Trump’s Troubles

Originally Posted by jfman

@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 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

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]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

insurrection

a violent uprising against an authority or government.

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

Seems more like ... Yes.
According to the subsequent investigation and hearings ;

Trump summoned and assembled a destructive mob in Washington and sent them to march on the U.S. Capitol;

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]

Originally Posted by Paul

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Maine Secretary of State is the senior Election Officer, and she was elected by the Maine Legislature, not by public votes.

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.

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/

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

No it doesn’t.

An view not supported by the US Select Committee who investigated it - and their view matters - yours, not so much.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

Originally Posted by Pierre

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 ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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]

Originally Posted by Maggy

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/

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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".

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

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]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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

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

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

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

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.

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]

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?