Page 23 | Trump gets gagged, McCarthy gets booted. What's next in Trumpworld?

AcrossthePond55 · 2023-10-04T12:20:13+00:00

Roll up, roll up for the GOP Mystery Tour!! Trump thread lost-the-count!!!

MsMaturio · 22/12/2023 01:50

An opinion was offered by a pundit that this may be a perfect way for the more moderate majority of the GOP to rid themselves of Doofus without having to take a 'visible' action so it might be possible that this more moderate faction of the GOP might try to 'influence' the Court to let the ruling stand. I don't see that happening either

My optimism is pointing in this direction (sort of) - that the uncrazy GOP (and the other presidential hopefuls) need to publicly make the right noises about The Outrage Of It All, while quietly looking at leveraging the situation.

SerendipityJane · 21/12/2023 18:52

I think the FF simply couldn't imagine that a convicted criminal would ever stand for POTUS.

As far as the British were concerned they were traitors and should have hanged. Maybe that gave them a bit of insight into how easy it is to corrupt the state.

Considering the scope depth and ambition of the constitution, I find it rather hard to believe it's authors "forgot" to disbar criminals from running for president.

Anyway, it's all moot, because it is where we are.

I am far more fascinated by how foreign countries are supposed to view the US, if a jailbird becomes POTUS. And I am aware I write that in a country that has had successive criminals in no. 10.

Original poster

AcrossthePond55 · 21/12/2023 18:47

@Darkandstormynite

We are in such uncharted (and unimaginable to our Founding Fathers) territory that concrete answers to many questions can't really be given.

All we know is that the only Constitutional requirements for POTUS are to be 35 years of age, be a 'natural born' US Citizen, and having been a US resident for 14 years. I think the FF simply couldn't imagine that a convicted criminal would ever stand for POTUS.

A conviction AND removal from office by the Senate after impeachment in the House 'bars' a return to the presidency and is the only 'sure fire' bar as it is not appealable. Any other 'bars' to holding office are in other parts of the Constitution (specifically Article 14), don't specify the Presidency, and have never been tested in a court of law. Removal/bar based on the 14th are appealable (as we are currently seeing).

FWIW here's the basis of all the 'wrangling'. Article 14, Section 3.

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."

OP posts:

SerendipityJane · 21/12/2023 18:39

Given the history of the US and it's terror of "tyranny" (mentioned goodness knows how many times in the declaration of independence) there is a scholarly legal view that the fact a felon can run for (and become president) is a deliberate feature of the constitution.

After all if you are a corrupt regime then it's trivial to lock up your opponents and thus remove them from the political process.

However, I suspect that all of this frothing is really disguising an attempt to "disappear" the 14th amendment. Already I have read some "experts" describe the clause as "dormant", suggesting the supremes can safely ignore it.

Luckily we don't have a 14th amendment in the UK. After all we aren't all equal so why waste time with a stupid law pretending we are ?

lljkk · 21/12/2023 13:18

Trump can still run from behind bars. Depends which charge he's convicted of, whether that conviction will have weight in stopping him being on a ballot.

Darkandstormynite · 21/12/2023 09:43

I have a question that never really seems to get discussed in the media (or maybe I just missed it!).

If Jack Smith manages to get a conviction against Trump, how can Trump feasibly stand for president and hold office if he's behind bars?

Are people assuming the verdict will be given after the election or that if he wins he would automatically pardon himself and therefore be released?

If he's convicted, surely the 14th Amendment is fully applicable and emergency petitions can be submitted to say he cannot be on the ballot?

Or are people just holding their breath to see what happens and how a justice system which never dreamed of this situation would react!?

I do take @Wallaw's point though. Given the situation it may be better to beat Trump at the election box not by court rulings. Then the question is settled once and for all.

lljkk · 21/12/2023 03:00

I'm in the USA right now, reading a south Florida local paper (triumverate state). I listen to a lot of US law podcasts & am staying with 2 retired lawyers.

Everyone is unsure if SCOTUS will agree to hear the CO appeal. There needs to be min. 4 votes to hear the case, and maybe only Alito & Thomas will reliably vote to hear it. Even if SCOTUS votes to hear it, no definite bets on how they might vote in final decision. Someone has to write a majority & minority decision, with a pretence of legal justification. It doesn't fit with "power to the states" for SCOTUS to start saying how states decide who can get on the ballot.

Original poster

AcrossthePond55 · 21/12/2023 02:23

@Darkandstormynite

I'm afraid to get my hopes up, at least as far as Trump vs Colorado goes. We've been here before, thinking "Hurrah, this is the beginning!", only to have our hopes dashed.

I really don't see SCOTUS upholding the CO decision. Not simply to do Doofus' bidding, but because they don't want to set the precedent and at heart, they are a Conservative majority court. There is no way Justice 'My wife keeps my balls in her purse' Thomas and Justice 'I like beer' Kavanaugh are going to agree with the CO decision.

An opinion was offered by a pundit that this may be a perfect way for the more moderate majority of the GOP to rid themselves of Doofus without having to take a 'visible' action so it might be possible that this more moderate faction of the GOP might try to 'influence' the Court to let the ruling stand. I don't see that happening either.

OP posts:

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 20/12/2023 18:34

The trouble is that Trump really cannot be allowed to succeed, but his not succeeding is going to inflame the crazies however it happens.

Best result might be he dies of an apoplexy, very much in public so there can be no reasonable accusations of foul play, three days before the election. The trouble is that would lead to endless complication what with all the mail-in ballots already cast for him and having to work out what happens then, though. I'd rather a clean race which he loses even more thoroughly than he did in 2020, so comprehensively that even he cannot claim it was stolen and hope for credibility, followed by a fatal apoplexy before he gets into his revolting stride with the attempted intimidation and so forth. (Which would be more difficult for him to do this time round given that he isn't President at the moment and has nothing like the same clout as he had when he was, plus no control over the national guard being called or not.)

PerkingFaintly · 20/12/2023 18:29

Thank you for the share token, Spandauer. I found that article helpful.

Darkandstormynite · 20/12/2023 09:39

Is anyone else starting to feel like the dominoes are starting to topple.

Colorado starts the disqualification stream, which hopefully will bolster the other states who already tried to get him removed.

Rudy Giuliani verdict sets the bar for the level of financial penalty imposed and nicely lays the foundation for the Georgia criminal trial.

Jack Smith trying to fast track case to the Supreme Court in the DC trial to avoid Trump pushing out the timeline beyond the election.

I'm not convinced the Supreme Court will be brave enough to support the colorado decision but we will see.

Did anyone else see Liz Chaney on Fox trying to encourage Fox voters to not vote for Trump? She quite rightly said look you can vote for the same conservative policies without the craziness! surprisingly I don't think they were buying it.

Bet Christmas at Mar-a-Lago is going to be interesting! Seems like the walls are closing in.

Roussette · 20/12/2023 09:19

He is ranting on SM... it is actually quite funny. He sounds like a mad man. Nothing new.

BruceAndNosh · 20/12/2023 09:10

I think it's important that all these Trump cases get fast tracked to appeal, but I do wonder how many more people with "worthy" cases are getting delayed by him barging his way in

Spandauer · 20/12/2023 09:03

Washington Post report (hopefully share token works)
https://wapo.st/3NyE7qd

Lets hope this emboldens the other states that are considering keeping him off the ballot to go full steam ahead.

Apparently some of the other presidential candidates are muttering about supporting him and removing themselves from the Colorado primary election. We'll see... hollow words I predict.

Another Trump appeal to the SC - what a busy man 😆

AutumnCrow · 20/12/2023 00:06

The Colorado judgement to be appealed in January apparently, so not binding (yet). We can but hope.

Meanwhile Trump will ranting tonight in Iowa.

PerkingFaintly · 20/12/2023 00:02

MsMaturio · 19/12/2023 23:57

I just read the Colorado SC headline and came straight here for analysis 😊

Me too!

Though I'm still at the "Whaaaaaat?!!!!!!" stage myself.

I'm sure someone with more coherent thoughts will be along shortly!

MsMaturio · 19/12/2023 23:57

I just read the Colorado SC headline and came straight here for analysis 😊

prettybird · 19/12/2023 23:53

He'll be screaming blue murder Do you think he's still orange or will he have turned a shade of puce?

Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off ballot https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67768873

Original poster

AcrossthePond55 · 15/12/2023 23:30

BruceAndNosh · 15/12/2023 22:53

I wonder how much extra the jury added for him repeating the lies outside of the court on Monday

Nothing. Those statements will require a separate lawsuit as the current one deals with specific dates and statements. With a 148M award in the current case, I doubt if they'll file another lawsuit, although who knows! But I think E Jean Carroll filed some sort of motion to add Trump's later defamation to her prior lawsuit and the judge amended (increased) her award. Maybe they can go that route if his later statements qualify.

And the real kicker is that in his statement today after the award, he did it again!! The same assertion that it was all true and will be proven IF he can ever get a 'fair courtroom' or a judge who will stop 'threatening him with prison' (also false).

I don't know if the plaintiffs will ever see a penny. Rudy's 'people' have been paving the way for him to file bankruptcy for months. But I think the plaintiffs realize it's not likely they'll see much, if anything. I'm sure they feel the money would have been nice, but it's also about the vindication. Still, their lives will never be the same.

OP posts:

SinnerBoy · 15/12/2023 23:18

BruceAndNosh · 13/12/2023 10:19

I suspect Wednesdays press conf will mention Hilarys emails!

Tsk! Hitlery, for goodness sake!

BruceAndNosh · 15/12/2023 22:53

I wonder how much extra the jury added for him repeating the lies outside of the court on Monday

PerkingFaintly · 15/12/2023 22:39

I know! I had to read that two or three times before it sank in!

Pour encourager les autres who might be tempted to invent gross falsehoods about named election workers.

Roussette · 15/12/2023 21:54

My goodness... $148M ?!!

BruceAndNosh · 15/12/2023 21:37

Giuliani ordered to pay $148m in damages.
I doubt they'll ever get it from the slimy little weasel

BruceAndNosh · 14/12/2023 17:10

AND.... Giuliani is not testifying.
Frankly, there's nothing he could say to defend himself, apart from this never produced evidence that he was right, that he likes to mention but never produces