topcat
Well-Known Member
I guess they broke up. He desperately wanted a Nobel Prize and thought (thinks) he could fool all the people all the time.
Last edited:
TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
still thinks it …
topcat
Well-Known Member
Beat me to the edit.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Two things stand out so far in the saga of Donald Trump, he will go to prison by the middle of next year or before and he will be disqualified from the general election at least. When he is disqualified is the most important question, before the GOP primaries or before the general election, if he wins the GOP primaries while going down in flames in federal court. If he loses the nomination, he will attack the GOP nominee and say he was cheated, we all know the drill. If he is disqualified before the primaries, he will attack the SCOTUS, FBI and justice system. After he is jailed or imprisoned in a cell many might not hear him except his SS detail. Having Donald disqualified before the GOP primaries and even jailed and muzzled would be a dream come true for many republicans. His very messy trials in DC and Georgia will be trouble for them and if Jack convicts him in DC he could appear in orange coveralls in court on TV in Georgia. That would be the most politically important trial, the one on TV that tells most of the complete story of the coup plot. Coverage will be wall to wall and the trial in Georgia is likely to happen before the 24 elections, with other coconspirators convicted by the end of this year.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Roger knows things, about the 2016 election and the J6 plot, I figure Julian Assange can rat out Roger for a deal if he comes to America and Roger will rat out anybody for a deal too. He was talking to proud boys and oath keepers before J6 and they know things and need a deal too. Roger freaked out when the capitol was breeched and immediately realized the gravity of the situation and consequences, he immediately left DC in a panic.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
Insert Homer Simpson doh! Gif here
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Just going with what I've seen so far. Yes, Stone knows a lot and could make a sweet deal for himself if the DOJ wanted to deal. But I get the sense that Roger Stone is a target of the investigation, not a potential witness. Near as I can tell, Stone walking about free is a much larger risk to democracy than his testimony is worth.
I think him behind bars in an orange jumpsuit for the rest of his life is what Jack Smith plans for him. Besides all of that, his body language and facial expressions creep me out.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Trump will appeal and remain free at least through the election. If he's disqualified then that might change but the DOJ isn't going to take on the political problems associated with holding a GOP nominee for President in prison. Nor do they need to. They are up to handling the responses to whatever defendant Trump does or says between now and the election.
Georgia's justice system might be less willing to give Donald different treatment than other prisoners get but then again, he was in and out of the detention center in 20 minutes while a normal person would be there for hours if not overnight. I'm guessing they don't want to be the dog that caught the car any more than Garland does. Once Trump loses the election, he will be carved up and put away by the justice system. Until then, he's politically radioactive.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
As far as I can see the longer Trump is running around loose the better for the democrats in 24, especially if he can run in the GOP primaries and loses, you know what he would do then, he would rip the republicans apart like America. He is disqualified for the general election of that I am certain, if the SCOTUS did otherwise all Hell would break out and from my reading of the situation it would be a unanimous call, even Thomas would disqualify Trump and it would happen for sure after a criminal conviction over J6, but that would be well into the GOP primaries. I think the most likely scenario though is that Trump is disqualified from the GOP primaries by the SCOTUS before they begin. Then his trials become a political side show, but the republicans will have a much better chance in 24 with Trump removed before the primaries and a nightmare for them would be averted.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
A lot of the things you predict don't happen, so what should one make of the one you made here?. I's not clear at all that Trump will be disqualified under the 14th amendment, much less disqualified in time to affect the election in 24. The courts system does not need to follow the election calendar. I don't doubt that the issue will be litigated but there is a good possibility that the decision won't be settled before the election is settled through the vote. It often takes years for an issue to make it to the SCOTUS and their rulings hardly ever are made quickly. I'm not saying Trump won't be disqualified, just saying a lot has to happen before he can be and the justice system acts on more of an event driven process rather than a time driven one. Then again, the courts system might speed up the process but do we really want to force a decision before the judges are satisfied that the case has been heard properly? I don't think they will allow that, so that question is a rhetorical one.
On top of the caution and slow pace the justice system operates under, there are valid differences of opinion concerning the language of the 14th amendment. After reading and listening to what both sides are saying, I can't tell which side is making the best case. I am biased toward disqualifying him so my opinion isn't of much value either.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I'm basically echoing the opinions of legal experts on this issue and as I mentioned a lot depends on when and if they rule on disqualification from the GOP primaries, everything flows downstream from that event. I posted a lot of articles and other things supporting this and my personal opinion is based on it and we are accumulating data points by the day that decrease the probabilities. If the SCOTUS rules before the GOP primaries that Trump is out, then a whole bunch of possibilities flow from that key event. It would be good for the republicans and likely bad for Joe and the democrats, if Trump were knocked out before the GOP primaries and I have seen a dearth of opinion on the primaries, but the general election is clear.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
"I posted a lot of articles supporting it".
^Exactly. You are biased and are posting articles that support your preconceived notion.
I'm every bit as biased as you are on the subject and so am being careful to check my bias by reading opposing opinions. Like this:
First, the relevant text in the 14th
"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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Argument for:
A University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, penned by two conservative constitutional scholars, also members of the Heritage Foundation, asserts the disqualification clause could be invoked against Trump. The article lays out several reasons for their position:
- In their opinion, Trump engaged in an insurrection within the clause’s meaning.
- They argue they rule broadly applies to any insurrection or rebellion in the present day, not only to former Confederate officials and officers during the post-Civil War era.
- The article also expresses Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it can automatically be enforced by federal officials.
There are a few reasons that have been expressed, but two major issues are historical context and lack of legal precedent. Section 3 was passed after the Civil war, following an attempt to reintroduce Confederate lawmakers to Congress. It has seldom been used, and -- when it has -- it was mainly for reasons related to the Civil War.
It’s unclear if this provision was intended to apply to present day.
The absence of legal precedent further complicates matters. The Supreme Court has not ruled on these specific issues of Section 3, and there is still the question of whether Trump’s actions amounted to an insurrection or rebellion.
Another issue is more technical: under the law, is a president considered an officer of the United States? That question is triggered by (the above) portion of Section 3:
Supreme Court precedent has addressed a similar issue the 2010 case called Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board. In the main opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ They instead look to the president to guide the “assistants or deputies subject to his superintendence." By that logic, it would seem as though the court would not classify a president as an officer in the context of the disqualification clause.
Fact Check Team: Does the 14th Amendment disqualify Trump from return to presidency?
Legal experts argue former President Trump's role in January 6th disqualifies him from running for President because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
abc7amarillo.com
So, go ahead and advocate for what you think is right. Being wrong has never shaken your belief in your opinions before, so why start now? But there are arguments to be made against what you believe is true. I'm just going to sit this one out on the sidelines. But will remind you from time to time that what you believe to be true is not as certain as you say.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of opposing opinions and those who disagree can post them, but I do think the 14th is the most important issue moving forward and the greatest unknown. We are likely to know about the primaries by the end of the year because the lawsuits have been and are being filed and the secretaries of state are meeting and seeking guidance on the 14th. We have a high degree of certainty that Trump will be convicted both federally and in Georgia before the election, but not exactly when he will go to jail, if he will go to a jail or some other holding pen."I posted a lot of articles supporting it".
^Exactly. You are biased and are posting articles that support your preconceived notion.
I'm every bit as biased as you are on the subject and so am being careful to check my bias by reading opposing opinions. Like this:
First, the relevant text in the 14th
"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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Argument for:
A University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, penned by two conservative constitutional scholars, also members of the Heritage Foundation, asserts the disqualification clause could be invoked against Trump. The article lays out several reasons for their position:
Argument against:
- In their opinion, Trump engaged in an insurrection within the clause’s meaning.
- They argue they rule broadly applies to any insurrection or rebellion in the present day, not only to former Confederate officials and officers during the post-Civil War era.
- The article also expresses Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it can automatically be enforced by federal officials.
There are a few reasons that have been expressed, but two major issues are historical context and lack of legal precedent. Section 3 was passed after the Civil war, following an attempt to reintroduce Confederate lawmakers to Congress. It has seldom been used, and -- when it has -- it was mainly for reasons related to the Civil War.
It’s unclear if this provision was intended to apply to present day.
The absence of legal precedent further complicates matters. The Supreme Court has not ruled on these specific issues of Section 3, and there is still the question of whether Trump’s actions amounted to an insurrection or rebellion.
Another issue is more technical: under the law, is a president considered an officer of the United States? That question is triggered by (the above) portion of Section 3:
Supreme Court precedent has addressed a similar issue the 2010 case called Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board. In the main opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ They instead look to the president to guide the “assistants or deputies subject to his superintendence." By that logic, it would seem as though the court would not classify a president as an officer in the context of the disqualification clause.
Fact Check Team: Does the 14th Amendment disqualify Trump from return to presidency?
Legal experts argue former President Trump's role in January 6th disqualifies him from running for President because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, go ahead and advocate for what you think is right. Being wrong has never shaken your belief in your opinions before, so why start now? But there are arguments to be made against what you believe is true. I'm just going to sit this one out on the sidelines. But will remind you from time to time that what you believe to be true is not as certain as you say.
You would be asking the courts to make a political decision on whether Trump goes free after conviction in DC because he is supposed to be a political candidate in an election that doesn't even officially start for months after he is convicted. Assuming he is not disqualified from the primaries to begin with. I think equality under the law demands incarceration since he is out on bail from other jurisdictions any way, the sentence is likely to be long and his behavior on release has been appalling. It is not up to Garland after he is sentenced to release him, it is his job to cage him appropriately, through the BOP.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Could Georgia jail Trump upon conviction in DC if they don't do it, a conviction would violate his terms of release there. It is completely up to the DC judge, and I see no reason for her to let Trump walk upon conviction, everybody else appeals from inside for these kinds of crimes. The feds won't even get his ass until after sentencing and can only keep it, the judge determines the sentence, how it is served is up to the BOP under Garland ultimately."I posted a lot of articles supporting it".
^Exactly. You are biased and are posting articles that support your preconceived notion.
I'm every bit as biased as you are on the subject and so am being careful to check my bias by reading opposing opinions. Like this:
First, the relevant text in the 14th
"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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Argument for:
A University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, penned by two conservative constitutional scholars, also members of the Heritage Foundation, asserts the disqualification clause could be invoked against Trump. The article lays out several reasons for their position:
Argument against:
- In their opinion, Trump engaged in an insurrection within the clause’s meaning.
- They argue they rule broadly applies to any insurrection or rebellion in the present day, not only to former Confederate officials and officers during the post-Civil War era.
- The article also expresses Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it can automatically be enforced by federal officials.
There are a few reasons that have been expressed, but two major issues are historical context and lack of legal precedent. Section 3 was passed after the Civil war, following an attempt to reintroduce Confederate lawmakers to Congress. It has seldom been used, and -- when it has -- it was mainly for reasons related to the Civil War.
It’s unclear if this provision was intended to apply to present day.
The absence of legal precedent further complicates matters. The Supreme Court has not ruled on these specific issues of Section 3, and there is still the question of whether Trump’s actions amounted to an insurrection or rebellion.
Another issue is more technical: under the law, is a president considered an officer of the United States? That question is triggered by (the above) portion of Section 3:
Supreme Court precedent has addressed a similar issue the 2010 case called Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board. In the main opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ They instead look to the president to guide the “assistants or deputies subject to his superintendence." By that logic, it would seem as though the court would not classify a president as an officer in the context of the disqualification clause.
Fact Check Team: Does the 14th Amendment disqualify Trump from return to presidency?
Legal experts argue former President Trump's role in January 6th disqualifies him from running for President because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, go ahead and advocate for what you think is right. Being wrong has never shaken your belief in your opinions before, so why start now? But there are arguments to be made against what you believe is true. I'm just going to sit this one out on the sidelines. But will remind you from time to time that what you believe to be true is not as certain as you say.
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
I don't make a lot of comments in here as I'm no political scholar nor an American. You seem to have the more balanced view of what's going on but I love DIY's enthusiasm and a lot of the articles he posts that I can follow up to learn more as I go."I posted a lot of articles supporting it".
^Exactly. You are biased and are posting articles that support your preconceived notion.
I'm every bit as biased as you are on the subject and so am being careful to check my bias by reading opposing opinions. Like this:
First, the relevant text in the 14th
"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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Argument for:
A University of Pennsylvania Law Review article, penned by two conservative constitutional scholars, also members of the Heritage Foundation, asserts the disqualification clause could be invoked against Trump. The article lays out several reasons for their position:
Argument against:
- In their opinion, Trump engaged in an insurrection within the clause’s meaning.
- They argue they rule broadly applies to any insurrection or rebellion in the present day, not only to former Confederate officials and officers during the post-Civil War era.
- The article also expresses Section 3 is self-executing, meaning it can automatically be enforced by federal officials.
There are a few reasons that have been expressed, but two major issues are historical context and lack of legal precedent. Section 3 was passed after the Civil war, following an attempt to reintroduce Confederate lawmakers to Congress. It has seldom been used, and -- when it has -- it was mainly for reasons related to the Civil War.
It’s unclear if this provision was intended to apply to present day.
The absence of legal precedent further complicates matters. The Supreme Court has not ruled on these specific issues of Section 3, and there is still the question of whether Trump’s actions amounted to an insurrection or rebellion.
Another issue is more technical: under the law, is a president considered an officer of the United States? That question is triggered by (the above) portion of Section 3:
Supreme Court precedent has addressed a similar issue the 2010 case called Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board. In the main opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’ They instead look to the president to guide the “assistants or deputies subject to his superintendence." By that logic, it would seem as though the court would not classify a president as an officer in the context of the disqualification clause.
Fact Check Team: Does the 14th Amendment disqualify Trump from return to presidency?
Legal experts argue former President Trump's role in January 6th disqualifies him from running for President because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, go ahead and advocate for what you think is right. Being wrong has never shaken your belief in your opinions before, so why start now? But there are arguments to be made against what you believe is true. I'm just going to sit this one out on the sidelines. But will remind you from time to time that what you believe to be true is not as certain as you say.
Years ago I was torn about my position on the political map and tho definitely leaning left I believed in a lot of the core principles of the conservatives too. They seem to have totally abandoned those principles so are no longer something I can believe in. It seems to have really gone too far south starting with Reagan and once corporations were deigned to be the same as people and elections were more easily bought it really went to hell.
Personally I blame the poor education funding the masses get in the US and the repubs are fighting to make it even worse. Uneducated people make stupid choices and that's why the GOP love to keep them that way.
I will not be surprised to see a huge uptick in violence as tRump goes down and the GOP goes with him and is wiped out in '24.
A wise man, George Carlin, once said, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” Especially now that those stupid people are armed to the teeth with weapons of war.
Gonna get a lot worse before it gets better I'm afraid so good luck!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Glenn's opinion carries weight, he is a lawyer with experience in prosecutions and knows how the law works for everybody else he has prosecuted. That is why he was so pissed off about all this, but since Jack, he feels much better as do many people.
Four felony cases & a stream of dangerous posts; Donald Trump should be detained pending trial
25,527 views Sep 3, 2023 #TeamJustice
Donald Trump has four serious felony prosecutions pending against him. Yet, he continues to say and post things that put prosecutors, judges, witnesses and jurors in harm's way.
The legal test for whether someone should be detained pending trial is as follows: is there clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is either a flight risk or is a danger to the community. The evidence clearly establishes that Trump is a danger to the community.
Here's hoping that the judges soon apply the law and neutralize the ongoing, demonstrated danger that is Donald Trump.
Four felony cases & a stream of dangerous posts; Donald Trump should be detained pending trial
25,527 views Sep 3, 2023 #TeamJustice
Donald Trump has four serious felony prosecutions pending against him. Yet, he continues to say and post things that put prosecutors, judges, witnesses and jurors in harm's way.
The legal test for whether someone should be detained pending trial is as follows: is there clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is either a flight risk or is a danger to the community. The evidence clearly establishes that Trump is a danger to the community.
Here's hoping that the judges soon apply the law and neutralize the ongoing, demonstrated danger that is Donald Trump.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
If Trump were being treated equally under the law he would not be free today. But he is free today. So, he's not being treated equally under the law.
He isn't being treated equally under the law now and will continue to be treated differently until he has run out of options. The risk he poses while free during the appeals would be less than the cost he would cause if he is held. This is why I think he will remain free after he is found guilty and his appeal is being processed. As is true today, if Trump does something egregious, he can always be will be put away then and the officials will then be able to produce a good reason why he is being held. As I said, the DOJ and Georgia justice system are up to managing him.
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
this is a prime example of the stacked-maybe brain cairns I mentioned earlier. This is probably the >10th time it has been shared with us. Proof-by-repetition is not a thing, as observing GQP words and deeds confirms.
It would be less of an irritant if each time one of his prognostications lithobraked, he would proactively own the crash&burn. That would raise the value of his projections above the current large multiple of zero. It’s not even a matter of shame so much as it is one of intellectual integrity. Jmo.
As for disqualifying P01135809, I believe that will end up on Scotus’s plate. How soon it gets there … is way above my (former) pay grade.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I can't disagree, but he is up against Chutkan now in a DC federal court and it looks like she is ignoring politics and is a believer in equality under the law, methinks Donald had better watch his step with her. Willis in Georgia looks serious and not about to take too much shit either. Media is reporting today that Donald has toned down his social media posts quite a bit, maybe someone had a talk with him. It looks like a bit of a race who will try Donald first with all the early trial activity in Georgia that Trump could get sucked into. Willis is at the top of her game, and I expect lots of guilty pleas and early convictions in Georgia. If Donald goes last to trial, all the others will blame him as their defense and be convicted or plead guilty to a conspiracy that he was a party to. The most important and delicious part of Georgia is the TV trial though. Justice must not just be done, it must be seen to be done, as the old saying goes.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It's all opinion at this point, the articles too, pro and con and there have been several recently of note in the public forum, mostly by experts in the field. The SCOTUS will settle it, but when, how and over what. If they refuse to hear a case over the primaries or it doesn't make it that far, Trump will run in the GOP primaries and probably win despite being on trial and even convicted over J6. Trump and Biden have been sitting at 46% for a while now, its early days, but considering Trump's history and legal problems it is terrifying. When we know about the 14th is import and what they decide or don't about the GOP primaries will be determinative of a lot of other things moving forward.