JGP Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 Go cry yourself to sleep on your huge pillow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JGP said: Go cry yourself to sleep on your huge pillow... Honestly, I don't even know how that would work. I mean, what exactly does it mean "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? Does Trump have to have been convicted in court? If so, on what specific charges? And who enforces this restriction? The DoJ? Congress? Can a state decide not to permit Trump on the ballot? I really, really wish the 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump, but I don't know how in practice. Edited August 23, 2023 by TrackerNeil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said: A recent NH poll showed there is a clear majority of Republican voters that prefers an alternative to Trump. The problem is not just that they are not unified behind one candidate but that possibly no candidate exists that could unify them. It's not as if they don't have choices. RDS could have done it if he was halfway competent at politics. The problem is that that group of people are not the primary voters. And primary voters are overwhelmingly behind Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 (edited) 28 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: Can a state decide not to permit Trump on the ballot? I believe so, yes. 28 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said: I really, really wish the 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump, but I don't know how in practice. Me either, but I like watching the talking heads yaw into the void. I dislike Kirk easily as much as Shapiro. Edited August 23, 2023 by JGP Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 ‘Disbarred and disgraced’ lawyer sues Trump and his attorney allies, asks judge to declare them ‘insurrectionists, who may not lawfully seek or occupy any office’ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/disbarred-and-disgraced-lawyer-sues-trump-and-his-attorney-allies-asks-judge-to-declare-them-insurrectionists-who-may-not-lawfully-seek-or-occupy-any-office/ Quote A self-described “disbarred and disgraced former Arkansas lawyer” who previously made national headlines for suing a doctor for violating Texas’ abortion ban is now suing former President Donald Trump and several of his allies, including members of his “elite strike force” legal team, in a bid to have them declared “insurrectionists” in federal court. Oscar Stilley filed the lawsuit pro se on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against Trump, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, Ray Stallings Smith III, Sidney Powell, Robert Creeley, David Shafer, Stephen Lee, former GOP Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and 1-99 John and Jane Does. The suit begins with Stilley saying he “plans to register as a Republican and vote in the upcoming Republican primary election on March 5, 2024, also known as ‘Super Tuesday,'” though his felony tax evasion and conspiracy convictions continue to pose problems for him in that regard. Calling those convictions “utterly bogus,” the plaintiff said he has to complete his federal sentence before he can lawfully register as a Republican and vote. He said he is currently challenging an “unlawfully imposed” 33-month supervised release in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. With that as the backdrop, the once self-described “libertarian sorta fella” asserted that Trump and other defendants named “in their individual capacities have engaged in insurrection, within the meaning of US Constitution Amendment 14, Section 3,” and “may not lawfully seek or occupy any office or profit or trust under any state or the United States.” .... .... Stilley, also suing Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston (R), ran down the list of Trump and his allies and said each should be banned from holding office — whether public office or the “office of attorney at law.” He asserted that the allegations in the Fulton County state RICO indictment and the Washington, D.C., federal Jan. 6 indictment, “taken in their entirety, amount to ‘insurrection’ within the meaning of Amendment 14, Section 3 of the US Constitution.” The plaintiff theorizes that, in the cases of Powell, Ellis, Giuliani, Eastman, Clark, and other lawyers, the “office of attorney at law, with its customary oath to uphold the US constitution and a state constitution, is a ‘triggering’ office, for purposes of 14th Amendment analysis.” The plaintiff, again a disbarred lawyer, claimed he was neither out to get other lawyers and their First Amendment rights, nor trying to “chill attorneys from the vigorous, even aggressive representation of their clients.” “Plaintiff Stilley seeks nothing but justice, with the balance held nice and true, with no favor to great or small, rich or poor, weak or powerful,” he said. The court docket shows that the case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr., a Barack Obama appointee. Stilley is asking Moody to enter a declaratory judgment that the “individual capacity defendants are insurrectionists, who may not lawfully seek or occupy any office or profit or trust under any state or the United States” and “order the Secretary of State not to place the name of Donald J. Trump on the primary or general ballots in Arkansas, for this election cycle or any subsequent election cycle.” Read the lawsuit here. Mindwalker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said: The problem is that that group of people are not the primary voters. And primary voters are overwhelmingly behind Trump. Right. One of the biggest structural problems in the US and UK are the absence of open primaries. It gave us Liz Truss as British PM and it will likely give us DJT as the Republican nominee. Tears of Lys 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 50 minutes ago, Zorral said: ‘Disbarred and disgraced’ lawyer sues Trump and his attorney allies, asks judge to declare them ‘insurrectionists, who may not lawfully seek or occupy any office’ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/disbarred-and-disgraced-lawyer-sues-trump-and-his-attorney-allies-asks-judge-to-declare-them-insurrectionists-who-may-not-lawfully-seek-or-occupy-any-office/ Read the lawsuit here. Yeah this is not going to go anywhere. 1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said: Honestly, I don't even know how that would work. I mean, what exactly does it mean "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion"? Does Trump have to have been convicted in court? If so, on what specific charges? And who enforces this restriction? The DoJ? Congress? Can a state decide not to permit Trump on the ballot? I really, really wish the 14th Amendment could disqualify Trump, but I don't know how in practice. No. The judge of a candidate's qualification is any state or federal official for the reasons stated in the Paulsen & Baude article. So if a Secretary of State in, say, PA or MI kicks Trump off the ballot because he believes Trump has violated section 3 of the 14th amendment, it will be up to the Trump campaign to sue for restoration to the ballot and for a federal court to adjudicate the issue. In practice, a constitutional question of such importance and novelty will have to be answered by the Supreme Court, ideally well before the 2024 election. But any such removal decision cannot be made before Trump is the Republican nominee at the earliest. Which is a highly compressed timetable for constitutional litigation. ants 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said: No. The judge of a candidate's qualification is any state or federal official for the reasons stated in the Paulsen & Baude article. So if a Secretary of State in, say, PA or MI kicks Trump off the ballot because he believes Trump has violated section 3 of the 14th amendment, it will be up to the Trump campaign to sue for restoration to the ballot and for a federal court to adjudicate the issue. In practice, a constitutional question of such importance and novelty will have to be answered by the Supreme Court, ideally well before the 2024 election. But any such removal decision cannot be made before Trump is the Republican nominee at the earliest. Which is a highly compressed timetable for constitutional litigation. I really don't think this is a great way to run things regardless; you do not want the burden of proof to be on the campaign against the aggrieved state legislature/official. Imagine this happening from the perspective of a Dem running in, say, Georgia or Arizona - how easy would it be to simply kick them off the ballot based on this? Or anyone else you care about? This would be an insanely short-sided idea for preventing Trump's ascendance. Larry of the Lawn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 Roger Stone's hubris exposes Trump's plan: New video shows lawyers faked distance from Capitol riots Tapes suggest Trump knew the insurrection was coming, but carefully avoided having his fingerprints on the planning By AMANDA MARCOTTE https://www.salon.com/2023/08/23/roger-stones-hubris-exposes-plan-new-video-shows-lawyers-faked-distance-from-capitol-riots/ Quote Monday night, "The Beat with Ari Melber" on MSNBC rolled out another set of intriguing videos from "A Storm Foretold," a Danish documentary that follows Donald Trump's close aide and friend Roger Stone, both during the election and through the insurrection of January 6, 2021. Stone is an intriguing character in Trump's plot to overthrow democracy, especially as he's closely connected with the leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. He maintained a group chat called "Friends of Stone," in which many now-convicted insurrection leaders — recently found guilty of leading the Capitol riot, often under severe "seditious conspiracy" charges — kept in communication. The documentary isn't available in the U.S. and the tapes have not been turned over to American law enforcement, because director Christoffer Guldbrandsen feels it violates journalistic ethics to do so. (Don't be hard on the guy, who was so devoted to this project that he ended up having a heart attack from the stress.) Last week, Melber's show released a video showing Stone detailing the fake electors scheme to his lackeys on November 5, 2020 — before the major news networks called the election. That proves, yet again, that the coup plan predates the election and was not, as Trump apologists claim, merely a reaction to a "sincere" belief that the election was stolen. ..... LongRider and ants 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 Federal judge rejects bids to halt Georgia prosecution of Trump aides over 2020 election Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark had both pleaded with the judge to prohibit District Attorney Fani Willis from arresting them by a Friday deadline. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/23/georgia-trump-racketeering-case-state-court-00112480 Quote A federal judge quickly shot down bids Wednesday by two former Trump administration officials — Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark — to derail the criminal proceedings against them in Fulton County, where they’re charged alongside Donald Trump with a sprawling racketeering conspiracy to subvert the results of the 2020 election. In two six-page rulings by Atlanta-based U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones effectively ensures that Meadows and Clark will face arrest this week, a result both men attempted to prevent in a series of emergency filings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted August 23, 2023 Author Share Posted August 23, 2023 Rudy Mugshot: https://news.yahoo.com/news/heres-rudy-giulianis-mugshot-said-205453541.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted August 23, 2023 Share Posted August 23, 2023 Don't know how you all will do tonight, but I won't be watching Milwaukee. For so many reasons. Starting with the very idea THIS is where THEY chose to have Their first 'debate', the city with cops who behaved so fascistly racist. Anything that might possible worth knowing -- ?????????????????????????????? -- will show up somewhere tonight and tomorrow ad infinitum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted August 24, 2023 Share Posted August 24, 2023 2 hours ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said: I really don't think this is a great way to run things regardless; you do not want the burden of proof to be on the campaign against the aggrieved state legislature/official. Imagine this happening from the perspective of a Dem running in, say, Georgia or Arizona - how easy would it be to simply kick them off the ballot based on this? Or anyone else you care about? This would be an insanely short-sided idea for preventing Trump's ascendance. Nah, it'll be great. It'll get fast tracked to the SC and then pure, unadulterated, blind American justice is going to flow over the land from sea to shining sea, and we'll all hold hands and sing while we lock him up. These people are professional judges in the Justice System. Martell Spy, Rippounet, LongRider and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 24, 2023 Share Posted August 24, 2023 2 hours ago, Zorral said: Roger Stone's hubris exposes Trump's plan: New video shows lawyers faked distance from Capitol riots Tapes suggest Trump knew the insurrection was coming, but carefully avoided having his fingerprints on the planning By AMANDA MARCOTTE https://www.salon.com/2023/08/23/roger-stones-hubris-exposes-plan-new-video-shows-lawyers-faked-distance-from-capitol-riots/ My issue with this is that the concept of Trump 'carefully avoided' something he had a vested interest in is a bit of a reach. Trump, after all, is the guy who could not keep his mouth shut about anything, including the felonies he was actively committing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadlines? What Deadlines? Posted August 24, 2023 Share Posted August 24, 2023 6 hours ago, JGP said: Go cry yourself to sleep on your huge pillow... I know right? The what's really weird is that his face is normal size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 24, 2023 Share Posted August 24, 2023 5 hours ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said: The problem is that that group of people are not the primary voters. And primary voters are overwhelmingly behind Trump. The winner take all style of Republican Primaries favors whoever is the front runner (in this case Trump) whenever there is a large field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted August 24, 2023 Share Posted August 24, 2023 (edited) Okay... So... Trump wins the primaries, then gets banned from running in the general election because right after that he is in a prison cell, or at least convicted of a crime that would prevent him from being a candidate. So.... at that point, what do the republicans do? Ignore Trump being imprisoned and let him run anyway? Or try to find another candidate in a series of bloody (possibly literally) backroom deals? Maybe the Supreme Court steps in? Bizarre as this situation is, it is starting to look at least possible. Not likely, but not completely loony tunes. Edited August 24, 2023 by ThinkerX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted August 24, 2023 Author Share Posted August 24, 2023 34 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: My issue with this is that the concept of Trump 'carefully avoided' something he had a vested interest in is a bit of a reach. Trump, after all, is the guy who could not keep his mouth shut about anything, including the felonies he was actively committing. He was always relatively careful with certain potentially incriminating stuff, which is why he doesn't use emails, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted August 24, 2023 Share Posted August 24, 2023 5 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: Okay... So... Trump wins the primaries, then gets banned from running in the general election because right after that he is in a prison cell, or at least convicted of a crime that would prevent him from being a candidate. So.... at that point, what do the republicans do? Ignore Trump being imprisoned and let him run anyway? Or try to find another candidate in a series of bloody (possibly literally) backroom deals? Maybe the Supreme Court steps in? Bizarre as this situation is, it is starting to look at least possible. Not likely, but not completely loony tunes. Brokered convention, almost certainly. Who in the party has the connections in the national party and delegate population to win a brokered convention? The last winner of a Republican brokered convention was Ike. Would that we had such a candidate now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted August 24, 2023 Author Share Posted August 24, 2023 Btw, I read that they opened the debate with that Richmond song, I kid you not. Called it "anti welfare". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts