TRUMP CONVICTED

DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
"these constitutional issues are not cut and dry"
Click to expand...
They are in a general way, we can see the landscape, but not the details yet. That's what they pay the SCOTUS for believe it or not and the Federalist society opinion is well known and academically spelled out in a law journal article that everybody will read. It sure is an interesting show though.
 
BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
It will be a can of worms on one level, but the 14th is quite clear and Trump's conviction this spring over J6 will put the seal on it. Perhaps the fact that Trump tried to choke his SS agent in an effort to get to the capitol to physically lead the insurrection will be significant! :lol:
Click to expand...
it's gonna be a can of worm, this precedent hasn't been used since the civil war. This is the first time other than the civil war to be used as well....so it's murky waters. Yes it states pretty planely what needs to be done. Yes J6 commission proved that it was and insurrection, which the 14th planely says.....the question is how to in act it and on what lvl........
 
BudmanTX

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The thing that I don’t know is what, shy of a conviction for sedition, a crime for which he has not been charged so far, would constitute grounds for invoking the clause. A … binding finding.
Click to expand...
j6 found him for issurection, voted by the whole commission, and also at the impeachment also found him gulty of issurection, impeach via the house, but not the senate....close though
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
Trump asks judge to sever Georgia election case from co-defendants
In a Thursday court filing, Former President Trump asked the judge presiding over the 2020 election case in Georgia to sever his case from the co-defendants who requested a speedy trial.

Trump’s legal team argued in the new filing that they would not have sufficient time to prepare their case for the Oct. 23 trial scheduled for Kenneth Chesebro, who has demanded his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The filing argued that requiring Trump’s legal team to be adequately prepared in less than two months would violate Trump’s constitutional right to a fair trial and due process.

“Respectfully, requiring less than two months preparation time to defend a 98-page indictment, charging 19 defendants, with 41 various charges including a RICO conspiracy charge … would violate President Trump’s federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process of law,” the filing read.

The former president’s defense team also referred to a separate state court filing, which outlines various consequences of demanding a speedy trial, and claimed Trump would endure “substantial adverse procedural and substantive ‘effects’” without separating his case from the others.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked the judge to set the Oct. 23 trial date for all 19 defendants in the case, arguing that she wants to try all the defendants together.

Earlier Thursday, Trump pleaded not guilty to 13 charges in the Georgia case, which accused Trump and 18 co-defendants of conspiring to overturn the election results in Georgia. All defendants were charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in a sprawling case that also brings other related charges. Trump waived his right to an arraignment Thursday as well.

Along with Chesebro, at least one other defendant has also asked for a speedy trial: Sidney Powell. Mark Meadows, Trump’s former White House chief of staff, is trying to move his case to federal court, and argued that position before a judge Monday.
thehill.com

Trump asks judge to sever Georgia election case from co-defendants

In a Thursday court filing, Former President Trump asked the judge presiding over the 2020 election case in Georgia to sever his case from the co-defendants who requested a speedy trial. Trump’s le…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The thing that I don’t know is what, shy of a conviction for sedition, a crime for which he has not been charged so far, would constitute grounds for invoking the clause. A … binding finding.
Click to expand...
That's the heart of the controversy. He clearly did commit insurrection and so did his co-conspirators. What is the legal threshold for denying somebody their constitutional right to run for the office of (fill in the blank). That's what the DA of Michigan is saying when she says she will "follow the law" and is trying to find out what that means because as she said, "these constitutional issues are not cut and dry". Rep Raskin seems to think that the legal threshold has already been crossed after Trump was impeached by the House and a majority voted to convict Trump for his actions to raise and then point a mob at the Capitol Building with the intent of overthrowing the 2020 election. I doubt Republicans will take instruction from him on that.

I don't even know how they can arrive at an agreement at the state level, although that is where it will need to be made. What is certain (to me) is any state whose DA declares him ineligible will be sued to retract that finding, any state whose DA makes no ruling will be sued to make one and any state whose DA declares him eligible will be sued to retract that finding and I guess it will all go up to the Supreme Court to decide. Or maybe it will be decided by the Supreme Court that the courts or legislatures in each state will decide of each state making it possible that states will have different criteria. It's a grand mess. I love it.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
That's the heart of the controversy. He clearly did commit insurrection and so did his co-conspirators. What is the legal threshold for denying somebody their constitutional right to run for the office of (fill in the blank). That's what the DA of Michigan is saying when she says she will "follow the law" and is trying to find out what that means because as she said, "these constitutional issues are not cut and dry". Rep Raskin seems to think that the legal threshold has already been crossed after Trump was impeached by the House and a majority voted to convict Trump for his actions to raise and then point a mob at the Capitol Building with the intent of overthrowing the 2020 election. I doubt Republicans will take instruction from him on that.

I don't even know how they can arrive at an agreement at the state level, although that is where it will need to be made. What is certain (to me) is any state whose DA declares him ineligible will be sued to retract that finding, any state whose DA makes no ruling will be sued to make one and any state whose DA declares him eligible will be sued to retract that finding and I guess it will all go up to the Supreme Court to decide. Or maybe it will be decided by the Supreme Court that the courts or legislatures in each state will decide of each state making it possible that states will have different criteria. It's a grand mess. I love it.
Click to expand...
From what I can gather civil law standards of evidence apply to this matter and it is a "disability" not a criminal conviction. To the extent this was recently adjudicated, that was in NM for a J6 trespass defendant, and it stands as NM state law, unchallenged, so far. Unless the courts make the calls for all states using standards of evidence it would be abused by magats looking to disqualify Biden. It is for a federal office so the feds have a say too and the SCOTUS will make the call, I doubt they will simply ignore the 14th. When in the process it works its way up to them is important because the challenges will be over the GOP primary process first.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Fogdog said:
That's the heart of the controversy. He clearly did commit insurrection and so did his co-conspirators. What is the legal threshold for denying somebody their constitutional right to run for the office of (fill in the blank). That's what the DA of Michigan is saying when she says she will "follow the law" and is trying to find out what that means because as she said, "these constitutional issues are not cut and dry". Rep Raskin seems to think that the legal threshold has already been crossed after Trump was impeached by the House and a majority voted to convict Trump for his actions to raise and then point a mob at the Capitol Building with the intent of overthrowing the 2020 election. I doubt Republicans will take instruction from him on that.

I don't even know how they can arrive at an agreement at the state level, although that is where it will need to be made. What is certain (to me) is any state whose DA declares him ineligible will be sued to retract that finding, any state whose DA makes no ruling will be sued to make one and any state whose DA declares him eligible will be sued to retract that finding and I guess it will all go up to the Supreme Court to decide. Or maybe it will be decided by the Supreme Court that the courts or legislatures in each state will decide of each state making it possible that states will have different criteria. It's a grand mess. I love it.
Click to expand...
Yes; the suits and countersuits are gonna be quality entertainment. I have no doubt threads will be born of the doings.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
If Trump was disqualified by the SCOTUS before the primaries, who would he blame? Whoever replaced him as GOP nominee on the ballot is who!
If they said he could run in the primary but would be disqualified on the election ballot?
If they refused to hear a case on the primary?
Seems to me the SCOTUS would have to rule on the primaries because it would be a dog's breakfast for the GOP in the states during their primaries with Trump running in some states and disqualified from the primaries in others.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

Trump’s televised trial: The irony of the reality star president’s live-streamed ‘demise’

3,182 views Aug 31, 2023 #Trump #January6th #MSNBC
Former Lead Investigator for the January 6th Select Committee Tim Heaphy, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner and host of the podcast "On Brand" Donny Deutsch join Nicolle Wallace to discuss Donald Trump's decision to exercise his right to waive his arraignment in Fulton County, Georgia where he's pleaded not guilty to racketeering and conspiracy charges brought by District Attorney Fani Willis, a case that will now be livestreamed and televised according to a court order.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
This will keep the media busy for a while and fuel a lot of news stories and video. A more complete picture emerges with each passing week and the trials have not even begun but will at the end of October for the first of them! The first bunch could be convicted by Christmas and Trump should have a Helluva Holiday this year, Merry Xmas Donald! He might even get dragged into an early trial date in Georgia kicking and screaming too. If he goes last, they will all be pointing fingers at him and testifying against him to save their own skins on TV before he even goes to trial! :lol:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697426761619820752
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top