Update on Trump Legal Cases

[silverscreenselect]

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.

Distinctions without differences. The goal of many of those insurrectionists was to prevent the certification of the electoral votes in the hopes that the election would be thrown back to the House of Representatives, resulting in their selecting Trump. That would have been overthrowing the lawfully elected incoming president.

Four members of the Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy, which carries a heavier penalty than insurrection. The definition:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

That's pretty much the definition of an insurrection with the element of conspiracy added. And as many people have noted, conviction of "insurrection" isn't required to disqualify someone from office under the 14th amendment.

[Pastor Fireball]

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.

If you also count unpaid fees to his own lawyers and the still-pending slander cases against him by two voting machine companies, Mr. Noun Verb 9/11 is about half a billion bucks in debt. Naturally, he didn't end up in debt until he started working for Former Guy, so add him to the burgeoning list of things that Former Guy has made bankrupt since 1970.

[earendel]

I would rather talk to ear than any of the fully indoctrinated comrades on this bored.

Thanks, I think.

Ear, I believe Trump specifically disavowed that ridiculous question by his answer.

Somehow, adding "just kidding" to remarks like that don't make them less scary to me.

Do you think anyone would ask that question to ANYONE else? No. Why?

Because no one else said that he would suspend the Constitution ("only joking"), go after the "fake news media", use the Justice Department to investigate former Trump loyalists who have become his harshest critics, deploy the military under the Insurrection Act to put down unrest, etc. For more details try searching on "Project 2025".

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.

Primarily because there were people in office who kept him from engaging in his darker instincts. Under another Trump administration there will be no such people, only those who will carry out his will unquestioningly. Again, for details, see Project 2025.

Why should he give that ridiculous question a serious answer? Would you?

Why shouldn't he? And yes, I would.

He is being attacked by the left from all possible sides because THEY are scared of him.

With good reason, considering what he and his followers have said they will do.

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.

It's not a binary situation, flock. You seem to believe that those who oppose Trump don't care about America. There may be some, I grant you, just as there are some among the extreme right who would love nothing more than to "trash it and start again".

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?

If the border were "wide open" then there would be a record number of detainees - they were detained, not just allowed to pass through. Believe it or not, there are some benefits to a liberal immigration policy, such as more workers to do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, and making payments into the Social Security fund that they will never be able to draw out since they are undocumented.

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?

We were not energy independent. During the Trump administration we imported 110 billion barrels of oil, including oil from Venezuela and Russia, two countries that are already our enemies, not just potential ones. We also imported a considerable amount from Saudi Arabia, a potential enemy, I suppose, as well as from Iraq and other OPEC nations.

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?

Other than writing my Congressional representatives, there isn't a whole lot I can do.

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.

I'd like to see some evidence of that last claim.

They have held Jan 6th detainees for years without them being charged or sentenced.

Then why do I read almost every week that one or more January 6th detainees have been 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.

My connection to social media is virtually non-existent (unless you count this). But as I understand it, and I'm sure you will disagree, the effort was to prevent misinformation and disinformation from being spread. And with Elon Musk buying X, this isn't happening - Trump even got his account back.

Will Trump do what they are doing? I hope not. I hope there is another answer to ensure that it is never done again.

It certainly sounds like he will do it, and with a vengeance.

[Bob78164]

We were not energy independent. During the Trump administration we imported 110 billion barrels of oil, including oil from Venezuela and Russia, two countries that are already our enemies, not just potential ones. We also imported a considerable amount from Saudi Arabia, a potential enemy, I suppose, as well as from Iraq and other OPEC nations.

More domestic oil has been produced during the Biden Administration than it was during Donny's Administration. In fact, the last two months both set all-time records for domestic oil production. And President Biden is taking heat from his left because of that. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Because no one else said that he would suspend the Constitution ("only joking"), go after the "fake news media", use the Justice Department to investigate former Trump loyalists who have become his harshest critics, deploy the military under the Insurrection Act to put down unrest, etc. For more details try searching on "Project 2025".

Thank you, ear, for that mention of Project 2025. It is an update of a document that helped shape President Reagan's administration.

Have you actually read it, or are just taking points from 'experts' who are trashing it? I have just read the forward to it

[url]https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FOREWORD.pdf[/url]

(not sure why it won't do the link)

, and I will be reading the whole thing. It pretty much summarizes what needs to be fixed in this country and describes what we will become if we don't fix it. If you don't agree we should, as a nation, address these issues:

1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect
our children.
2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the
American people.
3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.
4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution
calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”

then, I'm sorry, I question your values. From what I understand, this document is not written by a bunch of wild eyed, crazy whackos. The authors are experienced and scholarly conservatives to serve as a guide to the next conservative President in restoring and fixing the damage done to our country by the left. The extremist leftist whackos both on this site and who have access to the internet and social media are going to do what they always do. Find minor points that they can exaggerate and put in their own made-up context in order to enflame their audience and defame the document. I hope you can see beyond that.

Ronald Reagan had the Mandate for Leadership, this document's model, and in his administration

more than 60 percent of its recommendations had become policy—and Reagan was on his way to ending stagflation, reviving American confidence and prosperity, and winning the Cold War.

. We can surely use something like that about now.

I am hoping that you can see your way to questioning the answers you gave me above. On every one of those points, one side or the other is lying to you. Look at each of the points you made above in more detail and decide for yourself who is lying.

[flockofseagulls104]

If the border were "wide open" then there would be a record number of detainees - they were detained, not just allowed to pass through. Believe it or not, there are some benefits to a liberal immigration policy, such as more workers to do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, and making payments into the Social Security fund that they will never be able to draw out since they are undocumented.

Well, if that is the case, why don't we include these 'concerns' in our LEGAL immigration system, instead of ignoring the concept of LEGAL immigration entirely? Do laws not apply to things the left wants, ear? That's the way it seems. When they think they have a righteous cause, they find ways around the laws or just blatantly ignore them, like in this case. These people, whom you seem to support, have no regard for the law.

We’ve let 2.2 million people enter our country illegally this year alone. And that doesn’t even count the people who have escaped detection. The ones we do detain are let free into this country with a court date, which the vast majority never show up for. Don’t you think it’s ironic that the former ‘sanctuary cities’ are so upset that they are having to deal with a small fraction of these people that they care so much about?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... new-record

[flockofseagulls104]

We were not energy independent. During the Trump administration we imported 110 billion barrels of oil, including oil from Venezuela and Russia, two countries that are already our enemies, not just potential ones. We also imported a considerable amount from Saudi Arabia, a potential enemy, I suppose, as well as from Iraq and other OPEC nations.

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... nce-trump/

And since then, Biden has depleted the Strategic Oil Reserves in an effort to bring down oil prices stemming from his decision to undo everything Trump had done to bring them down to less than $2 a gallon. (Oh yes, I remember that, don't you?). Not only making us vulnerable to oil shortages, but it will cost incredibly more to refill the oil reserves, if he ever decides to do that.

[silverscreenselect]

Some minor good news for Donald Trump, who now gets to claim he has broken his 60+ case losing streak in court for now. The Supreme Court decided in a one-line unsigned opinion not to expedite his claim for presidential immunity in Jack Smith's election interference case against him. The case now goes to the DC Circuit which previously set a December 26 deadline for briefs and scheduled oral arguments for January 9. If Trump loses, he will undoubtedly again appeal to the Supreme Court which may decline to hear the case or consider it on an expedited basis or as part of their regular calendar. In that case, their opinion would probably be issued towards the end of the Supreme Court's term at the beginning of July. The current trial date in the case is March 4, which is unlikely if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.

[earendel]

I am hoping that you can see your way to questioning the answers you gave me above. On every one of those points, one side or the other is lying to you. Look at each of the points you made above in more detail and decide for yourself who is lying.

It all comes down to a matter of perspective, much like that meme of the dress color a few years ago. You and I look at the same information but see it differently. You have a world view that apparently sees everything as a vast conspiracy, and anything that challenges that world view is part of that conspiracy. Nothing is going to persuade you that the election wasn't stolen, that there is a "deep state" out to ruin America, etc.

Just out of curiosity, do you buy into the "Great Replacement Theory"?

[flockofseagulls104]

I am hoping that you can see your way to questioning the answers you gave me above. On every one of those points, one side or the other is lying to you. Look at each of the points you made above in more detail and decide for yourself who is lying.

It all comes down to a matter of perspective, much like that meme of the dress color a few years ago. You and I look at the same information but see it differently. You have a world view that apparently sees everything as a vast conspiracy, and anything that challenges that world view is part of that conspiracy. Nothing is going to persuade you that the election wasn't stolen, that there is a "deep state" out to ruin America, etc.

Just out of curiosity, do you buy into the "Great Replacement Theory"?

Ear, I check things out. I don't buy what either side 'tells' me is true. I try and determine that for myself. The biggest thing that convinces me is that ALL the major 'News' media have been doing something that is totally forbidden and unethical in their 'NEWS' pieces for a long time. They have no way of knowing with absolute surety whether there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election or not. They are supposed to be reporting the news. But in every one of their stories about the controversial election topic, they are ALL making sure that they include that ANY questioning of the election results has been 'debunked'. HOW COULD THEY KNOW THAT? Have they gone through and analyzed every bit of questionable data, examined thoroughly and completely all the reported vulnerabilities and examined and verified that every vote cast was legitimate and legal? That is a rhetorical question, because the answer is of course none of these reporters have. They are taking one side's word for it and presenting it as gospel truth to the public. Walter Cronkite would never have done that, and he and all other ethical journalists are spinning in their graves.

I have checked out, for myself, publicly available data and found and verified, for myself, many of the flaws and illegalities that have been uncovered by your 'conspiracy theorists'. I have seen for myself, personally, how one of the major 'news' networks has no interest in presenting or even being informed of the actual facts they are 'reporting' on. I have seen and experienced, for myself, how partisan some County Election Boards are and how they ignore and reinterpret laws for their own purposes. And I also know for a fact that our Secretary of State is lying to the public. I have proof of that which ANYONE who has an interest can prove for themselves.

I am not at all interested in overturning any past election. I never have been. My focus and the focus of most, if not all, the people who have been labeled as 'Election Deniers' is to do all we can to make sure that what 'possibly' happened in the 2020 election will never happen. And that is what we ALL should work to ensure. But there is a group that for some reason doesn't get a label in the MSM. I have dealt with many of these people, and they should have a label. They are 'Election Interference Enablers'. They use their power and influence to ensure that no changes are made to the status quo of the election system, leaving open all the vulnerabilities and opportunities for election interference of the kind that 'possibly' happened in 2020.

I don't know anything about 'The Great Replacement' theory. But I'm sure it's probably something thought up by leftists to spark more outrage against white people.

[silverscreenselect]

They have no way of knowing with absolute surety whether there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election or not. They are supposed to be reporting the news. But in every one of their stories about the controversial election topic, they are ALL making sure that they include that ANY questioning of the election results has been 'debunked'. HOW COULD THEY KNOW THAT? Have they gone through and analyzed every bit of questionable data, examined thoroughly and completely all the reported vulnerabilities and examined and verified that every vote cast was legitimate and legal?
I have checked out, for myself, publicly available data and found and verified, for myself, many of the flaws and illegalities that have been uncovered by your 'conspiracy theorists'. I have seen for myself, personally, how one of the major 'news' networks has no interest in presenting or even being informed of the actual facts they are 'reporting' on. I have seen and experienced, for myself, how partisan some County Election Boards are and how they ignore and reinterpret laws for their own purposes. And I also know for a fact that our Secretary of State is lying to the public. I have proof of that which ANYONE who has an interest can prove for themselves.

Of course, news sources can't prove with absolute certainty there was no fraud. But our legal system doesn't operate that way. Someone alleging fraud has to prove it by clear and convincing evidence to prevent exactly this type of manufactured "doubt" from wreaking havoc with the system. I might add that there is no absolute "proof" that Donald Trump won every single state that he carried. There could have been fraud in Texas or Florida or Ohio. We'll never "know" for sure. I'm sure that there are plenty of Democratic activists with a technological bent who could spend two or three years obsessing about the elections in those states and comb through all the records and find "substantial irregularities."

I don't know what you saw or think you saw. I do know that none of the people alleging fraud have demonstrated it to the satisfaction of a single election board or court anywhere in the country. This includes the Republican hierarchy in Georgia and several judges appointed by Donald Trump. Fox News and Rudy Giuliani are a lot poorer now for peddling this same sort of argument. Your answer is that they're all in on this nebulous sort of anti-Trump conspiracy. A far more likely answer is that your "proof" doesn't stand up to the standards of an independent fact finder.

[flockofseagulls104]

They have no way of knowing with absolute surety whether there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election or not. They are supposed to be reporting the news. But in every one of their stories about the controversial election topic, they are ALL making sure that they include that ANY questioning of the election results has been 'debunked'. HOW COULD THEY KNOW THAT? Have they gone through and analyzed every bit of questionable data, examined thoroughly and completely all the reported vulnerabilities and examined and verified that every vote cast was legitimate and legal?
I have checked out, for myself, publicly available data and found and verified, for myself, many of the flaws and illegalities that have been uncovered by your 'conspiracy theorists'. I have seen for myself, personally, how one of the major 'news' networks has no interest in presenting or even being informed of the actual facts they are 'reporting' on. I have seen and experienced, for myself, how partisan some County Election Boards are and how they ignore and reinterpret laws for their own purposes. And I also know for a fact that our Secretary of State is lying to the public. I have proof of that which ANYONE who has an interest can prove for themselves.

Of course, news sources can't prove with absolute certainty there was no fraud. But our legal system doesn't operate that way. Someone alleging fraud has to prove it by clear and convincing evidence to prevent exactly this type of manufactured "doubt" from wreaking havoc with the system. I might add that there is no absolute "proof" that Donald Trump won every single state that he carried. There could have been fraud in Texas or Florida or Ohio. We'll never "know" for sure. I'm sure that there are plenty of Democratic activists with a technological bent who could spend two or three years obsessing about the elections in those states and comb through all the records and find "substantial irregularities."

I don't know what you saw or think you saw. I do know that none of the people alleging fraud have demonstrated it to the satisfaction of a single election board or court anywhere in the country. This includes the Republican hierarchy in Georgia and several judges appointed by Donald Trump. Fox News and Rudy Giuliani are a lot poorer now for peddling this same sort of argument. Your answer is that they're all in on this nebulous sort of anti-Trump conspiracy. A far more likely answer is that your "proof" doesn't stand up to the standards of an independent fact finder.

Trollboy, I ain't talking to you. I know what you are going to say before you even type it, and so does everybody else on this bored. I don't give a shit about your point of view unless I am talking to you. So why don't you just keep your head up your ass where it belongs and stop throwing your bullshit at everything I post.

[silverscreenselect]

So why don't you just keep your head up your ass where it belongs and stop throwing your bullshit facts I can't intelligently refute at everything I post.

Fixed it for 'ya.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ear, I've done some research on the 'Great Replacement' theory you brought up. Of course, in what I've seen on the internet, it's a racist, white supremacist idea. That's what they all inject in their 'unbiased' analysis. I'm sure that's why you brought it up.

Whether it is true or not true, what do you make of the fact that over 2 million people have entered and remain in this country illegally this year, and our legislative branch has done absolutely nothing to address it? Why do you think that is?

https://homeland.house.gov/2023/10/26/f ... ders-ever/

Ignore whatever trollboy feels he has to say. I'm addressing this question to you, Earendel.

[flockofseagulls104]

This one's for you, trollboy.
Scan the headline, don't bother reading it. (Like I have to tell you that). And respond with more of your talking points within 15 minutes.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/1 ... ensperger/

Oh, and I was at the Senate Ethics Committee meeting a month ago where they wanted to discuss why he is not installing security software until after the 2024 election, among other things. Raffensperger didn't show up. Had to attend a Rotary Club meeting in South Georgia instead. But every question the Committee asked was a 'good question'. At least the drone he sent to represent him thought so.

So, what is it going to be? Gateway pundit is a far right-wing rag that lies? You know more than Halderman? 60 court cases? 3 recounts? Or just come up with some new names to call me?

[silverscreenselect]

This one's for you, trollboy.
Scan the headline, don't bother reading it. (Like I have to tell you that). And respond with more of your talking points within 15 minutes.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/1 ... ensperger/

Oh, and I was at the Senate Ethics Committee meeting a month ago where they wanted to discuss why he is not installing security software until after the 2024 election, among other things. Raffensperger didn't show up. Had to attend a Rotary Club meeting in South Georgia instead. But every question the Committee asked was a 'good question'. At least the drone he sent to represent him thought so.

So, what is it going to be? Gateway pundit is a far right-wing rag that lies? You know more than Halderman? 60 court cases? 3 recounts? Or just come up with some new names to call me?

Cutting through Flock's and Gateway Pundit's blather and hyperbole, this case has been floating around federal court for years. In the most recent version, various plaintiffs sued Raffensperger and others alleging that their right to vote was infringed upon because of flaws and vulnerabilities in the Dominion voting machines. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which means that even accepting all plaintiff's factual allegations as true (namely the findings in the Halderman report), plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The course denied the motion, saying that there were issues of fact that needed to be tried. The state has now appealed that decision to the 11th CIrcuit. That's standard civil practice. There are questions regarding standing in this case, which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. To sum up:

** The District Court ruled only that plaintiffs could try to prove their case in court. They did not decide whether the Halderman report was valid. Neither the state nor Dominion Software introduced any evidence at this point, which they could do at trial. The state could also cross-examine Halderman as to his findings.

**Raffensperger has not refused to testify. The case is on appeal. If it goes to trial, he presumably would testify if called as a witness as he has done in various other proceedings.

What this means is that, if the district court decision is upheld on appeal, those claiming election fraud will have a 61st opportunity to prove their case in court.

[Bob78164]

Defendants moved for summary judgment, which means that even accepting all plaintiff's factual allegations as true (namely the findings in the Halderman report), plaintiffs were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The course denied the motion, saying that there were issues of fact that needed to be tried. The state has now appealed that decision to the 11th CIrcuit. That's standard civil practice.

Wait a minute. This is in federal court, right? With some exceptions that don't appear applicable here, you don't get to appeal any interlocutory rulings until the case is over. So how does the state get to file an interlocutory appeal here? --Bob

[earendel]

Ear, I've done some research on the 'Great Replacement' theory you brought up. Of course, in what I've seen on the internet, it's a racist, white supremacist idea. That's what they all inject in their 'unbiased' analysis. I'm sure that's why you brought it up.

I was just curious as to whether you accepted it. Not accusing you of anything.

Whether it is true or not true, what do you make of the fact that over 2 million people have entered and remain in this country illegally this year, and our legislative branch has done absolutely nothing to address it? Why do you think that is?

I don't believe in the Great Replacement Theory. Unlike you, however, I am not concerned about the influx of "illegal immigrants". Most of them are literally fleeing for their lives. They take jobs that most Americans don't want - who do you think picks the fruit you eat? They pay into a Social Security system from which they will be unable to get money from. The problem is that they are concentrated in border cities and towns.

As to why Congress has done "absolutely nothing" is a tribute to its dysfunction. And, really, what can they do? Trump's wall is not the solution, even if it were possible. The Biden administration is attempting to negotiate a solution with Mexico, but that's a long shot.

[flockofseagulls104]

Ear, I've done some research on the 'Great Replacement' theory you brought up. Of course, in what I've seen on the internet, it's a racist, white supremacist idea. That's what they all inject in their 'unbiased' analysis. I'm sure that's why you brought it up.

I was just curious as to whether you accepted it. Not accusing you of anything.

Whether it is true or not true, what do you make of the fact that over 2 million people have entered and remain in this country illegally this year, and our legislative branch has done absolutely nothing to address it? Why do you think that is?

I don't believe in the Great Replacement Theory. Unlike you, however, I am not concerned about the influx of "illegal immigrants". Most of them are literally fleeing for their lives. They take jobs that most Americans don't want - who do you think picks the fruit you eat? They pay into a Social Security system from which they will be unable to get money from. The problem is that they are concentrated in border cities and towns.

As to why Congress has done "absolutely nothing" is a tribute to its dysfunction. And, really, what can they do? Trump's wall is not the solution, even if it were possible. The Biden administration is attempting to negotiate a solution with Mexico, but that's a long shot.

Earendel, For most of our history, we had a legal immigration system, which all other functioning countries have, that allowed us to identify and screen the people who enter and get to stay in this country. We still technically have one, but it is being ignored by the current administration. I'm glad you are 'not concerned' about anyone and everyone being able to enter this country without any concern as to who they are, what their background is or anything else. But there are many who are very concerned. If you think your reasons for letting anyone and everyone into this country illegally are valid, why don't you advocate for a change in the law to handle those issues, rather than supporting ignoring current law to the detriment of the entire country. Do you really think letting 2 million people into this country with no documentation or any kind of idea who they are is a GOOD thing? Not to mention how unfair it is to the people who are doing it in a legal way? How do you reconcile that to yourself?

The Trump Administration had a solution that was negotiated with Mexico. The REMAIN IN MEXICO policy was ended on the first day of Biden's administration. Why, ear? We are now letting in record numbers of illegals into our country, while Mayorkas insists that the border is 'under control'. Why, ear?

Are you an advocate for no immigration system at all? Should anyone and everyone be allowed to move into this country, no questions asked? It sure seems so. If that's the case, I will be coming to your house and move in with you. I hope you have room.

[Bob78164]

Ear, I've done some research on the 'Great Replacement' theory you brought up. Of course, in what I've seen on the internet, it's a racist, white supremacist idea. That's what they all inject in their 'unbiased' analysis. I'm sure that's why you brought it up.

I was just curious as to whether you accepted it. Not accusing you of anything.

Whether it is true or not true, what do you make of the fact that over 2 million people have entered and remain in this country illegally this year, and our legislative branch has done absolutely nothing to address it? Why do you think that is?

I don't believe in the Great Replacement Theory. Unlike you, however, I am not concerned about the influx of "illegal immigrants". Most of them are literally fleeing for their lives. They take jobs that most Americans don't want - who do you think picks the fruit you eat? They pay into a Social Security system from which they will be unable to get money from. The problem is that they are concentrated in border cities and towns.

As to why Congress has done "absolutely nothing" is a tribute to its dysfunction. And, really, what can they do? Trump's wall is not the solution, even if it were possible. The Biden administration is attempting to negotiate a solution with Mexico, but that's a long shot.

I'm not sure why you're engaging with someone whose command of the facts and search skills are so poor he doesn't know that the Biden Administration has been using the Remain in Mexico policy for more than two years (and has been taking considerable heat from his left because of it). I really think there is nothing anyone could say that could make a dent in ignorance this determined. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

MIxed news for Trump and Republicans today:

1) The Michigan Supreme Court denied a request to remove Trump from the primary ballot. They said that, under Michigan law, the Republican Party has the sole authority to determine who is on the ballot, and the Secretary of State's office has no authority to challenge that. The ruling does not have any affect on whether Trump may be removed from the general election ballot if he wins the Republican nomination.

2) A federal court in Georgia upheld the state's latest redistricting after the judge ordered them to create another majority black district. They did so by splitting up Lucy McBath's district that was majority Democratic due to a combination of black, Asian, and Hispanic voters. The court said the existing lawsuit only affected majority black districts, which have been increased. As a result, the existing 9-5 Congressional split will probably remain in 2024 and McBath will seek re-election in another district, her third in three terms.

3) The appeals court in Trump's most recent defamation suit brought by E. Jean Carroll rejected Trump's immunity claim and refused to stay the case pending a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. The court said that Trump waited too long to assert the claim, so it was barred regardless of if or how the Supreme Court eventually rules. The trial on damages will begin January 16.

[Bob78164]

MIxed news for Trump and Republicans today:

1) The Michigan Supreme Court denied a request to remove Trump from the primary ballot. They said that, under Michigan law, the Republican Party has the sole authority to determine who is on the ballot, and the Secretary of State's office has no authority to challenge that. The ruling does not have any affect on whether Trump may be removed from the general election ballot if he wins the Republican nomination.

2) A federal court in Georgia upheld the state's latest redistricting after the judge ordered them to create another majority black district. They did so by splitting up Lucy McBath's district that was majority Democratic due to a combination of black, Asian, and Hispanic voters. The court said the existing lawsuit only affected majority black districts, which have been increased. As a result, the existing 9-5 Congressional split will probably remain in 2024 and McBath will seek re-election in another district, her third in three terms.

3) The appeals court in Trump's most recent defamation suit brought by E. Jean Carroll rejected Trump's immunity claim and refused to stay the case pending a Supreme Court ruling on the issue. The court said that Trump waited too long to assert the claim, so it was barred regardless of if or how the Supreme Court eventually rules. The trial on damages will begin January 16.

Maine's Secretary of State ruled that Donny isn't eligible to run and therefore can't go on Maine's ballot. Her decision can be appealed to the courts, and undoubtedly will be. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Ear, I've done some research on the 'Great Replacement' theory you brought up. Of course, in what I've seen on the internet, it's a racist, white supremacist idea. That's what they all inject in their 'unbiased' analysis. I'm sure that's why you brought it up.

I was just curious as to whether you accepted it. Not accusing you of anything.

Whether it is true or not true, what do you make of the fact that over 2 million people have entered and remain in this country illegally this year, and our legislative branch has done absolutely nothing to address it? Why do you think that is?

I don't believe in the Great Replacement Theory. Unlike you, however, I am not concerned about the influx of "illegal immigrants". Most of them are literally fleeing for their lives. They take jobs that most Americans don't want - who do you think picks the fruit you eat? They pay into a Social Security system from which they will be unable to get money from. The problem is that they are concentrated in border cities and towns.

As to why Congress has done "absolutely nothing" is a tribute to its dysfunction. And, really, what can they do? Trump's wall is not the solution, even if it were possible. The Biden administration is attempting to negotiate a solution with Mexico, but that's a long shot.

I'm not sure why you're engaging with someone whose command of the facts and search skills are so poor he doesn't know that the Biden Administration has been using the Remain in Mexico policy for more than two years (and has been taking considerable heat from his left because of it). I really think there is nothing anyone could say that could make a dent in ignorance this determined. --Bob

Well, bobby, Thanks for picking a minor point and avoiding the major one. You must be taking trollboy lessons. Biden tried to end Remain in Mexico on his first day. He was prevented from doing so, but, I think, as of August last year, he finally got to do it. And Mexico ain't gonna do it again. Sorry, but I know that I don't know what I don't know at any given time. Can't be like you and trollboy who know everything about everything at every time. I will admit that I am ignorant of some things, but not willfully so, like you are. So I looked it up, and if I can rely on what's on google, which is iffy at best, they don't stay in Mexico anymore. Regardless, they, like they do everything else, found ways of getting around it and ignoring it even while it was in force.

The main point is that Illegals have been pouring into our country at world record rates this year. That doesn't count the estimated 1.7 million that are 'got aways'. Even the 'sanctuary cities' are vehemently complaining about it now. That is an example of what you are WILLFULLY ignorant about. And I'm sure you are committed to remaining so.

Are YOU for a legal immigration system, bobby, or do you think anyone from anywhere should be let into this country for whatever reason? If it's the latter, maybe I'll come to your above average home and move in. Maybe I'll invite some friends.

[flockofseagulls104]

Maine is the latest state to protect our democracy by disenfranchizing half its voters. So, we can now have an individual partisan politician, with no training in the law, decide who people can and cannot vote for based on her own personal definition of what constitutes an 'insurrection'.

That's the definition of saving our democracy. Even though we're supposed to be a republic, but who gives a shit about that.

[silverscreenselect]

Maine is the latest state to protect our democracy by disenfranchizing half its voters. So, we can now have an individual partisan politician, with no training in the law, decide who people can and cannot vote for based on her own personal definition of what constitutes an 'insurrection'.

That's the definition of saving our democracy. Even though we're supposed to be a republic, but who gives a shit about that.

The Maine legislature delegated the responsibility for determining whether a candidate for office is qualified to the Secretary of State, and she held a hearing in response to three separate sets of challenges. The challengers presented various records into evidence, including the findings of the January 6 commission, and called expert witnesses. Trump presented no evidence and called no witnesses. After the Colorado Supreme Court decision, the Secretary of State asked the parties to submit additional briefs as to the relevance of that decision, if any, to the Maine case. With regard to insurrection, this was her finding. She supported every statement in the definition of insurrection by citations to earlier insurrection cases.

The record demonstrates that the events of January 6, 2021 were an insurrection. The parties do not meaningfully dispute the events of January 6, 2021. Multiple government reports that the Rosen Challengers entered into evidence confirm that a large group of people violently attacked the Capitol with the intent of preventing the certification of the presidential election. This resulted in a lockdown of the Capitol complex, an evacuation of the Vice President and congressional leaders, an interruption of official House and Senate proceedings, and multiple deaths and injuries.

In making their case that the events of January 6, 2021 constitute an insurrection, the Rosen Challengers rely heavily on the proceedings in-and evidence from-the [Colorado] case. Much of that evidence is in the record here, and I find the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court compelling. That said, even without the benefit of the Anderson decision, I have little trouble concluding that the events of January 6, 2021 were an insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Professor Magliocca [the law professor expert witness] defined an insurrection as a public use of violence by a group of people to hinder or prevent the execution of the Constitution. This definition is well supported by the historical record. See also Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 613 (1860) (defining insurrection as distinct from rebellion, and as "[a] rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state").

Mr. Trump criticizes Professor Magliocca's definition as based on sources too "weak" and disparate in time, but he offers no workable alternative definition. Specifically, Mr. Trump's claim that insurrection must be "violent enough, potent enough, long enough, and organized enough to be considered a significant step on the way to rebellion," is both ambiguous as a standard and poorly supported by the evidence he cites. An insurrection need not involve military-style weaponry, ("[M]ilitary weapons" like "guns and swords" "are not necessary to make such insurrection or rising amount to levying of war", involve bloodshed, or even be highly organized.

Nonetheless, even if insurrection under Section Three were so limited, the evidence here shows that the events of January 6, 2021 meet that standard. As demonstrated by videos and documentary evidence in the record, a large and angry crowd entered the U.S. Capitol near midday on January 6 and assaulted the capitol police officers charged with defending it, vandalized and stole property, and ransacked offices. Many of those involved were armed with weapons-some brought to the Capitol, some wrested from police officers, and some repurposed items looted from inside the Capitol itself.-and over a few hours they used them to breach barriers and attack those who resisted. The crowd ultimately entered the Capitol as Members of Congress were meeting to certify the Electoral College vote count. In other words, the attack was violent enough, potent enough, and long enough to constitute an insurrection.

It also cannot reasonably be disputed that the rioters were organized behind a common purpose. That purpose is evident not only from the context, discussed in more detail below, but also from the very chants and recitations of the rioters themselves. They were present to "stop the steal," i.e., prevent by force the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election that was scheduled to occur in the halls of Congress that afternoon. This violent disruption of Congress's duty, through a transparently public use of force, meets both Professor Magliocca's historically accurate definition of an insurrection, and Mr. Trump's alternative definition. I therefore conclude that the events of January 6, 2021, the "most significant breach of the Capitol in over 200 years," constituted an insurrection.

The question of whether Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection is a closer one. It would not be difficult to answer had Mr. Trump had been found guilty-or not guilty-of insurrection in a court of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2883 (criminalizing insurrection). The applicability of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not tum on whether an office-seeker has been convicted of a crime, however. Instead, under [Maine law], I am obligated to assess the record before me and make a determination based on the preponderance of the evidence, just as my predecessors have in other ballot access cases.

Professor Magliocca defined "engaged in" as a voluntary act, by word or deed, in furtherance of an insurrection, including words of incitement. The support for this interpretation is robust, as succinctly summarized by Professor Magliocca himself at the hearing. Contemporaneous decisions from Attorney General Stanbury suggest that engaging in insurrection did not require "having actually levied war or taken arms," but rather was understood broadly to include official action "in furtherance of the common unlawful purpose" or "any overt act for the purpose of promoting the rebellion," including "incit[ing] others" to act accordingly "by speech or by writing." Judicial decisions of the time likewise interpreted Section Three as covering "a voluntary effort to assist the Insurrection or Rebellion," and even defined "levying war" as including "inciting and encouraging others" to commit treason, On this basis, I adopt the definition outlined by Professor Magliocca and concur that "engaged in insurrection" under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment includes "incitement."

The events of January 6, 2021 notwithstanding, Mr. Trump also claims that he cannot be disqualified from the presidency for his conduct because his public statements and speeches are protected by the First Amendment. But Mr. Trump cites no precedent-and I am unaware of any-that permits the First Amendment to override a qualification for public office. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a criminal penalty, nor is it a punishment, It is simply a qualification for office. Additionally, because I conclude that Mr. Trump intended to incite lawless action, his speech is unprotected by the First Amendment.

I did not include four pages of facts documenting Trump's various speeches regarding the rigged election in the months leading up to January 6 and his speech on the Ellipse to his followers. The Secretary found that course of proceedings to be ample incitement on Trump's part. The Secretary of State is not an attorney, but her opinion was clearly drafted by attorneys and is better reasoned than a lot of judicial opinions I've read. And Trump can appeal it in Maine court. Flock wants to blame the Secretary of state for "disenfranchising" half the voters of Maine. If you want to "blame" someone besides Trump, blame the people who drafted and approved the Fourteenth Amendment. They are the ones who established the criteria for barring Trump from the ballot. And the Secretary of State didn't just arbitrarily decide on a definition of insurrection. She went by expert opinion bolstered by case law and also found that the events of January 6 were an insurrection even under Donald Trump's definition.