Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…10271028103010321033…1189

Comments

  • #30872
    amandstu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,200 ✭✭✭amandstu


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732183#Comment_121732183

    If the President wasn't explicitly described as an "officer" then that was an oversight and ,in a Republic he should be considered (and be proud to be so considered) as one.

    Good that these 3 judges have described the President as such.

    I wonder if that was deliberate?

    If so ,well done.


    Edit:Doesn't the President take an "Oath of Office"?

    How could he or she not be an officer in that case?

    Post edited by amandstu on


  • #30873
    PropJoe10
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,394 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732250#Comment_121732250

    The President is an officer. It's just Trump trying every single trick in the book to escape from his legal peril. Expect this to rumble on and on and on.



  • #30874
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,807 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732250#Comment_121732250

    As Briany alludes to, there is a legal theory that has become beloved of Trump supporters that POTUS, isn't an officer under the constitution. It is based on a warped reading IMO and doesn't stand up to any literal or telelogical scrutiny. If the supreme court sees itself as textual originalists? Then the theory should really be disregarded.

    We disagree. There is some good reason to think the President is not an “officer of the United States.” President Trump, who swore only one constitutional oath, does not fall within Section 3’s jurisdictional element. Therefore, he cannot be disqualified pursuant to this provision.

    In the fraught legal circumstances that Trump finds himself in? Where it's already agreed that January 6th was a couple in search of a legal theory? One that was provided by Eastman, who's career has gone down in flames and who is currently an unindicted coconspirator in legal peril.

    It's one of those theories that IMO is only ever useful as a devils advocate position. In a sane court? It would be shot down instantly as absurd.

    In the current SCOTUS? Where 5 justices are political conservatives and at least 1 is corrupt and has a spouse involved in the attempted coup?

    It could be given enough support to fly as a means of leaving Trump on the ballot.


    https://www.nyujll.com/home/blog-post-four-2kpz7-7czmg-6fbsx-l9llc-btrht-lkg3w




  • #30875
    Cody montana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,584 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    BREAKING: House Rejects Mayorkas Impeachment Resolution


    Someone will be mad.



  • #30876
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732441#Comment_121732441

    ...

    image.png




  • Advertisement
  • #30877
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,201 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732441#Comment_121732441

    This might put some backbone in a few senator's to back the Senate border bill and let the house decide the issue.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • #30878
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,016 ✭✭✭✭briany


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121731127#Comment_121731127
    Untitled Image

    You are about to enter a region of political discourse where logic is a menace and truth is the enemy. A region of bluster and venom. You are about to enter The Trump Zone.

    Dun-dun-dun....



  • #30879
    Cody montana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,584 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel will resign after months of pressure from Trump allies - NYT


    Is Mypillow guy available?



  • #30880
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,032 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1755027753995514004?s=20

    Much more likely she can't count past ten without removing her shoes.


    Anyway, I believe they scheduled a vote for when a dem was in hospital for a procedure, but he made it back in time to vote!

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • #30881
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121732342#Comment_121732342

    The 14th Amendment could just as easily be called the "Stop Jefferson Davis" amendment.

    It's primary purpose was to prevent Davis (The leader of the Confederacy) from having any kind of political influence after the Civil War.

    The argument that the "framers" as they so love to call them, would write an amendment that would prevent Davis from serving in Congress but would allow him to be President is just utterly nonsensical.

    The "out" for SCOTUS here is to either claim that the States can't make this call , thereby pushing it back to Congress or they can argue that the threshold for "insurrection" hasn't been met or wasn't properly decided by the Colorado Judges.

    That way , the President is covered by the 14th (or they just don't rule on it at all) but the keep Trump on the ballot as Congress will never vote for it given the current makeup.

    That's probably the easiest "legal" exit for them in that it makes it a political decision and removes the courts from the conversation entirely.

    It's craven and cowardly and openly partisan but it's the most likely path they'll take.



  • Advertisement
  • #30882
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,831 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Fully agree, it's the lower courts cutting off the weak exits for SCOTUS is important. Those rulings close the door on wishy washy interpretation of the 14th Amendment.



  • #30883
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,016 ✭✭✭✭briany


    What *is* the threshold for insurrection? If this is something that would create a significant divergence of opinion between the lower court and the higher, then it must not be that sharply defined such that there could not be a get-out for the SCOTUS.

    I have the feeling that if the Nuremberg Trials were held in the political atmosphere of the US right now, the argument of "I just gave the orders..." would be holding a lot more sway.



  • #30884
    LambshankRedemption
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,635 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733090#Comment_121733090

    Large parts of the constitution are somewhat vague. While James Madison was undeniably a genius, even he could not predict a Trump being within spitting distance of the highest office in the land. Nevermind for potentially a second term.



  • #30885
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733355#Comment_121733355

    Indeed - The fundamental challenge here is that the "framers" worked off the basic assumption that everyone involved would have a baseline level of morality and would behave like "gentlemen" (as they would have viewed it).

    They never foresaw a need to write the rules in such a fashion as to have to protect against the actions of an amoral rapist fraud.

    This is where the "originalist" and "textualist" viewpoint collapses under the weight of its own ridiculousness.

    Originalism/Textualism only works if the process to update the text is realistic and achievable.



  • #30886
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,558 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733090#Comment_121733090

    Trump's role in the insurrection largely amounts to a mob boss trying to claim he didn't order his men to kill a rival mobster, he only told them to "Take care of him".

    Trump didn't order his followers to prevent the election from being certified, he only gathered them nearby, riled them up with lies about stolen election and their country being stolen from them (several months of this), told them to go to the capitol to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

    While also saying "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore." "You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen." "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore".

    He all but told them to "Take care of it".

    From the BBC back in 2021:

    Analysis by Professor Epps

    What is incitement under the law?

    Incitement is not a crime under the First Amendment unless it meets certain criteria.

    First of all, it has to be intended to cause violence (and you infer that intent from the circumstances). It also has to be likely to cause violence.

    If I go downtown and I say to two drunks standing in front of a bank, "let's rob this bank right now", I haven't really incited anybody, because it's not very likely they'll rob the bank.

    If I say let's meet here tomorrow and rip things up, I'm not inciting because - in the words of the Supreme Court - where there is time for better counsels to prevail, the remedy for speech is more speech.

    The speech has to be likely to cause - and this is very important - imminent violent action.

    If this was a court of law, does Trump cross the line?

    It's quite rare that somebody can be convicted of incitement. In applying that to the president's speech at the rally, it's an agonisingly close case.

    It's pretty goddamn imminent because he's telling people to march to the Capitol and I will march with you. There wouldn't be any time for better counsels to prevail because you're just going to leave the Ellipse and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

    He said we have to fight and show strength, but he also said we're very peacefully and patriotically going to ask, so he's covering himself. In the end, I think it's a jury question.

    I'm not sure he's entitled to a dismissal of charges as a matter of law. There's some discussion that government leaders have more leeway, but I don't know how that would play out.

    He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.



  • #30887
    LambshankRedemption
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,635 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733437#Comment_121733437

    Absolutely, take for example, the Second Amendment, the Right to Bear arms. It was signed into law in 1791. Samuel Colt invented the revolver around 1835, so when the right to bear arms was ratified, the arms we were talking about were flintlock rifles and pistols. So you shoot, to shoot again, you pour gunpowder down the barrel, drop in some shot, then drop in a lead ball, and then push it all down using a ramrod

    They never foresaw, either a revolver that can fire 6 rounds in quick succession, and they definitely did not foresee, 200 years later, that basically anyone over the age of 16 could go into walmart and buy an automatic rifle with a clip of 30 rounds and a rate of fire of 45 rounds a minute.



  • #30888
    LambshankRedemption
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,635 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.

    Edited. Nevermind, I stand corrected.

    Post edited by LambshankRedemption on


  • #30889
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,032 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733578#Comment_121733578

    he asked for the metal detectors to be removed, so that the mob could approach the Capitol Building with weapons...

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • #30890
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,016 ✭✭✭✭briany


    If Trump can cover himself by saying he told his followers to go to the Capitol "peacefully and patriotically", he's setting a pretty stunning precedent. You can say anything you want to a crowd - rile them up to no end - but once you insert one phrase about no violence, you're completely absolved of any violence which does happen.

    Don't think you'd have to be a cynic to think that particular loophole would be abused.



  • #30891
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,807 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733724#Comment_121733724

    Trump if he had any education worth it's salt, particularly in the WASP context. Would know that even though Henry II never struck a blow nor directly ordered Thomas Beckett's murder?

    That his utterance of "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest" was the impetus for the act and that Henry had to atone and commit acts of penance for something he had nothing to do with /s 😉

    I agree with Quin_dub's assessment of the 14th as primarily an anti Jefferson Davis measure. Those who framed it, clearly didn't expect the possibility of the office being usurped by seditious traitor once they'd put down the 1st rebellion.



  • Advertisement
  • #30892
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733611#Comment_121733611

    And even said "I don't f*cking care if they have weapons , they aren't here to hurt me"

    So he didn't care they they were armed nor did he care what they did with them because he was sure HE wasn't at risk and HE is all that matters to him.



  • #30893
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,016 ✭✭✭✭briany


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733869#Comment_121733869

    If it's an anti Jefferson Davis measure, then time has taken care of Davis in quite a final way, rendering that particular section of the US constitution completely redundant and fit for removal.



  • #30894
    LambshankRedemption
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,635 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733611#Comment_121733611

    Fair enough. I wasn't ware of that particular fact. Disregard my previous comment then!



  • #30895
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,016 ✭✭✭✭briany


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733877#Comment_121733877

    Was Trump recorded saying that?



  • #30896
    LambshankRedemption
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,635 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733877#Comment_121733877

    OK. Thats kind of an open and shut case then.



  • #30897
    Rawr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭Rawr


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733724#Comment_121733724

    I suspect this was his plan when he used those words. Although to counter it, you could say that he told them to go to the Capitol "Peacefully", but then added the suggestion that *upon arrival* they needed to "fight like hell".

    As with anything like this, the case against Trump will be to prove his intent. For example, if things like trying to remove metal detectors at the rally can be used to prove that his intention was an armed attack on the Capitol, then he can talk all he wants about doing things "peacefully", he could still be found guilty of intending to cause an armed insurrection.



  • #30898
    2011
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,662 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733611#Comment_121733611

    Are you 100% sure about this? Link?

    Thanks



  • #30899
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 41,623 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733972#Comment_121733972

    Former President Donald Trump urged the Secret Service to remove magnetometers at his rally near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, despite concerns some of his supporters might be carrying deadly weapons, a former aide testified Tuesday.

    Cassidy Hutchinson, who was a top aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, said Mr. Trump encouraged his security detail to halt screening measures for his supporters at a “Stop the Steal” rally hours before the Capitol riot.

    “I don’t f***ing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f***ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f***ing mags away,” Ms. Hutchinson recalls overhearing Mr. Trump saying that day, shortly before he went on stage.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/28/white-house-aide-trump-urged-removal-magnetometer/

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • #30900
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,729 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733929#Comment_121733929

    I remain unconvinced that he "intended" for them to storm the capital and wreak the place as they did , but he wasn't concerned enough to consider it as a possible outcome so he bears complete responsibility either way.

    I think he was hoping for two things.

    He was hoping that they'd be outside chanting and roaring, clearly visible and audible to those inside casting their votes for certification so that they would provide "air cover" for enough people to vote against certification or indeed for Pence to say "Clearly people are deeply concerned about this , just listen them , we should hold off on this and re-evaluate"

    He was also hoping for a counter protest to arrive , leading to violence between them and his supporters when he would then send in the Cavalry in force and claim that "antifa" etc. were trying to overthrow the government and "ordinary decent Americans using their freedom of expression" were being attacked by crazed "leftist, fascist, communists!!!!" allowing him to declare martial law , again to delay certification.

    Thankfully ,for whatever reason the "other side" never turned up on the day and he got his crowd so fired up they lost the run of themselves and went feral.

    And because it was only HIS side that were there , he couldn't use that as a justification for Martial law , so it all failed for him..



  • Advertisement
  • #30901
    duploelabs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,026 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121733972#Comment_121733972
    https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/28/trump-jan-6-rally-guns-capitol-attack

    Senate testimony



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement