What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

But they are not being asked what constitutes an insurrectionist, and definitely not being asked if Trump is an insurrectionist. The SC don't make findings of fact. That is not its job.

On the face of it, the SC has today made clear that where State's have competence, it is solely for the state to legislate in the absence of federal statute.

As a legal nerd, it will be interesting to see how the SC squares this ruling with anything on the Trump docket that impinges upon State competence.

The argument as to whether the 14th amendment applies to Trump based on a supposed difference between federal appointees and the Presidency. Despite the reach made by Trumpist's to claim it doesn't? Article 2 clause 1 lays out the executive and makes clear that the Presidency is an Office of the United states.

The SC cannot IMO reverse the precedent set in the Idaho abortion case without trashing both precedent and any true telelogical reading of the constitution.

I always found it hard not to view Trump in some legal jeopardy because of the 14th Amendment.

Interestingly, this write-up by CBS News is saying that it will be one of the questions that the SC considers, along with whether or not A14 applies to the President.

The case presents a number of novel questions that the high court will consider, including whether Jan. 6 was an insurrection and one Trump engaged in, as the Colorado courts concluded. The justices also are likely to weigh whether the former president and presidency are covered by Section 3.

I had assumed that the question to the SC was the same one about kicked up to the Colorado SC about eligibility, but I'll now need to double check that in case they're actually going to rule on more than that.

Still, if it is the question of eligibility, the effect would be the same regarding Donald Trump in that two findings need to be made to bar him from elections, i.e. that he is an insurrectionist and that insurrectionists who are POTUS are covered by the 14th Amendment. If either of these get struck down, then he stays on.

Here are those words in context,

We have to be fair and say that Trump was just talking about trying to move past the hurt somehow, with another poor choice of words. He wasn't waving the families off with a sardonic smirk. He spends most of this clip talking about how horrible it is for the families and community. I don't know if he was genuinely sympathetic or not ( I would think not, personally), but when news outlets run with three words out of context, it's just fodder for Trump to call them *fake news* . Better to focus on the actual heinous things he's said in context, of which there are many examples and less on point-scoring gotchas.

Donald Trump physically attacked a woman in the changing room of a department store.

While she struggled to repel his advances he put his hand between her legs and introduced a part of his body into her vagina

She could not say if the body part was his phallus or one of his fingers.

She was able to make her escape after a physical struggle.

So yes,he raped her (but not in your books ,clearly.)

I wonder if someone who has been raped can take a case for defamation against someone who says they have not been raped?

That's because somebody took those words out of context in the first place and make more out of it, not that it wasn't a shít choice of words. The point about it is not giving Trump more ammo for his 'fake news' crusade because he uses that to shore up distrust of any negative story about him among his followers. Better to stick to the heinous things he's said that he can't play down like, for example, him joking about the assault on Paul Pelosi.

But where does that end? Almost everything can be argued about context.

He said those words, in the context of something that happened only recently. Why did he even mention it? What possible reason was it for?

They will never move on. They can't ever move on. They may put it to the back of their minds, but the loss of their child will always haunt them.

To even think that saying something like that is in any way appropriate it crazy.

100%. But seems to me that as usual people are quick to give Trump the benefit. Why? He isn't new to this. He already was POTUS.

Before giving hm that benefit ask why that thought was even in his brain? Do you think he cares for the parents long term mental health and so us advising them to move on? This from a man that has still not got over losing an election over 3 years ago!

One of the reasons that Trump got to win was that he was excused everytime he made some stupid or crazy statement. He was excused, it wasn't what he meant, fake news etc.

No, he said it and he should be asked, nay demanded, that he explains what he meant. And why, given the grief of the parents, he didn't bother to choose his words more carefully.

This isn't the first time and yet it happens over and over again. He never bothers to learn as he doesn't have to as he is never held accountable. It is always ignored on the basis that he has done worse.

Ah, but is the presidency actually an office?

Eh? Eh?

Steve Bannon said, "Flood the zone with shít", and it's been a genius strategy. Evil, but genius nonetheless. By constantly having stories about what Trump has done or said, no matter how big or small, the public becomes kind of numb about him and nothing stays in the headlines for long because there's always a new story. Nothing is an outrage when everything is an outrage. The added genius of it is that the media outlets who are critical of Trump will merrily aid in this process because they want to sell papers and get clicks.

Excellent post, I fully agree.

I've said on here in the past that the 'He can't drink a glass of water', the 'he wears diapers' and the 'watch him walk up a ramp' comments are stupid, because, as he did by easily drinking a glass of water following the criticism, he can make people look silly. They remind me of the mindless 'Obama was wearing a tan suit' nonsense.

But as you say, these silly criticisms, when people flail around for anything at all to throw at him, are just grist for his persection mill, and make it easier for him and his supporter to dodge substantial criticisms.

Regardless of what SCOTUS decides on the Colorado case, would there be scope perhaps, for other States to just keep kicking him off their ballots and delaying things.

A kind of ''death by a thousand cuts'' scenario, lol.

Whatever you say about him, he doesn't disguise what he's going to do. It's more that a fair percentage of the American electorate are either loving it, or else too thick to realise it.