Cable Forum
Page 4 of 10 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Trump’s Troubles (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711548)

Chris 29-12-2023 18:40
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36167425)
@Chris and @Hugh (although equally anyone else) - how do you see this playing out?
I think the ultra-conservative members of the Supreme Court my come to realise that their continuing life-long membership of a nine-member panel is preferable to ruling Trump isn’t disqualified by the 14th. All of them are likely to live a lot longer than him and have nothing to gain by indirectly making the case for (at best) diluting their majority by increasing the panel to 12 justices, or (at worst, for them) imposing term limits.

IANAL and I am especially not a US constitutional lawyer but on a plain reading of the relevant bit of the constitution I can’t see how Trump can stand, and in fact for months now I’ve been seeing people who do have relevant qualifications opining that for all the noise of criminal and civil trials it was always likely to be a challenge under the 14th amendment that would get him in the end. The only thing that might tempt the justices to interpret it creatively and in Trump’s favour would be some sense of loyalty to him, but they don’t need his favour to stay in post, whereas they do need the present composition of the Supreme Court to remain as is for them to be certain they retain their jobs and their influence for as long as they want it.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167429)
My point being the “final arbiter”, in a democracy, should be the electorate.
Can you name anywhere in the world where that’s actually the case? AFAIK the nearest you get to it is Switzerland and even the Swiss suspect they’re basically ungovernable as a result.

There’s a very good reason why successful democracies are representative rather than direct. The US constitution can be altered with substantial bipartisan support at state and federal level in the US, amongst representatives who are democratically elected. The constitution is interpreted and enforced by the Supreme Court but its powers are not absolute.

Pierre 29-12-2023 21:05
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36167432)
Can you name anywhere in the world where that’s actually the case? AFAIK the nearest you get to it is Switzerland and even the Swiss suspect they’re basically ungovernable as a result.

There’s a very good reason why successful democracies are representative rather than direct. The US constitution can be altered with substantial bipartisan support at state and federal level in the US, amongst representatives who are democratically elected. The constitution is interpreted and enforced by the Supreme Court but its powers are not absolute.
In the U.K. anyone can stand for election, unless you’re bankrupt.

Absolutely anyone….and no one in the current government (local or national) or in the judiciary can stop you from being on the ballot paper.

Certainly no one in power from an opposing party can stop you.

This is what I mean by the electorate being the final arbiter. Anyone can stand and the people decide.

If in the US, the state government can decide or the state judiciary, or the Supreme Court can decide who is allowed to stand.

Then the US is not the beacon of democracy it likes to think it is.

You also have to ask the question. Was Jan 6th an insurrection? ……….no, obviously not.

Did Trump plan and orchestrate an insurrection?………..no.

Is it useful for the Democrats to accuse Trump of an insurrection? …………..absolutely yes, because then by interpreting the constitution in a certain way they can remove him from the ballot.

It all makes sense now.

Paul 29-12-2023 22:10
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167438)
You also have to ask the question. Was Jan 6th an insurrection? ……….no, obviously not.
insurrection
Quote:
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Quote:
the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government. also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt.
How is it "obviously not" ?
It seems to fit the definition quite well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167438)
Did Trump plan and orchestrate an insurrection?………..no.
Seems more like ... Yes.
According to the subsequent investigation and hearings ;
Quote:
Trump summoned and assembled a destructive mob in Washington and sent them to march on the U.S. Capitol;
Quote:
Trump ignored multiple requests to speak out in real time against the mob violence, refused to instruct his supporters to disband, and failed to take any immediate actions to halt attacks on the Capitol.

Pierre 29-12-2023 22:43
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36167439)
insurrection

How is it "obviously not" ?
It seems to fit the definition quite well.
It was less violent than an Antifa or BLM or free Palestine march. Nobody was going there to “overthrow” the government.

If you really think Jan 6th was an attempt to seize power of the US you need your head examining.


Quote:
Seems more like ... Yes.
According to the subsequent investigation and hearings ;
No it doesn’t.

How did he assemble his mob and how did he mobilise them? What was his command and control structure.

What were his plans to engage with the police authorities and military, in order to gain control of them? So he could take control of the capital?

Trump was in charge of jack shit.

It was a mediocre riot at best, an over exuberant protest at worst.

Trump had no obligation to…..“to speak out in real time against the mob violence” or refuse to instruct his supporters to disband, or take any immediate actions to halt “attacks” on the Capitol.

(I put attacks in commas as it was not an attack)

He was not in control of those people, that is why, unless in front of a kangaroo court, he will not be found guilty of anything.

I’m not a Trump fan boy, i think DeSantis is a better candidate, and it’s america so …whatever.

But I do care about democracy wherever in the world, and the US is behaving like the very antithesis of what they’re supposed to stand for, and if america falls, the West will have a massive problem.

Chris 29-12-2023 23:18
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167438)
In the U.K. anyone can stand for election, unless you’re bankrupt.

Absolutely anyone….and no one in the current government (local or national) or in the judiciary can stop you from being on the ballot paper.

Certainly no one in power from an opposing party can stop you.

This is what I mean by the electorate being the final arbiter. Anyone can stand and the people decide.

If in the US, the state government can decide or the state judiciary, or the Supreme Court can decide who is allowed to stand.

Then the US is not the beacon of democracy it likes to think it is.
So absolutely anyone can stand in the UK, except for the people who can’t. There’s no point trying to slip the exception on by there in the hope nobody notices that it fatally undermines your argument.

Both the UK and the US have codified the proposition that certain people are ineligible for office. Who they bar is based on prior experience. In the case of the US it was the civil war - they understandably decided they didn’t want senior Confederates who had taken up arms against the Union, renewing their mischief via elected office. The precise historical reasons why bankrupts are barred in the UK, I’ll leave someone else to look up.

Quote:
You also have to ask the question. Was Jan 6th an insurrection? ……….no, obviously not.

Did Trump plan and orchestrate an insurrection?………..no.
These are the questions the Supreme Court of Colorado has considered, and judged yes and yes. The senior election officer in Maine reached the same conclusions. She is constitutionally entitled to do so in that state. In both cases, and in other states presently considering the issue, it will all end up in front of the federal Supreme Court for final judgment.

I believe based on what I read that Trump’s actions amount to insurrection, and the incitement of it. However as I’ve already said IANAL and neither are you - I don’t think you have grounds for saying the matter is ‘obviously’ anything.

Quote:
Is it useful for the Democrats to accuse Trump of an insurrection? …………..absolutely yes, because then by interpreting the constitution in a certain way they can remove him from the ballot.

It all makes sense now.
At which point you’ve vanished down a conspiracy rabbit hole and there’s little hope of further useful discussion.

Pierre 29-12-2023 23:50
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Both the UK and the US have codified the proposition that certain people are ineligible for office. Who they bar is based on prior experience. In the case of the US it was the civil war - they understandably decided they didn’t want senior Confederates who had taken up arms against the Union, renewing their mischief via elected office.
No one took up arms on Jan 6th, and my previous post outlines how pathetic any claims of an “actual” insurrection, vis-à-vis a defacto coup-de-grace are sensationalist bollocks.

Quote:
Both the UK and the US have codified the proposition that certain people are ineligible for office. Who they bar is based on prior experience. In the case of the US it was the civil war - they understandably decided they didn’t want senior Confederates who had taken up arms against the Union, renewing their mischief via elected office.
Yes, I’ve often looked at Trump and thought….Robert E Lee reincarnated, orange git.

Quote:
These are the questions the Supreme Court of Colorado has considered, and judged yes and yes. The senior election officer in Maine reached the same conclusions. She is constitutionally entitled to do so in that state. In both cases, and in other states presently considering the issue, it will all end up in front of the federal Supreme Court for final judgment.
Yes it will end up in the Supreme Court, but it wasn’t the “senior election officer” it was the Maine “ Secretary of State”. It wasn’t an unelected apolitical civil servant, it was an elected official.

A democrat blocking a republican (debatable) candidate.


Quote:
I believe based on what I read that Trump’s actions amount to insurrection, and the incitement of it. However as I’ve already said IANAL and neither are you - I don’t think you have grounds for saying the matter is ‘obviously’ anything.
Well I refer you to my opinion.

Quote:
At which point you’ve vanished down a conspiracy rabbit hole and there’s little hope of further useful discussion.
Which is a bit disappointing from you, as it’s a shut up and shut down tactic. I think given the actions of the democrats in the last 2-3 yrs, it’s a valid observation.

Hugh 30-12-2023 00:00
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
The Maine Secretary of State is the senior Election Officer, and she was elected by the Maine Legislature, not by public votes.

Quote:
Under Maine state law, the secretary of state is responsible for preparing ballots for a presidential primary election and must hear and decide on challenges to the legality of nomination petitions.
Quote:
Maine is one of only three states in which the position is elected by the legislature; the majority are elected by the public, and some are appointed by the state’s governor.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...y-state-trump/

Paul 30-12-2023 00:04
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167440)
If you really think Jan 6th was an attempt to seize power of the US you need your head examining.
In future, dont be such an ass in your replies.
I didnt say anything of the sort, nor do the definition(s).
Even so, the point was to keep Trump in power by preventing the declaration of Bidens victory (they failed) - that could easily be defined as trying to seize power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167440)
No it doesn’t.
An view not supported by the US Select Committee who investigated it - and their view matters - yours, not so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167440)
How did he assemble his mob and how did he mobilise them?
Feel free to read about what I'm sure you already know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Januar...Capitol_attack

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167440)
What were his plans to engage with the police authorities and military, in order to gain control of them? So he could take control of the capital?
Where did anyone say he had such plans ?
[ Since he was still president at that point, he already had control of the Military ]

Chris 30-12-2023 00:25
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167442)
No one took up arms on Jan 6th, and my previous post outlines how pathetic any claims of an “actual” insurrection, vis-à-vis a defacto coup-de-grace are sensationalist bollocks.



Yes, I’ve often looked at Trump and thought….Robert E Lee reincarnated, orange git.


Yes it will end up in the Supreme Court, but it wasn’t the “senior election officer” it was the Maine “ Secretary of State”. It wasn’t an unelected apolitical civil servant, it was an elected official.

A democrat blocking a republican (debatable) candidate.



Well I refer you to my opinion.


Which is a bit disappointing from you, as it’s a shut up and shut down tactic. I think given the actions of the democrats in the last 2-3 yrs, it’s a valid observation.
The constitution doesn’t define insurrection so narrowly.

Almost everyone is elected to office in the US, or else is directly appointed by someone who was elected. Even local and state legal officials. I happen to think it’s a weakness rather than a strength in their system but it is what it is.

Nevertheless …

‘Outcome X suits group A, therefore group A caused outcome X’ is a logical fallacy of the highest order. I’m sorry if you find my refusal to entertain it disappointing, however you’ve made a charge that requires evidence, not insinuations of bad faith.

Maggy 30-12-2023 10:06
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167442)
No one took up arms on Jan 6th, and my previous post outlines how pathetic any claims of an “actual” insurrection, vis-à-vis a defacto coup-de-grace are sensationalist bollocks.
Well a lot of those invading the US Capitol were armed from what I observed from the news reports.Not necessarily guns but weapons none the less.From what I have read 5 people died in that attack.I think you are talking utter rubbish.

Pierre 30-12-2023 10:53
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36167450)
Well a lot of those invading the US Capitol were armed from what I observed from the news reports.Not necessarily guns but weapons none the less.From what I have read 5 people died in that attack.I think you are talking utter rubbish.
There have been nine deaths attributed to Jan 6th.

2 from natural causes - Heart attacks, both outside the capitol building, and it’s unclear if one of those actually participated in the demonstration.

1 was from an accidental overdose of prescription medication for ADHD.

1 was accidentally shot by a capitol policeman, the woman that was shot was unarmed.

All of the 4 above were Trump supporters.

1 policeman died from natural causes, a stroke, 8hrs after the demonstration, but his death as attributed to it.

4 policeman committed suicide, 3 days, 8 days and 6 months after incident, their deaths also attributed to Jan 6th.

You need to read more.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/ho...-capitol-riot/

Chris 30-12-2023 12:07
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
All of which is besides the point. Insurrection is defined by what they intended to do, not the tools they used to do it. The intention was to halt the legal, democratic processes of the state, in order to prevent a democratic election being certified, with the aim of having the loser eventually declared the winner, so that the loser could remain in post. Trump incited a crowd of thousands to go from his rally to the Capitol in order to enact all of that. For hours after the effect of his words were clear to see he refused to use his powers as president or his personal influence over the mob to stop it. People were hurt, state property was destroyed and state officials had reason to fear for their lives.

Hugh 30-12-2023 13:18
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36167460)
There have been nine deaths attributed to Jan 6th.

2 from natural causes - Heart attacks, both outside the capitol building, and it’s unclear if one of those actually participated in the demonstration.

1 was from an accidental overdose of prescription medication for ADHD.

1 was accidentally shot by a capitol policeman, the woman that was shot was unarmed.

All of the 4 above were Trump supporters.

1 policeman died from natural causes, a stroke, 8hrs after the demonstration, but his death as attributed to it.

4 policeman committed suicide, 3 days, 8 days and 6 months after incident, their deaths also attributed to Jan 6th.

You need to read more.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/ho...-capitol-riot/
Babbit wasn’t "accidentally shot".

Quote:
A shooting death: Ashli Babbitt, 35, of San Diego and an Air Force veteran, died on the day of the riot after being shot in the shoulder by a Capitol Police officer as she attempted to force her way into the House chamber where members of Congress were sheltering in place, according to a Jan. 7 statement from then-U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund.

In April, the Department of Justice announced that it would not pursue any charges against the Capitol Police officer who shot Babbitt.

According to the Justice Department release, “As members of the mob continued to strike the glass doors” outside an entrance that leads to the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives, “Ms. Babbitt attempted to climb through one of the doors where glass was broken out. An officer inside the Speaker’s Lobby fired one round from his service pistol, striking Ms. Babbitt in the left shoulder, causing her to fall back from the doorway and onto the floor.”

The press release said the Justice Department’s investigation “revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.”

In August, U.S. Capitol Police said an internal investigation also cleared the officer who shot Babbitt of any wrongdoing.
From the investigation into her death

Quote:
the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/d...-ashli-babbitt

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Does anyone think that if Trump loses the next election, he would accept the result?

Pierre 30-12-2023 18:27
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36167465)
Babbit wasn’t "accidentally shot".
OK, I’ll rephrase to “accidentally killed”. As I doubt the officer would take pride in killing an unarmed person.

Quote:
Does anyone think that if Trump loses the next election, he would accept the result?
Probably as much as Hilary did after she lost to him.

He won’t have a choice, but he’ll continue to bitch about it. It’s a shame he’s standing, Biden has a slim chance of beating him because some people just can’t bring themselves to vote for him.

If DeSantis was the nominee it would be a landslide.

---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36167462)
Trump incited a crowd of thousands to go from his rally to the Capitol in order to enact all of that.
There’s a high bar to prove that, and it hasn’t been met and of all things Trump may be in the dock for, he won’t be convicted on that.

In his speech, that is mainly a rambling diatribe, about how the election was stolen and bullying Mike Pence to declare the results invalid, he never calls for anyone to storm the Capitol building, occupy the senate.

He did say clearly

Quote:
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard
He does clearly state that if Biden wins

Quote:
You will have an illegitimate president. That's what you'll have. And we can't let that happen.
But that is talking around the recalling of various results, and Clinton continually called Trump an illegitimate president.

The quote many refer to is

Quote:
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
But if you read his speech that is obviously referring election fraud and ensuring that stopped.

And then he ends, just about, with

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639...eachment-trial

Quote:
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
So I fail to see any incitement in that speech, it was essentially a massive moan fest.


Quote:
For hours after the effect of his words were clear to see he refused to use his powers as president or his personal influence over the mob to stop it. People were hurt, state property was destroyed and state officials had reason to fear for their lives.
So he didn’t release a one minute video to tell the protesters to go home, peacefully?

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...rioters-455607




I’m not here to defend Trump, but I am here to question the whole insurrection malarkey. There have been tens of riots around the USA, if not more, against government, far larger and more deadly than Jan 6th by BLM and Antifa.

Jan 6th was a riot, and I don’t care of the definition, it was far from an insurrection - and on that I’ll guess we have to disagree.

jfman 30-12-2023 21:01
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Pure Devil's Advocate stuff here:-
  • January 6th wasn't an insurrection
  • January 6th was an insurrection, but it had nothing to do with him
  • Even if it were an insurrection - he's not been convicted by any authority for it (including his impeachment)
  • Election officials aren't the proper arbiter for this in the absence of a conviction
  • the 14th Amendment wasn't designed to be employed in a party political way (were election officials party apparatus when it passed?)
I'm not saying I buy any of the above - but would these be a comprehensive list of his arguments?

Pierre 30-12-2023 22:10
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36167509)
Pure Devil's Advocate stuff here:-
  • January 6th wasn't an insurrection
  • January 6th was an insurrection, but it had nothing to do with him
  • Even if it were an insurrection - he's not been convicted by any authority for it (including his impeachment)
  • Election officials aren't the proper arbiter for this in the absence of a conviction
  • the 14th Amendment wasn't designed to be employed in a party political way (were election officials party apparatus when it passed?)
I'm not saying I buy any of the above - but would these be a comprehensive list of his arguments?
For me, I would just go with point no.1


It was a riot and a low level one at that. nothing more ,nothing less.

Hugh 30-12-2023 22:21
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...b2470669.html#

Quote:
Trump team flew fake elector ballots to DC ahead of Jan 6, report says

Donald Trump's campaign team physically flew "fake elector" ballots across the country to Washington DC in a last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 election, a new report claims.

According to CNN, leaked witness testimony from a Michigan state investigation shows how Mr Trump's aides scrambled to deliver the allegedly fraudulent paperwork to vice president Mike Pence before he could certify the election results.

The so-called "fake electors" plot hinged on the fact that American presidents are not directly elected by the people, but rather by 538 "electors" who are selected by their states based on the outcome of the vote.

Mr Trump's team allegedly pressured state legislators to ignore the vote and choose their electors by fiat. When that did not work, they assembled their own group of electors with no legal standing and pushed vice president Mike Pence to accept it instead of the real ones.

Multiple people have been criminally charged for their involvement in this scheme, and one – pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro – has pled guilty to conspiring to file false documents.

Now, audio clips from Mr Chesebro's testimony released by CNN appear to show that Mr Trump's team went to the trouble of flying the fake electors' paperwork across the country in order to get them in front of Mr Pence before the election result was certified.

Hugh 03-01-2024 15:38
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Trump attorney Christina Bobb: “The president is elected by the entire nation and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not.”
https://x.com/ronfilipkowski/status/...Fx9lsEXWlOa1jg

Chris 03-01-2024 16:15
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36167708)
This is base constitutional illiteracy. The president is elected by the States, who in turn poll their citizens in order to direct the electors the states send to DC - the electors whose work there is now screeds of evidence Trump tried to interfere with, even before whipping up a mob to prevent their votes being certified on January 6.

Even if she was correct on the constitutional procedure, Trump rather awkwardly lost the popular vote in 2016 and in 2020, so he maybe doesn’t really want a system in which the actual votes cast by individual citizens translate directly to support for one candidate or another.

Hugh 05-01-2024 22:20
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
https://wapo.st/3vqlheR

Quote:
The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump’s name can appear on primary-election ballots, a case that ensures the justices will play a central role in shaping this year’s presidential election.


The decision to review the case from Colorado at oral argument in early February comes after that state’s top court disqualified the Republican frontrunner, finding Trump engaged in an insurrection before and during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.


Friday’s announcement puts the justices in a pivotal, potentially uncomfortable position with echoes of the court’s involvement in the 2000 election when its decision assured victory for President George W. Bush, polarized the nation and damaged the court’s reputation as an independent institution.


The court’s brief order scheduled oral argument for Feb. 8, and came the day before the third anniversary of the Capitol riot.

jfman 06-01-2024 00:12
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Popcorn time.

Hom3r 07-01-2024 10:56
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
I think that Trump will win.


Then the UK/US special friendship will become a bit frosty.


I'm not sure about Trump/Putin.

Hugh 09-01-2024 15:55
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
https://wapo.st/3SaUsny

Quote:
In a potentially worrisome sign for former president Donald Trump, the three-judge panel’s lone Republican appointee, Karen Henderson, told Trump’s attorney, “I think it’s paradoxical to say that his [a president’s] constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws.”


Judges Karen Henderson and Florence Pan both raised a point made in the special counsel’s briefs — that Donald Trump is now making the exact opposite argument to the one he made during his 2021 impeachment trial, when his lawyers told senators that a former president should face the criminal justice system rather than condemnation by Congress.


Trump attorney D. John Sauer replied that the impeachment lawyers were simply saying, “We have a judicial process in this country, period,” but they “did not say we could never raise an immunity defense.”


Pan replied with a quote from one of Trump’s impeachment attorneys saying definitively that there was no immunity: “We have an investigative process in this country to which no former officeholder is immune.”


Sauer said he was not bound by Trump’s past arguments, but also tried to split hairs by saying investigation was different from prosecution.

Mr K 09-01-2024 18:15
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
The only people winning are lawyers. The US justice system is biased , politicised and bonkers like the rest of the country. Every chance of guilty going free, and the innocent going down, depending on their wealth...

Pierre 09-01-2024 19:47
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36167989)
The only people winning are lawyers. The US justice system is biased , politicised and bonkers like the rest of the country. Every chance of guilty going free, and the innocent going down, depending on their wealth...
Much like the U.K. then.

Mr K 09-01-2024 20:22
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168008)
Much like the U.K. then.
Our justice system isn't perfect, but a lot better than the US.

jfman 09-01-2024 21:20
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
If he doesn’t get elected he’s got a career in stand up ahead of him.

https://x.com/metalgearobama/status/...PUAs_rNhQLBD9Q

(With apologies I can’t find a link not on X)

1andrew1 09-01-2024 21:53
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36168026)
If he doesn’t get elected he’s got a career in stand up ahead of him.

https://x.com/metalgearobama/status/...PUAs_rNhQLBD9Q

(With apologies I can’t find a link not on X)
I can't disagree with that! :tu:

He may even find he has a captive audience before the year is out! :D

Pierre 09-01-2024 22:34
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36168023)
Our justice system isn't perfect, but a lot better than the US.
Tell that to the post masters.

mrmistoffelees 09-01-2024 23:11
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168030)
Tell that to the post masters.
Tell that to the Over 2400 people who have been exonerated in the United States since 1989. When it comes to the number of wrongful convictions, the US is the undisputed leader,

Hugh 10-01-2024 08:37
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Back on topic, please

Pierre 17-01-2024 14:53
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
No troubles for Trump in Iowa.

https://www.ft.com/content/7c0a19fd-...6-35d5bf0d12ea

Admittedly in a weather impacted low turnout, but no indications that he wouldn't have won with a higher turnout.

All the pundits I've listened to have said that it's a done deal that he'll get the nomination, even just off this one result.

jfman 17-01-2024 17:27
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
I certainly think the only way to stop him winning the whole thing is in a courtroom.

Hugh 17-01-2024 18:24
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36168399)
I certainly think the only way to stop him winning the whole thing is in a courtroom.
Even if he loses, it’s unlikely he’ll accept the result…

TheDaddy 17-01-2024 21:22
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36168399)
I certainly think the only way to stop him winning the whole thing is in a courtroom.
I think he'll lose to Biden, the others would win against him

Pierre 17-01-2024 21:44
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36168419)
I think he'll lose to Biden, the others would win against him
Well when you have the whole of the MSM against you, it will be struggle.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...-msnbc-1861186

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

Biden is incapable of debating Trump.

So somehow they’ll stop that from happening, or just not have Biden run again.

Damien 17-01-2024 22:03
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
I said before the Republicans seem determined to nominate the one person Biden could beat and the Democrats are determined to stick with the one guy who could lose to Trump.

Neither are at all popular.

They're also both so old. It's just crazy what the United States is doing. Completely unhinged political system.

I still think we brush past the fact that people invaded Congress to try and stop, maybe even harm or kill, those trying to confirm the results of the election. Is this something we see in unstable democracies, not ones like the US. Everyone just sort of moved on. I thought that would be the reality check for them and they would step back.

Pierre 17-01-2024 23:01
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36168422)
I still think we brush past the fact that people invaded Congress to try and stop, maybe even harm or kill, those trying to confirm the results of the election.

Many previous posts in this thread, where I have laid out that, that claim just doesn’t stack up.


Quote:
Is this something we see in unstable democracies, not ones like the US. Everyone just sort of moved on. I thought that would be the reality check for them and they would step back.
Countries that try to silence and imprison their political opponents………you mean like the US currently?

pip08456 17-01-2024 23:08
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36168422)
I said before the Republicans seem determined to nominate the one person Biden could beat and the Democrats are determined to stick with the one guy who could lose to Trump.

Neither are at all popular.

They're also both so old. It's just crazy what the United States is doing. Completely unhinged political system.

I still think we brush past the fact that people invaded Congress to try and stop, maybe even harm or kill, those trying to confirm the results of the election. Is this something we see in unstable democracies, not ones like the US. Everyone just sort of moved on. I thought that would be the reality check for them and they would step back.
Trump has publicly stated he will suspend the Constitution and will be a dictator from day one. How unhinged is that?

Pierre 17-01-2024 23:40
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36168432)
Trump has publicly stated he will suspend the Constitution and will be a dictator from day one. How unhinged is that?
Quote? link?

Hugh 17-01-2024 23:46
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36168432)
Trump has publicly stated he will suspend the Constitution and will be a dictator from day one. How unhinged is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168435)
Quote? link?
https://apnews.com/article/social-me...82c0cfa6598444

Quote:
Trump, who announced last month that he is running again for president, made the claim over the weekend on his Truth Social media platform.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-han...ae7dd7f1235c72

Quote:
Trump’s vow to only be a dictator on ‘day one’ follows growing worry over his authoritarian rhetoric

pip08456 18-01-2024 00:10
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Thanks Hugh.

Pierre 18-01-2024 14:25
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168436)
https://apnews.com/article/social-me...82c0cfa6598444

Doesn't say he'll suspend the constitution, which he couldn't do even if he wanted.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-han...ae7dd7f1235c72
He just said he's going to close the border, and drill (for oil I presume)

I don't know if he can close the border with an executive order, but if he can, then it's just a power any and every president has had.

It is an odd power in the "greatest democracy" in the world that the president can invoke law with the stroke of a pen without consulting either House.

But you could argue any president that has issued an executive order has acted like a dictator, and they all have.

Hugh 18-01-2024 15:49
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168478)
He just said he's going to close the border, and drill (for oil I presume)

I don't know if he can close the border with an executive order, but if he can, then it's just a power any and every president has had.

It is an odd power in the "greatest democracy" in the world that the president can invoke law with the stroke of a pen without consulting either House.

But you could argue any president that has issued an executive order has acted like a dictator, and they all have.
And what about his statement regarding terminating the Constitution?

Quote:
termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent

1andrew1 18-01-2024 17:29
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36168432)
Trump has publicly stated he will suspend the Constitution and will be a dictator from day one. How unhinged is that?
Totally. And this is from the man who advocates for the right to bear arms on the basis of the Constitution. You couldn't make it up!

Hugh 18-01-2024 18:54
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36168499)
Totally. And this is from the man who advocates for the right to bear arms on the basis of the Constitution. You couldn't make it up!
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ices-rcna42355

Quote:
A source with knowledge of the deposition said Trump took the Fifth more than 440 times.

"I once asked, 'If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?'" Trump said in a statement. "Now I know the answer to that question. When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice. Accordingly, under the advice of my counsel and for all of the above reasons, I declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution."


---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------

https://wapo.st/421hiS1

Quote:
A state judge overseeing the election-interference case against former president Donald Trump in Georgia has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 15 to hear evidence regarding accusations that Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis (D) and her lead prosecutor engaged in an improper relationship and mishandled public money.


Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee also wrote in his order that Willis must respond to the accusations in writing by Feb. 2. The accusations first came to light in a filing from one of Trump’s co-defendants, former campaign aide Mike Roman. The order, which is not yet on the case docket, was obtained by The Washington Post.


Willis has declined to address the accusations directly so far. McAfee’s order appears to be forcing her to do so in televised court proceedings, a development that could at the least be embarrassing for the district attorney and at worst derail the investigation completely.


In his filing, Roman called for Willis and the lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, to be removed from the case, and also for the charges to be dismissed.

Pierre 18-01-2024 20:17
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168488)
And what about his statement regarding terminating the Constitution?
Well it would be helpful if you quoted all of it.

Quote:
A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
He’s speaking specifically about election fraud, and he can’t terminate the constitution anyway.

He’s just still whinging about the election.

It’s as worrying as Kier Starmer saying he’s going to abolish the monarchy, he can’t.

Hugh 18-01-2024 22:28
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168520)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
And what about his statement regarding terminating the Constitution?
Well it would be helpful if you quoted all of it.

Quote:
A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”
He’s speaking specifically about election fraud, and he can’t terminate the constitution anyway.

He’s just still whinging about the election.

It’s as worrying as Kier Starmer saying he’s going to abolish the monarchy, he can’t.
Like I did in post #341 that you replied to at 14:25 today?

Quote:
Trump, who announced last month that he is running again for president, made the claim over the weekend on his Truth Social media platform.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” he wrote. “Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!”

Hugh 21-01-2024 20:19
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68051757

Quote:
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis suspends his campaign for US president, saying there is no "clear path to victory"

Itshim 21-01-2024 20:50
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36168671)
Trump is clearly going to be selected, pity Biden is as well:erm:

1andrew1 21-01-2024 21:32
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Nikki Haley has questioned Donald Trump's mental capacity to serve a potential second term in the White House.

In Keene, New Hampshire, on Saturday, Ms Haley commented on the ages of both Mr Trump and President Joe Biden, 81.

"We see that Biden has changed so much in two years.

But last night, Trump is at a rally and he's going on and on, mentioning me multiple times as to why I didn't take security during the Capitol riots.

"Why didn't I handle 6 January better? I wasn't even in DC on 6 January. I wasn't in office then."

She added: "They're saying he got confused, that he was talking about something else, he's talking about Nancy Pelosi.

"The concern I have is - I'm not saying anything derogatory - but when you're dealing with the pressures of the presidency, we can't have someone else that we question whether they're mentally fit to do this. We can't."
https://news.sky.com/story/nikki-hal...elosi-13053026

Pierre 22-01-2024 10:00
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36168674)
They'll try everything to take him down. It's going to be a very nasty 11 months.

1andrew1 22-01-2024 11:03
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168691)
They'll try everything to take him down. It's going to be a very nasty 11 months.
It's pretty clear that Trump bought this upon himself by incorrectly attacking Nikki Hailey instead of Nancy Pelosi.

A generous interpretation would be that it was not due to Trump's cognitive issues that he did this. Instead, it could be argued that he was well aware it was nothing to do with Hailey but felt that the truth was less important than smearing an opponent.

Hugh 22-01-2024 13:20
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168691)
They'll try everything to take him down. It's going to be a very nasty 11 months.
When they repeat what he actually says, that’s pretty nasty…

Mr K 22-01-2024 18:25
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36168693)
It's pretty clear that Trump bought this upon himself by incorrectly attacking Nikki Hailey instead of Nancy Pelosi.

A generous interpretation would be that it was not due to Trump's cognitive issues that he did this. Instead, it could be argued that he was well aware it was nothing to do with Hailey but felt that the truth was less important than smearing an opponent.
You don't have to dumb to vote for The Donald, but it sure helps! Fortunately for him a large proportion are just that.

Hugh 23-01-2024 12:19
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
New Hampshire Primary today, which Trump should win convincingly.

Only slight fly in the ointment is the fact that registered undeclared voters can vote in this Primary, which could affect the balance, and lessen the landslide.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...now-rcna134129

Quote:
the secretary of state’s office released updated registration numbers, showing that 39% of voters are undeclared (344,335), 31% are registered Republicans (267,768), and 30% are registered Democrats (261,254).
If that happens, just wait for the outcry about "Fake News” and "Election Fraud"…

Hugh 23-01-2024 13:51
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
2 Attachment(s)
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1706017848

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1706017848

Trump can still win Dixville Notch if only Mike Pence has the courage.

Hugh 26-01-2024 22:14
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
https://wapo.st/3vOYRnv

Quote:
NEW YORK — A federal court jury awarded a total of $83.3 million in damages to E. Jean Carroll for defamatory comments Donald Trump made about her as president in 2019, remarks attacking her character that kicked off years of threats and harassment from the former president’s supporters. Most of the award involved $65 million in punitive damages after jurors concluded that Trump acted spitefully and wantonly towards Carroll after she accused him of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. Jurors also awarded a combined $18.3 million in compensatory damages.
Quote:
Because this was a civil trial, not a criminal one, former president Donald Trump did not face the possibility of time behind bars. E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers also only had to prove their case by a standard known as preponderance of evidence.
Unlike proving something beyond a reasonable doubt — the standard in criminal trials — in this case, jurors were essentially asked whether it was more likely her claims were true than not.
On the jury verdict form, they were asked whether she proved, “by a preponderance of evidence,” a few things. They were asked whether Carroll proved by that standard that she had “suffered more than nominal damages” due to Trump’s statements; whether he acted “maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite,” among other things; and whether he did so “in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard” of her rights.
On all three counts, the jurors said Carroll had proven her case.
Quote:
Today’s ruling may not be the end of the story, according to Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District.
“In theory, if [Donald Trump] continues to repeat what he said, she can continue to sue him, and seek more millions [in] damages,” McCarthy said on Fox News.

Pierre 26-01-2024 22:31
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
He’ll appeal, he may end up paying out some of it, if not all. It has no bearing on his presidential race.

Chris 27-01-2024 00:50
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36168998)
He’ll appeal, he may end up paying out some of it, if not all. It has no bearing on his presidential race.
He will have to pay all of it into court pending appeal. If he can’t, the court will start siezing his assets. It’s not a good look.

All this, plus his behaviour during the hearings, has already had a bearing on the race. As a former president, his performance in his primaries ought to be understood as if he were the incumbent, in which circumstances he would face a token challenge if any. Obviously he is on course to win, but his win in NH was not nearly convincing enough - especially in a state where voters who are not registered republicans can vote. He isn’t going to win over those who didn't support him in 2020 and, anecdotally, there are plenty of never-Trump republicans who will hold their noses and vote for Biden rather than see Trump back in the White House.

His antics during this trial play to the gallery well enough and energise those who already drank his Kool Aid. But will they convince any waverers? I can’t see it.

Pierre 27-01-2024 17:56
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36169000)
He will have to pay all of it into court pending appeal. If he can’t, the court will start siezing his assets. It’s not a good look.

All this, plus his behaviour during the hearings, has already had a bearing on the race. As a former president, his performance in his primaries ought to be understood as if he were the incumbent, in which circumstances he would face a token challenge if any. Obviously he is on course to win, but his win in NH was not nearly convincing enough - especially in a state where voters who are not registered republicans can vote. He isn’t going to win over those who didn't support him in 2020 and, anecdotally, there are plenty of never-Trump republicans who will hold their noses and vote for Biden rather than see Trump back in the White House.

His antics during this trial play to the gallery well enough and energise those who already drank his Kool Aid. But will they convince any waverers? I can’t see it.
The acid test for this whole election will be the Presidential Debates.

I can’t see how the Democrats will let Biden debate. It would be a dumpster 🔥 fire, to use the Americanism.

It’s sad, it’s down to these two again. I wanted DeSantis, he still has time, but I fear what america …..and the world…….will be like in 2028.

1andrew1 27-01-2024 18:05
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169033)
The acid test for this whole election will be the Presidential Debates.

I can’t see how the Democrats will let Biden debate. It would be a dumpster 🔥 fire, to use the Americanism.

It’s sad, it’s down to these two again. I wanted DeSantis, he still has time, but I fear what america …..and the world…….will be like in 2028.
Best hope is the two existing candidates get replaced. Maybe Biden has a medical scare and Trump gets jailed.

Chris 27-01-2024 22:41
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36169034)
Best hope is the two existing candidates get replaced. Maybe Biden has a medical scare and Trump gets jailed.
On a plain reading of the 14th amendment, section 3, the Supreme Court should bar trump from even standing, after it hears the case early next month.

If it doesn’t (and God help America if it doesn’t - on a plain reading of the constitution, the case is pretty clear cut. He certainly gave succour to insurrectionists even if one accepts - which I don’t - he didn’t directly involve himself), then being in jail doesn’t actually bar him from running for office. Though I doubt even America is mad enough to elect a president from behind bars.

1andrew1 28-01-2024 11:30
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36169038)
On a plain reading of the 14th amendment, section 3, the Supreme Court should bar trump from even standing, after it hears the case early next month.

If it doesn’t (and God help America if it doesn’t - on a plain reading of the constitution, the case is pretty clear cut. He certainly gave succour to insurrectionists even if one accepts - which I don’t - he didn’t directly involve himself), then being in jail doesn’t actually bar him from running for office. Though I doubt even America is mad enough to elect a president from behind bars.
You would think then that the elders of the Republican Party would see Trump as too high risk a candidate and seek to ensure he could not become their Presidential candidate. This assumes that such elders do exist and there is a mechanism to stop him.

Mr K 28-01-2024 12:43
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36169044)
You would think then that the elders of the Republican Party would see Trump as too high risk a candidate and seek to ensure he could not become their Presidential candidate. This assumes that such elders do exist and there is a mechanism to stop him.
Anybody opposing Trump is in fear for their safety or being imprisoned in his ' vengeance'. The courts are all politicised

So they'll all keep their heads down. Such is the sad state of the US atm.

Paul 30-01-2024 21:45
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
The nutters are out in force this week.

Apparently the Superbowl is now being rigged in favour of Biden.

(Thats like them saying the FA Cup in the UK is being rigged for Labour).

Hugh 30-01-2024 21:59
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36169203)
The nutters are out in force this week.

Apparently the Superbowl is now being rigged in favour of Biden.

(Thats like them saying the FA Cup in the UK is being rigged for Labour).
Yup - one of the Fox News presenters questioned if Taylor Swift was part of a Pentagon psyops campaign…

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...t-fox-00134866

TheDaddy 30-01-2024 22:45
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169204)
Yup - one of the Fox News presenters questioned if Taylor Swift was part of a Pentagon psyops campaign…

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...t-fox-00134866
You think they'd support a real self made billionaire who donates money to charity rather than one who begs for money and steals from a charity :spin:

Hugh 06-02-2024 15:11
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity, US court rules

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68026175

Quote:
Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity and can be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, a US court has ruled.

Mr Trump had claimed in the landmark legal case that he was immune from criminal charges for acts he said fell within his duties as president.

But Tuesday's ruling in Washington DC struck down that claim.

It is a setback for Mr Trump who has for years cited presidential immunity while battling multiple cases.

The former president is expected to appeal against the ruling, meaning the case could ultimately go to the Supreme Court where conservatives hold a 6-3 majority.

US Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged Mr Trump, 77, with conspiring to overturn Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election and committing fraud to stay in office.

The trial in that case was initially scheduled for 4 March, but was postponed pending a ruling on the immunity claim.

It could be delayed for weeks, if not months, if the case ends up before the Supreme Court.
Key quote from the finding

Quote:
"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...08593677.0.pdf

Mr K 06-02-2024 16:37
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
He'll appeal till it gets to the court where his mates are the 'judges'. These court judgements mean nothing in the end. The US will become the world's biggest dictatorship.

Hugh 06-02-2024 17:22
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36169507)
He'll appeal till it gets to the court where his mates are the 'judges'. These court judgements mean nothing in the end. The US will become the world's biggest dictatorship.
He has to appeal to the SCOTUS by Monday, and then they decide whether or not to hear the case.

Pierre 06-02-2024 20:18
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
He’ll pardon himself when he wins.

Chris 06-02-2024 20:22
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169529)
He’ll pardon himself when he wins.
More than one of the charges he’s facing are at state, not federal, level. Even if he’s allowed to run (USSC will consider it next week) and even if he wins (not at all guaranteed if he’s a convicted criminal come election day) he doesn’t have the power to pardon himself of convictions from state courts.

Hugh 06-02-2024 20:29
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
1 Attachment(s)
Meanwhile, at the New York fraud hearing (not trial, as he’s been found liable), a letter from the Judge to the lawyers (both sides) involved in the case…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1707251074

Falsus in uno - "false in one thing, false in everything"

Story here

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2491660.html

Pierre 06-02-2024 22:36
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
He allegedly lied about the size of Trump Tower?

Lock him up.

Chris 06-02-2024 23:01
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169537)
He allegedly lied about the size of Trump Tower?

Lock him up.
Here’s an idea … you try lying about your assets to get a loan or reduce your tax bill and see what happens.

I get you’re now invested in the idea of Trump being badly done by, but try and look at what’s actually going on here. No need to drink any social media kool aid, just official court material is quite damning enough.

Stephen 07-02-2024 09:24
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169537)
He allegedly lied about the size of Trump Tower?

Lock him up.
No allegedly about it. He lied about many properties size and value.

Hom3r 07-02-2024 16:10
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Whatever happen he will be the next president, sadly

Chris 07-02-2024 20:57
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36169587)
Whatever happen he will be the next president, sadly
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court begins deliberation on the question of whether Trump is disqualified from office by Section 3 of the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which bans someone who has been an oath-bound officer of the United States from taking office again, if they have participated in, or facilitated, an insurrection.

There is a lengthy but informative discussion here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder...utm_medium=web

Pierre 07-02-2024 21:42
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36169625)
which bans someone who has been an oath-bound officer of the United States from taking office again, if they have participated in, or facilitated, an insurrection.
Which will be fine for him, because any sensible person will conclude that he didn’t.

Chris 07-02-2024 21:48
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169628)
Which will be fine for him, because any sensible person will conclude that he didn’t.
I think you maybe need to read the article, and some of the academic commentary linked from it, before you make confident assertions about the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution. ;)

It *isn’t* clear cut - that’s why the court is looking at it.

1andrew1 07-02-2024 22:34
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Tell us that you don't understand Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without telling us. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169628)
Which will be fine for him, because any sensible person will conclude that he didn’t.

Pierre 07-02-2024 22:48
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36169629)
I think you maybe need to read the article, and some of the academic commentary linked from it, before you make confident assertions about the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution. ;)

It *isn’t* clear cut - that’s why the court is looking at it.
Election interference aside, as I’m not 100% up to speed with that and what he wanted Pence to do….but whatever it was Pence didn’t do it anyway.

But looking directly at the events of Jan 6th. Any reasonable person would conclude that it was not an insurrection, it was at best a disturbance, at worst a riot……..but nothing on the scale of BLM.

It wasn’t a coup, there was no organisation or direction or planned outcome.

If you want to prosecute Trump I am 100% sure with a good constitutional lawyer you could argue that it meets the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution but that doesn’t mean it was, and just highlights what your end game is.

You don’t want Trump on the ballot, that’s fine. It’s not up to us.

But a very large % of Americans do, and as far as I can tell there’s no reason why shouldn’t be.

True Democracy is electing whoever you choose, and if electing Trump is so abhorrent that you must override democracy to ensure it doesn’t happen, you have to ask yourself how much you’re really invested in democracy.

1andrew1 07-02-2024 23:04
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169635)
If you want to prosecute Trump I am 100% sure with a good constitutional lawyer you could argue that it meets the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution but that doesn’t mean it was, and just highlights what your end game is.
Surely, the only relevant definition of insurrection here is the one defined by the US constitution?

It's irrelevant how a few random Brits on the Internet might define it.

Pierre 07-02-2024 23:16
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36169637)
Surely, the only relevant definition of insurrection here is the one defined by the US constitution?
Yes, and if that is not twisted by democrats, he’ll be fine.

Quote:
It's irrelevant how a few random Brits on the Internet might define it.
Amazing

Chris 08-02-2024 00:16
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169641)
Amazing
But true. Our armchair legal definitions are besides the point. The SCoTUS is looking at this precisely because there is a case to examine, and urgently. The terms used in the constitution are ordinarily understood in the context in which they were drafted - as the article i provided goes to some length to point out - which means that 21st century, social media friendly definitions of ‘insurrection’ are irrelevant. What the constitution’s drafters meant, however, is for the SCoTUS to determine - and whether January 6 triggers that clause.

There are interesting times ahead, and for us distant observers the most rewarding approach (even if you tend to one side or the other) is not to pretend you have something definitely worked out, when you really, really haven’t.

Hugh 08-02-2024 08:59
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169635)
Election interference aside, as I’m not 100% up to speed with that and what he wanted Pence to do….but whatever it was Pence didn’t do it anyway.

But looking directly at the events of Jan 6th. Any reasonable person would conclude that it was not an insurrection, it was at best a disturbance, at worst a riot……..but nothing on the scale of BLM.

It wasn’t a coup, there was no organisation or direction or planned outcome.

If you want to prosecute Trump I am 100% sure with a good constitutional lawyer you could argue that it meets the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution but that doesn’t mean it was, and just highlights what your end game is.

You don’t want Trump on the ballot, that’s fine. It’s not up to us.

But a very large % of Americans do, and as far as I can tell there’s no reason why shouldn’t be.

True Democracy is electing whoever you choose, and if electing Trump is so abhorrent that you must override democracy to ensure it doesn’t happen, you have to ask yourself how much you’re really invested in democracy.
The election interference and he wanted Pence to do is at the heart of the charges against him - he tried to get Pence not to count the legal Electoral College votes, and to substitute an alternate slate of illegal votes.

The fact that Pence refused to do this doesn’t lessen the crime - if a bunch of people plan to rob a bank, but don’t do so by because they are stopped by the police before they complete the bank robbery, it’s still a crime (conspiracy to commit).

Here’s the timeline on his attempts to pressure Pence to illegally overturn the Electoral College votes.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/latest-fed...y?id=101918701

Quote:
The indictment specifies repeated instances by Trump and the co-conspirators to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to use "his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter the election results."

Between Christmas and Jan. 3, 2021, the former president allegedly talked to Pence and repeated his false claims about the vice president's role at the certification, according to the indictment. Pence pushed back against those claims, prosecutors allege.

In a Jan. 1, 2021, conversation, Trump allegedly berated Pence for refusing to go along with his proposal, the indictment said.

"In response, the Defendant told the Vice President, 'You're too honest.'" Within hours of the conversation, the Defendant reminded his supporters to meet in Washington before the certification proceeding, tweeting, "The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!"

On Jan. 4, 2021, Trump met with Pence, one of the co-conspirators, the vice president's Chief of Staff and the vice president's counsel to convince Pence that he should reject Joe Biden's electoral votes or resend them back to the states.

"During the meeting, as reflected in the Vice President's contemporaneous notes, the Defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, 'Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes' and 'We won every state,'" the indictment said.

Trump met with Pence again on Jan. 5, 2021, to convince him to overturn the election, but the vice president refused, the indictment said. Trump allegedly "grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him," according to prosecutors.

"Upon learning of this, the Vice President's Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President's safety and alerted the head of the Vice President's Secret Service detail," the indictment said.
Here’s what Trump has been charged with in connection to January 6th.

- one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.

- one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.

- one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.

- one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/11914...ictment-counts

In summary, Trump and his advisers spread false information about voter fraud, urged Republican state officials to undermine the results in states that Biden won, assembled false slates of electors and pressured Mike Pence, the vice president, to unilaterally toss out the legitimate results.

Chris 08-02-2024 09:12
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
… all of which is likely why none of the legal argument reflected in the Snyder article even bothers discussing whether the mob outside Congress constituted an ‘insurrection’. The heart of the issue is the attempts to nobble the electoral college.

jfman 08-02-2024 09:17
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169635)
but nothing on the scale of BLM.
I must have missed the time BLM disrupted the process of certifying an election.

Hugh 08-02-2024 09:21
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36169651)
… all of which is likely why none of the legal argument reflected in the Snyder article even bothers discussing whether the mob outside Congress constituted an ‘insurrection’. The heart of the issue is the attempts to nobble the electoral college.
As discussed in this article

https://www.voanews.com/a/charges-ag...e/7209154.html

Quote:
The indictment alleges that Trump and his associates attempted to subvert the Electoral College in the aftermath of the election on November 3, 2020.

Immediately after it became apparent that he had lost the election, Trump and his allies began spreading claims that the results in many of the states that Biden won had been fraudulent. Those claims were untrue and were eventually proved false in dozens of lawsuits.

However, while holding out hope that they might be able to persuade some state officials to change their results, Trump’s associates began contacting individuals who had been the former president’s pledged electors in several targeted states.

According to the indictment, Trump and his associates persuaded these individuals to agree to meet on the same day as the certified electors and to hold an election in which they would declare that Trump had received their electoral votes, even though they had no legal authority to cast electoral votes.

At first, the effort was characterized as an attempt to “preserve” an alternate slate of electors in each of these states in case efforts to get officials to overturn state election results were successful. Some of the individuals who participated in the scheme did so in the belief that their votes would not be sent to Congress unless their states officially declared Trump the winner.

However, according to prosecutors, the plan changed in the weeks following the election. The indictment presents evidence that Trump and his associates ultimately decided that they would cause the false vote counts to be sent to Congress regardless of the outcome of their efforts to change election results in the individual states.

The indictment alleges that an attorney working on Trump’s behalf provided detailed instructions for the creation of fraudulent votes to be sent to Congress. In the end, seven slates of fake electors sent results to Washington before the January 6 joint session of Congress.

While the fake electoral votes were not accepted by Congress, many of the individuals who signed the false certifications have either been charged with crimes under state laws or remain under investigation.

Chris 08-02-2024 09:26
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Yup. Of course a lot of this has been reported in bits and pieces and discussed in various corners of Xitter for months, but the only aspect of the story that is widespread knowledge at the moment is the Capitol Hill mob on 6 January. The details of how strange groups of people claiming to be electors started turning up and trying to get in side doors to present their own college votes is proper banana republic stuff.

Pierre 08-02-2024 09:53
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36169652)
I must have missed the time BLM disrupted the process of certifying an election.
I was directly talking about the events on Jan 6th at the Capitol.

Hugh 08-02-2024 11:03
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169655)
I was directly talking about the events on Jan 6th at the Capitol.
That’s what the protestors/rioters/whatever were doing on that day - trying to stop the Electoral College votes count at the Capitol by Pence.

https://www.npr.org/sections/congres...-than-ceremony

Hugh 08-02-2024 19:04
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
https://wapo.st/4buKpBl

Quote:
The Supreme Court on Thursday seemed prepared to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot, expressing deep concerns about the ability of a single state to disqualify a candidate from seeking national office. The indications from the justices came as they heard arguments on the unprecedented question of whether Trump should be barred from the ballot because of his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.


The justices heard arguments Thursday on a ruling from Colorado’s top court that declared the leading Republican presidential candidate ineligible for a second term because of a post-Civil War provision of the U.S. Constitution that disqualifies insurrectionists.


Justices from across the ideological spectrum warned of troubling political consequences if the Colorado ruling is not reversed.

Trump’s attorney argued that the Jan. 6 attack was a “riot,” not an insurrection, and said the constitutional provision in question does not apply to the president. He also argued that Congress would have to pass specific legislation authorizing states to bar candidates from the ballot. Some of the justices expressed skepticism toward those claims, suggesting that Trump’s lawyer was trying to parse the letter of the law beyond reason.

The justices’ questioning of the lawyer representing Colorado was far more pointed, however. Liberal and conservative justices alike warned that if Colorado had its way in declaring Trump ineligible, a single state could decide for the rest of the nation whether a presidential candidate is permitted to run. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that would create an “unmanageable” situation…

… Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, concluded that “there seemed to be very little support for Colorado’s side” among the justices.
“One concern kept coming up: that there’s a federal interest in presidential elections, and having states being able to interfere could lead to a race to the bottom,” Hasen said. He said he expects a “lopsided ruling reversing Colorado,” with eight and perhaps all nine justices ruling to overturn the decision.
Seems a fair concern - since it’s for a national federal office, not state.

Pierre 08-02-2024 19:26
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169697)
https://wapo.st/4buKpBl



Seems a fair concern - since it’s for a national federal office, not state.
Agreed.

Damien 08-02-2024 20:04
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169697)
https://wapo.st/4buKpBl



Seems a fair concern - since it’s for a national federal office, not state.
This is also why I think they need to run national elections at the federal level. It seems absurd to me that voting procedures, regulations, and so on can be decided state by state when it has a national impact. It causes headaches each election but most notably in 2000 and Flordia.

Chris 08-02-2024 20:15
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
It’s a curious one because it doesn’t address Section 3 directly at all, just Colorado’s right to do something that affects the entire federal election. If the SCoTUS ducks the issue by using that as an excuse not to take a difficult decision, then it leaves open the very real chance of Trump becoming president elect and someone challenging him on the basis of the constitution at that very late stage.

Pierre 08-02-2024 21:49
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36169709)
then it leaves open the very real chance of Trump becoming president elect
So you think he’ll beat Biden?

Chris 08-02-2024 21:56
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36169718)
So you think he’ll beat Biden?
Much depends on whether any of his criminal trials conclude before election day. If he’s a convicted felon, polling increasingly suggests people will turn away from him. There’s already a grassroots Republican ‘never Trump’ movement.

If he isn’t criminally convicted, then it’s going to be too close to call, and the Dems share a chunk of the blame for that for allowing the Joe Show to shamble on in the way they have. They really needed an anointed successor two years ago, making clear he only ever intended to be a one-term president. I can’t believe they think it’s business as usual, going for a second term with someone who will be 86 at the end of the next presidential term - assuming he lives that long.

jfman 08-02-2024 22:09
Re: Trump’s Troubles
 
This guy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-age-questions


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:39.
Page 4 of 10 123 4 5678 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum