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

aloyisious · 10-11-2023 01:22PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121349516#Comment_121349516

As the law stands, he can be the nominee. If the legal actions being taken in [as of now] two states at state court level were to succeed in blocking him from running on the ballot in those states [on "insurrectionist" grounds] and not be struck down by the USSC it would lose him a load of votes when it came to the final count.

While that wouldn't block him running as the GOP nominee in the other states, it would put a dent in the GOP figures when it came to final tally figures and ensure an ongoing split in that party. A win for those behind the law suits would quite probably energise others who don't want him as president in the next term.

Imagine billboards running with "Insurrectionists not welcome here" Ads at airports etc which he would have to use as transport hubs while on the stump being highlighted on TV news channels. No name used so no one stands accused but the message would be there.

Brian? · 10-11-2023 04:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121350918#Comment_121350918

I really think that’s wishful thinking. The SCOTUS will never uphold that.

aloyisious · 10-11-2023 07:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121351751#Comment_121351751

Probably not. One thing that stands for the suits chances is that the "Insurrectionist" piece of law has in the constitution for some 145 years without the USSC interest in it or its validity. However, Minnesota's Court yesterday dismissed the suit in that state

A possible plus factor is that the "insurrection" piece of law does not appear to be something created or inserted into the constitution by the USSC itself which might incline the USSC not to interfere as it's line on the constitution and its amendments recently was on deleting previous amendments that previous USSC decisions had created.

I've had an unsuccessful search as to whom voted on and entered the amendment to the 14th back in 1868.

aloyisious · 11-11-2023 01:44PM

Judge Eileen Cannon has left people hanging in the breeze until a scheduling conference on March 01 next year in her order yesterday that she was rejecting Trump's application to delay further his trial on charges of violating the Espionage Act to a date later than the one she set for May 2024. She wrote in her order that she would consider more requests to delay Mr Trump’s trial during a scheduling conference on March 1.

Nody · 14-11-2023 01:35PM

Truth Social’s parent company lost almost $23m (£18.7m) in the first half of this year alone, according to a new securities filing that raises concerns about its “ability to continue”.

Over the first half of 2023 it has lost $23m while bringing in only $2.3m in net sales, the filing showed.

This has raised doubts about the viability of the company and its social media startup, according to the filing.

“TMTG’s independent registered public accounting firm has indicated that TMTG’s financial condition raises substantial doubt as to its ability to continue as a going concern,” the company noted in the filing.

Taken from here; who would have thought a right wing social media company based around Trump would not work...

aloyisious · 20-11-2023 09:37PM

From last Friday: the judge hearing the Colorado suit to bar Trump from the state's primary ballot dismissed the suit. He rejected the removal bid, concluding that Trump had engaged in insurrection during the January 6 Capitol riot but that it was unclear whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applied to the presidency.

It seems the judge kicked to touch, and to superior courts, the decision as to whether the presidency is on the list of public offices that insurrectionists are barred from holding, even though its the highest public office one can run for election to in the U.S. The amendment includes a specification that no person shall hold any office [whether civil or military] under the United States who, having previously sworn an oath to support the US constitution, shall have engaged in insurrection against the same.

This mentions members of congress, officers of the US, or state legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any state but does not mention the president.

bog master · 21-11-2023 06:33AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121393830#Comment_121393830

But the President is Commander in Chief of all the military! Is that a political or military title/post ?

Quin_Dub · 21-11-2023 09:31AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121394490#Comment_121394490

A lot of this comes down to the fact that when they wrote the constitution they were working off two principals.

Firstly that the Office of President was a proxy for "King" but an elected one and secondly that who ever held that office would be a "Gentleman" and as such they didn't really need to legislate for their behaviour as much as they felt they needed to for everyone else.

Both theories were wrong then but are massively wrong now.

Having said that , I think they Judge in this case punted to a higher court with that ruling.

If it got to the Supreme court the question would not be "Should we bar Donald Trump" it would be "Does the 14th Amendment apply to the office of President" and the answer there I think is a pretty unequivocable Yes.

That ruling then goes back down the pipe and that Judge who has already ruled that Trump engaged in Insurrection will then remove him from the ballot.

Remember - The courts have now ruled that Donald J Trump is officially an Insurrectionist AND a Rapist.

That's who/what people are supporting.

NEVER let them forget that.

check_six · 21-11-2023 11:51AM

Does it make any sense to have the 14th Amendment at all if it doesn't apply to the top elected office? Who does it exclude otherwise? Who is insurrecting to be Chief Librarian or whatever?

Quin_Dub · 21-11-2023 01:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121395420#Comment_121395420

Exactly - It doesn't make sense , but the Judge clearly didn't want to be the one to kick him off the ballot without air-cover.

So - They declared him an insurrectionist and punted the question of "eligibility" to a higher court.

That way , the higher court is the one to say "Yes, the 14th Amendment does indeed apply to the Office of President" and the original Judge can they go back to the initial decision and say "I declared that you engaged in insurrection and the Supreme Court (State or Federal) has confirmed that the 14th Amendment applies to the Office of President , so you are out"

It's interesting that Trump has not legally argued the fact that he was found to have engaged in Insurrection , because the Supreme court don't argue the facts of a case only matters of law.

There really doesn't seem to be any reasonable way they could contend that POTUS is exempt from the 14th amendment so the critical defence for Trump is not eligibility , it's whether or not what he did was insurrection.

It was btw , so I think he could be in trouble here if the original plantiffs take this higher - Which I think is a given.

aloyisious · 21-11-2023 01:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121394490#Comment_121394490

It's a civilian post, not military. Despite the office-holder being C-I-C, there are restraints placed on the office to avoid acts of mischief [pun].

Trump and other presidents are civilians, regardless of any US Federal or State position they may have held prior to being elected to/taking office on swearing loyalty to the constitution.

aloyisious · 21-11-2023 02:11PM

On the issue of the gag order imposed by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan last month on Trump before the appeal court, the following is part of a discussion between the judges and Trump's lawyer: Mr Trump’s attorney John Sauer repeatedly argued his client’s statements are “core political speech” protected under the First Amendment, but Circuit Judge Patricia Millett cut him off at one point to ask whether those comments are merely protected political speech or “political speech aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process”. “You can’t simply label it that, and conclude your balancing tests that way,” she said.

The gag order blocked Mr Trump from launching a “pretrial smear campaign” as he seeks the 2024 Republican nomination for president, Judge Chutkan wrote. That order was paused by the appeals court in Washington DC, which heard arguments in the case yesterday.

If the appeal court judges decide it is part of Trump's plan to abuse free speech to attack the justice system [for his political and financial gain] the judges are obliged to protect, they may decide that Judge Chutkans gag order stands.

Quin_Dub · 21-11-2023 02:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121396128#Comment_121396128

The general consensus based on what's been said so far is that the gag order will be re-instated albeit with some more specific limitations in place.

Trumps legal team are basing their argument on that very Trumpian belief that because he was President , he is above all the laws and is free to say and do whatever he wants.

banie01 · 21-11-2023 07:58PM

The Colorado verdict is being appealed, which was a given really due to the nonsensical finding that Trump/POTUS isn't subject to the 14th on the basis their oath doesn't require "support" of the constitution.

A finding that holds the POTUS is above the law can't IMHO survive a cognisant judiciary.

Now the question arises, given republican & Trump's effort at stacking the courts....

Does the USA have a cognisant judiciary?

https://post.news/%40/MuellerSheWrote/2YTH5MQRNaRGhoFENTl0Y5OyBX2

aloyisious · 21-11-2023 08:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121396190#Comment_121396190

It's the extraordinary curse that Trump leaves the US with as a legacy: along with the split he created within the GOP and the increased dislike between the two parties, it seems he's succeeded in turning the lawyers and judges against each other leaving the laws of a democratic nation in flux with a rabble loose in the Capitol and in state capitols tearing the nation apart. One can only hope that he will be destroyed by the chaos he's brought about.

Podge_irl · 21-11-2023 08:36PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121397584#Comment_121397584

I really don't think it is that bizarre an interpretation. Granted I am far from a lawyer, but let's look at the clause in question

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.

The whole thing seems to boil down to whether the Presidency is an "officer of the United States" because frankly, it seems pretty clear it is not covered by any other part of the clause. Further to that, the use of the phrase "support the Constitution" was brought up as relevant and we can see a fairly stark difference in the oaths of office of Congress and the Presidency

Presidency

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Congress

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Officers of the United States

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]

Granted, I completely agree that it is conceptually absurd.

banie01 · 21-11-2023 08:52PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121397744#Comment_121397744

I agree that the language of the 14th is very wooly in relation to the position of President. It's an inexactitude that is open to exploitation by bad actors.

The Dederal society are big on ensuring the constitution is read in line with the wishes of the founders. Now granted the 14th was crafted 80yrs or so after the original constitution but, if one adopts a purely telelogical reading of the clause, and importantly of the differing oath of office.

It would appear to set the President as above the law and more particularly IMO, it affords someone such as Trump a means to commit insurrection and yet not be subject to the exclusionary clause.

It is poor drafting, but. If America, as a nation of Laws is to survive the threat that Trump's demagoguery presents? It must do it on the basis of equality before the law.

One thing must hold true and if deference to the founder's intent matters a whit to the GOP & Federalist society types? It must surely be that

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There can be no more important sentence uttered by those that birthed the Nation. That some Trumpist's will argue their man is exempt from the 14th due to a poorly drafted clause?

Really should inform your opinion on how much credence they afford the founders of the State & drafters of the original constitution.

Podge_irl · 21-11-2023 09:04PM

I suppose, to repurpose Nixon - When the President does it, it is not Insurrection.

Or at least that, I assume, was the logic of those who wrote the various constitutional clauses and oaths. It is not a mere technicality - many of those who are currently in jail for their roles in Jan 6th would also not be barred from running under the 14th as they never swore an oath to support the constitution in the first place. In fact, it is a significant minority of the population who face such a restriction from future office.

aloyisious · 21-11-2023 10:19PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121397800#Comment_121397800

It might be that an officer of the US back in the day might have been understood to be an office-holder, not just a uniformed member of its military. That alternative understanding of the term "officer of the US" could still be understood by the judiciary at all their levels when it comes to understanding the term in lawsuits and making legal judicial decisions on the future of persons charged with insurrection under section 3 of the amendment. They, after all, can be termed as officers of the courts both federal and state.

IMO, the passing of time between the passing of the amendment into law and the present day has not changed the meaning of the term "officer of the US".

Peculiar as it may seem, Trumps desire to hold the office of the President of the US, not once but twice, should count as evidence against him that he accepts it is a desirable office of the US TO HOLD, with obligations he has to heed, not some royal ruler not bound by any rules of office.

ohnonotgmail · 21-11-2023 10:19PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121397744#Comment_121397744

I'm confused. All three oaths swear to support and defend the constitution.

Podge_irl · 21-11-2023 10:28PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398347#Comment_121398347

You are confused because I am a moron and copied the wrong one. The Presidential oath specifically doesn't mention "support"

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Nody · 21-11-2023 10:36PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398347#Comment_121398347

Yes but the text of the clause specifies that you need to have taken an oath as a member of congress, officer of the United States or as a member of a State legislature. The president is not a member of congress or State legislature which leaves the question if the president is considered an officer of the United States to meet the requirements for disqualification; because if he's not considered an officer then the clause fails on the fact that the presidential oath is not a listed requirement for disqualification (only the other types of oaths). The assumption of the founders was that no one would become a president directly; they would have worked their way up and hence naturally meet said requirement but as many other things in the constitution it's not taking in has happened today. Hence while Trump led an insurrection the presidential oath is not listed as one of the oaths (or rather the president is not listed as one of the roles to be exact) to be taken to disqualify you from the role of president (because it was not called out); that's basically the crux for the Supreme court to consider (and gives them the wiggle room to read it literally to claim presidential oath is not listed and hence Trump can lead an insurrection and still be legible as president).

aloyisious · 21-11-2023 11:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398433#Comment_121398433

So, if the USSC [or any of the courts below it in the courts hierarchy] decides that the term "officer of the US" included in the amendment clause was understood in law at the time it was passed into law included an "office-holder" [such as office of the Presidency of the US] and STILL TO THIS DAY refers to and includes any person [who at any time swore or affirmed loyalty to the constitution in order to lawfully gain or hold the office of the US Presidency] includes the defendant Donald J Trump Senior, then Donald J Trump senior will have to be found liable for trial under the 14th amendment by the USSC.

As Donald J Trump swore [or affirmed] the oath of presidential office to the constitution of the US [audio and visual recorded] when it was read to him by the Chief Justice of the USSC, that fact cannot be read back to have an alternative meaning or understanding by the Chief Justice or his colleagues on the USSC Bench. The only exit from that recorded fact is if Trump [or his present lawyers] state/s that he did not mean what he said while being sworn-in as President. His oath of office was made totally voluntarily to the US as a whole so he can be held to that oath, unless he recants to it.

Nody · 22-11-2023 06:29AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398679#Comment_121398679

In short yes; and then it comes down to state level of who's allowed to enforce that ruling (there's a reason why it was submitted in Colorado as a state) and secondary to that if the elected electors can vote differently anyway (state dependent).

His counter argument would be three fold in it's main gist I'd guess based on his appeals etc.

He thought he was the rightful president; hence he was upholding his oath to the USA to protect the nation
He did not actually lead an insurrection; that was the act of other people who read to much into what he said / protected speech
The presidential oath is not listed as requirement for the amendment; hence he never fulfilled the requirements of the 14th amendment anyway

Of the three I think the Supreme Court will veasel out based on the third point; they have consistently changed from literal to spiritual versions of the constitution no matter their own claims to match their political views and I don't see Roberts having the guts to go against Trump (he'd be the swing vote most likely).

ohnonotgmail · 22-11-2023 08:52AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398433#Comment_121398433

I was confused because the presidential oath posted was incorrect

aloyisious · 22-11-2023 12:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121398874#Comment_121398874

I agree with your opinion on what his counter arguments would be to any charges brought against him. The only thing to upset the cart would be if he disagreed with his legal teams opinions and defence scheme and did his own thing. Oh, for that to happen....

The first point [he thought he was the president] would be a furtherance of the original con job he pulled on the GOP voters. Unfortunately he knew the figures didn't add up, hence his attempt to fiddle the tally figures in various states and browbeat his V/P into failure of office duty at the reading of the result into congress record.

The second point on leading the insurrection is true in a physical sense as he didn't walk down to the Capitol with the other insurrectionists despite telling them he would do so. If only he had walked the walk, he'd have done the US a great service. Instead he went back to the White House to watch the events unfold on TV. The great unknown is whether his retreat to the W/House was of his own volition or the act of his security detail.

The third point is definitely a get out for his friends on the USSC bench as they are not answerable to anyone. That allows them great latitude when it comes to their deciding that his holding the office of the President does not mean or indicate he is an officer of the US. Neither does the fact it's the highest office in the US for which he was in receipt of a salary.

Quin_Dub · 22-11-2023 12:22PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121399858#Comment_121399858

The third point is definitely a get out for his friends on the USSC bench as they are not answerable to anyone. That allows them great latitude.

In theory it does indeed allow them some latitude insofar as they can't be fired if they aren't playing ball , but sadly given what we now know about how much of their lifestyles are funded by outside interests there are other ways in which they could be "encouraged" to decide a certain way.

aloyisious · 22-11-2023 02:24PM

I can't imagine that Don Trump is as giving as Ben Dunne, though he could be using voters private donations to keep others in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. Another set of money trails to follow in accountancy world.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-11-2023 04:21PM

I see that the gag order has been reinstated on Trump, tonight's rants on Truth social should be fun.

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1730258057932796005?t=TKgwBK6yYnH14I-AGn5D-w&s=19

Nody · 30-11-2023 04:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121438456#Comment_121438456

I'm happily surprised honestly; based on the initial hearings and feedback I was expecting the order to be reduced in scope but remain in play as noted by the judges it would limit what he could answer in a political debate potentially. Now we get to see if the Supreme court will touch it (because you know an appeal is coming...).

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

Comments