OJ Simpson didn’t go to jail FFS.
oh but he did!
not for murdering two people though. Second time around for robbery and kidnap wasn’t it? I should’ve been more specific
theotherjonv - saw that reported on CNN last night and thought...he's selling his clothes to fund raise? Thought I was in a dream - but wasn't.
A very big IF - if the supreme court takes up the (almost certain) appeal against today's decision regarding presidential immunity from prosecution and shred that argument I think there's every possibility of trump getting a jail sentence or, more likely, home confinement with additional conditions.
If I understand it correctly - and stand to be corrected - a president can still serve if convicted; whether he can do that from prison is unknown.
If he is the GOP nominee and wins I think it's entirely possible he will look to dismantle chunks of the US
judicial system.
It's olso likely, IMO, that he will attempt to amend the constitution in ways as yet unknown.
US isolationism? Withdrawal from international organisations including NATO, withdrawal of financial and military support for Ukraine, climate initiatives canned and much more.
He will also be completely out played by Putin, Xi and Kim amongst others so...god help us all.
The best hope for humanity is that he dies soon - either natural causes or, preferably, someone assassinates the fat, odious, orange pig; a bag of cancerous cells in an expensive but ill-fitting suit.
Let's hope that the military and surviving bits of the judicial system stand up to him - NO you can't do that and we will stop any attempt.
Let’s hope that the military and surviving bits of the judicial system stand up to him – NO you can’t do that and we will stop any attempt.
You know, I feel like this has been done already.
Guy reeks of Bad Bob Booth.
Difference is...this is all too trucking real; not a comic book.
a bag of cancerous cells in an expensive but ill-fitting suit.
With swatches cut out for fundraising....
If I understand it correctly – and stand to be corrected – a president can still serve if convicted; whether he can do that from prison is unknown
The closest in history is Eugene Debs. He had been an objector of WW1, and one of his speeches gave them a chance to charge him under the Espionage act, as it dissuaded people from signing up. He got ten years.
He ran for president while in prison in 1920, embracing the convict status as a gimmick/selling point. He lost, but I'm assuming the fact he was running meant there was no lawful reason he couldn't be president.
Got to love the US. Surely there has to be a Gov.uk style tick box form called something like “Am I allowed to run for office” whereby the first bit is, you can not run for office if you tick yes to any of the following statements:
I have attempted to meddle in a democratic election process.
I have incited insurrection.
I have committed fraud and/or tax evasion on a grand scale.
I am a complete and utter ****.
My hair is a disgrace and should not be allowed under the human rights act due to the confusion and/or offence caused to others every time they look at my ****ing ridiculous head.
there’s a very good chance he’ll win in 2024
While that is true, Its as well to bear in mind that overall the reversal of Roe vs Wade has had a massive impact on the electoral success of the GOP to the point that a number of them are beginning to suggest legislation to introduce a 15 week "compromise". In every state (7 so far) that have held ballots since the decision in both Red and Blue states, anti-abortion activists have lost. In the Mid Terms last year it was a major factor, and in the 'off-year' elections this year all the candidates campaigning on the anti-abortion ticket lost, and only one candidate openly supported by Trump won.
While that is true, Its as well to bear in mind that overall the reversal of Roe vs Wade has had a massive impact on the electoral success of the GOP
I don't think voters (that would vote for Trump) really equate him with the rest of the GOP. He may be credited with engineered the situation that lead to Roe v Wade being overturned but he didn't campaign on the basis that it would happen, or celebrate the fact that it had happened particularly. He's credited with stuffing the various courts, but that was just a) dumb luck that some judges died to create the vacancies and b) it was really Jones Day that did the court packing, using Trump as their vehicle to do so. (They helped him get elected, gave themselves jobs in his administration, used those jobs to dole out lifetime appointments to their friends and allies, quietly moonwalked away from Trump and can now sell their services on the basis that they apoointed the judges who'll try the case they represent you in. And have managed to do that without any of the shitstains hat seems to have to have tainted just about everyone else that came near Trump's administration - Trump himself seems to have not even noticed them)
Roe V Wade has been disastrous for the GOP electorally, pretty much everywhere else on the ballot paper. But I don't think it matters for him. The Whitehouse wasn't involved and going forwards won't be involved - it's a situation entirely of the Supreme Court's making.
Last time I flew to the states, the immigration card asked something like if you’ve been convicted for “moral turpitude”.
I thought it was to weed out ne’erdowells, maybe it’s to fast track you to President
The US visa application asks questions like :
-Are you a terrorist
-Have you ever been at war against the USA
- Have you ever been involved in a plot against the US
Some genius thought they would catch out all the AQ terrorists with that lot........
Some genius thought they would catch out all the AQ terrorists with that lot……..
Presumably there are significant penalties for telling porkies on the immigration form such that if they can't actually prove any of the mentioned offences/get a significant prison sentence, then they can fall back on the "lying on the immigration form" offence instead...
Some genius thought they would catch out all the AQ terrorists with that lot……..
The reason is sadly boring and sensible. Leaving aside catching complete idiots the primary reason is that it means the person obtained the visa under false pretences and so if caught is easier to boot out.
Yep, there's a lot of that in official documentation stuff, there's nothing to stop you lying but the lie makes for a nice clean recorded offence which happens in your territory so no questions about jurisdiction etc.
It can also serve as a convenient way of criminalising behaviour that isn't necessarily an offence in itself- "are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party" is a famous example- being a member of the communist party was legal for most people, but lying about it or refusing to answer the question was a nice simple straight to jail.
then they can fall back on the “lying on the immigration form” offence instead…
Yep, it's the same reason that US courts will usually convict a murderer with 200 years of jail, plus 3 additional life sentences on different charges...so if they manage to wriggle out of one conviction, they still spend the rest of thier life in jail anyway, as the other 3 convictions still remain intact, unless overturned on appeal or whatever.
It's morally a bit dubious, IMO, But I can see why they do it that way, as it means that person will never get out of jail until they die.
But from another perspective, a wrongful conviction ( It does happen, ) it means you are screwed.
This is a major reason I'm against a death penalty, regardless of crime, because there are a lot of cases where mistakes are made by the defence or even the prosecution, and sometimes even on purpose, that are exposed years later, it's not actually that rare for that to happen, moreso if you cannot afford a good solicitor.
It can also serve as a convenient way of criminalising behaviour that isn’t necessarily an offence in itself- “are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party” is a famous example- being a member of the communist party was legal for most people, but lying about it or refusing to answer the question was a nice simple straight to jail.
The 'tick here if you are a terrorist' thing was a part of a raft of hasty measures brought in after 9/11, another was the FBI and others asking for ridiculous question that required feats of incredible memory to answer of anyone they had vague suspicions or hunches about. Exhaustive detail and whereabouts, time, place going back weeks or months, have you ever seen this stranger and so on - just on the basis that any error or omission in your account that they could prove counted as lying to the FBI and that was enough to lock you up under terror laws - broadcast that as a terror plot foiled - then quietly let you go again later when its clear that there was actually nothing to suspect, charge or convict on
This was pre-WTC attack.
The ‘tick here if you are a terrorist’ thing was a part of a raft of hasty measures brought in after 9/11
It really isn't...I remember flying to the US many years before that and having to tick some boxes on a form in the plane to 'get my visa' before landing, one of the most obscure questions was about if I was smuggling cuban cigars, I'm seriously not joking!
Rather than wade through 500 plus pages to see if this has already been posted...(Bad Lip Reading)
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-19-23/index.html
Banned from the Colorado ballot! Yeah, a good news day...
Let's see what the US Supreme Court has to say first. I'm guessing that suddenly, 'State's Rights' won't be as important to the Republican justices.
Banned from the Colorado ballot!
Huge news!
Time will tell whether or not it sticks but it's certainly another huge problem to add to his already massive pile.
One sad certainty is that he will crank the victim narrative up to the max for this and I'm sure he'll see a spike in donations.
martinhutch Full Member
Let’s see what the US Supreme Court has to say first.
Tbh, I'm not sure why he wants to take this to the US Supreme Court as Colorado is not a Trump state, so it's not like he needs their votes. I'm not sure whether an adverse judgement from SCOTUS has implications for other states which have already ruled in his favour on the same issue
One sad certainty is that he will crank the victim narrative up to the max for this and I’m sure he’ll see a spike in donations.
More NFT's and fabric swatches?
Are people actually buying this with actual money, or is it pure hype?
Tbh, I’m not sure why he wants to take this to the US Supreme Court as Colorado is not a Trump state, so it’s not like he needs their votes.
I assume to pre-empt lawsuits in red states like Texas, or purple states like Wisconsin. Something like this really has to go to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling. As much as I think Trump is a huge danger to democracy, I'm not sure this is the way to do it - it'll basically just lead to endless court challenges every election cycle, for example, if someone took part in civil disobedience when they were young, that will be portrayed as engaging in insurrection. The quicker the Supreme Court deals with it, the better for everyone, at least that way the state courts will have some guidance.
The best thing about it? All the Colorado Supreme court judges are Republican appointments. and they referred to a judgement by Neil Gorsuch (also a Republican) in their ruling.
Although its still weird that political parties get to appoint judges.
Its worth noting that its so far only the Primary that trump is barred from, not the actual presidential election
And Colorado votes Democrat, so he was never going to win the state anyway.
Other insurrection cases to bar him in other states have failed, so this could go either way.
Seems to be gathering some momentum on all fronts right now.
Col used to be a swing state but it's swung pretty heavily to the democrats at state level. Local level there are some decidedly republican outposts
Tbh, I’m not sure why he wants to take this to the US Supreme Court as Colorado is not a Trump state, so it’s not like he needs their votes.
Other state supreme courts, including swing states, are waiting in the wings to potentially deliver the same verdict.
Also, the 14th Amendment says a person engaged in insurrection against the US can't be president. So this ruling basically says Trump was engaged in insurrection. So he can't really let it slide.
You'd have thought Trump would be backed at the Supreme Court, but I'm guessing the outcome will rest on whether the big money GOP interests that currently own the court still see value in a Trump candidacy, or whether they feel it's time to punt him into the long grass.
punt him into the long grass.
over the edge of the Grand Canyon plz
Col used to be a swing state but it’s swung pretty heavily to the democrats at state level. Local level there are some decidedly republican outposts
I'd concur - I was there in the summer - anecdotally, people were happy to talk him down in public.
Also, the 14th Amendment says a person engaged in insurrection against the US can’t be president.
it’s not quite that specific - no mention of president, just ‘public office’.
any decision in this instance could have repercussions for other Trumpists running in state and federal elections mind.
So this ruling basically says Trump was engaged in insurrection. So he can’t really let it slide.
From the BBC report, I took the decision as stating that he was definitely engaged in insurrection, the issue was whether the 14th amendment applied to the presidency
any decision in this instance could have repercussions for other Trumpists running in state and federal elections mind.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
But it only affects you if a court agrees you've been engaged in insurrection, which quite rightly is a high bar.
Republicans are losing their minds
Apparently its tyranny if Trump is kept off the ballot by; impeachment, if he's a convicted criminal, or the Supreme Court upholds the constitution, or he's held accountable for his part in any insurrections, but its fine if he appoints fake electors, or orchestrates a coup attempt.
They were all Democrat appointed judges
Yes you're right, it was the folks that bought the case that are all Republicans.
I took the decision as stating that he was definitely engaged in insurrection, the issue was whether the 14th amendment applied to the presidency
Yes, two rulings in one really. It will be interesting to see which of them he'll appeal over. Trump claiming that he wasn't an officer of the US when he took the oath to support the Constitution was pretty desperate stuff. But he's not been found guilty so far in any criminal court of taking part in insurrection.
It presents the GOP and its funders with a fork in the road, though. If they can still see a route to victory next year with Trump, despite his legal (and other) difficulties, then they may direct their SCOTUS to overturn the ruling. If they would rather be done with his stench at this point, they can now get rid.
But he’s not been found guilty so far in any criminal court of taking part in insurrection.
the 14th amendment covers being supportive of, as well as taking part. I thinks its phrased as 'give confort to'which in the context means strengthen or reinforce rather than provide scatter cushions.
‘give comfort to’
Sound more like he has invited them into his tacky boudoir and to play hide the mushroom.
Yes you’re right, it was the folks that bought the case that are all Republicans.
I approve of this typo
Nothing better than a political campaign having to deny its candidate wears diapers.
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1738318531123396789
https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1736027329447575691
https://twitter.com/AlbertMacGloan/status/1300185569474105346
Trump removed from Maine ballot.
https://twitter.com/MESecOfState/status/1740520934744969232
This has the minor possibility of tipping the election because Maine allocates two electoral college votes to the overall winner, plus the other two by congressional district. In the last election, Biden won 3 EC votes and Trump 1. Most states just allocate all the votes to the overall winner.
LOL!
In more seasonal festive news, I read an article that when filming 'Home alone' Trump wouldn't let them film in the lobby of the Trump hotel (or whatever it's called these days for tax reasons) unless they gave him a cameo.
Apparently Trump is now saying that the movie studio 'begged him' to do the cameo.
I'm no gambling man, and of course I don't know what conversations were had, so I'm not going to make any sweeping assumptions!
Although to be fair I've only just started to skim read that document, and I can pick a hole in it straight away:
Thay are using dropbox for legal coms? I mean really?
That's no better than our lot using Whatsapp... it's not a good look, and an open invitation to challenge.
I'd challenge a case against me on the same grounds...I'd expect formal communication in letter or verified email... it's not a good look for such a high profile case...dropbox...I mean WTAF....
