Should have got the British passport office to do it.
First lawsuit filed to prevent Trump being on the ballot box in Florida, under amendment 14 section 3 of the constitution. 👍
Thankfully all this nasty business doesn't seem to have affected his golf, he's still as good as ever.
https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/internet-blasts-trumps-claim-he-won-club-tournament-with-67/
First lawsuit filed to prevent Trump being on the ballot box in Florida, under amendment 14 section 3 of the constitution
Interesting.
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.
Yes it's an interesting bit of the constitution as it doesn't actually require a conviction - simply being of aid to or or supportive of an insurgent act whilst being an oath-sworn office bearer is enough. It's not actions in relation to the law of the land its actions taken in relation to the oath sworn as an office bearer. Its a state-level decision in each state to decide whether someone can legitimately be on the ballot paper and they'll each have local legislation that will dictate how they interpret that element of the constitution and any citizen can bring a case against the state government if they believe someone's on the ballot that shouldn't be.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And basically the 'get out clause' is not going to happen unless a lot of dems vote in favour of Trump....lol
Party Breakdown
In the 118th Congress, the current party alignments as of June 6, 2023,6 are as follows:
• House of Representatives: 222 Republicans (plus 2 Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner of Puerto Rico), 213 Democrats (plus 3 Delegates), and 1 vacant
seat.
• Senate: 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 3 Independents, who all caucus with
the Democrats.
It makes you wonder who of the other republican presidential candidates the same clause applies to. Theres a fair few who were either state or federal office holders at the time. They presumably swore the same or similar oaths.
How do you know he has engaged in rebellion? It just cannot be a simple complaint.
How do you know he has engaged in rebellion?
Its broader than 'engaged'
"given aid or comfort to" - to help, support, encourage. It doesn't require success in any effort either or that the help you seek to give is of any benefit.
Its an amendment that was drafted just after the Civil War - it has a very broad scope.
There's some evidence that he was in communication in the lead up to Jan 6th via intermediaries with the leadership of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, some of whom have now been convicted of seditious conspiracy.
I'm sure a lot more stuff is going to come out as a result of the special counsel investigation. It could be that the Florida lawsuit is a bit early, but I suppose they are just testing the water with what they've got, and could go back if we get a trial in early to mid 2024 and more evidence emerges.
Oh we know he was. But legally? Surely it has to be a court decision or vote somewhere
I think the same people bringing that lawsuut have succeeded in getting some small time politician booted under the same legislation. Convicted for j6 now can't be an elected politician.
Oh we know he was. But legally? Surely it has to be a court decision or vote somewhere
Yeah, I've just skim read this, and my god I think I just fried my brain...
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Trump is not quite as stupid as we like to think, there's a lot in that torrent of verbal diarrhoea that comes dangerously close to insurection, but legally, semantically, it's tricky. For example:
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.
So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God Bless America.
The word 'fight' is said 23 times in that transcript.
'Fraud' 22 times.
Surely it has to be a court decision or vote somewhere
Sure - that's why exclusion from the ballot has to start with a lawsuit, which is what has been initiated in Florida.
Surely it has to be a court decision or vote somewhere
Sure – that’s why exclusion from the ballot has to start with a lawsuit, which is what has been initiated in Florida.
But the lawsuit isn't against Trump. It's against the state and their due diligence in facilitating the election. It doesnt need to be proven that Trump instigated or played an active role in the planning or actions of the attempted insurrection - just that there was one - which has been established by these convictions
he leadership of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, some of whom have now been convicted of seditious conspiracy.
and that he was was supportive of it
I think that ticks the 'given aid or comfort' box
Convicts cannot vote though, I don't think in the USA?
That said I'm sure that would logically be tantamount to bribery of, and encouragement of, supporters who might be encouraged to attempt another coup in future.
It's utter madness.
But the lawsuit isn’t against Trump.
It doesn't have to be. It's the state that needs to be restrained from putting Trump on the ballot.
Ta for the explanation
The day before 'super tuesday' - Ha!
I particularly enjoyed the judge slapping down trump's lead attorney when he was bleating about the date...defense should not have sat on their hands waiting for an impeachment.
So far the judiciary in the various cases have shown little tolerance of manoeuverings of trump and his legal teams; having said that, Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago documents case is yet to say anything meaningful.
Trumps has delayed these court cases repeatedly - they can only blame themselves that they’re now in court running up to the election 🤷♂️
Hoisted by their own petard.
He is not getting much traction in these hearings. Its really not looking good for him at all.
What the betting he fakes an illness or becomes genuinely to ill to take part. Overweight, bad diet, no exercise. He is a prime candidate
What the betting he fakes an illness or becomes genuinely to ill to take part.
...while simultaneously boasting about what a superb Presidential candidate he is...🤷
Edit: actually I may have stumbled across something....Trump is the first human who can operate in a Quantum state...
Overweight, bad diet, no exercise
No way is 6'3" and 215lbs overweight.
And no exercise? He crushed a golf tournament just the other day.
Bad diet? Are you going to tell me that cheesebros are bad for you?
Re Trump being disqualified I read that the states can disqualify him and it would be up to him to fight in court to be allowed to stand
Baude and Paulsen maintain their theory is "self-executing." They say that means that public elections officials don't need special permission from lawmakers to disqualify Trump from the ballot: if they believe the argument is valid, they can disqualify potential candidates on their own.
from here
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316
So does that aid the sedition stuff? Due to them going to prison, does it strengthen the fact that Trump aided (would it be classed as comforted?) this? (Suspect I've dropped some big words in there to make me sound intelligent and got it all wrong)
As an outsider to all this, it appears that there is overwhelming evidence that contradicts his innocence plea, so why is it taking so long to draw this out?
Absolutely agree with innocent until proven guilty, but this isn't just hanging on a shaky peg...it already appears to have smashed to the ground and covered the whole floor space.
'Comforted' is a legally very wooly term... And USA law seems to be quite different to UK law. Does a wink and a thumbs up whilst alluding to civil war count as comfort?
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
More Jan 6th cases coming through, 22 years for Proud Boy leader
22 years for Proud Boy leader
But Trump as the commander in chief and main instigator, is more than likely to see no jail time
22 years for Proud Boy leader
If Trump gets elected he will walk free.
Tbh, I'm way past thinking I know whats going to happen.
Trump can only pardon himself (if re-elected) for Federal Crimes, so not the election interference ones in Georgia, for example.
If Trump gets elected he will walk free
little Donny 2 scoops still had the power of pardon between Jan 6th-20th and didn’t pardon any of the proud boys or his legal team who are now jointly on the rap sheet. That decision is now playing out nicely with people flipping.
Judge has ruled that trump is liable in the second E Jean Carroll defamation case and the jury will only be required to determine damages when the case opens on Jan 15th.
Carroll is seeking at least $10 million; judge has also said jury should not be influenced by previous award of $5 million so, in theory at least, it could be a biggie.
No doubt trump will be looking to appeal and delay.
The more these legal cases go on, the more shit I learn about Trump, the more convinced I am that he (and his legal "teams") are now simply carving out a new career or industry as grifters.
Wrack up the outrage, the donations come poring in and Trump and his team reap the rewards. Now, the Presidential election is just a motivator for the outrage....
Jack Smith is taking a keen interest in the fund raising and further charges may follow if they are deemed to be illegal.
Trump is definitely starting to realise he may die in jail.
Jack Smith also interested in and, reportedly, concerned by trump's daily social media posts criticising the process, prosecution, 'unfairness/witch hunt'.
Concern is that the volume and content of posts will prejudice the DC jury pool.
The judge had specifically warned trump's legal team about this behaviour and said she would consider accelerating the trial start date if it continued.
If she does nothing she will be perceived as weak by trump and his team.
Options:
- impose restructions on trump's use of social media
- accelerate the start date.
She has already flagged these options.
I think trump is daring her...I'll say what I want; what are you going to do about it?
I think trump is daring her…I’ll say what I want; what are you going to do about it?
one of the best descriptions I’ve ever heard of trump is that he ‘thinks in insults’. I really don’t think he can stop himself.
Reported that the Mar-a-Lago IT guy - Yucsil Taveras - who had been referred to as defendant 4 has reached a 'co-operation agreement' with Jack Smith.
That can't be anything other than bad news for trump.
Brilliant word-smithing there. Surely an 'agreement' is a 'cooperation' by definition?
Can you double agree to the same thing twice?
Seems Mark Meadows is going to flip in Georgia
22 years for Proud Boy leader
If Trump gets elected he will walk free.
But these convictions put his ability to run in jeopardy, doesn't their constitution specifically prohibit any one found guilty of insurrection or of giving 'comfort' (modern definition being 'support' or 'encouragement' perhaps)to insurrectionists from holding the office of President (or words to that effect)?
All any of the cases against him need to demonstrate now is that Trump in some way supported/encouraged/endorsed any one of the growing number of convicted insurrectionists and he can't run, can't pardon anyone or bully the various cases against him away.
The calculation the GOP now need to make is what is the probability of his being ineligible to take office Vs his popularity with the base and chances of winning the election? All the other Rep' candidates are a long way behind and while Donny's various legal shenanigans are helping with the MAGA faithful, are they really wooing non-lunatic more moderate voter's?
I really think the republicans need to find a way to boot him from the nomination race ASAP, for their own sakes.
Of course if he doesn't get to run for whatever reason, or worse yet gets to run but loses, and again claims it's a fix, does America edge closer to a new civil war?
mr fez, it's not tautology but if you think it's an example of syntactical inexactitude you could read it as...agreed to co-operate.
The wording I quoted was a direct lift from CNN; you could email them with your comment...
syntaxcorner@cnn.com
