Yep. My only wish for Christmas was that GOP voters would come to their senses and abandon this criminal. There's plenty of non-criminals who can beat Biden.
We know that's what Moscow Carlson wanted the GOP to do back in 2020! "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait."
A 'version' of the GOP that could come to their senses no longer exist. If you are a Repub/Conservative you have to realize that now. 1 of the current non-Orange sh!t stain candidates has committed to not pardoning Mango Mussolini. The disease is fatal and will exist as long as their are host available.
There is no reverting back - it’s been destroyed.
There is a group of GOP voters that hate Trump. They are the Never Trumpers for one. And many more that voted for him in the past have had it with him. Keep in mind, that the Trump crazy talk is much more insane today than 2016. They want to move on from the insanity and lying. Crimes are ok though because it’s a political witch hunt.
so what will these voters do in 2024? We know they won’t vote for Biden. Will they stay home? Or will they fall in line again?
A 'version' of the GOP that could come to their senses no longer exist. If you are a Repub/Conservative you have to realize that now. 1 of the current non-Orange sh!t stain candidates has committed to not pardoning Mango Mussolini. The disease is fatal and will exist as long as their are host available.
There is no reverting back - it’s been destroyed.
There is a group of GOP voters that hate Trump. They are the Never Trumpers for one. And many more that voted for him in the past have had it with him. Keep in mind, that the Trump crazy talk is much more insane today than 2016. They want to move on from the insanity and lying. Crimes are ok though because it’s a political witch hunt.
so what will these voters do in 2024? We know they won’t vote for Biden. Will they stay home? Or will they fall in line again?
I think we know more or less that there will be a weaker turnout for trump because some of the base moved on. The question is whether the turnout for Biden will be even weaker due to complacency (see 2016) and not appreciating the massive threat to democracy that is the orange menace.
What nobody is talking about is the fact that the President of the United States does not run elections. He does not supervise elections. He is not the decider in any way shape or form of whether an election is legit, rigged or whatever. It is not in his wheelhouse of job duties or responsibilities. He has no authority to do so. It matters not what he believes or doesn't believe.
So to claim that all of Trump's actions fall into the outer perimeter of his duties is insane. The only way that argument flies legally is if we abandon our form of government and assume the President is a King.
That is what the GOP and much of the base is supporting now.
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
I don't think absolute immunity like you describe (murder) is at issue. It's "absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President." I think the SCOTUS (and maybe DC appeals court) will find that such immunity exists (it's never been decided before).
If the SCOTUS does find it exists, then the question becomes whether the acts alleged in Indictment fall within Trump's official acts as president. I think he has punted on that by not even mentioning most of the allegations against him in his appeal. So he either loses the appeal because he seems to have conceded it all, or he didn't have to address any of that and somehow it gets returned to the trial court and the jury (or the judge in a motion) decides what is an official act or not an official act. But I'm unclear how all that plays out. Anyone?
Well, yeah, a POTUS has immunity from official actions taken as a president, but what he did on 1/6 was in no way, one of them. Of course, the Supreme Court will reject Trump’s claim of immunity. All Trump and his attorneys are trying to do is delay the trial.
I don't think absolute immunity like you describe (murder) is at issue. It's "absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President." I think the SCOTUS (and maybe DC appeals court) will find that such immunity exists (it's never been decided before).
If the SCOTUS does find it exists, then the question becomes whether the acts alleged in Indictment fall within Trump's official acts as president. I think he has punted on that by not even mentioning most of the allegations against him in his appeal. So he either loses the appeal because he seems to have conceded it all, or he didn't have to address any of that and somehow it gets returned to the trial court and the jury (or the judge in a motion) decides what is an official act or not an official act. But I'm unclear how all that plays out. Anyone?
Well, yeah, a POTUS has immunity from official actions taken as a president, but what he did on 1/6 was in no way, one of them. Of course, the Supreme Court will reject Trump’s claim of immunity. All Trump and his attorneys are trying to do is delay the trial.
His behavior on 1/6 was one of the few things Trump did address in the Reply, and he cited the quotes we've all heard by now about how he said the crowd should be peaceful. But yeah, a campaign speech would not seem to be an official act of a president. Trump characterizes it as engaging and informing the public about election fraud which he says is something a president would do in his official capacity.
But anyway, he never addressed the fake electors or other things he, Eastman, Giuliani, Cheeseman, et al. did. Just totally ignores 4/5 of the accusations against him. That's what I don't understand here - by ignoring that, did he concede that all stuff is outside his official acts? Does that concession mean he loses the appeal? Now I'm thinking it seems unlikely his lawyers could screw up that bad, so I think they believe if Trump wins and the SCOTUS find presidential immunity exists in some form, then all this goes back to the district court where the judge and/or the jury determines whether the Trump acts alleged to be criminal are within his "official acts."
Well, yeah, a POTUS has immunity from official actions taken as a president, but what he did on 1/6 was in no way, one of them. Of course, the Supreme Court will reject Trump’s claim of immunity. All Trump and his attorneys are trying to do is delay the trial.
His behavior on 1/6 was one of the few things Trump did address in the Reply, and he cited the quotes we've all heard by now about how he said the crowd should be peaceful. But yeah, a campaign speech would not seem to be an official act of a president. Trump characterizes it as engaging and informing the public about election fraud which he says is something a president would do in his official capacity.
But anyway, he never addressed the fake electors or other things he, Eastman, Giuliani, Cheeseman, et al. did. Just totally ignores 4/5 of the accusations against him. That's what I don't understand here - by ignoring that, did he concede that all stuff is outside his official acts? Does that concession mean he loses the appeal? Now I'm thinking it seems unlikely his lawyers could screw up that bad, so I think they believe if Trump wins and the SCOTUS find presidential immunity exists in some form, then all this goes back to the district court where the judge and/or the jury determines whether the Trump acts alleged to be criminal are within his "official acts."
It was actually his behavior beginning on 11/3 and not just 1/6. During that frame time, he constantly tweeted false election fraud accusations. Just scheduling a rally for 1/6 makes him culpable.
His Reply is worthless and there’s nothing his attorneys could have written to change that. It’s not an official duty of a president to do the work of the DOJ. Per his request, it did investigate the possibility of election fraud and told him there was no evidence of there being any. That should have been the end of it.
There's a 100% chance the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the immunity claim and hopefully it will quickly enough for the trial to commence in March as scheduled.
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
I don't think absolute immunity like you describe (murder) is at issue. It's "absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President." I think the SCOTUS (and maybe DC appeals court) will find that such immunity exists (it's never been decided before).
If the SCOTUS does find it exists, then the question becomes whether the acts alleged in Indictment fall within Trump's official acts as president. I think he has punted on that by not even mentioning most of the allegations against him in his appeal. So he either loses the appeal because he seems to have conceded it all, or he didn't have to address any of that and somehow it gets returned to the trial court and the jury (or the judge in a motion) decides what is an official act or not an official act. But I'm unclear how all that plays out. Anyone?
If the SCOTUS punts, the argument is going to be something along the lines of letting the voters decide whether the acts of 1/6 are sufficient to warrant disqualification under the 14th amendment. That seems to be their least embarrassing out, but, for the SC originalists ignoring the Colorado decision is problematic.
The problem is Trump has been let slide by parties who probably honestly recognize the danger in the hopes he'd fade away, but Trump is in so deep that he has no out except to continue to up the ante. We'll see if the SC folds or not. As noted above, Trumps strategy is to delay a decision until he's locked in as the nominee making the stakes of ruling against him and consequently enraging his base too high for the SC to go there.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
100% chance the Supreme Court will deny blanket immunity to the President or someone who was President. Nobody is above the law.
99% chance the Supreme Court will rule that he has to be on the ballots. Even though the Constitution does not speak to it, there is no way they will open the door for modern-day Secretaries of State to keep him, or anyone, off ballots without some kind of conviction on an insurrection (or similar) charge.
Seems like the presidential immunity and 14th amendment appeals are being conflated here. I don't know. It's complicated stuff. That's why I like the Bathroom case better. Simple case. The Top Secret stuff is stashed next to Trump's personal $16,500 off-mauve toilet.
Seems like the presidential immunity and 14th amendment appeals are being conflated here. I don't know. It's complicated stuff. That's why I like the Bathroom case better. Simple case. The Top Secret stuff is stashed next to Trump's personal $16,500 off-mauve toilet.
Seems like the presidential immunity and 14th amendment appeals are being conflated here. I don't know. It's complicated stuff. That's why I like the Bathroom case better. Simple case. The Top Secret stuff is stashed next to Trump's personal $16,500 off-mauve toilet.
You mean they're being conflated on LR? Trump’s Reply addresses only immunity and double jeopardy.
Yes, here on LR.
Has there been any discussion on here about how the 1/6 trial might play out? He’s as guilty as hell, but maybe one of his fanatics will sneak into the jury and cause a hung jury. A conviction won’t disqualify him for president, but I think the judge can put Trump under house arrest while he appeals the verdict.
Has there been any discussion on here about how the 1/6 trial might play out? He’s as guilty as hell, but maybe one of his fanatics will sneak into the jury and cause a hung jury. A conviction won’t disqualify him for president, but I think the judge can put Trump under house arrest while he appeals the verdict.
It’s very unlikely that case, or probably any of the criminal cases against Trump, will go to trial before the election.
Has there been any discussion on here about how the 1/6 trial might play out? He’s as guilty as hell, but maybe one of his fanatics will sneak into the jury and cause a hung jury. A conviction won’t disqualify him for president, but I think the judge can put Trump under house arrest while he appeals the verdict.
I haven't seen any real discussion. That trial (if it happens) will be incredibly difficult for the prosecution, in my opinion. So much to explain to the jury, many of whom probably won't understand what an elector even is. Then getting the myriad of witnesses (Pence, Cippollone, ratboy Cheeseman, Rosen, Cassidy, Jacob, Herschmann, Mike Lee, Bob Barr, Jenna ratgirl Ellis, some 1/6 rioters who plea bargained (Bertino?), endless others) into a cohesive presentation of all these swirling events and moving pieces and who said what to who at what time -- seems almost impossible to me.
Has there been any discussion on here about how the 1/6 trial might play out? He’s as guilty as hell, but maybe one of his fanatics will sneak into the jury and cause a hung jury. A conviction won’t disqualify him for president, but I think the judge can put Trump under house arrest while he appeals the verdict.
It’s very unlikely that case, or probably any of the criminal cases against Trump, will go to trial before the election.
Unless the Supreme Court rules Trump has immunity, the trial will begin by early summer at the latest.
Trump went all out. I think they are saying states have ZERO right to determine eligibility for President on any grounds, and only Congress can do that. So every state law that touches on eligibility would be un-Constitutional. I guess that way they can reverse Colorado, Maine, and any other state that kicks Trump out, all at the same time. That's the easy out for SCOTUS if they just want to get rid of this.
Bunch of other stuff too - president is not an office and Trump was not an officer (big emphasis on this), 14th amendment is not self-executing, states have no business in a national election, there was no insurrection and Trump did not engage in insurrection.
Trump actually defines insurrection (which he didn't in Colorado) as "taking up of arm and waging war upon the United States." Not exactly helpful as a definition, but they are trying to say you need a Civil War type scale to be an insurrection.
New set of lawyers on here for Trump. Never seen these names before (Gessler, Dhillon, Warrington).
Trump went all out. I think they are saying states have ZERO right to determine eligibility for President on any grounds, and only Congress can do that. So every state law that touches on eligibility would be un-Constitutional. I guess that way they can reverse Colorado, Maine, and any other state that kicks Trump out, all at the same time. That's the easy out for SCOTUS if they just want to get rid of this.
Bunch of other stuff too - president is not an office and Trump was not an officer (big emphasis on this), 14th amendment is not self-executing, states have no business in a national election, there was no insurrection and Trump did not engage in insurrection.
Trump actually defines insurrection (which he didn't in Colorado) as "taking up of arm and waging war upon the United States." Not exactly helpful as a definition, but they are trying to say you need a Civil War type scale to be an insurrection.
New set of lawyers on here for Trump. Never seen these names before (Gessler, Dhillon, Warrington).
Gorsuch wrote opinion in 2012 on that very issue. Loser argument for Trump.
Has there been any discussion on here about how the 1/6 trial might play out? He’s as guilty as hell, but maybe one of his fanatics will sneak into the jury and cause a hung jury. A conviction won’t disqualify him for president, but I think the judge can put Trump under house arrest while he appeals the verdict.
I haven't seen any real discussion. That trial (if it happens) will be incredibly difficult for the prosecution, in my opinion. So much to explain to the jury, many of whom probably won't understand what an elector even is. Then getting the myriad of witnesses (Pence, Cippollone, ratboy Cheeseman, Rosen, Cassidy, Jacob, Herschmann, Mike Lee, Bob Barr, Jenna ratgirl Ellis, some 1/6 rioters who plea bargained (Bertino?), endless others) into a cohesive presentation of all these swirling events and moving pieces and who said what to who at what time -- seems almost impossible to me.
62% of adults in DC have an undergrad degree or higher, so putting a jury together that has a clue, is doable. If I was one of the jurors, I would find the trial to be riveting.
Trump went all out. I think they are saying states have ZERO right to determine eligibility for President on any grounds, and only Congress can do that. So every state law that touches on eligibility would be un-Constitutional. I guess that way they can reverse Colorado, Maine, and any other state that kicks Trump out, all at the same time. That's the easy out for SCOTUS if they just want to get rid of this.
Bunch of other stuff too - president is not an office and Trump was not an officer (big emphasis on this), 14th amendment is not self-executing, states have no business in a national election, there was no insurrection and Trump did not engage in insurrection.
Trump actually defines insurrection (which he didn't in Colorado) as "taking up of arm and waging war upon the United States." Not exactly helpful as a definition, but they are trying to say you need a Civil War type scale to be an insurrection.
New set of lawyers on here for Trump. Never seen these names before (Gessler, Dhillon, Warrington).
Gorsuch wrote opinion in 2012 on that very issue. Loser argument for Trump.
Interesting case; seems right on topic to me. Even the same state and same statute (I think). And Gorsuch cites to a 1986 Supreme Court case that was 7-2 for same idea that states can regulate qualifications.
SCOTUS has tough decisions here. They can delay the presidential immunity appeal because they don't care when the Fake Electors trial happens (or even if it happens), but they can't delay this 14th Amendment qualification appeal because there are election deadlines that need a decision one way or the other beforehand. But from that Gorsuch case, it looks like it will be hard to fast track a decision that takes this away from the states completely, so they have to rule on each state one by one on other grounds which is not easy. But I guess they could kill it all by saying the president is not an officer of the US. Seems a stretch, but that would end all of it immediately.
Interesting case; seems right on topic to me. Even the same state and same statute (I think). And Gorsuch cites to a 1986 Supreme Court case that was 7-2 for same idea that states can regulate qualifications.
SCOTUS has tough decisions here. They can delay the presidential immunity appeal because they don't care when the Fake Electors trial happens (or even if it happens), but they can't delay this 14th Amendment qualification appeal because there are election deadlines that need a decision one way or the other beforehand. But from that Gorsuch case, it looks like it will be hard to fast track a decision that takes this away from the states completely, so they have to rule on each state one by one on other grounds which is not easy. But I guess they could kill it all by saying the president is not an officer of the US. Seems a stretch, but that would end all of it immediately.
What? The immunity claim and 14th amendment off the ballot are entirely different cases. The decision for Colorado will be applicable to every state. What is the “Fake electors” trial?
