Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

The effort by Don snr to discredit his daughter's testimony to the committee hearings by claiming she wasn't part of his re- election campaign is probably laughable except to those genuinely committed to him. I don't believe what he said about her having nothing to do with the campaign.

One issue being heard at the committee hearings is the funding Trump and Co sought from the public for the fight against the "theft" of the presidency from him. It seems that there is a doubt about the actually existence of the fund to whom the monies actually raised from the public went to, which in turn leads to the question as to where the monies raised went to. If the fund-group for whom the monies were raised does not exist, then the questions have to be asked: A. was deception used to get the public to donate to a non-existent fund and B. What has happened to the funds raised. This may in turn lead to a third question, is there a trail leading to the Trump re-election campaign management?

What is the date by which people have to submit their names if they want to run for election as US president in 2024? If he doesn't run for the office, it should [in theory] cook his goose except for those who want to be duped. I'm looking at various polls which put Trump ahead of Biden as "liking" him for candidacy but polls having swing factors, they are not fully reliable. The number of voters will have changed since the last election due to Covid-19 deaths, new registered voters and realignment of electoral area boundaries due to the census and gerrymandering, all of which Trump could, given his track record of muddying the waters, use to confuse. Re the donations, if the various state AG's decide to investigate where the funding has gone, that might lessen the willingness of Trump legal and other agents to get involved [on record] in his fundraising schemes. If the Feds decide to follow the money trails to the end-users in criminal investigations, they may decide to pin Trump down with tax evasion charges. Getting people currently linked to his 2020 bid to turn states evidence against Eastman in reference to the planning of the Capitol insurrection may give Eastman incentive enough to do likewise against Trump.

It might seem extreme speculation but if federal agencies involved in investigating the insurrection bid were to be able to use testimony given to the current committee hearing linking Eastman and others to the bid, then it might be possible to drop broad hints [speculative media leaks] that people might bring manslaughter charges linked to the deaths which occurred in the Capitol building during the insurrection against the planners. State, DC and City agents might also be able to use their legal facilities against the planners as well for culpable homicide. Families of the deceased bringing civil suit as well might prove to be a severe disincentive to anyone thinking of getting involved in any further Trump campaign harebrained schemes.

Issue is with trump declaring, then he's subject to fiscal rules and regs for donations. As shown in the Jan 6th hearings, he's currently just pocketing any 'political donations'

While easier to not be subject to financial constraints and scam people I am pretty sure he can launch his campaign and scam people. With everything he has done it won't be some financial irregularities that send him to prison (I am aware of Al Capone). He has too much support and the US system is designed to not punish rich people.

I think boredom is a genuine reason he will run and its been speculated by others before.

He loved the campaigning and setting the news agenda with a simple tweet which is something he can't do atm.

The work side not as much but swings and roundabouts for him.

The senate will be a big issue for him in 2022, Oz is polling really poorly right now and its probable he will endorse Greiteins down in Missouri who likely will win nonetheless but is still a hugely flawed candidate and obviously Walker in Georgia .

The House is probably in the bag for the GOP but the senate is very much on Trump.

Nail on orange head

One of the wishful hopes [supposedly] trotted out to prospective immigrants to the US is that you can become anything in that country, even president. I was a bit surprised, while checking to see if Trump was ever tried and convicted for any criminal acts he carried out while 45th president to find that a convicted felon in the US can run for the office of president as there is nothing in the US constitution barring one from doing so.

There seems to be a fresh interest with the committee and others as to what personal security precautions were initiated by the US Secret Service for the V/P on the 06th Jan to move him and his family from the Capitol building while it was under attack from the home-grown insurgency. Suggestions have been made in the media, following on from the current meetings of the investigating committee, that former President Trump made differing personal thoughts on what should happen to V/P Pence vocally plain. ONE: that maybe the mob had it right about hanging Pence and TWO: that the USSS should move to protect the V/P against any violence. Trumps varied statements have made it clear he had differing opinions about the value-worth of his V/P.

It's now, IMO, up to the committee to call USSS witnesses to stop any supposition about USSS obligations to duty over any idea that Trump may have instructed the USSS to remove his V/P from the Capitol to another location for the purpose of frustrating the V/P's constitutional obligations to read the vote into the record that day in the Capitol building under a plausible pretence that he was securing the safety of V/P Pence. In the end, Pence decided himself to stay put in the Capitol and do his duty.

Ta for that. I took the liberty of checking for a 2nd reference. I MAY BE READING WHAT'S BELOW WRONGLY. It seems that if you were an immigrant under the age of 21 when you arrived in the US and became a citizen before that age and then been resident in the US for 14 years you might be eligible on reaching the age of 35 years. This is from a Quora link referencing the constitution dated 27/02/2020: https://www.quora.com/Can-an-immigrant-become-president

Bob Smyth [https://www.quora.com/profile/Bob-Smyth] - Former Retired (1955–1997)Author has 70 answers and 33.2K answer views2y

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. “

As you can plainly see only a natural born citizens of the United States is eligible to run for President which means not even a ‘legal’ immigrant, like my father, would be eligible.

Personally, I would like to see a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for the office say after 25 years of residency.

It has been my observations, of over 75+ years, that many immigrants are more loyal to and better Americans than a lot of natural born ones.

It is the mention in the paragraph of article 2 of this underlined requirement: or a Citizen of the United States, mentioned in the Quora/Bob Smyth item that is confusing as it is different to the wording "a natural born citizen". I'm assuming it refers to persons born to US citizens in overseas US territories or on Federal properties while the parents were US citizens.

I was wondering [lawyer-like] that if one was an immigrant who became a US citizen through naturalization on the continental US before the minimum age of [say] 20 and was permanently resident in the continental US from that age to the age of 35, whether that would ALSO fulfil the section 1, article 2 "or a Citizen of the United States" requirements.

If this inquiry by me distracts from the debate about Trump and what he is doing to the US, please don't reply and ignore it.

His purpose has not been fulfilled. See today's opinion on same sex marriage and contraceptives.

Thomas has issued an opinion calling into question those previous rulings on same sex relationships and contraception. It is a solo opinion for the moment but it shows were they are looking.

It will be interesting to see how the Republicans in blue/purple states handle it. They obviously don't want to be called Rinos by the religious right, but they also want to win elections. Youngkin in Virginia who whether you like his politics or not is clearly a shrewd operator is saying 15 weeks. That's a position that electorally makes sense. De Santis has similar legislation on Florida, however will he come under the pressure to make that more restrictive?

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1540361628155355140