Trump’s Troubles

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

. Donald Trump must face civil lawsuits over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021,

He’ll bat those off, or pay them off, no jail time for civil suits.

Not really even news worthy, more clerical than criminal.

https://wapo.st/3uEfvpo

U.S. judge rejects Trump immunity claim in Jan. 6 criminal prosecution

A federal judge on Friday rejected Donald Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was president, setting the stage for a legal battle over presidential power probably headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and starting the clock ticking on whether the justices will agree to allow him to face trial in Washington before the 2024 election.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan denied Trump’s request to toss out his four-count August indictment on charges of conspiring to defraud the federal government’s election process, to obstruct Congress’s certification of the vote on Jan. 6, 2021, and to disenfranchise American voters.

“Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” she wrote in the 48-page opinion. She said Trump may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.

“Defendant’s four-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens,” Chutkan added.

Chutkan said no court or any other branch of government has ever accepted Trump’s contention that former presidents enjoy “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.” Nor, she said, was there any basis for Trump’s double jeopardy argument asserting he could not be prosecuted for a crime unless he had been impeached and convicted of those actions while in office. It defied the Constitution’s “plain meaning, original understanding, and common sense,” she wrote.

https://wapo.st/3TmRwVY

Supreme Court will consider fast-tracking Trump appeal in D.C. trial

The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider special counsel Jack Smith’s request to fast-track consideration of Donald Trump’s claim he is immune from prosecution for alleged election obstruction in 2020 — intensifying the legal jockeying over whether Trump’s criminal trial in D.C. will stay on schedule for early next year.

The decision by the nation’s highest court doesn’t mean that the justices will definitely short-circuit the typical appeals process, but it means they are going to hear arguments from both sides about whether they should act quickly. Trump’s lawyers were told to file briefs on the issue by Dec. 20.

The quick response by the Supreme Court came hours after Smith’s office filed its request seeking to essentially leapfrog an appeals court process that Trump has already started but which could take months to resolve. A lengthy appeal could slow the Justice Department’s push for a March trial for Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

It is unusual for the government to ask the court to disrupt the judicial process, and to do so quickly. “The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” Smith wrote. “This is an extraordinary case.”

He added that without special intervention, the Supreme Court might not be able to consider the issue before the justices complete their term in June.

[1andrew1]

Donald Trump ineligible for the US presidency under constitution's insurrection clause, Colorado Supreme Court rules

The ruling comes as the former US leader prepares to run for the presidency in 2024.

Trump is accused of inciting riots at the US Capitol Building in an effort to overturn the result after he lost the US election in 2020.

The ruling in Colorado sets up a likely showdown in the US Supreme Court, which has the final say on constitutional matters, to decide whether the front-runner for the Republican nomination can remain in the race for the White House.

The Trump campaign has already said it will appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Trump lost Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and doesn't need the state to win next year's presidential election.

But the danger for the former president is that more courts and election officials will follow Colorado's lead and exclude Trump from must-win states.

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-tr...rules-13034585

[Pierre]

It would seem, quite troublingly, that the USA is no longer a democracy.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It would seem, quite troublingly, that the USA is no longer a democracy.

In what way?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

In what way?

By removing candidates from the ballot that have not been convicted of any wrong doing.

[jfman]

The downsides to skewing at a 200 year document and it’s amendments and guessing what they meant.

Originally Posted by Pierre

By removing candidates from the ballot that have not been convicted of any wrong doing.

States’ rights - in a constitutional federal republic, each State has its own Courts, with a right of appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Checks and balances.

https://ar.usembassy.gov/u-s-governm...nited%20States.

While often categorized as a democracy, the United States is more accurately defined as a constitutional federal republic. What does this mean? “Constitutional” refers to the fact that government in the United States is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers. “Federal” means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states. A “republic” is a form of government in which the people hold power, but elect representatives to exercise that power.

Every State has different laws about how to handle violations of the 14th Amendment in a primary - Colorado ruled it had the power to disqualify, Michigan ruled it didn’t.


Update

Trump is still on the ballot, as the rulings have been put on hold pending his appeal against them (including the new one in Maine).

https://wapo.st/485hl1n

Both states have temporarily put their decisions on hold so Trump can pursue appeals.

The challenge for the Courts is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment Section 3

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It doesn’t say "been found guilty of insurrection", it states "engaged in insurrection".

Originally Posted by Pierre

It would seem, quite troublingly, that the USA is no longer a democracy.

The USA is what it always has been. It’s a constitutional republic, federally structured, with extensive rights for federated states to conduct their own affairs.

The constitution - democratically agreed by all states - bans insurrectionists from office. Interpretation of the constitution ultimately falls to constitutional courts. Each state has a Supreme Court to handle such matters, though this will undoubtedly end up in final appeal at the federal Supreme Court eventually.

Nothing has changed, except that for the first time in that country’s history a man is trying to get (re) elected to the presidency after fomenting an insurrection to try to stop himself getting booted out after his first term.

Nobody was really talking about it as all the attention was on the civil and criminal charges he’s facing, but it was always likely to be the 14th amendment that gets him in the end.

[Pierre]

Doesn’t look the state court had much say in the initial Maine decision…………

https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/...427205273?s=12

Originally Posted by Pierre

Doesn’t look the state court had much say in the initial Maine decision…………

https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/...427205273?s=12

Originally posted by Hugh

Every State has different laws about how to handle violations of the 14th Amendment in a primary

https://wapo.st/3H1MU0i

Originally Posted by Pierre

Doesn’t look the state court had much say in the initial Maine decision…………

https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/...427205273?s=12

Initial being the operative word. Maine’s Supreme Court is competent to hear an appeal should the candidate wish to make one. Though the final arbiter is the federal Supreme Court which is going to have to get involved now, much as it might have hoped to avoid doing so.

The point is, your suggestion that the USA has ceased to be a democracy represents a misunderstanding of how a republic governed by a written constitution works.

[jfman]

@Chris and @Hugh (although equally anyone else) - how do you see this playing out?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

@Chris and @Hugh (although equally anyone else) - how do you see this playing out?

Trump being the next president of the US.

In the meantime democrats will try every legal avenue open to them to prevent it, as they are terrified they can’t beat him at the ballot box.

Personally, I’d prefer DeSantis, 4 more years of Trump will not do anything to stabilise the world.

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Though the final arbiter is the federal Supreme Court

My point being the “final arbiter”, in a democracy, should be the electorate.