Update on Trump Legal Cases

[silverscreenselect]

What kind of lawyer are you? I suspect one of those who believes their opinion is law.

What kind of lawyer are your? I suspect one of those who gets his education and marching orders from Donald Trump and Dennis Prager.

To address your points:

1) Five partisan rightists in a closed room decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. That's how our legal system operates. A small number of judges make decisions that affect the rights of millions, like the six justices who took abortion rights away from millions of women.

2) The trial judge found as a FA CT that Trump participated in an insurrection. The Supreme Court said that finding was enough to disqualify him under the insurrection clause. There are almost no definitions in the US Constitution. Since the manner of holding elections is a matter of state law, the states decide what is an insurrection. The fourteenth amendment doesn't require conviction of anything. Indeed, when the Amendment was passes, it was highly doubtful its targets, former Confederates, would ever be convicted of insurrection in a state court, and the US didn't have any national mechanism to punish insurrection.

3) Saying that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment isn't the same as saying Congress has the exclusive power to do so. The Constitution spells out clearly what is under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

For someone as ignorant of the law as you to lecture Bob would be like Jake from State Farm lecturing Patrick Mahomes on how to throw a football.

[BackInTex]

What kind of lawyer are you? I suspect one of those who believes their opinion is law.

What kind of lawyer are your? I suspect one of those who gets his education and marching orders from Donald Trump and Dennis Prager.

To address your points:

1) Five partisan rightists in a closed room decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. That's how our legal system operates. A small number of judges make decisions that affect the rights of millions, like the six justices who took abortion rights away from millions of women.

2) The trial judge found as a FA CT that Trump participated in an insurrection. The Supreme Court said that finding was enough to disqualify him under the insurrection clause. There are almost no definitions in the US Constitution. Since the manner of holding elections is a matter of state law, the states decide what is an insurrection. The fourteenth amendment doesn't require conviction of anything. Indeed, when the Amendment was passes, it was highly doubtful its targets, former Confederates, would ever be convicted of insurrection in a state court, and the US didn't have any national mechanism to punish insurrection.

3) Saying that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment isn't the same as saying Congress has the exclusive power to do so. The Constitution spells out clearly what is under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

For someone as ignorant of the law as you to lecture Bob would be like Jake from State Farm lecturing Patrick Mahomes on how to throw a football.

You don't have to be a good quaterback to see when one, even a good one, plays bad. Same goes for lawyering.

The 14th Amendment, specifies specific federal offices that it covers, and expressly says "electors for president" but missing, is the office of President. Therefore, it does not apply. You can argue the wording "other office", but you should know that the writers specifically did not put President in it because they did not intend it to apply to the office of President of the United States. Otherwise, the need not have specifically stated the other offices such as Senator. President of the United States is NOT an "other office" to a specifically stated Senator, Representative, or elector of President.

[wbtravis007]

What kind of lawyer are you? I suspect one of those who believes their opinion is law.

What kind of lawyer are your? I suspect one of those who gets his education and marching orders from Donald Trump and Dennis Prager.

To address your points:

1) Five partisan rightists in a closed room decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. That's how our legal system operates. A small number of judges make decisions that affect the rights of millions, like the six justices who took abortion rights away from millions of women.

2) The trial judge found as a FA CT that Trump participated in an insurrection. The Supreme Court said that finding was enough to disqualify him under the insurrection clause. There are almost no definitions in the US Constitution. Since the manner of holding elections is a matter of state law, the states decide what is an insurrection. The fourteenth amendment doesn't require conviction of anything. Indeed, when the Amendment was passes, it was highly doubtful its targets, former Confederates, would ever be convicted of insurrection in a state court, and the US didn't have any national mechanism to punish insurrection.

3) Saying that Congress has the power to enforce the Amendment isn't the same as saying Congress has the exclusive power to do so. The Constitution spells out clearly what is under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

For someone as ignorant of the law as you to lecture Bob would be like Jake from State Farm lecturing Patrick Mahomes on how to throw a football.

You don't have to be a good quaterback to see when one, even a good one, plays bad. Same goes for lawyering.

The 14th Amendment, specifies specific federal offices that it covers, and expressly says "electors for president" but missing, is the office of President. Therefore, it does not apply. You can argue the wording "other office", but you should know that the writers specifically did not put President in it because they did not intend it to apply to the office of President of the United States. Otherwise, the need not have specifically stated the other offices such as Senator. President of the United States is NOT an "other office" to a specifically stated Senator, Representative, or elector of President.

It doesn’t say: “other office.”

I’d be willing to bet you that the Court doesn’t decide that the Amendment doesn’t apply to the office of the President.

[silverscreenselect]

I am concerned about the implications of this Colorado decision. Legally, I think it's correct. But politically, it may make things worse than they are.

We already know that if Trump loses in 2024, he's going to scream fraud, Flock and his ilk will go hunting to find non-existent irregularities, Trump will file endless lawsuits, etc. etc. But if he's on the ballot and loses, then the public, with the exception of those on the fringe, will accept the decision and we'll move on.

Being kicked off the ballot in Colorado isn't the end for Trump. He wasn't going to win Colorado anyway. But there is an ongoing lawsuit in Michigan and the decision there very likely will depend on the Supreme Court decision. Michigan is a key swing state. And others like Pennsylvania and possibly Arizona may follow. If Trump gets kicked off the ballot in even one swing state and Biden wins the election by the margin of that state's electoral votes, Trump supporters will take to the streets. What's more, a substantial portion of the independents may agree that the decision to boot him was unfair at best and election rigging at worst. Things could get ugly quickly. Even Chris Christie, who believes Trump should go to jail, thinks the election should be decided at the ballot box and not a state's court system. Christie isn't trying to suck up to Trump or curry favor with him or his base.

Ideally, the Republicans would rethink their commitment to Trump and pick someone who wouldn't be a threat to democracy and parrot Adolph Hitler's greatest quotes. But Trump will probably double down and his supporters may do so as well. Already some of them claim they won't get on the ballot in Colorado if Trump isn't and the state party has mentioned holding a caucus instead of a primary. It's going to get very, very ugly.

[Bob78164]

I am concerned about the implications of this Colorado decision. Legally, I think it's correct. But politically, it may make things worse than they are.

We already know that if Trump loses in 2024, he's going to scream fraud, Flock and his ilk will go hunting to find non-existent irregularities, Trump will file endless lawsuits, etc. etc. But if he's on the ballot and loses, then the public, with the exception of those on the fringe, will accept the decision and we'll move on.

Being kicked off the ballot in Colorado isn't the end for Trump. He wasn't going to win Colorado anyway. But there is an ongoing lawsuit in Michigan and the decision there very likely will depend on the Supreme Court decision. Michigan is a key swing state. And others like Pennsylvania and possibly Arizona may follow. If Trump gets kicked off the ballot in even one swing state and Biden wins the election by the margin of that state's electoral votes, Trump supporters will take to the streets. What's more, a substantial portion of the independents may agree that the decision to boot him was unfair at best and election rigging at worst. Things could get ugly quickly. Even Chris Christie, who believes Trump should go to jail, thinks the election should be decided at the ballot box and not a state's court system. Christie isn't trying to suck up to Trump or curry favor with him or his base.

Ideally, the Republicans would rethink their commitment to Trump and pick someone who wouldn't be a threat to democracy and parrot Adolph Hitler's greatest quotes. But Trump will probably double down and his supporters may do so as well. Already some of them claim they won't get on the ballot in Colorado if Trump isn't and the state party has mentioned holding a caucus instead of a primary. It's going to get very, very ugly.

I think that if the Supreme Court affirms the Colorado Supreme Court, Donny will end up off the ballot everywhere, and enough elected Republicans will say that we have to respect the legal process to fend off the worst of the disruptions.

I wonder whether Chris Christie (or anyone else saying that elections should be decided at the ballot box) would express the same opinion if there really had been evidence that President Obama had in fact been born in Kenya and only naturalized later. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I am concerned about the implications of this Colorado decision. Legally, I think it's correct. But politically, it may make things worse than they are.

We already know that if Trump loses in 2024, he's going to scream fraud, Flock and his ilk will go hunting to find non-existent irregularities, Trump will file endless lawsuits, etc. etc. But if he's on the ballot and loses, then the public, with the exception of those on the fringe, will accept the decision and we'll move on.

Being kicked off the ballot in Colorado isn't the end for Trump. He wasn't going to win Colorado anyway. But there is an ongoing lawsuit in Michigan and the decision there very likely will depend on the Supreme Court decision. Michigan is a key swing state. And others like Pennsylvania and possibly Arizona may follow. If Trump gets kicked off the ballot in even one swing state and Biden wins the election by the margin of that state's electoral votes, Trump supporters will take to the streets. What's more, a substantial portion of the independents may agree that the decision to boot him was unfair at best and election rigging at worst. Things could get ugly quickly. Even Chris Christie, who believes Trump should go to jail, thinks the election should be decided at the ballot box and not a state's court system. Christie isn't trying to suck up to Trump or curry favor with him or his base.

Ideally, the Republicans would rethink their commitment to Trump and pick someone who wouldn't be a threat to democracy and parrot Adolph Hitler's greatest quotes. But Trump will probably double down and his supporters may do so as well. Already some of them claim they won't get on the ballot in Colorado if Trump isn't and the state party has mentioned holding a caucus instead of a primary. It's going to get very, very ugly.

It is already ugly. And it most certainly will get uglier.

One of your own has let the cat out of the bag. The leftists have declared this a civil war.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... rates.html

So, conservative people are now traitors, right?

Ideally, the uniparty will rethink its commitment to using any means they can think of to disenfranchise more than half the people in this country and let We the People decide who will be our country's President. But they won't. They have already gone over the line.

They have highly partisan individual people in positions where they abuse their power to advance this heinous goal.
Jack Smith
Merrick Garland
Fani Willis
Leticia James
Tanya Chutken
Arthur Engoron
Sarah B. Wallace
To name just a few

President Trump had 4 years in office and the republic did not fail. It got stronger. For everyone. But what you were led to believe (falsely) the Russians did to manipulate public opinion is being done to you now, a thousand times over, by the people who manipulated and interfered with the 2020 election to get back power. And if we don't stop them now, bob's dream of a one-party state will be achieved, because they will never let any opposition threaten them ever again. They are showing they have no bounds to their abuse of power.

[Bob78164]

You don't have to be a good quaterback to see when one, even a good one, plays bad. Same goes for lawyering.

The 14th Amendment, specifies specific federal offices that it covers, and expressly says "electors for president" but missing, is the office of President. Therefore, it does not apply. You can argue the wording "other office", but you should know that the writers specifically did not put President in it because they did not intend it to apply to the office of President of the United States. Otherwise, the need not have specifically stated the other offices such as Senator. President of the United States is NOT an "other office" to a specifically stated Senator, Representative, or elector of President.

You really ought to read an opinion before you criticize it. As related on pages 77-78 of the opinion, this exact subject was discussed on the floor of the Senate during debate on the Fourteenth Amendment. The discussion resulted in an agreement that the phrase "other office" included the offices (so referred in the Constitution) of President and Vice President.

So the people who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment disagree with you about what it means. I think it's fairly likely that the originalist Justices will go with the authors' expressed intent rather than your uninformed opinion. --Bob

[kroxquo]

I am concerned about the implications of this Colorado decision. Legally, I think it's correct. But politically, it may make things worse than they are.

We already know that if Trump loses in 2024, he's going to scream fraud, Flock and his ilk will go hunting to find non-existent irregularities, Trump will file endless lawsuits, etc. etc. But if he's on the ballot and loses, then the public, with the exception of those on the fringe, will accept the decision and we'll move on.

Being kicked off the ballot in Colorado isn't the end for Trump. He wasn't going to win Colorado anyway. But there is an ongoing lawsuit in Michigan and the decision there very likely will depend on the Supreme Court decision. Michigan is a key swing state. And others like Pennsylvania and possibly Arizona may follow. If Trump gets kicked off the ballot in even one swing state and Biden wins the election by the margin of that state's electoral votes, Trump supporters will take to the streets. What's more, a substantial portion of the independents may agree that the decision to boot him was unfair at best and election rigging at worst. Things could get ugly quickly. Even Chris Christie, who believes Trump should go to jail, thinks the election should be decided at the ballot box and not a state's court system. Christie isn't trying to suck up to Trump or curry favor with him or his base.

Ideally, the Republicans would rethink their commitment to Trump and pick someone who wouldn't be a threat to democracy and parrot Adolph Hitler's greatest quotes. But Trump will probably double down and his supporters may do so as well. Already some of them claim they won't get on the ballot in Colorado if Trump isn't and the state party has mentioned holding a caucus instead of a primary. It's going to get very, very ugly.

It is already ugly. And it most certainly will get uglier.

One of your own has let the cat out of the bag. The leftists have declared this a civil war.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... rates.html

So, conservative people are now traitors, right?

Ideally, the uniparty will rethink its commitment to using any means they can think of to disenfranchise more than half the people in this country and let We the People decide who will be our country's President. But they won't. They have already gone over the line.

They have highly partisan individual people in positions where they abuse their power to advance this heinous goal.
Jack Smith
Merrick Garland
Fani Willis
Leticia James
Tanya Chutken
Arthur Engoron
Sarah B. Wallace
To name just a few

President Trump had 4 years in office and the republic did not fail. It got stronger. For everyone. But what you were led to believe (falsely) the Russians did to manipulate public opinion is being done to you now, a thousand times over, by the people who manipulated and interfered with the 2020 election to get back power. And if we don't stop them now, bob's dream of a one-party state will be achieved, because they will never let any opposition threaten them ever again. They are showing they have no bounds to their abuse of power.

You have gone to great lengths to separate liberals from leftists. I would make the same argument here. No, not all conservatives are traitors. George W. Bush, Dick & Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Mike Pence and a host of others are as conservative as they come and yet they all oppose Trump's nomination and as a result have been branded RINOs. The Republican party has traditionally been the bastion of conservatism, and yet these staunch conservatives are personae non gratae within the party. I would make the same distinction for them that you make for liberals - there are conservatives, and then there are the (for lack of a better term) the MAGA's. These are the people who continue to support a man who fomented an assault on the democratic process itself. If at any time between election day, 2020 and January 5th 2021 the 45th President had made a statement to the effect that we ran a good race but we lost, the rebellion (which we all saw with our own eyes) would not have happened. What the 45th President instigated was treasounous. What those who broke into the Capitol and attacked our electoral process was treasonous (I would not include those who protested outside and di not enter the building, although building a gallows on the Capitol grounds pushes the limit).

I would agree with SSS's statement about this getting ugly. I do not foresee any good outcome to the 2024 election. Either the 45th becomes the 47th and follows through on his promises to wield authoritarian powers with none of the adults in the room to restrain him as there was in his first term, or he loses and his acolytes take to the streets.

[mrkelley23]

What part of the Constitution are they abigdng by? The 14th Amendmant? There is no wording in the 14th Amendment to support this. None. You can add words to it, you can make assumptions of someones actions that have not been certified by jury, but you can not defend this with facts. You know it, I know it.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." U.S. Const., amend. XIV, sect. 3 (emphasis added).

Notice that this language says nothing about a jury. It just says that if you've taken the requisite oath and then violate that oath by engaging in insurrection, you're permanently disqualified. How many participants in the Civil War do you think were convicted by a jury?

Donny had due process because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the trial court the issue of whether he'd engaged in insurrection. He lost that argument. He lost it because he had, in fact, engaged in insurrection. (That's the same reason he was found liable for sexual assault -- he had, in fact, done what Ms. Carroll accused him of doing.) That act makes him ineligible under the Constitution to "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States." One such office is the Presidency.

You really should read the trial court's ruling on this issue. It goes carefully through the evidence and it's quite instructive. --Bob

I'll bet you $5 the US Supreme Court says otherwise.

The editorial board and the judicial columnist of that liberal, MSM, Oneparty rag, the Washington Post, agree with BiT's sentiment.

[kroxquo]

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." U.S. Const., amend. XIV, sect. 3 (emphasis added).

Notice that this language says nothing about a jury. It just says that if you've taken the requisite oath and then violate that oath by engaging in insurrection, you're permanently disqualified. How many participants in the Civil War do you think were convicted by a jury?

Donny had due process because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the trial court the issue of whether he'd engaged in insurrection. He lost that argument. He lost it because he had, in fact, engaged in insurrection. (That's the same reason he was found liable for sexual assault -- he had, in fact, done what Ms. Carroll accused him of doing.) That act makes him ineligible under the Constitution to "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States." One such office is the Presidency.

You really should read the trial court's ruling on this issue. It goes carefully through the evidence and it's quite instructive. --Bob

I'll bet you $5 the US Supreme Court says otherwise.

The editorial board and the judicial columnist of that liberal, MSM, Oneparty rag, the Washington Post, agree with BiT's sentiment.

I've looked through several sources - both right and left wing - and the question of whether the 14th Amendment applies here is not as cut and dried as some people think. This will be a monumental decision.

[silverscreenselect]

I would agree with SSS's statement about this getting ugly. I do not foresee any good outcome to the 2024 election. Either the 45th becomes the 47th and follows through on his promises to wield authoritarian powers with none of the adults in the room to restrain him as there was in his first term, or he loses and his acolytes take to the streets.

The four majority members of the Colorado Supreme Court have already received death threats. It's probably a safe bet that almost nobody who's sending those threats even knew their names before this week's decision. They join Judges Engorin and Chutkin, Engorin's clerk, Letitia James, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and a growing list of others whose "crime" is trying to hold Trump accountable. And useful tools like Flock keep fanning the flames and the man behind it all, Donald Trump, smiles and says, "I never told anybody to issue death threats."

[BackInTex]

I would agree with SSS's statement about this getting ugly. I do not foresee any good outcome to the 2024 election. Either the 45th becomes the 47th and follows through on his promises to wield authoritarian powers with none of the adults in the room to restrain him as there was in his first term, or he loses and his acolytes take to the streets.

The four majority members of the Colorado Supreme Court have already received death threats. It's probably a safe bet that almost nobody who's sending those threats even knew their names before this week's decision. They join Judges Engorin and Chutkin, Engorin's clerk, Letitia James, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, and a growing list of others whose "crime" is trying to hold Trump accountable. And useful tools like Flock keep fanning the flames and the man behind it all, Donald Trump, smiles and says, "I never told anybody to issue death threats."

Useful fools like yourself on the left continue to fan the percieved flames so any slight action can be overblown and market as insurrection.

[earendel]

I fear that we will lose America as we have known it, and I sometimes get to thinking that I am glad I am as old as I am so that if what the bobs and trollboys want for this country does come to pass, I will not have to live in that country for very long.

And re-electing Donald Trump will change this? Given what he and his followers have been saying, I'm worried that should that happen, "we will lose America as we have known it".

What, exactly, do you think Trump and his 'followers' have said that cause you to think that?

I should tell you, as you so often tell SSS, to do your own research beyond the echo chamber in which you exist, but I won't. Trump's own comment about not being a dictator after "day one", while perhaps considered as a humorous remark, and his unwillingness to categorically disavow such a notion, bothers me. Further, there are comments by Steve Bannon and others regarding their plans for a second Trump administration, which include using the Justice Department to go after those who served under Trump but then "turned against him".

[BackInTex]

And re-electing Donald Trump will change this? Given what he and his followers have been saying, I'm worried that should that happen, "we will lose America as we have known it".

What, exactly, do you think Trump and his 'followers' have said that cause you to think that?

I should tell you, as you so often tell SSS, to do your own research beyond the echo chamber in which you exist, but I won't. Trump's own comment about not being a dictator after "day one", while perhaps considered as a humorous remark, and his unwillingness to categorically disavow such a notion, bothers me. Further, there are comments by Steve Bannon and others regarding their plans for a second Trump administration, which include using the Justice Department to go after those who served under Trump but then "turned against him".

Well, like most politicians, campaign promises are just that, so I would be more worried about historical actions of the Justice Department being used to go after political opponents. In recent years, that's only been the Democrats (Obama, Biden).

[flockofseagulls104]

What, exactly, do you think Trump and his 'followers' have said that cause you to think that?

I should tell you, as you so often tell SSS, to do your own research beyond the echo chamber in which you exist, but I won't. Trump's own comment about not being a dictator after "day one", while perhaps considered as a humorous remark, and his unwillingness to categorically disavow such a notion, bothers me. Further, there are comments by Steve Bannon and others regarding their plans for a second Trump administration, which include using the Justice Department to go after those who served under Trump but then "turned against him".

Well, like most politicians, campaign promises are just that, so I would be more worried about historical actions of the Justice Department being used to go after political opponents. In recent years, that's only been the Democrats (Obama, Biden).

I would rather talk to ear than any of the fully indoctrinated comrades on this bored. There is NOTHING the democrat party can possibly do that will alienate them. They've shown that.

Ear, I believe Trump specifically disavowed that ridiculous question by his answer. Do you think anyone would ask that question to ANYONE else? No. Why? Because of the expressly coordinated attack on him that has been going on for 7 years now. He had 4 years as President. He wasn't a dictator then. Despite all the efforts to disparage and sabotage his administration. When asked that ridiculous question he answered in the same tone. He said his main focus would be closing the southern border and making us energy-independent again. That is what he said. And your take way is that he did not 'disavow' it? That's a media takeaway for dissemination to bolter their false narrative, not an objective analysis. Why should he give that ridiculous question a serious answer? Would you?

He is being attacked by the left from all possible sides because THEY are scared of him. Do you actually believe that the 75 million people who voted for him all of a sudden became 'domestic terrorists'? That we don't care about our country and want to trash it and start again, or whatever the swamp is promoting? Actually, we are the ones who care about our country and want to take it back from the Washington DC swamp, and Trump seems to be the only one who recognizes where the actual problem is.

Do you ever ask yourself why, when almost everyone agrees that having a wide-open southern border is not a good thing, it is never addressed by Washington? This past week we have had records set for the number of people detained at the border. Why do we even bother to pretend to have an immigration system when that is taking place? I think it's because there are many people on both sides of the aisle that personally benefit from leaving it wide open. And these are just some of the people who contribute to 'getting Trump', as Leticia James said so many times in her campaign. Is this what you want to continue?

We were energy-independent during his administration. That was a good thing. We did not have to import oil from countries that are potentially our enemies. We were exporting oil. As soon as Biden took office, he reversed everything Trump had set up, and now we are dependant again. Do you ever ask yourself why? Could it be that entrenched interests in the power structure of the swamp want us to be dependent?

As for using the DOJ to go after his political opponents - if you think that is a bad thing, what are you doing to protest what is going on right now? This administration is doing it not only against their political opponents but against everyday citizens who speak out against them. They have targeted parents at school board meetings, and Catholics who attended churches that had Latin Masses. They have held Jan 6th detainees for years without them being charged or sentenced. Not to mention coordinating with social media platforms to censor conservative content. That has been going on and yet it doesn't look like you even acknowledge it. This is a precedent set by the current administration. There needs to be an answer to it so it will not happen again. Will Trump do what they are doing? I hope not. I hope there is another answer to ensure that it is never done again. But whatever the answer is, it will be painful and difficult. But that is only because in their desperation to 'get Trump', the left and the swamp stepped over that red line. That is the reason that after every new attack on Trump, his support only increases. Some people wake up every time.

My chamber is not an echo chamber. I cannot avoid the narratives in the MSM and Social media conglomerate. They are pervasive. But I also do my own research and I seek out alternative perspectives and weigh what arguments hold more water for myself, which the vast majority of people are too ignorant, apathetic or indoctrinated to do. Personally, I know for a FACT that my state's Secretary of State is lying to the public. I have proof and I am working on trying to find the best platform and process to utilize the information I have.

[Weyoun]

Hey, did anything happen on December 19? once you get past that webpage that flock posted, assuming you have good virus software, it mentioned that there was gonna be some sort of big decision about this important stuff on December 19.

I didn’t hear anything. Maybe the media is just covering it up again and flock can find us another webpage, perhaps the Patriot Eagle, to fill us in on how the goalposts will be moved yet again.

[Weyoun]

What, exactly, do you think Trump and his 'followers' have said that cause you to think that?

I should tell you, as you so often tell SSS, to do your own research beyond the echo chamber in which you exist, but I won't. Trump's own comment about not being a dictator after "day one", while perhaps considered as a humorous remark, and his unwillingness to categorically disavow such a notion, bothers me. Further, there are comments by Steve Bannon and others regarding their plans for a second Trump administration, which include using the Justice Department to go after those who served under Trump but then "turned against him".

Well, like most politicians, campaign promises are just that, so I would be more worried about historical actions of the Justice Department being used to go after political opponents. In recent years, that's only been the Democrats (Obama, Biden).

Let’s play a game. I’m gonna give some examples of people on the left investigated by Biden. Give me the same number of examples of people on the right investigated. And by that, I mean an actual criminal prosecution, not just the FBI looking at someone sternly.

Eric Adams
Bob Menendez
Hunter Biden

[Bob78164]

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." U.S. Const., amend. XIV, sect. 3 (emphasis added).

Notice that this language says nothing about a jury. It just says that if you've taken the requisite oath and then violate that oath by engaging in insurrection, you're permanently disqualified. How many participants in the Civil War do you think were convicted by a jury?

Donny had due process because he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the trial court the issue of whether he'd engaged in insurrection. He lost that argument. He lost it because he had, in fact, engaged in insurrection. (That's the same reason he was found liable for sexual assault -- he had, in fact, done what Ms. Carroll accused him of doing.) That act makes him ineligible under the Constitution to "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States." One such office is the Presidency.

You really should read the trial court's ruling on this issue. It goes carefully through the evidence and it's quite instructive. --Bob

I'll bet you $5 the US Supreme Court says otherwise.

The editorial board and the judicial columnist of that liberal, MSM, Oneparty rag, the Washington Post, agree with BiT's sentiment.

BiT simply thinks the Colorado Supreme Court is wrong. Neither column, to my mind, says that.

The judicial columnist takes it for granted that the Supreme Court will not bar Donny from serving and "[g]iven that," urges them to rule on narrow technical grounds. The editorial board is concerned that affirming a ruling that Donny engaged in insurrection will lead to later abuses of the term. Neither of these sources criticizes the analysis of the Colorado Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court is truly interested only in (as Chief Justice Roberts put it) calling balls and strikes, then neither of these considerations should matter in the least. The Court should simply follow the law. It is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing (contrary to the Ruth Marcus column) because if it were not, there would have been no need for Congress later to act to remove the disqualification, as it did in 1876. And it's really not that hard to conclude that urging an armed mob to attack Congress in order to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the presidential election is an act of insurrection. Nor is it difficult to distinguish this act of insurrection from the possible abuses hypothesized in the editorial column. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I'll bet you $5 the US Supreme Court says otherwise.

The editorial board and the judicial columnist of that liberal, MSM, Oneparty rag, the Washington Post, agree with BiT's sentiment.

BiT simply thinks the Colorado Supreme Court is wrong. Neither column, to my mind, says that.

The judicial columnist takes it for granted that the Supreme Court will not bar Donny from serving and "[g]iven that," urges them to rule on narrow technical grounds. The editorial board is concerned that affirming a ruling that Donny engaged in insurrection will lead to later abuses of the term. Neither of these sources criticizes the analysis of the Colorado Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court is truly interested only in (as Chief Justice Roberts put it) calling balls and strikes, then neither of these considerations should matter in the least. The Court should simply follow the law. It is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment is self-executing (contrary to the Ruth Marcus column) because if it were not, there would have been no need for Congress later to act to remove the disqualification, as it did in 1876. And it's really not that hard to conclude that urging an armed mob to attack Congress in order to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the presidential election is an act of insurrection. Nor is it difficult to distinguish this act of insurrection from the possible abuses hypothesized in the editorial column. --Bob

Bobby, name one person that was armed. I am not aware of any in this strange insurrection without any weapons.

[silverscreenselect]

Bobby, name one person that was armed. I am not aware of any in this strange insurrection without any weapons.

They didn't have guns (that we know of) but they used baseball bats, pipes, and flag poles. Over 100 police officers were injured, some with concussions. Let someone hit you in the head with a baseball bat and then tell me he was unarmed.

[silverscreenselect]

I know for a FACT that my state's Secretary of State is lying to the public. I have proof and I am working on trying to find the best platform and process to utilize the information I have.

Please, please, please let me know when you get a hearing date. I really want to attend to see your proof and display of legal acumen.

[silverscreenselect]

Rudy Giuliani filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy today, the day after the judge in his defamation case allowed Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss to go after his assets immediately. Chapter 11 normally allows a debtor to work out an arrangement to pay creditors all or part of what they are owed either at once or over a period of time. However, because the $148 million judgment is an intentional tort, it's not discharged in the bankruptcy, so that when Rudy's bankruptcy ends, they can go after the full amount. Lucky for Rudy, he lives in New York, where they provide a lot of shelters for the homeless. Even luckier, he'll soon be living in Georgia in a more secure shelter for quite some time.

[wbtravis007]

I should tell you, as you so often tell SSS, to do your own research beyond the echo chamber in which you exist, but I won't. Trump's own comment about not being a dictator after "day one", while perhaps considered as a humorous remark, and his unwillingness to categorically disavow such a notion, bothers me. Further, there are comments by Steve Bannon and others regarding their plans for a second Trump administration, which include using the Justice Department to go after those who served under Trump but then "turned against him".

Well, like most politicians, campaign promises are just that, so I would be more worried about historical actions of the Justice Department being used to go after political opponents. In recent years, that's only been the Democrats (Obama, Biden).

I would rather talk to ear than any of the fully indoctrinated comrades on this bored. There is NOTHING the democrat party can possibly do that will alienate them. They've shown that.

Ear, I believe Trump specifically disavowed that ridiculous question by his answer. Do you think anyone would ask that question to ANYONE else? No. Why? Because of the expressly coordinated attack on him that has been going on for 7 years now. He had 4 years as President. He wasn't a dictator then. Despite all the efforts to disparage and sabotage his administration. When asked that ridiculous question he answered in the same tone. He said his main focus would be closing the southern border and making us energy-independent again. That is what he said. And your take way is that he did not 'disavow' it? That's a media takeaway for dissemination to bolter their false narrative, not an objective analysis. Why should he give that ridiculous question a serious answer? Would you?

He is being attacked by the left from all possible sides because THEY are scared of him. Do you actually believe that the 75 million people who voted for him all of a sudden became 'domestic terrorists'? That we don't care about our country and want to trash it and start again, or whatever the swamp is promoting? Actually, we are the ones who care about our country and want to take it back from the Washington DC swamp, and Trump seems to be the only one who recognizes where the actual problem is.

Do you ever ask yourself why, when almost everyone agrees that having a wide-open southern border is not a good thing, it is never addressed by Washington? This past week we have had records set for the number of people detained at the border. Why do we even bother to pretend to have an immigration system when that is taking place? I think it's because there are many people on both sides of the aisle that personally benefit from leaving it wide open. And these are just some of the people who contribute to 'getting Trump', as Leticia James said so many times in her campaign. Is this what you want to continue?

We were energy-independent during his administration. That was a good thing. We did not have to import oil from countries that are potentially our enemies. We were exporting oil. As soon as Biden took office, he reversed everything Trump had set up, and now we are dependant again. Do you ever ask yourself why? Could it be that entrenched interests in the power structure of the swamp want us to be dependent?

As for using the DOJ to go after his political opponents - if you think that is a bad thing, what are you doing to protest what is going on right now? This administration is doing it not only against their political opponents but against everyday citizens who speak out against them. They have targeted parents at school board meetings, and Catholics who attended churches that had Latin Masses. They have held Jan 6th detainees for years without them being charged or sentenced. Not to mention coordinating with social media platforms to censor conservative content. That has been going on and yet it doesn't look like you even acknowledge it. This is a precedent set by the current administration. There needs to be an answer to it so it will not happen again. Will Trump do what they are doing? I hope not. I hope there is another answer to ensure that it is never done again. But whatever the answer is, it will be painful and difficult. But that is only because in their desperation to 'get Trump', the left and the swamp stepped over that red line. That is the reason that after every new attack on Trump, his support only increases. Some people wake up every time.

My chamber is not an echo chamber. I cannot avoid the narratives in the MSM and Social media conglomerate. They are pervasive. But I also do my own research and I seek out alternative perspectives and weigh what arguments hold more water for myself, which the vast majority of people are too ignorant, apathetic or indoctrinated to do. Personally, I know for a FACT that my state's Secretary of State is lying to the public. I have proof and I am working on trying to find the best platform and process to utilize the information I have.

Heil.

[Bob78164]

They didn't have guns (that we know of) but they used baseball bats, pipes, and flag poles. Over 100 police officers were injured, some with concussions. Let someone hit you in the head with a baseball bat and then tell me he was unarmed.

Not correct. Follow the link in my post above to find the name of at least one January 6 convict who admitted he was armed with a gun. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Not one person came to Jan 6 to overthrow the government. NOT ONE.
Not one person has been charged with any definition of insurrection. NOT ONE.
It was not an insurrection, it was a protest that turned into a riot, and there is evidence that is being suppressed that there were people placed undercover to incite it into a riot.
There is video that is now coming out, suppressed by the starchamber, showing one protested being beaten to death. One unarmed protester was shot to death who posed no physical danger to anyone, and no police officer died as a result of the protests.

It never should have happened and there were some not so very fine people who got out of hand, but no matter how much it is trumpeted by the swamp, there was no insurrection, and you will never get the whole country to believe that there was.