[Politics] Donald Trump 2024

[Zeberdi]

Yep. The president cannot lead an insurrection because by law he cannot lead an insurrection. By law.

It is as if he is caught raping someone but cannot be charged because by law the president cannot be charged with rape. By law.

It's as if the President can do pretty much whatever he likes.

No wonder, every decade or so, a president gets shot.

Not quite - at least one hopes but legal opinion is divided! Presidential immunity while in office is not absolute - from civil lawsuits yes, but the Constitution is silent on whether he is also immune from prosecution for criminal acts - Congress can politically indict and remove him/her from office but the courts have never had to deal with the criminal charges of a president, they have resigned before that.

SCOTUS really needs to resolve the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution ASAP - If Trump gets elected again, he will use the current ambiguity to do what he wants and declare he is above the law and the Presidency will be embroiled in Constitutional and legal controversy for 4 years - America does not need that.

The issue of neither Presidential immunity nor ‘insurrection’ were addressed in the latest appeal - SCOTUS, by ruling that under Art 14, for the purposes of section 3, that anyone convicted of insurrection while serving as a public officer, doesn’t include Presidents, nor anyone in fact serving at federal level, circumvented the issue of immunity and insurrection. SCOTUS has only resolved therefore whether or not he can stay on the ballot in Colorado (and by legal precedent ) numerous of other States that tried to remove him, they haven’t ruled on Colorado’s insurrection decision.

Jack Smith, the Washington DC Prosector has done exactly the right thing IMO, by leaving ‘inciting insurrection‘ off the criminal indictments Trump faces for the Election/Jan 6. Goven the ambiguities surrounding ‘insurrection’ - It would have been very hard to prove intent and it would have given Trump even more opportunity for lengthy appeals to SCOTUS - much easier to get him on the other indictments.

The issue of Presidential immunity remains though - the Jan 6 indictments/interfering with the work of Congress, brought by Special Counsel, Jack Smith in Washington DC have been put on hold while Trump files yet another appeal to SCOTUS to challenge the lower court’s decision that he is not immune from prosecution. SCOTUS has accepted Trump’s Appeal on the issue of Presidential immunity and will hear the case in April with a decision some time in June.
Whatever SCOTUS decides, his lawyers will try and drag it over the line into the election period in the hope Trump gets elected and can pardon himself.

What a mess.

 

[US Seagull]

 

[peterward]

Marjorie Taylor Greene tells Emily Maitlis to ‘f**k off’ in explosive interview

News Agents presenter told: ‘Why don’t you f*** off? How about that’

www.independent.co.uk

 

[portslade seagull]

Only in America where a crook or forgetful elderly opponent can be the nominees for president

 

[Seagull58]

WHY TRUMP HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION BY THE WASHINGTON DC PROSECUTOR

This may help to understand why ‘insurrection’ is no longer related to the criminal trial/charges bought against Trump for the Jan 6 riots and attack on the Capitol by the District of Columbia because there seems to be some confusion what his legal jeopardy is - while Trump was indicted for High Crimes and Misdemeanours by the House of Representatives, the indictment fell short of the majority required to convict him (not legally but politically) when the vote took place in the Senate. The House referred the indictment charges of High Crimes and Misdemeanours to the DoJ which included recommendations for a charge of insurrection but the DoJ concluded ‘insurrection’ would be difficult to prosecute in the criminal court for a number of reasons:

INSIGHTS​

• When the Jan. 6 House committee formally referred Trump for criminal charges last year, insurrection was one of the counts included. It would allege that Trump was directly involved in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. But including that charge would’ve complicated the case and been harder to prove than the broader conspiracy charges, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, writes in Slate. “That narrowing increases the prospects for a pre-election trial.”
• One of the reasons an insurrection charge could be complicated: Prosecutors would have to rely on Trump’s speech the day of the riot to prove he was encouraging a riot. That kind of argument could face “potentially tricky First Amendment issues,” former assistant U.S. attorney Randall Eliason writes in The New York Times. Those legal disputes “would have been time-consuming and distracting because the speech could be easily characterized as a political rally.”
• The charge of “conspiracy against rights,” a civil rights law that prohibits trying to deprive someone of their right to vote, can serve as a more straightforward stand-in for an insurrection charge, which is rarely brought in court. The conspiracy charge, on the other hand, has been successfully tested. — Just Security
• There was outsized attention on a possible insurrection charge in part because the Constitution’s 14th Amendment bars anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office. In theory, a conviction would disqualify Trump from serving a second term in the White House. — The Washington Post- *
• While the lack of an incitement charge simplifies the case against Trump, we’re still in uncharted legal territory, especially given that the defendant is the former president. Smith’s case “requires some unprecedented interpretations of the U.S. criminal code” — including proving that Trump knew he lost the election — and shouldn’t be seen as a slam dunk, Jim Geraghty argues in National Review.

*The issue of the 14th Amendment on ’insurrection’ was bypassed again recently when SCOTUS ruled that ‘public officials’ under part 3 of the 14th Amendment did not include Presidents - therefore Article 14th barring officials standing again for office who have been found guilty of ‘insurrection’ (which the Federal Law does not define) did not apply to Trump.

Why Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with inciting an insurrection | Semafor

We've curated insights from experts on why an insurrection charge was absent from the third indictment against Trump.

www.semafor.com

I don't think that is correct, is it? I believe the SCOTUS ruled that section 3 at the state level e.g. Colorado, only applied to someone standing for a state office and not a federal office. They did not decide that it could not be applied at the federal level. Some of the christofascists on the Supreme Court opined that it could only be applied to Trump if he was convicted by Congress (political not criminal), but that was a minority opinion and not relevant to the actual decision.

 

[Seagull58]

It looks inevitable i’m afraid that somehow Trump will be back in The White House in January next year!

He will lose in November, if he makes it that far.

 

[Chicken Run]

He will lose in November, if he makes it that far.

Let’s hope you’re right, but i feel you should prepare for the worse.

 

[Seagull58]

Let’s hope you’re right, but i feel you should prepare for the worse.

That's absolutely no way he will get more votes than last time so, imo, his only chance is massive voter suppression/fraud in the swing states. I am hopeful/expectant that the sane people are sufficiently wise to this to counter it effectively.

 

[Bodian]

That's absolutely no way he will get more votes than last time so, imo, his only chance is massive voter suppression/fraud in the swing states. I am hopeful/expectant that the sane people are sufficiently wise to this to counter it effectively.

He doesn't have to get more votes than last time if Biden gets fewer than he did last time. Which seems quite likely.

Biden and the Democrats are sleepwalking into a potential Trump win | Osita Nwanevu

Unless Biden pivots, we have every reason to believe that his falling poll numbers could be signs of coming electoral defeat

www.theguardian.com

 

[Commander]

Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).

Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.

 

[Chicken Run]

Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).

Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.

Best get yourself across the pond then commander and start your search

 

[Curious Orange]

Only in America where a forgetful elderly crook or forgetful elderly opponent can be the nominees for president

Corrected for you.

 

[Zeberdi]

I don't think that is correct, is it? I believe the SCOTUS ruled that section 3 at the state level e.g. Colorado, only applied to someone standing for a state office and not a federal office. They did not decide that it could not be applied at the federal level. Some of the christofascists on the Supreme Court opined that it could only be applied to Trump if he was convicted by Congress (political not criminal), but that was a minority opinion and not relevant to the actual decision.

What isn’t correct? Isn’t that what I said above? Maybe I wasn’t clear - this ruling only applies to the Appeal with regard to the State of Colorado over-reaching their powers to remove candidates from Federal election ballots.

SCOTUS, by ruling that under Art 14, for the purposes of section 3, that anyone convicted of insurrection while serving as a public officer, doesn’t include Presidents, nor anyone in fact serving at federal level … SCOTUS has only resolved therefore whether or not he can stay on the ballot in Colorado (and by legal precedent ) numerous of other States that tried to remove him, they haven’t ruled on Colorado’s insurrection decision.

As said above, the basis of the opinion was that while individual States ie Colorado administer federal elections (in this case the Primaries) , they do not have the power to decide on who runs in them - the State of Colorado had no power to remove any ex-federal officials from the ballots - Colorado only has the power to apply section 3 to state level officers .

A few judges in an unsigned opinion (ie outside the scope of the Appeal issue before the Court) suggested that there would need to be a change of law in Congress to decide whether or not section 3 could be applied by Congress to an ex-president (again never tested) but Congress already has the power to impeach and ‘politically’ convict a sitting President and bar him from running in public office anyway. However, that’s not the issue here, Trump is no longer a sitting President.

These judges were criticised by extending their considerations beyond the scope of the Appeal, so it’s unlikely to come to anything in the near future anyway.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html#:~:text=different%20than%20impeachment%3F-,Yes.,Congress%20applies%20such%20a%20punishment.

 

[BadFish]

Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).

Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.

I think that anyone who is looking at things 'on balance' is by definition using a modicum of critical literacy. Not much of this is required to see Trump for what he is. To find him an appealing choice for President (or anything really) requires a great deal of looking the other way and a refusal to understand information presented.

So there probably aren't many.

 

[Seagull58]

What isn’t correct? Isn’t that what I said above? Maybe I wasn’t clear - this ruling only applies to the Appeal with regard to the State of Colorado over-reaching their powers to remove candidates from Federal election ballots.



As said above, the basis of the opinion was that while individual States ie Colorado administer federal elections (in this case the Primaries) , they do not have the power to decide on who runs in them - the State of Colorado had no power to remove any ex-federal officials from the ballots - Colorado only has the power to apply section 3 to state level officers .

A few judges in an unsigned opinion (ie outside the scope of the Appeal issue before the Court) suggested that there would need to be a change of law in Congress to decide whether or not section 3 could be applied by Congress to an ex-president (again never tested) but Congress already has the power to impeach and ‘politically’ convict a sitting President and bar him from running in public office anyway. However, that’s not the issue here, Trump is no longer a sitting President.

These judges were criticised by extending their considerations beyond the scope of the Appeal, so it’s unlikely to come to anything in the near future anyway.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation15.html#:~:text=different%20than%20impeachment%3F-,Yes.,Congress%20applies%20such%20a%20punishment.

Unless I misunderstood, you said section 3 does not apply to the President. My understanding is that it doesn't apply to the President or any federal officer WHEN APPLIED AT THE STATE LEVEL but it can be applied at the federal level.

 

[Zeberdi]

Unless I misunderstood, you said section 3 does not apply to the President. My understanding is that it doesn't apply to the President or any federal officer WHEN APPLIED AT THE STATE LEVEL but it can be applied at the federal level.

I think you misunderstood - but it’s my fault, I’m not making myself clear obviously.

SCOTUS ruled that in this case ie Trump v State of Colorado, Section 3 doesn’t apply to the ex-President.

It doesn’t apply to Trump because the State of Colorado has no power under S3 to bar anyone from standing in Federal elections (eg elections to the Senate, House of Representatives and Presidency) if they have been convicted of insurrection - they only have the power to bar officials convicted of insurrection from serving again at State level - and those officials obviously don’t include Presidents or anyone else who was convicted of insurrection while serving at Federal level office.

SCOTUS did not making a ruling on whether S3 can be applied at Federal level officers by the Federal,Court/Congress - a minority of judges writing an unsigned opinion is not a SCOTUS ruling/declaration of the law, it is merely an opinion.


As far as the 14th Amendment S3, the Courts are relying on a legal instrument that was inserted into the Constitution to prevent Confederates from getting into office after the Civil War - they haven’t got a lot to work with in terms of what is actually written into the Constitution!

 

[A1X]

Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).

Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.

I’m convinced they do exist, but America has such a polarised media system right now that they’re totally ignored in favour of pitching the extremes against each other.

Sadly it’s also taking hold over here.

 

[Bodian]

I’m convinced they do exist, but America has such a polarised media system right now that they’re totally ignored in favour of pitching the extremes against each other.

Sadly it’s also taking hold over here.

It's 'tooken' hold here already I think.

 

[Bodian]

Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).

Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Donald Trump voter – and understand what drives his success | Simon Jenkins

Within Trump’s wild exaggerations are grains of truth. Liberals have never dealt with them, says the Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

www.theguardian.com

 

[lasvegan]

Put yourself in the shoes of a Donald Trump voter – and understand what drives his success | Simon Jenkins

Within Trump’s wild exaggerations are grains of truth. Liberals have never dealt with them, says the Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

www.theguardian.com

From the article…

See it through their eyes: the US did not collapse into dictatorship under Trump. Enemies were not arrested nor hostile media shut down. Since leaving office, though, his own enemies have not stopped trying to convict and imprison him, even as the trials merely aid his cause. Colorado’s attempt to stop him running for office was as legally wrongheaded as it was counterproductive.



Eyebrows raised as Viktor Orbán to visit Donald Trump in Florida
Read more
The US economy did well under Trump, better than Britain’s. He made a genuine if futile attempt to find peace in Korea. Vladimir Putin, with whom his relations remain obscure, did not invade Ukraine while he was in the White House. His recent demand that Nato and Europe reassess both their strategy and their forces was hardly unreasonable, if poorly expressed. His fixation with immigration is hardly confined to the American continent.

That is why Trump’s enemies would do well to look to the causes of their own unpopularity. Democracy gives no quarter. It is one person, one vote, and its believers cannot complain when the arithmetic goes against them. Trump complains that the US ruling class and its media – apart from the bits he controls – are governed by new ideologies based on gender and race. He claims they want to ban conservatism from campuses, “defund” the police and flood the country with Mexican labour and Chinese goods. There is just enough truth in these accusations to have his supporters cheering him on.

These aren’t “grains of truth”, they are facts.