it’s not a good look, and an open invitation to challenge.
From I can see there, the Maine Secretary of State is saying that the people who challenged Trump submitted evidence via a broken Dropbox link. The Secretary of State's office then provided the documents to counsel (i.e. Trump's lawyers). Trump's lawyers will challenge on any grounds they can think up, but the SOS has preempted that avenue by providing the documents and explaining the problem.
Fair enough..as you were..
My skim reading reaction was that the prosecution didn't give the defence imprortant info via propper means to allow them to review it, beforehand.
"copies of the evidence were provided during the hearing"
It will be appealed to the Maine Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. A minor clerical issue at this stage won't make any difference once it gets to the SC.
So essentially just noise/filibustering then, I hope!
I'd vote Trump for president.
Its the total comedy factor you need to consider, and recently the number of lackeys who are ending up in front of a judge is beginning to run down. So more humour, more backtracking lackeys and theres always the chance he will screw up totally and cause a war with someone who is supposed to be an ally or critical to Americas strategic long term plan.
So essentially just noise/filibustering then, I hope!
From Trump's lawyers, yes. That's their strategy for pretty much everything. The big question is what the U.S. S.C. will do. They may decide they don't want to touch it and just say that it's up to each state to decide. There are six conservative justices on the court (out of 9 total). I suspect they would much prefer to not have to rule on this one so there's a good chance they will just refuse to hear the case. A split ruling, with some justices dissenting would be devastating for the perception of legitimacy of the court. Chief Justice Roberts is more of a centrist conservative so it's possible that a divided court might rule against Trump. Whatever the outcome, if they take the case, a huge number of American's will denounce the result as partisan and attack the legitimacy of the court. I think it would be much easier for them to just say that each state is responsible for how it runs its elections and let each state level supreme court rule as they see fit.
Speaking with BBC News, Mrs Bellows said it was her duty to uphold election laws in her state, and that she hoped the "Supreme Court will settle this matter nationwide".
"I'm mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on section three of the 14th Amendment. But I'm also mindful that no presidential candidate has, ever before, engaged in insurrection."
Strong words...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67837639
From the BBC article, seems to be a lot of legal folk quoted who think these decisions won't stand up at the Supreme Court, without going into great detail why. We are focusing on two states that have barred him, other states have thrown these cases out.
Trump hasn't actually been charged with insurrection, so I guess these cases are asking the courts to make a decision on that which they may not feel confident doing.
Trump hasn’t actually been charged with insurrection
And neither were the Confederate leaders who were the target of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about requiring a conviction, it just says that someone who has engaged in insurrection is barred. The ballot in each state is determined by the state. If a candidate is barred under the 14th amendment, they can appeal to the state supreme court and then try appealing to the U.S. S.C. if the first appeal is rejected. In Trump's case, the evidence of insurrection is very well documented so appealing to the S.C. based on an argument that he didn't engage in insurrection is a difficult case to argue. That's why I think the conservative majority on the U.S. S.C. will probably not want to hear the case.
devastating for the perception of legitimacy of the court.
Given that Harlan Crow (billionaire Republican mega-donor) 'owns' Clarence Thomas, and Paul Singer (Republican billionaire mega-donor) 'owns' Alito, and when the Congress suggested some oversight, it was rejected out of hand by Roberts; I think its safe to say that the SC gave up any pretence at legitimacy a while back.
Trump hasn’t actually been charged with insurrection,
He doesn't have to be. The more important that its legally established that there was insurrection.
If he was charged with insurrection thats simply a matter of him going to jail. But in the context of the 14th Amendment - if its established that there was insurrection (rather than "legitimate political discourse' or a 'sightseeing tour') then Trump, as an oath-sworn office holder, only really needs to have spoken favourably of it.
The legal issues are around whether the office of President is within scope or not, and apparently it's not that simple. The factual question of whether J6 was an insurrection is secondary. Even firmly anti-Trump constitutional lawyers seem to agree it could legitimately go either way.
Given that Harlan Crow (billionaire Republican mega-donor) ‘owns’ Clarence Thomas
How dare you suggest Crow buying Thomas's mother's house at a premium and then letting her continue to live in it rent-free gives him any sort of influence over Justice Thomas. It's a totally private transaction with no connection to...anything
The legal issues are around whether the office of President is within scope or not, and apparently it’s not that simple.
It very, very obviously is. Their argument is that the President is not an officer of the United States. The only people who say it isn't are MAGA wingnuts who also claim the insurrection was just a bunch of peaceful tourists taking selfies around the Capitol.
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.
Was just reading about how lax the rules are around Supreme Court appointees and persons of influence. Crooked.
The S.C. justices do read the newspapers and they are aware of how controversial many of their decisions are. Chief Justice Roberts, especially, knows that it's important that a large majority see the court as being legitimate. If the S.C. ruled that the President is not an officer of the United States (or that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the President for any other reason), it would go down in history like the Dredd Scott decision (where the court ruled that African ancestry disqualified anyone from U.S. citizenship). Dredd Scott has gone down in history as probably the most misguided decision in S.C. history. Chief Justice Roberts absolutely does not want to go down in history as doing something equally stupid.
Was just reading about how lax the rules are around Supreme Court appointees and persons of influence.
The courts have no oversight at all. There seems to have been a founding assumption that Judges would be appointed on the basis of their proven integrity by people who themselves were well intentioned. They're a fraction of the problem too - theyre the top tier court in a many tiered system all of which are politically appointed life-time tenures. We focus on the 3 three Trump appointees whilst overlooking 200 other lifetime appointments made in the judicial system under Trump's tenure (for the most part theyre actual Jones-Day appointees rather than Trumps and Jones-Day largely stacked the courts with their own current and former staff - Trump won't even know who most of them are)
Republicans are now heading back to the 'it was just a rally gone wrong, not an insurrection' talking point, as if a truckload of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers weren't already in jail for their part in an organised conspiracy to try to overturn the results of an election.
The multiple efforts to introduce fake electors and intimidate election officials, for which we are now learning the true extent of Trump's direct involvement, already constitute sedition. The riot at the Capitol is just the cherry on top.
The lower level courts generally have stricter ethics rules than the U.S. S.C., but it will vary a lot between states. I think the assumption with the S.C. was that the vetting process is so strict that any crooks would be weeded out along the way. Part of the problem is that S.C. justices receive an upper-middle-class income but socialize with extremely wealthy people. I think they just lose their bearings and don't understand how normal people perceive things. I doubt that Clarence Thomas ever made any explicit deal to favour any of his friends, it's just that his view of the world will have been badly skewed by hanging out with them and he probably doesn't have the faintest idea how skewed it is.
I doubt that Clarence Thomas ever made any explicit deal to favour any of his friends
Maybe maybe not, but like Brett Kavanaugh his appointment was almost derailed by accusations of sexual assault, I'd imagine some favours were probably called in in the very narrow vote that appointed him and his wife certainly has though, and like Thomas' owner, she's neck deep in ultra-conservative politics. These people aren't neutral, and make no attempt to hide their partisanship.
These people aren’t neutral, and make no attempt to hide their partisanship.
All judges in the U.S. are partisan in that they need to join a party in order to be elected or appointed. If you want to be appointed by a Democrat president, you need solid liberal credential. If you want to be appointed by a Republican, you need solid conservative credentials. That in itself doesn't make them crooked. I disagree with John Roberts on jurisprudence, but I think he's pretty honest, he genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing and isn't in it for money. I think that Clarence Thomas is a disgrace but I don't think he's making any deals or anything, he's just been trapped in a right-wing bubble for decades and doesn't realize how his behavior looks.
Merry christmas and all that from donny; the all caps truth social post from christmas eve is a real belter - a christmas cracker.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/26/politics/trump-christmas-rant/index.html
It very, very obviously is.
Oh well if some guy on the internet says it's a piece of piss I'll ignore the professors and academics of US constitutional law I heard on my incredibly boring and earnest law podcast then! lol
The SC. has to decide if presidents have absolute immunity (which is what Trump is claiming) or not. Also if Trump acted outside of his presidential responsibilities by trying to change the result of a free and fair election.
On point 1 - the constitution seems to be designed to avoid having kings or dictators in charge.
Point 2 seems hardly worth even discussing.
Judging by this current SC, who knows 🤦🏻♂️🤷♂️
The SC. has to decide if presidents have absolute immunity
If ex-presidents have immunity, why did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon and why did Nixon accept it?
If ex-presidents have immunity, why did Gerald Ford pardon Richard Nixon and why did Nixon accept it?
To avoid the SC getting involved and setting a precedent they may not have wanted.
Christ, this is sad. TBF, it's not Trump doing the scamming this time.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1741776296017805437
I looked at that article and then the ads for the trump bucks. It's not even well done and even though it says that there is no monetary value you can cash them in. It does tell you they are effectively worthless yet people still think they'll make millions.
yet people still think they’ll make millions.
cf: The Iraqi Dinar re-valuation scam and the NESARA conspiracy. Some folks are willing to suspend their disbelief if they think they're going to get rich quick, that many of them also appear to be MAGA/Trump supporters is entirely co-incidental...Probably
It's sad but logical, if I was going to do a low-effort super-obvious fraud then Trump fans are probably one of the best groups in history to target, you had to be easily fooled to even start down that route and by 2024 you've got really, really good at ignoring reality and believing in fairytales, so it's just one more. And the more cults the better- are you christian nationalist, gun nut, flat earther, lost cause of the confederacy, 9/11 truther, anti-vax? Fantastic, you are my perfect target audience for these million dollar jelly beans
the star!
It's quite a flippant headline - but - it's entirely right. We're facing our own election (coincidently a 3/4s of the world's democracies have general and presidential elections this year) and the the most pressing question we should be asking anyone who seeks to lead us is - what are you going to do the day Trump gets elected? And we should be asking that now and hearing answers now. The 6th of November is not the time to start thinking about it. All around the world people should be asking their leaders - 'what is our country's stance faced with that prospect?'
Could the Ukrainians bump him off and get away with it?
Could the Ukrainians bump him off and get away with it?
My money is on a Slovenian
If I was American I'd have voted for Trump both times, not because of any great love of Trump but because I think Clinton and Biden were both worse in their own way. It's going to be a sad a state of affairs if it ends up being Trump v Biden 2024. The most powerful country in the world and it's a choice between a failed businessman/reality TV star and an OAP who's lost his marbles.
Wishing the guy gets murdered seems a bit much, there's lots of people I dislike but I wouldn't wish them dead.
failed businessman/reality TV star and an OAP who’s lost his marbles.
What about Biden?
You may disagree with Trump but at least he still has his mental faculties, such as they are. Biden on the other hand should be in a home, the guy doesn't know what day of the week it is. I feel sorry for him.
If I was American I’d have voted for Trump both times, not because of any great love of Trump but because I think Clinton and Biden were both worse in their own way.<br /><br />
Biden has had a lifetime of public service in political office and understands how important the position of president is
Trump is a ****
Yeah….i can totally see where you’re coming from………
Biden on the other hand should be in a home, the guy doesn’t know what day of the week it is. I feel sorry for him.
I spend quite a lot of time in an home and I don't see as much spoon feeding as I'm reading in those two sentances.
You may disagree with Trump but at least he still has his mental faculties, such as they are.
He does? This is the person who boasted about passing a difficult mental test which turned out to be a basic dementia test.
The one advantage he has over Biden is Biden has some mental faculty to lose whereas Trump has been baselining for many years now.
Indeed he did, very stupid move. I'm not trying to defend everything Trump has ever done, we'd be here all day and I'd still lose.
Biden is clearly past it and I feel bad pointing out his mental degeneration but it's 100% a thing. He's not fit to hold any public office and definitely not pres. Go look at his many gaffs on youtube, it's endless.
He’s not fit to hold any public office and definitely not pres. Go look at his many gaffs on youtube, it’s endless.
uh huh vs the zero gaffes from Trump?
I do think Biden really should stand down but saying you would vote Trump is insane. He is an unfit lump of lard (can you imagine him riding a bike like Biden) whose mental faculties are below those of Biden.
I could sort of agree with someone choosing not to vote for either of them but saying you would vote for Trump because Biden has lost his marbles makes me think you have lost yours.
When I say gaffs I mean shaking hands with invisible people, getting lost leaving the stage, falling down stairs, talking about people long dead like they're still with us etc. I completely understand the dislike of Trump and while he might say stupid things he's at least still with it.
