1. #88021
    The US election is about money.

    when you see that it can easily take a billion dollars to run for President you realise that only those with deep connections to the big donors and superpacs where that money comes can successfully run for candidate and those connections take time to build.

    Trumps success in securing the Republican candidacy is an anomaly in that and the more or less hostile takeover of the GOP that he managed to orchestrate is probably the only way someone 'young' could actually manage to get in. (and aided by Jeb Bush, the preferred political candidate being just so utterly uncharismatic)
    Last edited by Gorsameth; 2024-01-10 at 11:12 AM.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  2. #88022
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    tRump wasn't a "younger guy" in 2016. He was 70, or almost 70 still.
    That was the backlash.

  3. #88023
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,965
    Several experts in several articles had me running to the source itself:

    Article I

    Section 3 Senate

    Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
    -- the US Constitution

    Team Trump has been using this to say "see, you have to impeach first". Most experts who aren't in Team Trump have instead said this clause is worded this way to say "Impeachment is not a trial, therefore, double jeopardy does not apply".

    There is not a single sentence in the Constitution that says impeachment is required first. If that was the case, this would mean Congress would be taking the role of the judicial branch, despite not having like any of its abilities.

    Honestly, the most relevant argument -- to me -- I've seen is: why was Nixon pardoned?

    Team Trump is claiming they should be immune to any form of legal consequences because Congress did not impeach him. Well, Nixon resigned before he was impeached, and Ford immediately pardoned him. Okay, fine. Why? If Nixon was immune because he was never impeached, why pardon him?

  4. #88024
    Didn't congress impeach trump twice?

  5. #88025
    Quote Originally Posted by Myradin View Post
    Didn't congress impeach trump twice?
    No conviction though, which is where Trump's legal team is (arbitrarily) drawing the line.

  6. #88026
    Quote Originally Posted by Myradin View Post
    Didn't congress impeach trump twice?
    See, what tRump's lawyers are trying to say is that he needs to be removed from office.
    But they're tRump lawyers, so they will never realise that error and continue to argue in the prosecution's favor

  7. #88027
    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fra...ce8a0945f0c348

    Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters.

    Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments in the trial.
    Donald will not be making his closing arguments because he is physically incapable of staying on topic and following rules.

    It’s extremely unusual for people who have lawyers to give their own closing arguments. In an email exchange that happened over recent days and was filed in court Wednesday, Engoron initially approved the unusual request, saying he was “including to let everyone have his or her say.”

    But he said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”

    He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.
    Again, we have an incredibly accommodating judge here! Happy to give Donald his soapbox if he wants - just provided he remembers he's in a court and why he's in court.

    Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were unfair and said Trump could not agree to them.
    Narrator: They were extremely fair, lawyers are usually required to stay on topic and not go on wild, unrelated tangents during court proceedings.

  8. #88028
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,534
    I wonder which part Kise thinks is unfair...?

    Not introducing new evidence? Entirely understandable, because it's far too late in this case to introduce something new. It should've been done ages ago if there was more evidence.

    Not commenting on irrelevant matters? Why would that be unfair? This is a courtroom, and sticking to relevant matters is very important.

    Not delivering a campaign speech? This is a courtroom, not one of his rallies, so it's entirely fair.

    Not impugning the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers, or the court system? That's just professional etiquette, you don't go around using your closing statement to insult people.

    So which part are they saying is unfair?

  9. #88029
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    So which part are they saying is unfair?
    All of the above.

    And little coward donnie was never going to make closing arguments. That was just empty bravado to his negative IQ base.

  10. #88030
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters.
    Fuck. That would have been earth-shatteringly funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odinfrost View Post
    See, what tRump's lawyers are trying to say is that he needs to be removed from office.
    Which is funny, because he was. He fairly and legally lost the election.

  11. #88031
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Fuck. That would have been earth-shatteringly funny.
    Funny, and terrifying if he was given a pulpit to spew his nonsense in a courtroom like one Adolf Hitler.

  12. #88032
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    26,492
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Funny, and terrifying if he was given a pulpit to spew his nonsense in a courtroom like one Adolf Hitler.
    If I were to assign any level of tact to Trump I would almost say this was intentional. So he can complain about being “silenced by the courts” and “denied his free speech.”

    Remember, this is a civil trial, not criminal. If it doesn’t outright stop him from running for office, he’ll simply try and spin it as a pro for his reelection.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  13. #88033
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,965
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Funny, and terrifying if he was given a pulpit to spew his nonsense in a courtroom like one Adolf Hitler.
    I don't think it would have been that. This was the fraud trial, and the judge seemed pretty good about keeping things on track. I think he would have hit the figurative guard rails and flipped.

    Oh well.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So...for some reason, this article was published an hour ago. I thought the matter was settled.

    Donald Trump cannot personally deliver a closing argument in his civil fraud trial, a New York judge said Wednesday after Trump's attorneys did not agree to conditions that would prevent him from delivering a “campaign speech.”
    Wow, I was really close.

    Justice Arthur Engoron agreed to let Trump speak but only if he adhered to standard rules that bar attorneys from discussing irrelevant matters during arguments, according to an email chain filed on the court's docket.

    He may not deliver a campaign speech, and he may not impugn myself, my staff, plaintiff, plaintiff’s staff, or the New York State Court System, none of which is relevant to this case,” Engoron said.
    "But First Amendment! But Freeze Peach!"

    Engoron said Trump doesn't have an absolute right under New York law to speak during closing arguments, because his lawyers can speak for him.

    The parties began discussing possible closing arguments by Trump on Jan. 4, the emails showed. Trump's lawyers did not agree to Engoron's terms within his deadline, which he extended three times.
    Oh look, Team Trump missed a deadline. Must be a day than ends in fat orange failure.

    Trump, of course, took the loss he handed himself with dignity.

    “Is anyone surprised anymore?” Trump's lawyer Alina Habba said in a statement responding to Engoron's order.
    Er, the usual amount of dignity, I should have said.

    So, yes, he was told to obey the "gag order" and told to stay on topic. He was told so many times, he needed an extra week to digest it. And he chickened out. Because he's a coward.

    - - - Updated - - -

    So...remember how Trump said he could fund his own campaign? He may have to. He is running out of options.

    The RNC figures, recently disclosed to the Federal Election Committee (FEC), showed the body had just $9.96 million in its war chest as of November 30, lower than at the same point in any year since 2016 and dramatically below the $63.23 million it had in November 2019.
    And bear in mind, Trump has not been the RNC's darling of late. Yes, they will back him. No, they don't seem enthusiastic about it -- and some of those funds might go to House and Senate options. More so, if they assume Trump will lose (see also: handcuffs)

    In a further blow to his 2024 campaign finances FEC filings from Trump's Save America PAC, analyzed by the Associated Press in October, found it had paid just under $37 million to law firms and attorneys since January 2022, accounting for more than half its total expenditure over the period.
    Trump is bleeding money. Yes, he's using campaign donations to fund his criminal and civil trials, no question. But his survival depends on his re-election. If he can't pardon himself, or otherwise hide from the consequences of his actions, he dies poor in prison. He knows this, he led an insurrection on the topic.

  14. #88034
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Which is funny, because he was. He fairly and legally lost the election.
    He wasn't "removed" from office. He lost an election. He was not convicted on the impeachment charges...which they say he would have to be in order to be charged with any crimes he may have committed while President.

    The funny thing is that, during his second impeachment, Mitch McConnell made the exact opposite argument.


    “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.
    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    - H. L. Mencken

  15. #88035
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,596
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Funny, and terrifying if he was given a pulpit to spew his nonsense in a courtroom like one Adolf Hitler.
    There's a label for when you flagrantly disobey an order from a judge.
    It begins with C. Ends with a T.
    No, not that one. Contempt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  16. #88036
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    He wasn't "removed" from office.
    How many times has the Republican Party said "let the voters decide?"

    He was removed. By the voters. By their own logic.

  17. #88037
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    There's a label for when you flagrantly disobey an order from a judge.
    It begins with C. Ends with a T.
    No, not that one. Contempt.
    Eh, the other one works too.
    No, not that one.
    Convict. (As a verb and, hopefully as an end result of his other trials, a noun)

    Also:

    Culprit
    Cultist
    Caught

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    How many times has the Republican Party said "let the voters decide?"

    He was removed. By the voters. By their own logic.
    First: That's a Republican line. Not Trump's Lawyers.

    Second: If the Voters decided Trump would never have been President to begin with.

    In Legal Terms, Trump was never removed from Office. He served until the end of his term. He did not win his attempt to gain a second term. It may seem like a minor distinction...but it is important.

    The Legal Team's "logic" (if we want to use that term to describe this attemtp) is that he first has to be impeached and convicted by Congress before he can be brought up on Criminal Charges.
    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    - H. L. Mencken

  18. #88038
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    First: That's a Republican line. Not Trump's Lawyers.
    Touche. Trump might have used it once in a while, but nowhere near the full force of the GOP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Second: If the Voters decided Trump would never have been President to begin with.
    You and I aren't going to disagree much on the E.C.

  19. #88039
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    You and I aren't going to disagree much on the E.C.
    I think, in terms of the big picture here, there aren't a lot of things we disagree about. We may have disagreements on the route we take to get to the destination...but I think it's the same place.
    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    - H. L. Mencken

  20. #88040
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    We may have disagreements on the route we take to get to the destination
    I told you, Exit 17 has a Popeye's Chicken and a Jersey Mike's. How can you pass that up?

    Unrelated: a small number of Republicans have dared to publicly object to Trump calling the people who took part in Jan 6th's murderous insurrection, got caught, got arrested, and either found guilty or pled guilty, "hostages".

    “I don’t condone that characterization at all, no,” said Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) when asked about Trump calling Jan. 6-related convicts “hostages.”

    “We got a justice system and they’re working through it,” Thune said of the nearly 900 people convicted of Jan. 6-related crimes, including more than 200 people who have pleaded guilty to felonies.

    Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), a member of the Senate Republican leadership team, dismissed Trump’s claim — echoed by some other Republicans — that individuals who were convicted of destroying property or assaulting police officers in the Capitol are “hostages.”

    “Somebody who’s been duly convicted of a federal crime is not a hostage,” he said.

    “Let me say this about Jan. 6: I’ve had remarks that I made on Feb. 13 of ’21 about how I felt about Jan. 6. I recently reread it, I stand by what I said,” McConnell said.

    Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) balked at the notion that people convicted of Jan. 6 crimes are somehow hostages or political prisoners.

    “That’s like calling drug traffickers unlicensed pharmacists. At the end of the day, they’re J6 convicts to me. If they were proven guilty in a court of law of a crime, it is what it is."
    Now, they'll all still vote for him. But I'll take anything that makes Trump angry, which people disagreeing with him does.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •