[Politics] Donald Trump 2024

[Lyndhurst 14]

as for Biden ….. I find it very hard to believe that his son would call him that. where did you hear/see that? Let me guess. From the net, from some bloke in an underground bunker in Montana who believes the worlds flat, chem trails are mind control drugs and Democratic are lizard people.

That's a foul slur on the people of Montana

 

[Seagull58]

You literally failed to understand my post or the legal issues under discussion- That is not what my post said at all!! I made absolutely no mention of immunity with regard to the SCOTUS Appeal let alone ‘absolute immunity’.

For your benefit- Very specifically Trump is appealing to SCOTUS on two grounds - whether Art 14 means ‘incitement to insurrection’ and if Trump committed that and whether if so, Section 3 of that Amendment (which bars anyone who is guilty of that offence while serving as an ‘officer of the State’ from standing in future elections) applies to Trump. Since he will argue that as ‘President’ he does not fall within the scope of Section 3 - he is not Appealing for immunity from conviction but appealing against Colorado SC decision to remove him from the ballot and to be allowed to stand in the coming Election.

Trump is also arguing in a completely different case - the Columbia District Federal Courts that a sitting President can not be convicted of a crime - ( On this issue is the Columbia District has left it open for Trump to argue that but in the meantime the case will be tried anyway) - that issue will need to be referred back to SCOTUS. it will take a lot for a very heavily weighted right wing SCOTUS to rule that a sitting President can be convicted of a crime. This has not happened before because sitting Presidents have hitherto been impeached and resigned before it came to that.

The Constitution is silent on whether a sitting President can be convicted. The Republicans in the Senate addressed this in the Senate at his impeachment- I posted that above - and argued not but it is very much open to question..

I also posted several links to both these cases above, an explanation of the SCOTUS Appeal re. Staying on the ballots and also I posted the full indictment of the Jan 6 charges by the District of Columbia.

I have no idea why you are bringing Biden into this - the current President has nothing to do with Trumps criminal charges or the SCOTUS appeal. The AG brings charges not the President of the United States. The President also can’t lock people up or ‘remove’ Justices of the Court - a President simply does not have that role or power, it he did, it would be anarchy and he would be removed by Congress under articles of Impeachment - and even if he were immune from being convicted he is not immune from being charged once he leaves the Presidency.

I suggest you read a little background on the role of the judiciary vis an vis the role of POTUS and it might help you understand the points of law in the Constitution I have outlined re. The Appeal. Also read the background to the Columbia District case with regard to the charges Trump faces relating to January 6 - it is nothing to do with the insurrection act but 4 charges relating to interference of the election and trying to overturn it.

The article you attached in your post refers to Trump's presidential immunity defence, which will end up at SCOTUS, so I have commented on the likely SCOTUS decision and the consequences of making the wrong decision ( giving Biden immunity to do anything he wants to stay in power).
Edit: I read and understood your (long) post very well. I have specifically commented on the consequences of his likely appeal to SCOTUS regarding absolute presidential immunity.

 

[Seagull58]

You literally failed to understand my post or the legal issues under discussion- That is not what my post said at all!! I made absolutely no mention of immunity with regard to the SCOTUS Appeal let alone ‘absolute immunity’.

For your benefit- Very specifically Trump is appealing to SCOTUS on two grounds - whether Art 14 means ‘incitement to insurrection’ and if Trump committed that and whether if so, Section 3 of that Amendment (which bars anyone who is guilty of that offence while serving as an ‘officer of the State’ from standing in future elections) applies to Trump. Since he will argue that as ‘President’ he does not fall within the scope of Section 3 - he is not Appealing for immunity from conviction but appealing against Colorado SC decision to remove him from the ballot and to be allowed to stand in the coming Election.

Trump is also arguing in a completely different case - the Columbia District Federal Courts that a sitting President can not be convicted of a crime - ( On this issue is the Columbia District has left it open for Trump to argue that but in the meantime the case will be tried anyway) - that issue will need to be referred back to SCOTUS. it will take a lot for a very heavily weighted right wing SCOTUS to rule that a sitting President can be convicted of a crime. This has not happened before because sitting Presidents have hitherto been impeached and resigned before it came to that.

The Constitution is silent on whether a sitting President can be convicted. The Republicans in the Senate addressed this in the Senate at his impeachment- I posted that above - and argued not but it is very much open to question..

I also posted several links to both these cases above, an explanation of the SCOTUS Appeal re. Staying on the ballots and also I posted the full indictment of the Jan 6 charges by the District of Columbia.

I have no idea why you are bringing Biden into this - the current President has nothing to do with Trumps criminal charges or the SCOTUS appeal. The AG brings charges not the President of the United States. The President also can’t lock people up or ‘remove’ Justices of the Court - a President simply does not have that role or power, it he did, it would be anarchy and he would be removed by Congress under articles of Impeachment - and even if he were immune from being convicted he is not immune from being charged once he leaves the Presidency.

I suggest you read a little background on the role of the judiciary vis an vis the role of POTUS and it might help you understand the points of law in the Constitution I have outlined re. The Appeal. Also read the background to the Columbia District case with regard to the charges Trump faces relating to January 6 - it is nothing to do with the insurrection act but 4 charges relating to interference of the election and trying to overturn it.

This is an extract from the article you attached:-
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court knocked down Trump’s sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability in the lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers. But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.

Trump has said he can’t be sued over the riot that left dozens of police officers injured, arguing that his words during a rally before the storming of the Capitol addressed “matters of public concern” and fall within the scope of absolute presidential immunity.

 

[Bodian]

Now here is the best bit - on the one hand, you have Trump Appealing to SCOTUS that art 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn’t bar him from being on ballots because he was not President on Jan 6 (art 3 says no official who commits insurrection while in office can run for office again) - so, if SCOTUS rules in favour of Trump by saying article 3 doesn’t apply he can stay on the ballots BUT success in the Appeal while allowing him to run again, means he will not logically be able to at the same time claim immunity from prosecution in the Washington DC Jan 6 charges by arguing he was President at the time the District of Columbia will have a Supreme Court decision that Trump was not.

Since when has logic and Trump run hand-in-hand!!?

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Storming a building and threats to kill elected officials (including the vice president) who are carrying out their duties is not an attempted insurrection?!?

No. Many just walked in and around most were peaceful. The BLM/antifa riots would qualify more as an insurrection. THe US has about 9 million well armed veterans, if they decide the Democrats need removing they are gone.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

by storming a building while elected officals go through their procedures, stopping those procedures and attempting to steal documents relating to those procedures. you might not like the term "insurrection", you'd prefer attempted coup. whatever wording, fact is Trump encouraged them to interfere with the constitutional process. after phone calls and haressment of state officials to manipulate the results.

Ditto Al Gore, its a regular facet of US politics. Protesters have stormed state capitals and nothing happened, its all staged.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

Oh FFS. You can see his post on Truth Social if you have the inclination. You are in a cult.

I'm in a cult? From the moment the Muller enquiry was shown to be a stitch up job your lack of scepticism suggests YOU are in a cult.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

2000 mules is a work of pure fiction that has been totally debunkrd and repudiated except in the minds of Trumpian cult members.

Air claim, got any link to debunking?

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Crawley Bingo having bit of meltdown isn’t he? ….. Bless.

 

[Stat Brother]

Crawley Bingo having bit of meltdown isn’t he? ….. Bless.

I have no idea why that poster has so much attention.

 

[Seagull58]

Ok - I think It is becoming clearer but is not how it read and I didn’t say the issue of immunity would be referred to SCOTUS in my original post which you quoted tbh - Because you quoted what I had written about the Colorado Appeal to SCOTUS, it sounded like you were commenting very specifically on the SCOTUS Appeal that is currently scheduled (not some hypothetical Appeal in the future) - When you said; “SCOTUS simply cannot rule that Trump had absolute immunity as President because it would be the end of democracy in the US. As has been pointed out several times, “ it sounded as if you were suggesting I had written that SCOTUS was planning to rule exactly that in the Appeal (which they are not) - like a direct criticism.

If you are now saying you were only referring to the link I posted then I already explained in my original post that Trump will be trying to claim Presidential immunity, so again, is do we have any difference in our pov here? I think not.


Yes - And as I commented in the posts you quoted:




I think it may have been clearer tbh if you’d just quoted the above bits rather than my whole post and just commented on that since that was what you were referring to and it would have been easier to understand you were developing an argument for why Trump probably wont get away with trying to claim Presidential immunity. Instead it got confused with the Colorado Appeal to SCOTUS (Which isn’t about immunity but staying on the ballots) and ended up being a real muddle .

PS - your points are a whole new discussion - it will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS does eventually deal with this immunity issue.

Yes, I didn't disagree with anything you posted. I was just pointing out why I don't think even the christofascists on the Supreme Court would allow the likely future absolute presidential immunity appeal

 

[Seagull58]

Air claim, got any link to debunking?

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2XJ0OQ/

 

[Seagull58]

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/25/1131077739/heres-what-changed-in-dinesh-dsouzas-2-000-mules-book-after-it-was-recalled

 

[Seagull58]

Air claim, got any link to debunking?

FACT FOCUS: Gaping holes in the claim of 2K ballot ‘mules’

A film debuting in over 270 theaters across the United States this week uses a flawed analysis of cellphone location data and ballot drop box surveillance footage to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 presidential election nearly 18 months after it ended.

apnews.com

 

[Seagull58]

Air claim, got any link to debunking?

Judge Rules Against Dinesh D’Souza et. al, Allows Case to Proceed

Today, a federal court greenlit a lawsuit against Dinesh D’Souza and others for peddling manufactured lies that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

protectdemocracy.org

 

[Seagull58]

Georgia sues True the Vote group over refusal to produce evidence of '2000 Mules' claims

Conservative group True the Vote filed complaints that of ballot stuffing in Georgia elections, but officials say they are refusing to provided any information to help investigate the claims.

www.fox5atlanta.com

 

[Curious Orange]

I'm in a cult? From the moment the Muller enquiry was shown to be a stitch up job your lack of scepticism suggests YOU are in a cult.

Is this the same Muller report that was set up by the DoJ whilst Mr Trump was President?

 

[Seagull58]

Air claim, got any link to debunking?

Data Brokers and True the Vote are the Real Villains of "2000 Mules" Movie

2000 Mules is a movie which claims to expose election fraud with phone app location data. While these claims have already been thoroughly debunked, the movie also deserves condemnation for performing wildly invasive research on thousands of people’s location data without their consent or even...

www.eff.org

 

[Triggaaar]

No. Many just walked in and around most were peaceful.

And many did not just walk in, and were not peaceful.

The BLM/antifa riots would qualify more as an insurrection.

So when the people were complaining that black people were being killed by the police for no reason, what they were really doing, was trying to force out the government by force?

THe US has about 9 million well armed veterans, if they decide the Democrats need removing they are gone.

I'm quite sure that 9 million people do not all share the same opinion.

 

[chickens]

I put Crawley Dingo on ignore some time ago, nothing against them, but I think I remarked at the time that they were too far down the rabbit hole for reality to reach them. They’ve allowed this stuff to become part of their identity, and to criticize it, in their head, is effectively to criticize them.

I can see that whatever they’ve said most recently has caused a lot of well-meaning people to try and direct them back toward reality, but I’m not sure it can be done.

All I want to say is tread gently, my personal view is that they’re incredibly misguided, but I honestly don’t see how they come back from where they are without suffering some kind of breakdown. At the moment I’m guessing they’re very much doubling down.