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

If that is accepted to be legally correct: He was tried for insurrection according to the constitution, found guilty in the house of Congress and let off in the Senate on a "loophole" basis that he was no longer the sitting president [an acceptance by the Upper House that he had lost the election] then maybe the USSC could use the houses votes to declare that he had been recognized by both houses to be an insurrectionist.

That being the cold hard fact, it could give the USSC the opportunity to say that both houses of congress had decided that Trump was an insurrectionist on the 06/01/2020 in line with the constitution and federal law, that there would be no need for a rehash of his impeachment trial [a double jeopardy] and the Colorado court merely recognized the fact that Trump had been found against in what counted as a constitutional court [both upper and lower houses in congress] in line with federal law.

The nub of the issue is the fact that Trump refuses to accept that he should as liable to the rule of US law as every other US citizen merely because it doesn't fit his personal opinion. He has had his day in court over his voluntary acts and deeds linked to the insurrection which he fomented for his personal benefit, not for the benefit of the constitution and other US citizens.

One other thing the USSC could discover is find that it did not, due to conflicting links to Trump or pre-existing commitments, have sufficient members to get a quorum to sit and decide if the Colorado court decision tallied with and was lawful within the wording and meaning of Section 3 of the 14 amendment, leaving the issue unresolved until some date in the future. 2030 sounds a nice round figure.

Edit: Hopefully the USSC could also provide a judgement [with or without request] on whether the office of the presidency is a public office and falls within the remit of section 3, amendment 14.

USSC doesn't hear evidence, it's rules on matters of law and the interpretation of it

Three sitting presidents have been impeached. None have been convicted.

Fair enough, he wasn't convicted in the senate on the charge brought in the impeachment proceeding in the house. An actual decision by vote in the senate that he was not guilty of that charge would have been more valuable to Trump than a failure to provide either a guilty or a not guilty verdict.

The rights of the individual states to make their own decisions on whom to allow on their own ballot papers is a valuable right worth defending. Jay unfortunately missed the bus to stake his claim BEFORE the USSC decided to hear the suit placed by Trumps legal team on those of other states.

His decision to use a probable USSC ruling on the prior moves of other states to take Trump off their ballot paper seems risky, as Trump is the sole candidate named as an Insurrectionist intent on depriving congress of the lawful acceptance of the documents certifying the actual vote result of the US voters. His statement made it clear that he intends to use the USSC ruling on the removal of Trump's name from Colorado's ballot list ONLY IF the USSC agreed that Colorado's decision is legal and set what he described as a new standard. It seems that Jay is more interested in protesting a possible USSC ruling against Trump, not actually having as a motive the protection of the individual states rights to decide who's name goes on the ballots.

The SC are originalists. When it suits them.

Trump is playing the "patriot" card in Iowa, claiming the real insurrection is here and now down at the border where other governments have emptied their prisons and lunatic asylums and sent the inmates to the border while the people he had at his 2020 rally were patriotic and peaceful - peaceful and patriotic, tried and jailed in the US, were now hostages.

Mr Trump said in Iowa: “When you talk about insurrection, what they’re doing, that’s the real deal. That’s the real deal. Not patriotically and peacefully — peacefully and patriotically.” The mention of peaceful and patriotic is apparently from his speech to his 06/01/2020 rally before the peaceful rally stormed the Capitol building.

It doesn't really take a genius to see why he's using the word hostages to describe his jailed insurrectionist followers or where he lifted it from, nor at whom, beside Trump supporters, his remarks were aimed at.

In addition, they've shown no evidence of "widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election".

It really makes you understand just how venal and craven the Republicans are, that they can just hold their noses at blatant lies and mendacity.

Its the right wing way of arguing, as demstrated here. It's not verified data or facts that win, it's headlines and who shouts the loudest that does

In what the Independent has reported as a good news story, the Republican leadership, Speaker Johnson and Chuck Schumer have come to an funding agreement to the tune of 1.59 Trillion dollars. The Washington Post previously reported in Dec that the House Freedom Caucus leadership have signed on to the deal.

If the deal passes all hurdles in the Senate, it'll be a significant win for Speaker Johnson and maybe a sign that the grip of those persons of strange intent in congress has weakened in the recent past without much publicity. The deal might also mean that the influence of the last president over the HFC has been weakened by distancing between them. I don't know when the former president was last in Washington or in contact with anyone in the HFC.

Tomorrows hearing at the Federal Appeals Court of Trump's immunity from prosecution claim should be interesting, putting it mildly, as he says he will be attending it. “As President, I was protecting our Country, and doing a great job of doing so, just look around at the complete mess that Crooked Joe Biden has caused. The least I am entitled to is Presidential Immunity on Fake Biden Indictments!” Trump said in his post on Truth Social.

He's appealing the ruling of Judge Chutkan on Dec 01: “Nothing in the Constitution’s text or allocation of government powers requires exempting former Presidents from that solemn process. “And neither the People who adopted the Constitution nor those who have safeguarded it across generations have ever understood it to do so. “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.”

If he loses and the USSC does not become involved, having declined to immediately become involved [with the Colorado name-on-ballot-paper issue before it] his trial on the 4 charges should start in March.