Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] The 2024 US Election - *MATCH DAY*
- Thread starter Zeberdi
- Start date
- Nov 11, 2009
- 12,275
Marjorie Taylor Greene tells Emily Maitlis to ‘f**k off’ in explosive interview
News Agents presenter told: ‘Why don’t you f*** off? How about that’
www.independent.co.uk
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Only in America where a crook or forgetful elderly opponent can be the nominees for president
Seagull58
In the Algarve
I don't think that is correct, is it? I believe the SCOTUS ruled that section 3 at the state level e.g. Colorado, only applied to someone standing for a state office and not a federal office. They did not decide that it could not be applied at the federal level. Some of the christofascists on the Supreme Court opined that it could only be applied to Trump if he was convicted by Congress (political not criminal), but that was a minority opinion and not relevant to the actual decision.WHY TRUMP HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH INSURRECTION BY THE WASHINGTON DC PROSECUTOR
This may help to understand why ‘insurrection’ is no longer related to the criminal trial/charges bought against Trump for the Jan 6 riots and attack on the Capitol by the District of Columbia because there seems to be some confusion what his legal jeopardy is - while Trump was indicted for High Crimes and Misdemeanours by the House of Representatives, the indictment fell short of the majority required to convict him (not legally but politically) when the vote took place in the Senate. The House referred the indictment charges of High Crimes and Misdemeanours to the DoJ which included recommendations for a charge of insurrection but the DoJ concluded ‘insurrection’ would be difficult to prosecute in the criminal court for a number of reasons:
INSIGHTS
*The issue of the 14th Amendment on ’insurrection’ was bypassed again recently when SCOTUS ruled that ‘public officials’ under part 3 of the 14th Amendment did not include Presidents - therefore Article 14th barring officials standing again for office who have been found guilty of ‘insurrection’ (which the Federal Law does not define) did not apply to Trump.
- When the Jan. 6 House committee formally referred Trump for criminal charges last year, insurrection was one of the counts included. It would allege that Trump was directly involved in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6. But including that charge would’ve complicated the case and been harder to prove than the broader conspiracy charges, Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, writes in Slate. “That narrowing increases the prospects for a pre-election trial.”
- One of the reasons an insurrection charge could be complicated: Prosecutors would have to rely on Trump’s speech the day of the riot to prove he was encouraging a riot. That kind of argument could face “potentially tricky First Amendment issues,” former assistant U.S. attorney Randall Eliason writes in The New York Times. Those legal disputes “would have been time-consuming and distracting because the speech could be easily characterized as a political rally.”
- The charge of “conspiracy against rights,” a civil rights law that prohibits trying to deprive someone of their right to vote, can serve as a more straightforward stand-in for an insurrection charge, which is rarely brought in court. The conspiracy charge, on the other hand, has been successfully tested. — Just Security
- There was outsized attention on a possible insurrection charge in part because the Constitution’s 14th Amendment bars anyone who engages in insurrection from holding office. In theory, a conviction would disqualify Trump from serving a second term in the White House. — The Washington Post- *
- While the lack of an incitement charge simplifies the case against Trump, we’re still in uncharted legal territory, especially given that the defendant is the former president. Smith’s case “requires some unprecedented interpretations of the U.S. criminal code” — including proving that Trump knew he lost the election — and shouldn’t be seen as a slam dunk, Jim Geraghty argues in National Review.
Why Jack Smith didn’t charge Trump with inciting an insurrection | Semafor
We’ve curated insights from experts on why an insurrection charge was absent from the third indictment against Trump.www.semafor.com
Seagull58
In the Algarve
He will lose in November, if he makes it that far.
Let’s hope you’re right, but i feel you should prepare for the worse.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
That's absolutely no way he will get more votes than last time so, imo, his only chance is massive voter suppression/fraud in the swing states. I am hopeful/expectant that the sane people are sufficiently wise to this to counter it effectively.
He doesn't have to get more votes than last time if Biden gets fewer than he did last time. Which seems quite likely.
Biden and the Democrats are sleepwalking into a potential Trump win | Osita Nwanevu
Unless Biden pivots, we have every reason to believe that his falling poll numbers could be signs of coming electoral defeat
www.theguardian.com
Are there any moderate Trump supporters? People that on the balance of the two candidates think he is a better option than Biden and can articulate why? (Apart from the ‘Biden has dementia’ brigade).
Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.
Do these people exist? I’d like to hear from them.
Best get yourself across the pond then commander and start your search
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Corrected for you.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,201
I think that anyone who is looking at things 'on balance' is by definition using a modicum of critical literacy. Not much of this is required to see Trump for what he is. To find him an appealing choice for President (or anything really) requires a great deal of looking the other way and a refusal to understand information presented.
So there probably aren't many.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
Unless I misunderstood, you said section 3 does not apply to the President. My understanding is that it doesn't apply to the President or any federal officer WHEN APPLIED AT THE STATE LEVEL but it can be applied at the federal level.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 6,947
- Thread starter
- #2,294
I think you misunderstood - but it’s my fault, I’m not making myself clear obviously.
SCOTUS ruled that in this case ie Trump v State of Colorado, Section 3 doesn’t apply to the ex-President.
It doesn’t apply to Trump because the State of Colorado has no power under S3 to bar anyone from standing in Federal elections (eg elections to the Senate, House of Representatives and Presidency) if they have been convicted of insurrection - they only have the power to bar officials convicted of insurrection from serving again at State level - and those officials obviously don’t include Presidents or anyone else who was convicted of insurrection while serving at Federal level office.
SCOTUS did not making a ruling on whether S3 can be applied at Federal level officers by the Federal,Court/Congress - a minority of judges writing an unsigned opinion is not a SCOTUS ruling/declaration of the law, it is merely an opinion.
As far as the 14th Amendment S3, the Courts are relying on a legal instrument that was inserted into the Constitution to prevent Confederates from getting into office after the Civil War - they haven’t got a lot to work with in terms of what is actually written into the Constitution!
Last edited:
I’m convinced they do exist, but America has such a polarised media system right now that they’re totally ignored in favour of pitching the extremes against each other.
Sadly it’s also taking hold over here.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Donald Trump voter – and understand what drives his success | Simon Jenkins
Within Trump’s wild exaggerations are grains of truth. Liberals have never dealt with them, says the Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins
www.theguardian.com
Put yourself in the shoes of a Donald Trump voter – and understand what drives his success | Simon Jenkins
Within Trump’s wild exaggerations are grains of truth. Liberals have never dealt with them, says the Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins
From the article…
See it through their eyes: the US did not collapse into dictatorship under Trump. Enemies were not arrested nor hostile media shut down. Since leaving office, though, his own enemies have not stopped trying to convict and imprison him, even as the trials merely aid his cause. Colorado’s attempt to stop him running for office was as legally wrongheaded as it was counterproductive.
Eyebrows raised as Viktor Orbán to visit Donald Trump in Florida
Read more
The US economy did well under Trump, better than Britain’s. He made a genuine if futile attempt to find peace in Korea. Vladimir Putin, with whom his relations remain obscure, did not invade Ukraine while he was in the White House. His recent demand that Nato and Europe reassess both their strategy and their forces was hardly unreasonable, if poorly expressed. His fixation with immigration is hardly confined to the American continent.
That is why Trump’s enemies would do well to look to the causes of their own unpopularity. Democracy gives no quarter. It is one person, one vote, and its believers cannot complain when the arithmetic goes against them. Trump complains that the US ruling class and its media – apart from the bits he controls – are governed by new ideologies based on gender and race. He claims they want to ban conservatism from campuses, “defund” the police and flood the country with Mexican labour and Chinese goods. There is just enough truth in these accusations to have his supporters cheering him on.
These aren’t “grains of truth”, they are facts.
Seagull58
In the Algarve
