally, instead letting others represent his interests in the case.
I guess those that hold the view that Trump did not engage in insurrection because he has never been tried or convicted of it would say the same thing about those who fired on Fort Sumpter. Because the cannoneers and their superiors were never tried and convicted of insurrection must mean that didn't commit it, lol.
Another example I have used before - if Wilderness watches me run a red light, he can not claim I ran the red light because i haven't been tried and convicted of it (no cop around or red light camera).
Actually, it was the lower court who determined that Trump had committed insurrection and Trump did present evidence in his defense.
The Colorado SC simply reviewed that finding and agreed with it.
No, what is factual is that the Colorado Supreme Court found that the Colorado Secretary of State is forbidden to put Trump's name on the ballot.
They also said that their order is stayed to give Trump a chance to appeal their decision. If he doesn't appeal, then his name is kept off the ballot.
If he does appeal, then the ruling is Temporarily stayed and Trump's name can go on the ballot until such time as the US Supreme Court rules.
The lower court found that Trump committed insurrection. But, she also found that Section Three did NOT apply to the Office of the President and therefore Trump's name could stay. The Colorado SC agreed that there is clear and convincing evidence that Trump committed insurrection but disagreed that the Office of the President is not covered by Section 3. Therefore, Trump's name cannot go on the ballot.
I would be a little surprised if the US SC even took the appeal unless it is to settle the question of weather Section Three applies to the Office of the President.
The question as whether Trump was part of an insurrection is effectively settled by several courts, common sense, the opinions of multiple conservative legal scholars, and trial and appeal judges handing our sentences to other members of the insurrection.
If the US Supreme Court agrees with the Colorado Supreme Court, which is very likely, then his name will not appear on the Colorado Republican primary ballot. If the US Court disagrees, then his name will remain on the ballot.
A 2022 precedent would disagree with the statement that a single judge cannot disqualify someone from office for insurrection.
https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-sie … urrection/
In the Trump case, the decision was appealed and the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection was upheld, and then the Colorado Supreme Court ruled much the same way that the New Mexico court ruled in finding that they did have the right to permanently ban someone from running for public office for their actions.
And anyone banned can appeal their case to the Supreme Court, and there's even a backup that would allow Congress to overrule the courts in such a case if they believed the ruling to be unjust. So to claim that a single judge has made the determination ignores the actual processes where a single judge, followed by a seven-judge bench, followed by a nine-judge bench will all have a chance to weigh in according to the actual process. We on the left recognize that this is beyond some to understand when they try and claim that it is just a 'single judge determining a matter of this magnitude.'Trump lawyers has appealed, and his name stays on the Colorado ballot box. It remained the decision of the USA SC to upheld, or deny the Colorado quetion, or prayer. Does fortune still favours the brave? Think about Macbeth here?
I assume you are not talking about Trump who is one of the biggest cowards of all time.
My Exoteric? Trump a coward, and 'the greatest coward of all time'? Could you tell that to Appolonus, the Jew? And in spite of all the legal battles he's putting up with, Trump, still shuts for the presidential race. Could a coward in the sense of the word go that far? Oh yes, Trump, is being battled on all sides, whether it's his making, or not. The guy clearly depicted the Spirit of Apollo.
Sigh? Yea, that's the 'real' whacking Trump.
Why do some on this forum keep throwing these unsourced firebombs such as "where the current President has voiced his opinion, that to be a Trump supporter is to be a terrorist," that are simply lies.
OR When testimony and documentation are provided that show that there were FBI agents within the Jan 6th protest that were agitating the crowd into action that is to them irrelevant" - Another lie bemuse it is well kwon that this has been debunked many times over.
OR " we have a President that came out and said that the greatest threat to 'Democracy' were Americans." - This is simply made up and not true yet this very dangerous disinformation is allowed to happen.I don't get it. Some on this forum are purposefully being obtuse. They claim Trump didn't get a trial where the conclusion was that he participated in an insurrection. Yet, after being shown that not to be true, Trump DID GET A TRIAL, SEVERAL times, they turn a blind eye to the evidence and continue to repeat the lie. On top of that, they have the audacity to pile untrue hyperbole on top of that.
It makes having a sane conversation almost impossible and forces one to spend a lot of time and energy refuting the lies and disinformation.This is a wild stretch of the imagination, and it surprises me that people are still buying into this. Look, if you want to call out an insurrection or an attempt to overthrow the government, one need only look at the antics of the Democrat party during the entire time Trump was president.
He was duly elected. The Democrats tried to remove him from office several times and first talked about impeachment before he was even sworn in and officially became the president.
January 6th was one day, is highly suspect as to who was actually behind it, but the insurrection of the Democrat party lasted not only four years, but continues to this day as they try to rig yet another election, this time by removing their strongest opponent.Weak attempt to deflect away from Trump's multiple-pronged coup plans.
It was proven that Trump's Campaign Chairman was colluding with Russian Intelligence (not that I think you've ever accepted these basic facts), so the concerns that the Democrats had about Trump potentially being compromised by Russia has some backing. Then Trump tried to blackmail a foreign nation to fabricate a scandal about his main political opponent. Then he organized and incited a domestic terror attack on his own Congress to try and stop them from certifying his loss. And the only people who believe the people behind January 6 are 'suspect' are conspiracy theorists, likely the same ones that would be willing to attack their own nation again.
Let alone thinking that a suit brought by six republican voters is the Democrats removing their strongest opponent. Voters on both sides of the aisle see cause for keeping an insurrectionist like Trump off the ballot and two different courts have now agreed with them.OH, good point - six Republican voters brought suit against Trump.
At what time did the Democrats send hoards of people into the Capital to destroy it and kill Pence and Pelosi and others? None. So it seems your claims are bogus.
Jan 6 is only SUSPECT to MAGA cult members. Everybody else knows this was a violent insurrection led by Trump.
As to the Democrats going after Trump - they only went after him when he gave them good cause, such as leading an insurrection or trying to get a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election. Other than the two well deserved impeachments, one of which almost overcame the MAGA blockade in the Senate, what else did the Democrats do that is any different than what the Republicans are doing, unwarrantedly, to Biden?
6 Republicans voters generated the Colorado Suprme Court question? When a house is dividing against itself, are these sixes moles, or something else? It make me quetion if more cracks will rise up?
There is a very large contingent of Republican's who still love America and don't want to see a dangerous demagogue get back in power. Many of those Republicans voted for Biden in 2020.
Almost all of the Election Supervisors and Secretary of States who stood up to Trump's attempt at a coup were Republicans. Of course there is Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, whose politics are abhorrent to people like me, but are nevertheless TRUE Americans who love their country and found that Trump participated in an insurrection.I agree, I believe they will go to great lengths to see that Biden is not allowed another four years.
And I would bet almost 100% of them regret that decision today.
As bad as things have been, Biden still has a whole year to make things a lot worse, and I suspect that will be the case.
For a lot of people 2016 was anyone but Hillary... and in 2020 for a lot of Americans sick of being brow-beaten that became anyone but Trump... well you can pretty much resign yourself to it being as strong as it was in 2016 or 2020 this time it will be 'Anyone but Biden' in 2024.You would lose that bet big time. They will vote for him again rather than a criminal like Trump. WHY,? Because the Mantra already is "anybody but Trump" (except in the MAGA cult).
In all fairness, I must point out that Trump, like Hitler and the other dictators he admires, has done a few good things. The two that come to mind is Operation Warp Speed that got a vaccine (that MAGA rejected) to market in record time. Too bad he mitigated its good effect with doing about everything else wrong in regards to Covid.
The other is getting several Arab nations to recognize Israel (his son-in-law did that). Unfortunately, from an analysis a former Middle East ambassador I just heard, it may have had unforeseen consequences.
I seems, according to the ambassador, that the deal Jared made was "money for recognition". President Biden followed up on that and was getting very close to getting Saudi Arabia to get on board - a major, major victory.
But, he argues, "money-for-peace" isn't what the Arabs really want, it is "land-for-piece", e.g. a two-state solution. He thinks Hamas saw the writing on the wall with Saudi Arabia and decided to initiate the long-planned Oct 7 attack to put a stop to it.
Makes sense to me, given the timing.Making posts that are the equivalent to 'I know you are, but what am I.' now, I see.
And a whole lot of people were never-Trumpers in 2020. Since that time Trump:
1.) Organized and incited a domestic terror attack on his own Capitol to try and steal an election that he lost.
2.) Been indicted for defrauding the United States and RICO charges for his interference in Georgia's election.
3.) Knowingly took classified documents and then violated the law in trying to retain them.
4.) Is on tape showing off those classified documents to people without clearance at his golf club in New Jersey, putting our national security at risk.
5.) Is openly claiming responsibility for taking away a woman's right to choose.
6.) Has been found liable of sexual abuse and defamation in New York.
7.) Company has been found to have committed fraud in New York.
8.) Is openly quoting Adolph Hitler at campaign rallies.
But sure, tell us all again how he's become so much more popular over the past three years.Only with those that want to be like him.
Here's a story of one that got away...when she's describing herself as a conservative, it sounded oddly familiar to many of the people we see here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9kFutkxnw
Hi, don't you think biden's failing points is giving Trump, an edge? As an outsider, I've not bad mouth biden, though I join the fun when he fell and fell climbing the stir of Air Force One jet. Aside, why old joe bidden, failed to detonated those tiny bots China, sent up the sky, when he became president, shows weakness.
@Eso, @Ken, and @Valeant. Thanks guys, for enably me with your insights. America stilll has a choice. It's either biden, or Trump. Decideing wisely is the key.
You are welcome, I am always trying to provide alternate viewpoints from the MSM and Biden Administration narrative.
Speaking of which, you can watch a 2 hour in depth documentary about Jan 6 and the "insurrection" that is not MSM news:
https://twitter.com/EpochTimes/status/1 … 3263118566
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/t … ry-4596670You can certainly watch, but realize it is fake news.
While the rest of America celebrated Christmas Sunday and Monday, Trump reinforced the observations that he has lost it, that he is no longer mentally stable and is certainly STILL unfit for office.
He spent those two sacred days yelling and railing at the world about how terrible his life is. He added a new line, at least to me, that effectively admitted he was attempting a coup. He argues that his attempts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election represented a vital defense of American democracy[/u[ and were thus [u]perfectly legal. The proper course of action, obviously, would have been to follow the Constitution and PEACEFULLY turn over power to the victor, President Biden, and fought his battles in court. Instead, he initialed a so far failed coup.
The rest of the posts on Lie Social (need to call it what it really is) were his standard "poor me", lies. It is so very SAD that eighty million American's have embraced his con and his insanity and joined the MAGA cult and are now threatening the very existence of America as we know it.
It needs to be read to be believed that this is how he spends Christmas.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/26/politics … index.htmlAnd to put a point to the end of Christmas, the military wing of the MAGA cult is busy threatening the lives of the Colorado judges who ruled that Trump can't be on the 2024 primary ballot.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/25/politics … index.htmlIt comes down to character. Either you have it and value it or you don't even recognize when you see a serious lack of it. Has nothing to do with your investment accounts.
To me what matter much now is the next presidential election. Two big birds are majoring in the race. And its 10 just months to November. God save America!
Happy holidays everyone. But forgive my typo in the last sentence above. I mean to write it's 'just 10 months to November election'. Anyway, God save America!
It is going to be an interesting 10 months for sure, trying to get to that election.
We are certainly a divided country... the former barometer of oppression or victimization used to be based on class (economic status) and they have substituted that in America with Race (Identity Politics) which is far more appealing to the elites, you can be Lebron James or Oprah Winfrey and still be a victim and preach to poor whites how evil they are.
And of course, to be inclusive and get those looney well-off Leftists that hate themselves for being third-generation rich and feel guilty about having everything handed to them without working for it they allow LGBTQ+ to be front and center in their victimhood as well.
This way they can identify themselves as a non-binary pseudo-sexual repressed by the patriarchy fourth wave feminist and stand-side-by-side with Hamas as they beat to a bloody pulp a Jewish student on campus and feel good about it... they are victims too, after all, despite their daddy's trust fund paying for their 200k a year tuition to go to Harvard.
Throw in a world escalating fast toward WWIII and some turbulent economics ahead (maybe even a run on bank failures) and 2024 is just looking to be super.
But never you mind that... its likely to all work out just fine. So, Happy Holidays!Ken, happy holidays indeed. And whether a person knows and worship God or not, God, forbid evil things. Good people and good things are every. The bad eggs are just a minority, even in the polity. Seriously, and critically, Nigeria, my country is passing through the polity America had, but the effect was worst on the economy on a personal level.
"substituted that in America with Race " - THE division is simple: Your side wants to set race relations back to the 1950s while my side wants keep it what the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts intended to happen. Currently, your side is winning and are slowly pushing Blacks to the back of the bus again.
The rest is, well you fulminating."Currently, your side is winning and are slowly pushing Blacks to the back of the bus again."
They would try, but none of us have the patience to go through another round of Civil Rights struggles the way it was done in the sixties. I would not go there if I were them.....If the MAGA cult wins and we become an extension of Russia, the sixties protest will look like a walk in the park by comparison.
Fortunately, I don't see that happening. The House is certain to flip Blue again, by a reasonable margin, I think. Keeping the Senate is really iffy, however.
If Trump wins the Republican nomination and he is allowed to be on the ballot (which is more and more unlikely), then the Democrats keeping the Presidency is pretty likely. If Trump doesn't run and Haley (and only Haley) is the nominee will the Republicans have a respectable shot.Wouldn't that be great?
No more wars, we could all hold hands sing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company" together, economies would flourish...
Oh wait... we had that for a couple of the past decades... we had that under Trump, despite playing hardball with China on trade relations.
Now we have war with Russia, war exploding in the Middle East, again, world trade routes being disrupted, lives being ruined, hundreds of thousands dead as the Military Industrial Complex rakes in the profits.
Biden is doing great!Thank you for making it clear that it would be great for America to look like Russia.
And yes, you are correct, Biden IS doing great!
Dr. Martin Lurther King jnr, has already won the day decades ago. And I'm not holding forth for him. The law is there. But any attempt to re-construct or re-enact the history, is insane woke. America is no longer for the highest bidder.
Lets be certain that the effort were not in vain and that the "day" stays done.
No reenact nor reconstruct, just reconfirm.Agree. Re-confirm. And God save America!
The MAGA Republicans have greatly diminished what MLK gave his life to achieve, Black equality.
That may be. But I noted the Courts backing MLK in the present decades.
Not since the Rehnquist Court and especially not with the Roberts court. He was the one that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Starting with the Rehnquist court, Republicans have been chipping away at Civil and Voting Rights for minorities. It has only accelerated with Trump.
I don't know what history books you have been reading, Ken?
Racism in America has been more a determinant to relative success than the social economics as the latter had at least, in earlier times, allowed some possibility of movement within it.
The rightwinger always trots out Oprah Winfrey or Labron James, but in every situation there are exceptions, I am concerned about a wider and more general trend that is a more accurate reflection of what is actually going on.
Your diatribe sounds just like the kind of fuel that give Trump and MAGA its get up and go. It reflects the resentment so powerful that it allows so many to put a clear criminal up on a pedestal?
I have no doubt that things will work out, they have too, as they always have. So, Happy Holidays.
Michigan Supreme Court rules that Trump can stay on its Republican primary ballot. Unlike Colorado, there was no trial in Michigan and the case was dismissed on procedural grounds. Where Colorado requires a candidate be "qualified" to hold the office being elected for, in this case the Presidency, Michigan has no such requirement in its constitution.
That means the Michigan Republicans can put forward a candidate who will probably be disallowed from assuming office should they win the general election.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/27/politics … index.htmlSimply -- If the Supreme Court lets's Colorado SC rule stand --- precedence will be set ... No state's SC ruling will be needed or respected.
And now the Colorado Republican Party has put the US SC on the spot by filing an appeal.
While they will probably take it up, I can see plenty of reasons for this Court to deny hearing the appeal. The way I read it, it is open and shut.
1. It is a States Right's issue to which the Court Conservatives normally see in the State's favor.
2. The Colorado election law is clear regarding the "qualification" requirement to appear on their ballots
3. The jurisdiction of the courts to hear the case is unquestionable
4. The Republican voters who brought the suit obviously have standing to do so.
The only real question remaining is whether the US SC doesn't agree with the trial court and the Colorado's SC that Trump engaged in insurrection. If the Court thinks Colorado erred in their finding of fact, then they will take the case. If they don't, then I don't see a good reason to hear the case.
I see the delusional far-right fearmongering doesn't stop during the holidays.
WOW, Nikki Haley's knowledge of American history is worse than Trump's (and I thought that was impossible).
She says our Civil War was fought because the North wanted to suppress the freedoms of the South, LOL. Didn't say one word about slavery. I guess she also forgot who started the war - southern conservatives.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics … index.htmlShe is just playing "dumb" to appeal to the MAGA and is a part of the MAGA scheme to erase aspects of American history that they may define as Woke. An obvious ruse, and I thought that she was smarter than this to boldface deny something that we all learn in grade school, and any historian worth his or her weight in salt would consider an incontrovertible fact.
She is just a "suck up" to Trump rather than a real alternative. If stuck with a GOP candidate, I would go with Christie.I do need to reconsider and stand back a little regarding Haley.
She did take the down the old confederate SC flag from the statehouse in the aftermath of the Dylan Roof shootings back in 2015. Considering the nature of South Carolina and its politics, it was a courageous act and I need to give her credit where it's due.
I may give her the benefit of the doubt that her latest misstatement was just a gaffe, because when it was most important, she actually walked the talk......Yes, the flag thing was good, even though her hand was forced. But this isn't her first "gaffe" regarding the Civil War. It was reported that the person who asked the question heard the same question asked of her years ago and he wanted to see if her answered changed, Apparency it didn't.
She fits into this category of denialism - In a Faulkner novel, Col John Santoris was asked why he had fought so hard for the Confederacy. His reply was "Damned if I ever did know" - of course he knew!
In real life then, and not changed much today for many conservatives, Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy, famously said in 1861 that the "cornerstone" of the new Confederacy rested upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I had always wondered where Russell Kirk got his 10 Principles of Conservatism from; now I know. It has an almost identical thought process, but without mentioning the word "negro".
This belief system and how it has, and is, being implemented in America is why I hold conservativism, and many Conservatives, in such low regard. Throughout our history, up to the present day, Conservatives have worked tirelessly (think the relatively recent gutting of the Voting Rights Act) to enact Stephens vision.ESO, it is just my guess on Haley's true nature. Regardless of the fact that she would say anything to get the mass of MAGA to see her as viable alternative to Trump, I don't think that she is one of "them".
Any real MAGA would have resisted lowering the Confederate banner as woke and giving in to the left rather than appreciating the culture, tradition and all the stuff that the "would be" rebels spew on about all the time. Allowing for her Indian-American background, she really could not embrace MAGA and its anti-white bias and be comfortable in her own skin.....
She has a problem of being more a suck up in getting the MAGA crowd on her side. Why would anybody pledge to pardon Donald Trump upon their ascension to the Presidency in advance without giving consideration to the nature of the charges and the convicted offenses?
Christie is also not one of "them". He took a lot of heat from Republicans for giving Obama effusive praise for his quick FEMA response to the 2012 Hurricane Sandy crisis in New Jersey. Despite GOP politics which continued to denigrate Obama, he said screw the politics, this man did a good job for our state during this crisis and I am going to say so, politics be damned.
You can still be Republican and do the right thing, as rare as it is these days. Both examples were of people who under stress reveal their true motives and character. I would usually bank on that over accommodations they make to appeal to their base. "Uncle Tim Scott" has to take to an apologist route to appeal to an extremely rightwing, Republican base if he ever hopes to remain in the Senate.
While I think that most of the even the die hard s have moved away from the position of Alexander Stephens, there is a residual attitude that still consigns an inferior status to certain groups as part of a racial hierarchy and feel uncomfortable when the universe is not so naturally aligned, thus the creation of MAGA.
Whatever it took to get to any sort of parity today is certainly not because of conservatism, regardless of changing times and their myriad of disguises. It is about maintaining a status quo, social status hierarchies, and the withholding of rights and privileges just for the sake that expanding voices are always a threat to a system bestowing underserved advantages for some based upon non merit factors. And they want to keep it that way.
First, on Jan 6th, America saw an insurrection unfold before their very eyes. They saw Trump call his forces to the Capitol and then watched as his supporters assaulted first the police protecting the Capitol but then assault the Capitol itself. They were looking to hang VP Mike Pence and harm, or worse, any Representative or Senator they didn't like. Americans heard this from the mouths of the insurrectionists themselves. Common sense says this was an almost successful insurrection and that Trump was its leader.
Then the House impeached Trump for his obvious role in the insurrection, but was saved conviction by the skin of his teeth when 3 Republican Senators who couldn't find the courage to vote the truth, even though one of them, Mitch McConnell spoke the truth had said Trump was guilty.
After that, a bi-partisan House committee investigated the insurrection and Trump's role in it. After watching and listening to the video of attack on the Capitol, reading tons of Republican e-mails and other documents, and listening to the testimony of dozens of Republican officials from the Trump administration, they concluded Trump engaged in an insurrection and referred the matter to DOJ.
Then, multiple federal judges found Trump to be responsible for the insurrection.
Then the Wisconsin SC found that Wisconsin law does not prevent an unqualified individual from being put on the state's primary ballot. They did say, however, come back after the primary is over and try again.
Recently, a lower Colorado judge, after a trial on the issue, found Trump engaged in an insurrection but because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment didn't specifically mention that it applied to former presidents, found Trump could remain on the Colorado primary ballot.
Upon appeal, the Colorado SC found that Trump had engaged in insurrection but that the 14th Amendment DID apply to former presidents and Trump was to be removed from the Colorado primary ballot
A few days ago, the Michigan SC found, like Wisconsin, their laws will also allow unqualified candidates on the primary ballot. Also like in Wisconsin, they said to refile after the primary is over.
FINALLY, today, the Maine Secretory of State found that [b]Trump engaged in insurrection and therefore was banned from appearing on the Maine primary ballot.
Now the Maine's SOS decision will certainly be appealed through the Maine court system. Presumably, the outcome of that process will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics … index.htmlAdd Minnesota SC to the list of rulings that said it was too soon to bring a 14th Amendment challenge because the state lets any unqualified person run in their primaries.
Maine used the finding of fact from the Colorado case to determine that Trump does not qualify for their state's ballot. This is getting good. A second domino has fallen.
I hear California is going to follow suit.
I was beginning to worry that the courts and SOSs didn't have the gumption to follow the Constitution regarding insurrectionist who violated their oath of office like Trump did.
It does occur to me that "watch what you wish for" might come true in this instance. With Trump gone, it might be easier to get a Republican in the White House, god forbid.Trump is not just "Republican" but dangerous as he was the only candidate that blantantly threatened us with tyranny and despotism. I have a hard time imagining any other candidate, not even a empty suit like DeSantis or Haley dare going that far down the rabbit hole. I can take half a sigh of relief with Trump out of the picture. Keeping Republicans out of office is the other half, but I will take what I can get.
I was referring to a generic Republican other than Trump. While not dangerous like he is, having a Republican executive, even if it is Christie, would be disastrously for America, just not democracy destroying.
LOL. Isn't it superbly ironic that the guy filing most of the challenges around the nation against Trump is an unknown Republican Presidential candidate named John Anthony Castro.
All of the people, including Sen Ron Johnson and Rep Scott Perry, involved in the Michigan Fake Elector coup attempt should be held accountable in a court of law.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics … index.htmlThis is a great watch to explain the players behind the plot to overturn the election...or to just watch the few still clinging to election fraud get triggered:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90O-q7dgS-IHow stupid does Trump think the appeals court judges (or even the ones he appointed to the Supreme Court) are?!! Trump absurdly claims that “Before any single prosecutor can ask a court to sit in judgment of the President’s conduct, Congress must have approved of it by impeaching and convicting the President. That did not happen here, and so President Trump has absolute immunity.”
OK, I'll give you time to pick yourself up off the floor once you are done laughing.
,,, ,,, ,,,
He just said that if he isn't impeached and convicted by a political, highly partisan, non-judicial body then he is effectively a KING and above the law, That is True in Russia, but, as Jack Smith pointed out, Not In America.
Smith's 80-page reply to this nonsense states, in part,
"The implications of the defendant’s broad immunity theory are sobering. In his [Trump's] view, a court should treat a President’s criminal conduct as immune from prosecution as long as it takes the form of correspondence with a state official about a matter in which there is a federal interest, a meeting with a member of the Executive Branch, or a statement on a matter of public concern,
That approach would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer; a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice; or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief; or engaging in foreign diplomacy,”
Just to emphasize how incredibly ridiculous, but very scary, the things Trump (and anyone who would vote for him) is saying is that he is immune from the following:
-- "accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer' is just "simply executing the laws (by awarding the contract)"
-- "instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy" is just"communicating with the Department of Justice" (which I think Nixon did)
-- "orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics" is just "discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief;" (something he would have learned from his hero Putin)
-- " sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary," (which Trump may very well have done) is just "engaging in foreign diplomacy" (OK, maybe he didn't sell it, but just gave it away).
This is how far down the rabbit hole Trump and his cult have driven America.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/30/politics … index.htmlI am more of the opinion that the real coup was attempted by the Democrat party and continues to this day. From fake Russia Collusion claims to bogus impeachments, a censure by action rather than vote by the Democrat party throughout Trump's presidency, and all of the bogus indictments and accusations following Trump's presidency, the unanswered questions about who was really behind and funded J6...
Trump is a victim. Not a villain and I think Americans need to be paying close attention to not only what has been and IS being done to try to silence him but ask themselves WHY it is being done.
Many people would like to believe Trump is simply a bad guy and that's why all of this has happened to him. But I think there's quite a lot more to it than that. And Americans should be asking more questions about that, and I even think be fairly concerned about it.Yeah, we know. Some have bought into his narratives, despite the evidence to the contrary. Such as the proven collusion between Trump's Campaign and the Russians. The 2020 bipartisan Senate Report on Russian Election Interference laid out the numerous meetings between Trump's Campaign Chairman (Manafort) and Russian Intelligence (Kilimnik) where campaign strategy and internal polling data was passed to the Russians. So it just seems like a denial of basic fact at this point when anyone associated with MAGA claims the Russia Collusion was fake.
Then there are the denials of the evidence in the classified documents case. It's clear to see that he obstructed justice in his attempts to keep classified documents - documents he's on tape displaying to people without clearances at his golf club in New Jersey. And before you try to bring up the Biden or Pence cases, both cooperated as soon as they became aware of the presence of classified material at their homes. Trump is not a victim in the case, he attempted to evade a legally obtained subpoena after lying that he still had classified material that he was not permitted to have after leaving office.
And the fact that there are still unanswered questions about who was behind or funded J6 just really shows how out of touch many are with the evidence that has been shown through the January 6 Committee hearings and the many trials of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.
All of us heard Trump's lies about fraud in 2016, watched him assemble a group headed by Kris Kobach to find that fraud, and then fail to prove Trump's claims of why he lost the popular vote. Even before the 2020 election, he was spreading claims of fraud again. State elections officials of both parties, the DOJ, the department on homeland security, and even the many groups that his campaign hired have all come back and determined that his claims are false. It's easy to see that he uses the fraud claims as a defense mechanism to shield his fragile ego when he realizes he will lose at something. Either that or he intentionally aims to undermine our democracy by sowing doubt in American elections. I, personally, think it's a combination of both and is about as unamerican as it gets.
Trump organized and incited an attack on his own Congress in an attempt to prevent a peaceful transfer of power, all based on lies. That some accept those lies and have turned against their own government makes them, to many Americans, traitors.Correction - the Russian connection was PROVEN be the Preponderance of the Evidence, just not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Everyone knows those impeachments were based on hard evidence of wrong doing. Pretty certain he would have been convicted in a real trial and not when half the jurors are highly partisan Republicans.
And in the second impeachment, if just three Republican Senators had found the courage to vote the Truth, Trump would have been convicted.
All those indictments from multiple jurisdictions plus all the other civil trials (in one, he has already been found guilty), are based on solid evidence, much of which comes from Trump himself.
There are no unanswered questions regarding who was behind Jan 6 except in the minds of his cult members. Because they are members of a Jim Jones-like cult, they will believe anything Trump says, even when he says he is God (which he did once or twice).
Trump is clearly the most evil president this nation has ever known. Not just bad, but evil.You are correct, if you are looking to understand what is going on, you need to understand the powers in control of the country/world.
The foremost is to understand the Global Oligarchy that runs the Western World.
Understand what the World Economic Forum is:
https://www.weforum.org/
Understand who funds/controls the WEF (International Corps):
https://www.weforum.org/partners/
That the WEF and UN have united in their goals/efforts:
https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/w … framework/
That the UN + WEF work with Open Society efforts/goals:
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/
Collectively, they spend hundreds of billions of dollars to influence and shape national politics and global agendas.
They have far more control and influence over what goes on in DC and what policies are enacted than American citizens do.
This of course goes for powerful corporations and conglomerations in general due to lobbying in DC, but the power has shifted from regional corporate interests to International corporate and financial interests.
The belief of these "elites" is that National borders have become economically insignificant as a result of globalization and nationalism and patriotism is a hindrance to their agendas.
The "American Hegemony" has created a world in which financial capital, manufacturing operations, and labor force can be relocated to new regions as needed.
This has led to a significant increase in global trade, investment in overseas businesses, and asset redeployments.
International economic integration can be defined as the process that involves the removal of barriers between national economies, resulting in stronger ties. This also diminishes the rights, benefits, and protections of citizens of nations like America as national and sovereign rights are superseded by international laws and agendas.
This is why we currently see millions of migrants crossing into America today, being given cell phones, bank cards (with money), processing so they can receive SS benefits (I believe $2200 each person) and other government support.
The Biden Administration's support and acceptance of International Laws and Agreements such as the Global Compact on Migration requires that he prioritize the needs of these migrants, in some cases, over of the needs of American citizens.
Prior to such things as the Global Compact on Migration, which Obama championed and promoted (it wasn't endorsed by the UN until 2018), integration was associated with specific government activities such as eliminating tariffs and other barriers to the free flow of products, services, and inputs.
This protected citizens of Nation states, providing them benefits and wealth that those in other nations could not share in.
Removing national borders and the rights of nation state citizens over non-state citizens removes the barriers to those people in other nations from receiving the same opportunities and benefits they were previously unable to access.
References:
General Assembly Endorses First-Ever Global Compact on Migration, Urging Cooperation among Member States in Protecting Migrants
https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12113.doc.htm
Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (GCM)
https://www.state.gov/global-compact-fo … ation-gcm/
The Trump Administration tried to halt this, which is one of the major reasons why he was targeted during his Presidency by so much of what you referenced, and why he will not be allowed to return as President.
You are correct in recognizing something is going on, it is the eradication and removal of National Sovereignty, rights of American citizens, and the Constitution as the de facto authority of governance for America.
America the Nation and its Constitution must be subjugated to the International goals and Agendas of the WEF + UN + Open Society efforts.
They cannot co-exist.
Reference:
U.S. participation in the Compact process began in 2016, following the Obama Administration’s decision to join the UN’s New York Declaration on migration. America's participation in it was ended by the Trump Administration:
https://usun.usmission.gov/united-state … migration/
And then re-committed to by the Biden Administration in the very first
days of the Administration, through a series of migration protection focused executive orders, Biden established the framework for the
United States to recommit to work collaboratively with the UN Global Compact on Migration and Open Society efforts.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upload … 212021.pdfthe Compact is a "non-binding cooperative framework", meaning it has limited weight under International Law. It really is a purely aspirational document. The US was not even a signatory in 2018 when it was originally conceived.
I don't think that you are accurately representing the global compact on migration at all.It wouldn't be the first thing he's misrepresented in these forums, that's for sure.
It is far more than that, it is enacted in International Law, it is but one component... what matters is that the Biden Administration supports it, has created extensive Executive Orders to act on it, whereas Trump countered it, and made efforts to shut the border down.
The points of that post, and the links to those agendas are valid and what they state is accurate.Willow is telling the truth and has debunked another conspiracy theory.
Nice job posting the same thing in every thread you join. One time of these conspiracy theories is quite enough.
Almost all Republicans (like Sununu below) and even some Democrats say Trump should stay on the ballot even though he violated the 14th Amendments insurrection clause. The reasons are many. For example, Sununu says it just feeds Trump's victimhood strategy. Others say voters should be able to vote on ANY candidate who puts their name on the ballot.
I can see myself agreeing with keeping the name on ballot if, in the end he wins, the Supreme Court rules he is ineligible to hold office because he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
I wonder if these same people who say Trump should be on the ballot regardless of qualifications like being 30 years old and/or being born in Russia and/or has only resided in America for 10 years?
If they answer no, then how do they justify keeping him on the ballot if he engaged in insurrection?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/31/politics … index.htmlIt is difficult, ESO, because many would see this as political and I want an impregnable straight jacket that Trump cannot weasel out of. Blue states will consider him ineligible while red states will keep on the ballot. Regardless of the fact that his behavior was clearly in violation of Section 3. It needs to be decided at a level above the state courts, to make it legal rather than partisan. A patchwork situation may aggravate the problem.
The Right always say that we are a republic and not a democracy. Well, that works both ways, the Republic is based upon provisions set in the Constitution, which says that not everybody who wants to be on the ballot is eligible, based upon clear and distinct exceptions.
The magnitude of such a decision by the court is grave, as it has the potential to sink the Trump candidacy, or leave the states pouting among themselves. Do not the right wing members of the court owe Trump a favor? I say that they will bend the "strict interpretation and original intent stuff" to keep Trump and his campaign in the game. I will take a wager on that.
Conservatives complain about the need to convict him in a court of law and while it is not required to make the determination under Section 3, it would leave no doubt that he was determined impartially to be guilty of insurrection beyond any reasonable doubt or equivocation.
Thus, my affinity for the word "checkmate".... it is worth the extra effort to get him there.
The problem remains the stall between now and Smith's planned trial.Very sensible.
It is well thought out posts like this that are worth stopping in and reading.
It is always enjoyable to read someone who takes the time to articulate their opinion, using common sense, rather than merely showing up to preach or rant or belittle those whose perceptions do not align with their own.
And I think that is what the "neutral" non-committed Americans would like, as well as those that align with Trump.
The Americans noted above have no trust in CNN or MSNBC or some liberal judges from a liberal State to determine or explain what Trump did and why it justifies any actions.
Why Trump is not guilty of Insurrection:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-i … 1610303966
The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know.
As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.
Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”
In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.” This language is based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment.
The justices held that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s calls for violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech. The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”
The president didn’t mention violence on [J6], much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.
The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.
END
Of course, I have always contended it is absurd to call what happened on J6 an insurrection. If there were a handful of lunatics looking to attempt something like that... oh well, that wasn't too smart of them.
The argument for insurrection as given: Trump took the oath to “protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Trump violated his oath by attempting to subvert the transition of office to President Biden, thus committing a rebellion against the Constitution.
So what nneds to be proven... to be SHOWN... is that Trump told people directly to stop VP Pence from validating the election. I think this takes more than Trump insisting to Pence to overturn the election. I think this takes more than what he said to that crowd on J6.
It takes one of those moments from "A Few Good Men".
It takes a clear and deliberate order... or a moment where Trump under questioning as to whether he ordered the overturn of the 2020 election he stands up and states.
"You're G*D DAMNED right I did!"
Of course, there is always the bigger problem, the issues people have with that election itself... the mail in ballots... the weeks past election day and still taking in ballots, counting and recounting.
That in and of itself put the election into question and it will always remain in question for many millions of Americans... the absurdity that we had states allowing ballots to come in a week after the fact. That is BS... the whole country is put on hold for some lazy Americans that can't get the ballot mailed in time?
Sorry... if you can't get your "Mail In ballot" in a week prior to the election, it shouldn't count... those ballots should all be counted BEFORE election day... then there wouldn't be so much doubt, so many questions, and the country wouldn't be waiting around for weeks to find out the results.
Talk about 3rd world banana republic election shenanigans, that was the 2020 election in a nutshell.“Very sensible.
It is well thought out posts like this that are worth stopping in and reading.
It is always enjoyable to read someone who takes the time to articulate their opinion, using common sense, rather than merely showing up to preach or rant or belittle those whose perceptions do not align with their own.
And I think that is what the "neutral" non-committed Americans would like, as well as those that align with Trump.”
———————
Why, thank you Ken, that was most gracious of you.
In my view, Trump and his legal team are the masters of chaos and confusion, with the goal of never ending delay in the hope that circumstances will change. They will split hairs down to the micron level and attempt to give numerous interpretations to a single word.
The most serious charges are those that Trump and his allies in seven key swing states created and submitted fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that falsely asserted that Trump had won the electoral college vote in those states. The evidence supporting this is damning and is at the foundation of the attempt of election subversion which I consider to be Attempted insurrection by Trump.
Oddly enough, Prosecutor Smith has not charged Trump with insurrection specifically. Even if Trump lost in a trial Trump he would say that he was not specifically charged with “insurrection” and consequently there would no link to the provisions of Amendment 14 Section 3. While Trump being guilty of the charges to be prosecuted by Smith certainly would constitute insurrection and illegal activity outside the scope of his office and duties. Pinning him down was like nailing jello to the wall. We would spend more time dancing around courts, stall with the goal of his hopefully being reelected where he can just dismiss all charges, is that fair or what?
We went to the polls in the midst of a pandemic, Trump and company only complained about ballot processes in the states he lost. Quite disingenuous in my opinion as the better half of all 50 states made accommodations in the face of the COVID crisis. I don’t care what Trump or MAGA says, they have never been able to prove any of their positions from any neutral and credible source. So, why after 4 years are we still listening?A detailed review and explanation of this needs to be provided to the American people, if it is indeed factual that this was an attempt to falsify, and not a counter to what they (Trump) believed to be fraudulent counts or ballots.
For instance I do recall Guiliani and some other lawyers sitting in front of a board soon after the election and presenting evidence that showed 500,000 votes in the PA count just mysteriously popped into the tally in one big chunk, they referenced 98% of those ballots went to Biden and that came after the 'official' vote count (election day) had ended.
It was an interesting hearing, one that was discussing things I am not overly familiar with and do not recall now, I am unable to find it currently but here is another where he is presenting some of the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8-TahzO7CQ
A good point to start at is roughly the 22 minute mark in that video.
The other panel review I had watched years ago was better, because at that one they had the actual times and counts they were questioning.
The problem, as I see it, is that there have been movies created that present evidence of ballot harvesting and "Mail In Ballot' fraud.
There have been individuals who have investigated ballot photos, that showed identical ballots counted in more than one county, to the tune of thousands, that they could prove were identical... so one has to wonder how many additional ballots were counted multiple times that they could not prove were the same ballot?
The 'official' word is that there was never a more secure election.
The 'un-official' word, the one that has an increasing amount of evidence supporting it, was that it was a very fraudulent election.
If Trump had what he considered an overwhelming preponderance of doubt to the validity of the 2020 election...was he not obligated to try and take some action to ensure this malfeasance was corrected?
As you say, it isn't as if this were a "normal" election, it isn't as if the electors in PA and GA followed the "normal" procedures they had always followed for previous elections... the excuse... or the opportunity ... may have been due to the Pandemic, those changes merely make the possibility for fraud that much greater.
Unfortunately, as we know, our government loves to sweep things under the rug. Whether we are talking the lie about WMDs in Iraq or the lies about how Epstein committed suicide, we are asked to accept lies as truth daily by our MSM and our Government.
So there is no trust... people who recognize that the government is willing to build up a huge lie so that it can start a decade long war against a nation, a government that today lies about the border being secure and there being no migrant issues, or the Nord Stream pipeline, or whatever the obvious lie is today... too many Americans today just can't swallow the BS anymore.
For most Americans, they try and ignore it, get on with life, and so long as they can afford to live their lives in peace, take care of one another, they are willing to ignore the BS... let the government continue to do its thing.
They don't want trouble, they don't think there is a big difference between Trump or Biden or who-ever.
I think their never-ending wars combined with their enlightened beliefs that we can allow in tens of millions of migrants and find a place for them here in America is going to backfire on them. Is backfiring on them.
We'll see where America stands in a few months, how that ties in to Trump.
Just don't expect the majority of America to believe anything the government says regarding Trump or charges against him... unless the evidence is so overwhelming and inarguable that it leaves no room for doubt or distrust.
Honestly, I don't think the Biden Administration cares what the American people think, they will continue to do what they want to do, regardless.A detailed review and explanation of this needs to be provided to the American people, if it is indeed factual that this was an attempt to falsify, and not a counter to what they (Trump) believed to be fraudulent counts or ballots.
Wisconsin has settled up while the fake electors are being brought to justice in other states such as Georgia Nevada and Michigan.
"Ten Republicans who posed as fake electors for former President Donald Trump in Wisconsin and filed paperwork falsely saying he had won the battleground state have settled a civil lawsuit and admitted their actions were part of an effort to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory, attorneys who filed the case announced Wednesday.
Under the agreement, the fake electors acknowledged that Biden won the state, withdrew their filings and agreed not to serve as presidential electors in 2024 or any other election where Trump is on the ballot.
The 10 fake electors agreed to send a statement to the government offices that received the Electoral College votes saying that their actions were “part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results.”
I feel positive we will see similar results in the other cases. These people were actually trying to steal the election.
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump … cd69141f8d"and not a counter to what they (Trump) believed to be fraudulent counts or ballots."
Ken, There is no counter, we all agree to play by the rules so what Trump believed was irrelevant without incontrovertibl proof.
As submitted by Valeant and Willow, there is plenty of evidence that support the fact that Trump was behind the phony elector scheme. That is a clear violation of the Constitutionally prescribed electoral vote process, there can be no immunity from the commission of such a crime. Why is Trump given all this credibility based solely on his word or opinion when he has every reason to try to win when he lost? How can I expect a truly objective observation from him?
Biden won by 8 million votes, everybody knows that Trump lost in key states urban populations that they knew were not going to vote for Trump anyway. So, what is the surprise or fraud? Was it fraud because these people chose to cast a ballot?
I think most American do believe Trump is complicit and that regardless of what he may say, the entire Biden Administration is not after him. It is only the die hard Trumpers that are willing to follow him to oblivion. I need the trial on Trump to convince the American people that Trump is guilty without a doubt and if he is acquited, I will live with that but there needs to be a trial.The MAGA cult will simply say everybody lied at the trial and all of the written evidence was fabricated. Fortunately, there aren't enough of those misguided souls to get Trump elected and I have my doubts that the Supreme Court will let him take office if somehow a miracle happened.
OK, I went digging. Here are some of the places I looked:
.#1 Trump campaign documents show advisers knew fake-elector plan was baseless
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ctor-plan/
"The emails show that some Trump advisers began strategizing just days after the election about how to construct a legal argument for advancing their own electors, even though laws in every state hold that electors are determined by the certified vote of the people."
My summation of that article... bad political strategizing, bordering on contempt for the process... not to my perception to the point of illegality or insurrection.
What I see is an effort to pull every rabbit out of the hat that they could, and now those efforts are being labeled as illegal and a conspiratory effort to steal a CONTESTED election for purely political reasons.
"“From taking a lot of political science courses, I knew that if you miss a deadline for doing this, you can’t come back later and rework it,” said Robert Spindell Jr., who signed an elector certificate for Trump in Wisconsin. “It was generally the view of the attorneys that should Trump win some of these cases, this had to be done.”"
.#2 What Exactly Was the Fake Electors Scheme?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … ctors.html
"In 1960, when Sen. John F. Kennedy was running against Vice President Richard Nixon, the race was so tight that the Kennedy campaign demanded a recount in Hawaii, despite Nixon winning the state. As the recount took place, both campaigns organized their chosen slates of electors and sent signed certificates to Congress. Once the recount finished, Hawaii flipped for Kennedy, which then sent a second round of official electors and a new certificate to Washington, D.C.
As vice president, Nixon was also president of the Senate, and faced three different slates of electors, but chose to honor Kennedy’s."
So we have what amounts to a similar situation here. But the world was a different place then, and the two gentlemen that were running for office at that time were, well, gentlemanly.
Obviously both camps... Trump and Biden...are not as well mannered or respectable. Wanting power and control, by any means necessary... Trump tried what appears to be within the realm of legality. And now because he left office and the Biden Administration wants to retain control, they are using all means at their disposal, through the DOJ, FBI, IRS, and favored friends and DAs in NY to try and finish him off.What you seem to be closing your eyes to are:
- The false signing of official documents - that is illegal
- Sending some of them to the archive - that is illegal
- Conspiring with members of Congress to deliver fake ballots to Pence - that is illegal as hell
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … osecutors.
In addition, you have two lawyers and another person caught up in the scheme have pleaded guilty and one of them is spilling his guts about the effort to any state who will listen. So far Nevada, Georgia, and Michigan have listened.
Once again, the election is contested ONLY in the minds of MAGA cult members. In everybody else's mind, the election was settled about 10 days after it was over and certainly after Pence certified it on Jan 6.
Sure, the Biden administration would like to retain to control - if only to save the nation from Trump - but UNLIKE TRUMP, they want to do it legally and without an insurrection.Ken also seems to omit that the legal challenges in these states were already finished, unlike in the Kennedy example. There was no cause to sign fake documents because there was nothing to contest. Signing and sending them was a smokescreen to give Pence a reason to kick the vote to state legislatures, where Republicans could throw out the legal vote and elect Trump. Without any evidence of fraud, that is an illegal coup by an entire party that Pence did not want to be a part of.
Again ESO and Valeant challenged your comments, as you seem to omit some crucial data that makes this Trump fiasco as unique as it is illegal on its face. It was not legal from its very inception.
I don't read their posts, there are some people I have no interest in discussing things with, I find there is a difference between discussing things and knowing the person I am interacting with will continue the dialogue without taking offense.
And then there are those that take offense with everything, while at the same time ignoring every point you make regardless of how well founded it is.
You and I have discussions from opposed spectrums perhaps, but we both admit when the other makes a good point, we both consider what the other says without outright rejecting the message because of the messenger.
At least, on my part, that is the case.There is not anyone here, whose post would not at least read. I may have a contrary response, but I will read it. I avoid direct communication only with those that have been suspected of crying wolf to Hub Pages central and having an innocent banned because they did like the content of someone's post. Those individuals are rare, I am only thinking of one or two people.
Yes, we come from two different positions, we attempt to leave each other with ever fewer logical cards to play to support our relative positions.
It is my opinion that the "Right" as represented by Trump and MAGA have an overriding theme of subverting democracy in favor of illiberalism and authoritarianism. I have heard you and others lament about the fact that the current system is not working. I challenge you and the other MAGAs to tell me how an undemocratic solution is going to benefit me or the country? What logical advantage is there for autocracy over democracy? After, I get you into a corner, you will have to confess as to what that is, after we have dismissed every other possible explanation.
There is no reason that we can not pursue this in a cordial manner. I need to know what you people are thinking and why. And as part of this exercise, I will give credit where it is due.Exactly.
I do, on occasion read and interact with Eso, but as to the other. No.
Not going to read or respond. For the reason noted.
Everything you have put forward has been Debunked by countless courts and just as many reports from trustworthy news outlets (which is not lying-Fox).
Nearly two-thirds of Americans think Jan. 6 charges against Trump are serious: POLL
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/thirds- … =101954747
Majority of Americans believe Trump did something illegal: POLL
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majorit … d=98430435
I would advise not listening to sources like Fox and Newsmax and the like as they are either admitted liars or great purveyors of mis and dis-information. Maybe you would get a more realistic view of current affairs if you watched/read/listened to CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, BBC, The Guardian, The Hill, Politico, etc. (You notice I didn't bother to include CNN, a very Trusted outlet that you have a bias against.
A detailed review and explanation of this needs to be provided to the American people, if it is indeed factual that this was an attempt to falsify, and not a counter to what they (Trump) believed to be fraudulent counts or ballots.
For instance I do recall Guiliani and some other lawyers sitting in front of a board soon after the election and presenting evidence that showed 500,000 votes in the PA count just mysteriously popped into the tally in one big chunk, they referenced 98% of those ballots went to Biden and that came after the 'official' vote count (election day) had ended.
It was an interesting hearing, one that was discussing things I am not overly familiar with and do not recall now, I am unable to find it currently but here is another where he is presenting some of the issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8-TahzO7CQ
A good point to start at is roughly the 22 minute mark in that video.
The other panel review I had watched years ago was better, because at that one they had the actual times and counts they were questioning.
The problem, as I see it, is that there have been movies created that present evidence of ballot harvesting and "Mail In Ballot' fraud.
There have been individuals who have investigated ballot photos, that showed identical ballots counted in more than one county, to the tune of thousands, that they could prove were identical... so one has to wonder how many additional ballots were counted multiple times that they could not prove were the same ballot?
The 'official' word is that there was never a more secure election.
The 'un-official' word, the one that has an increasing amount of evidence supporting it, was that it was a very fraudulent election.
If Trump had what he considered an overwhelming preponderance of doubt to the validity of the 2020 election...was he not obligated to try and take some action to ensure this malfeasance was corrected?
As you say, it isn't as if this were a "normal" election, it isn't as if the electors in PA and GA followed the "normal" procedures they had always followed for previous elections... the excuse... or the opportunity ... may have been due to the Pandemic, those changes merely make the possibility for fraud that much greater.
Unfortunately, as we know, our government loves to sweep things under the rug. Whether we are talking the lie about WMDs in Iraq or the lies about how Epstein committed suicide, we are asked to accept lies as truth daily by our MSM and our Government.
So there is no trust... people who recognize that the government is willing to build up a huge lie so that it can start a decade long war against a nation, a government that today lies about the border being secure and there being no migrant issues, or the Nord Stream pipeline, or whatever the obvious lie is today... too many Americans today just can't swallow the BS anymore.
For most Americans, they try and ignore it, get on with life, and so long as they can afford to live their lives in peace, take care of one another, they are willing to ignore the BS... let the government continue to do its thing.
They don't want trouble, they don't think there is a big difference between Trump or Biden or who-ever.
I think their never-ending wars combined with their enlightened beliefs that we can allow in tens of millions of migrants and find a place for them here in America is going to backfire on them. Is backfiring on them.
We will where America stands in a few months, how that ties in to Trump.
Just don't expect the majority of America to believe anything the government says regarding Trump or charges against him... unless the evidence is so overwhelming and inarguable that it leaves no room for doubt or distrust.
Honestly, I don't think the Biden Administration cares what the American people think, they will continue to do what they want to do, regardless.
"The Americans noted above have no trust in CNN or MSNBC" - Let us set the record STRAIGHT again. First, Fox rates much lower than those two and second, most non-MAGA Americans DO trust CNN and MSNBC.
"The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know." - DEBUNKED and ROFL. I guess you were at his side? Let's see - Found GUILTY of defamation and sexual battery and found guilty of PERSISTENT BANK FRAUD and multiple judges have now found him guilty of participating in an insurrection.
I stopped reading after that piece of disinformation.Fact -- "Who has the highest ratings on cable TV?
FOX NEWS CHANNEL MARKS EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS AS HIGHEST-RATED CABLE NETWORK IN TELEVISION. NEW YORK – December 14, 2023 – FOX News Channel (FNC) remained cable television's most-watched network for the eighth consecutive year in 2023, according to data from Nielsen Media Research.Dec 14, 2023"
In my view, I feel most Americans, a majority watch Fox for their news, and the rating indicates. As the polls indicate Americans are purely disappointed in Biden as a president. It appears we have a small minority that supports him and his administration. Biden's polls give some proof to my view.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/Once again, we aren't talking about "Ratings". We are talking about "Trust".
Using "ratings" is a red herring in any case unless you compare apples with applies. In that case it should be between Trustworthy networks and outlets and proven Untrustworthy outlets (mainly Fox).She always does this. Conservatives have one main network, while liberals have several. When you add up the liberal networks, they are just as popular as the one conservative one.
But as you note, using ratings as trust is moving the goalposts. Maybe focusing on the question and finding a survey (poll) that asks that very question might have been too much work and would have undermined the preconceived notion that Fox News is actually trusted by Americans more than most liberal media networks.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic … -news-pollIn my view, viewership ratings indicate that people tune in with the expectation of receiving unbiased news coverage, free from selective reporting and agenda-setting.
Fox remains at the top of the ratings chart, attracting a substantial audience. It appears that many individuals have opted to switch away from CNN and MSN for diverse reasons. Personally, I am unsettled by what I perceive as left-leaning content, often designed to provoke discord and foster division.
I'm grateful to witness significantly lower ratings for other networks compared to Fox. It gives me hope to see a growing number of people turning away from biased cable networks that selectively choose their coverage. The fact that Fox continues to hold the top spot is truly encouraging for me.I am glad you can take solace in lying Fox in the so-called ratings metric even though they are not trusted by most Americans. Just look at who Fox's audience is composed of - almost sole MAGA cult members who have been conned by Trump and Fox into believing anything they put out.
I know you are smart enough to understand that the correct comparison for ratings is genre to genre meaning main stream news to right-wing news. In that proper comparison, Fox suffers greatly. Fox simply cannot compete against the combined ratings of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS and other truth-telling outlets.
I find it odd that you find it "encouraging" that an admitted lying network is holding the top spot in the wrong measurement, outlet to outlet.
If you want a real analysis of information outlets then read this from Pew Research. Fox does not fair well save for with the very conservaitve.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/ … and-right/
Related Discussions
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 7 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 7 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...
- 27
FBI launches criminal investigations of John Brennan, James Comey
by Readmikenow 6 days ago
It's about time!"CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred Brennan for criminal investigation to the FBIEXCLUSIVE: Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly...
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 339
15 People!! close to Trump in contact with Russians. No Conspiracy???
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for...