Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Gorsameth]

I'm pretty sure this sets up the endgame. If they rule the Colorado and Maine decisions are valid, other States can comfortably act on that premise without fear of it being overturned. If they do overturn it, why? Legal precedent states that A> the President is an Officer of the United States, and B> Trump himself has admitted he would give aid and comfort (specifically, pardons) to Jan 6 insurrectionists (which makes him an insurrectionist too). Either they have to overthrow A>, which I think is implausible, or it's more likely their overruling will rely on it being beyond the authority of the States, somehow (despite States otherwise being able to run their elections as they choose). And if that's the case, any federal court can adopt the Colorado argument and kick Trump off every ballot, leaving SCOTUS no room for further appeal.

There is also the easy punt of section 5 of the 14th amendment.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The SC can simply rule its up to Congress to ban Trump, not the States and then its effectively dead without having to decide on any form of guilt or immunity.

[zorkuus]

Then Biden can settle this problem by inviting Trump to the White House for a chat and shooting him in the face when he arrives. Or at a presidential debate during the campaign. If the President's immune to criminal prosecution for acts done while President, then there's little reason not to.

You know these people are masssive hypocrites. And they don't care that they are. And they probably know a democrat president would never abuse their powers like this.

[Paranoid Android]

Then Biden can settle this problem by inviting Trump to the White House for a chat and shooting him in the face when he arrives. Or at a presidential debate during the campaign. If the President's immune to criminal prosecution for acts done while President, then there's little reason not to.

Ha! I watched Mark Elias make the case of Biden kidnapping Trump, but you went next level.

So yeah, if this is really the case then why should Biden respect any laws. My goodness if Biden loses in November, screw it. Also I'm sure covered but with the new revelation of foreign money, so if its fine. Then Hunter is cool?

I don't know why, we argue and make the case. This is the dumbest bleep ever in just common sense and law. Umm, should be law, right?

[Breccia]

Judge denies Rudy Giuliani’s request to extend deadlines in Georgia election case

Oh, and in case you thought Giuliani somehow had a perfectly safe, sound, legally-effective motion that was just not quite good enough...no, this is more of the same.

The judge wrote that Giuliani "does not articulate exactly what discovery must still be reviewed, or why the review has not been completed in the approximately four months that have passed since arraignment."

He added that while Giuliani "claims to have filed 'many' motions concerning discovery, none appear on the docket."

To put this in my (teacher) terms:

"I need more time for my homework."
"Why?"
"I won't tell you. But I already turned in a bunch of homework!"
"No, you didn't. I have your grades right here, you haven't turned in any homework."

So, the judge was just lied to in an official motion and no actions were taken. I think the reason is, the judge feels there's no need. Giuliani is objectively guilty and piling sanctions on doesn't seem necessary. If that's true, I disagree, someone who's committed a murder shouldn't get a pass for shooting a cop while fleeing. Plus, Giuliani's lawyers went along with it -- they intentionally agreed to lie under oath. They should be slapped for that.

In a related story, Smith has responded to Trump's out-of-nowhere demand that Smith be hit with contempt charges for, as I mentioned in a previous post, doing his job and continuing to file things in a timely fashion.

Spoiler alert: he wasn't happy about it.

The defendant claims that the Government intentionally violated the Court’s stay order, and promoted a political agenda, by fulfilling its continuing discovery obligations and voluntarily complying with otherwise suspended deadlines. That is false.

The Government has not violated — and never intentionally would violate — an order of the Court, and the defendant’s recycled allegations of partisanship and prosecutorial misconduct remain baseless.

Nothing here requires any action by the defendant, and he fails to explain how the mere receipt of discovery materials that he is not obligated to review, or the early filing of Government pleadings to which he does not yet need to respond, possibly burdens him.

Emphasis mine. Smith goes on to say that, while the case is currently paused while a higher court can rule on absolute immunity -- a topic in which Trump has had zero success -- the trial is still scheduled for March 4. Smith's filings are merely to keep things on schedule "if" the appeal fails and Trump does not have absolute immunity.

And to top it all off:

I just hope we get fair treatment. Because if we don’t, our country’s in big, big trouble. Does everybody understand what I’m saying?

-- Donald Trump, in public, emphasis again mine

There is good news for Trump, however. I keep saying that SCOTUS will say "Trump cannot be kicked off by the 14th because he was not convicted" and I will continue to say so. ABC News has another option: they'll let voters decide, which in turn, means he can't be kicked off the ballots in that cowardly legal option, either.

I think that's a legal option that SCOTUS does not want people, specifically me, to have. "Your Honor, you can't throw me in jail for setting all those puppies on fire because the voters should decide."

[Kathranis]

Not necessarily. Reagan won the popular vote both times and he was basically proto-Trump.

And it's worth mentioning that, since Reagan, we've only had two elections where Republicans won the popular vote: Bush Sr. in 1988 and W Bush in 2004. Not exactly a great track record for the GOP.

Get rid of the Electoral College and gerrymandering and you're looking at a dramatic decline in electability for Republicans nationwide. Forget the presidency, even achieving any sort of majority in Congress becomes nigh impossible.

That's why you see them fight tooth and nail to prevent anything that would make our voting process more fair. Even basic quality of life things, like automatic voter registration and mail-in ballots, which are taken for granted in other modern first world Democracies.

The simple truth is that the GOP is in serious decline, and what we're seeing with MAGA is the scraping of the bottom of the barrel. What they're trying to do right now is not sustainable, especially as experienced political operators and strategists continue to retire, die, or get pushed out by inexperienced neophytes like the Freedom Caucus. It's fucking amateur hour on that side of the aisle now.

[Breccia]

So SCOTUS has three issues to resolve, apparently, as I cite a former US attorney who appeared on MSNBC.

One: was this an insurrection, and did Trump take part?

Two: is the office of the President an officer of the United States?

Three: what is the required due process here?

So the whole "not been found guilty" I keep going on and on about is in parts one and three. The middle part is a potential loophole by centuries-old phrasing that gives SCOTUS another option.

But the "due process" is where SCOTUS really needs to rule, mostly, for Biden. Simply put, SCOTUS can and very well might rule that a state's SecState cannot unilaterally declare someone to be an insurrectionist and expect that to survive all challenges. Honestly, I hope they do say that. A blue state kicking Biden off the ballot just because they a red official says so seems troublesome. Biden, of course, is not accused of anything, and Trump is...but Trump hasn't been convicted, either.

[Twdft]

Two: is the office of the President an officer of the United States?

This will be so funny if SCOTUS says no to that. To quote a great man of dubious character "it's in the name"

[Breccia]

This will be so funny if SCOTUS says no to that.

I won't find it funny. It's possible they rule strictly as the words on the paper says -- legal language loves loopholes, lol.

[Gorsameth]

This will be so funny if SCOTUS says no to that. To quote a great man of dubious character "it's in the name"

My money is on either that, or section 5 and declaring its up to Congress, not the States. Which effectively kills it aswell

[Endus]

And it's worth mentioning that, since Reagan, we've only had two elections where Republicans won the popular vote: Bush Sr. in 1988 and W Bush in 2004. Not exactly a great track record for the GOP.

Get rid of the Electoral College and gerrymandering and you're looking at a dramatic decline in electability for Republicans nationwide. Forget the presidency, even achieving any sort of majority in Congress becomes nigh impossible.

That's why you see them fight tooth and nail to prevent anything that would make our voting process more fair. Even basic quality of life things, like automatic voter registration and mail-in ballots, which are taken for granted in other modern first world Democracies.

The simple truth is that the GOP is in serious decline, and what we're seeing with MAGA is the scraping of the bottom of the barrel. What they're trying to do right now is not sustainable, especially as experienced political operators and strategists continue to retire, die, or get pushed out by inexperienced neophytes like the Freedom Caucus. It's fucking amateur hour on that side of the aisle now.

And just so we're clear; there are valid responses to declining support for your ideological views.

Those reponses just mostly boil down to "realize your views are the problem, and change them, because they're shitty and unpopular views".

Y'know, like Democrats did in the early-mid 20th Century, morphing themselves from the party of the KKK and segregation into the party of today.

[Breccia]

I want to send our support and our deepest sympathies to the victims and families touched by the terrible school shooting yesterday in Perry, Iowa.

It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But have to get over it, we have to move forward.

-- Trump, at an Iowa rally, today

"Has Trump got over losing the election yet?"

No.

"Has Trump got over the insurrection yet? The body count was pretty similar."

No.

"Did Trump bring up the insurrection in the same rally speech?"

I don't know, it's ongoing. Probably. So I'll instead quote Donnie Dum-Dum Jr. on Twitter.

Happy Fake Insurrection Day!!! The first ever insurrection with armed tour guides and unarmed participants! I do hope that it was the start of something real though, where people realize that their government is not what they thought it to be unite to take back their country!!

I don't think he's over it, either. Funny how quickly you get over something when you don't have human empathy and it didn't affect you. It was a child who was murdered, just so everyone's clear.

"Just to be clear...are you suggesting, in any way, that the victims and their families should never ever get over it, and never ever move forward?"

Of course not. But I'd never say that to their faces the very literal next day. I'm not a sociopathic monster. And I would also never say "You should get over it, but also, one time three years ago I got fired for not doing my job, and everyone here should risk yet more shootings to get my job back". Because I'm not an insurrectionist traitor.

[Myradin]

My money is on either that, or section 5 and declaring its up to Congress, not the States. Which effectively kills it aswell

Wouldn't this also create a potential issue where congress tries to disqualify Biden 'for reasons'?

Then again they've been threatning to impeach Biden without evidence for months now and still doing nothing.

[gondrin]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...0901b4f4&ei=10

Donald Trump Refuses to Sign Pledge Against Overthrowing Government

Former President Donald Trump has refused to sign an optional oath that he will not "advocate the overthrow of the government" ahead of the 2024 election, according to an analysis from radio station WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times on Saturday.

Trump is the current frontrunner in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, and since his 2016 successful run, the former president has maintained a loyal base known as MAGA from his campaign slogan, Make America Great Again.

During Trump's bid for president in 2016 and again in 2020, the MAGA leader signed a loyalty oath document and submitted it to Illinois election authorities. However, this time around, Trump did not sign the document. The oath, which political candidates in Illinois have been signing for over 50 years comes from a Cold-Era law that was made non-mandatory in the 1970s.
The oath, which is a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. government and state of Illinois, is not required, but it is a tradition when presidential candidates turn in their nominating petitions to the Illinois State Board of Elections for the state's primary held on March 19.

In part of the oath, candidates declare that they are not communists nor affiliated with communist organizations and in another part, which is more applicable to today, candidates swear that they "do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of this state or any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means."

President Joe Biden and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican 2024 presidential candidate, signed the oath, according to WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor, did not sign the oath.

Newsweek reached out to Trump's campaign via email for additional information.

Reacting to the news that Trump did not sign the oath, Biden posted on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday, "I said Donald Trump is willing to sacrifice our democracy to put himself in power. I wasn't exaggerating."

Former Representative Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican who sat on the House select committee that investigated the events surrounding the U.S. Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, questioned Trump's motives for not pledging to uphold the loyal oath.

"Why wouldn't he sign it?" he asked the Chicago Sun-Times. "Has he been advised maybe not to sign it because maybe there's some legal exposures...given that oath, if he signed it, would be a violation of everything he actually did on Jan. 6th, 2021, and leading up to it?"

Meanwhile, Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker wrote on X on Saturday, "Pledging not to overthrow our democracy is a hard thing to do when you've already attempted it once."

Newsweek also reached out to Kinzinger's political action committee, Country First, via online form. Pritzker's office told Newsweek it did not have a comment on the governor's comments from his political X account.

Three years ago today, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., to stop the certification of Biden's 2020 election win. The riot erupted after Trump repeatedly made false claims that the election was stolen from him via widespread voter fraud. The former president, meanwhile, has denied taking part in an insurrection.

Later that day, Pritzker called for Trump to be impeached for his role in the riot. When Trump was impeached for incitement of insurrection a week later, Kinzinger was one of only 10 Republicans to vote for impeachment. However, the former president was later acquitted by the Senate.

Trump is currently facing federal charges for his actions surrounding the riot. In August 2023, the Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted the former president on four federal felony counts: 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. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges and has claimed that the case is politically motivated.

[masterhorus8]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...0901b4f4&ei=10

And it's not an Onion article, impressive.

[Breccia]

Trump has refused to sign an optional oath that he will not "advocate the overthrow of the government"

Yep. Not sure why anyone would be surprised, honestly. As I've already posted, recently, as well as hundreds of others, Trump is already telling everyone 2024 is rigged, he's telling his rabid fanbase to be "poll watchers" and to prepare for violence. Again.

And I'm all for it. Trump tried this once already and failed hard. People who followed his orders are pleading guilty in tears. The people who attempt terrorism and violence in 2024 will not just be the second tier -- the first tier already got caught -- but truly dedicated, unprepared losers.

Basically, one of two things will happen.
a) Nothing, they're coward pussies like the forum posters who fled like roaches when the lights turn on around Jan 7, 2021. I'd name names, but why, they're all inactive, banned, or have me on ignore.
b) They'll show up at a polling place to scare off brown people, get the cops called, and get shot and killed.

"Surely some of them will be successful?"

Honestly, maybe some places will have cops that won't order Trump's terrorist poll watchers to leave. These places are likely going to vote for Trump anyhow, but yes, will affect the vote count. However, hopefully the ones that pick a fight above their weight class and get killed for it will scare the others.

Oh, and all of this is based on the election still being roughly normal. Trump is still chewing through the ropes of multiple civil and criminal cases, and choosing to antagonize his own party while doing it. 2024 is going to be interesting.

[Drutt]

.And I'm all for it. Trump tried this once already and failed hard.

Not to mention that unlike last time, the sitting POTUS won't be there actively running interference and stopping law enforcement from being deployed.

Anyone trying to "improve" on last time's results will be in for a short, sharp shock when they don't meet zero opposition.

[Breccia]

Once again, it's time to play...actually, no, new game. Multiple choice time!

Which of the following did Trump NOT say in the last 24 hours? This is not a trick question, there is a real answer.

A)

IF JUDGE ENGORON IS ALLOWED TO DISREGARD THE COMPLETE APPELLATE DIVISION VICTORY THAT WE HAD IN JUNE, THEN THE RULE OF LAW IN NEW YORK STATE, AND INDEED OUR COUNTRY, WILL NEVER RECOVER. THE JUDGE HAS SO DISRESPECTED THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN THAT HE CONSIDERS THIS BIGGEST OF ALL LEGAL EVENTS TO HAVE NEVER HAPPENED, THAT NEW YORK STATE, AND OUR NATION AS A WHOLE, CANNOT ALLOW THIS TERRIBLE WRONGDOING TO TAKE PLACE.

THIS IS LAWLESSNESS BY A JUDGE THE LIKES OF WHICH OUR COUNTRY HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE. A VICTORY IS A VICTORY! LET IT BE. FIGHT VIOLENCE ON N.Y. STREETS, AND STOP THE MASS EXODUS OF OUR PEOPLE, OUR BUSINESSES, & OUR WEALTH OUT OF OUR ONCE GREAT STATE, & INTO OTHER, FAR MORE HOSPITABLE ONES. MAKE NEW YORK STATE GREAT AGAIN!

B)

They had a $900 million cost over on these stupid electric catapults that didn't work. They had almost a billion dollar cost over on the magnetic elevators. Think of it, magnets. Now all I know about magnets is this: Give me a glass of water, let me drop it on the magnets, that's the end of the magnets.

C)

Obamacare is a catastrophe, nobody talks about it. You know without John McCain we would have had it done. But John McCain, for some reason, couldn't get his arm up that day. Remember? He goes, like that [gives thumbs down]. And that was the end of that.

D)

[quoting unnamed general coming up to him]Sir, if George Washington and Abraham Lincoln came back from the dead, and they decided to run as President and Vice President, you'd beat them by thirty-five points.

E)

The Civil War was so fascinating, so horrible — but so fascinating. I'm so attracted to seeing it. So many mistakes were made. See, there was something I think could have been negotiated, to be honest with you. All the people died, so many people died.

The answer, of course, is D because he said it on Jan 5th, not Jan 6th, so it was not 24 hours ago and you can find it here. The rest you can verify are real Trump quotes with easy Google searches.

[Edge-]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2475100.html

Attorneys for Donald Trump claim that the former president didn’t have “fair notice” that his attempts to reverse his Georgia loss in the 2020 presidential election could result in criminal charges against him.

A flurry of filings in Fulton County Superior Court on Monday argue that the sprawling election interference case against Mr Trump “consists entirely of core political speech at the zenith of First Amendment protections”.

Attorneys for the former president want the case dismissed on grounds that he has “presidential immunity” from actions while in office, that he was already acquitted for similar allegations in his second impeachment trial, and that he was never told that what he was doing in the state – where he is charged as part of an alleged racketeering scheme to unlawfully subvert the state’s election results – could be prosecuted.

“Our country has a longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in a long list of presidential elections throughout our history, therefore, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 presidential election could be criminalized,” according to his attorneys.

Donald's newest defense: "Nobody told me I was breaking the law so you can't charge me for breaking the law!"

[Breccia]

"Attorneys for Donald Trump claim that the former president didn’t have 'fair notice' that his attempts to reverse his Georgia loss in the 2020 presidential election could result in criminal charges against him."

Yeah, I don't think we need cubby on this one -- pretty sure he's already brought us up to speed. Not only is ignorance no excuse, but in his position, he should have known, and negligence is effectively guilt. Even if nobody tells me murder is illegal, if I run a stop sign and run over a guy, I'm still going to jail.

[Endus]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2475100.html



Donald's newest defense: "Nobody told me I was breaking the law so you can't charge me for breaking the law!"

Ignorantiam juris non excusat and all that.

But kudos on making your argument "Trump is too fucking stupid to know what he's doing", lawyers.