Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121484299#Comment_121484299

Smith's case could be helped if the former president's lawyers turn up at the USSC hearing with their client, especially if he exercises his right to free speech to the media on the steps outside the court building. It'd be good if the judges had a live feed of Trump on the TV's in their chambers answering media questions about his spoken plans to be a dictator on being re-elected. They could be forced by Trump's free expression of his views to take another look at what a former president is currently being allowed get away with merely because he is a former president. A bit of verbal help [direct evidence] from judges serving in lower courts to their colleagues in the higher court could tip the balance toward balancing the political books in the US. Trump has reportedly said he will not be testifying in court in NY in respect to the case being heard there. I'd imagine his lawyers would be happy at that.

amandstu

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485279#Comment_121485279

No expert or even well enough informed but I would have thought even the Supreme Court would be constrained in their ruling by the particular issue they are presented with (and what might be immediately tangential)

I can't see what you are asking as fitting that criteria but I will buy you a beer if it is and they do

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485209#Comment_121485209

It'll basically go some way to test just how popular the Unitary Executive Theory is among the SC. It's not specifically what the judgement is about but that's what it'll boil down to - another test of the President's powers.

Of course a normal democracy might then try to add some retrospective guard rails to tighten up these ludicrous loopholes that might indeed allow a President-Dictator ... but American doesn't do Constitutional reform

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121485476#Comment_121485476

I'm assuming that the SC is keeping an eye on what Trump has been sprouting to his fanbase from the court steps and public events about his plans for the future, including singular leadership. If they refuse to recognize that he will take steps to brush aside any legal - including constitutional - restraints and obligations put on him if [and when] they get in his way when [and the conspiracy nutters in the GOP] he gets back into the Oval Office, the SC may rue it when they are "invited" to step aside or told the SC is surplus to his requirements. Given all that's gone on since 2020 with lawyers [incl the statement in the House "We are a nations of laws" by the man leading Trump's prosecution] Trump may well be sick up to his teeth with lawyers and the rule of law getting in his way. He has a lot of support for his position amongst the lawmakers in both houses, all for their own benefit of course at the moment.

evolvingtipperary101

This is very interesting

The mystery of the missing binder: How a collection of raw Russian intelligence disappeared under Trump - CNN

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121499016#Comment_121499016

It's in the Jack's cistern of Mar a lardo

Sam Russell

Or in Putin's safe.

ilkhanid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121493507#Comment_121493507

"Lawmakers" who increasingly have contempt for the law.

aloyisious

From the internet: Donald Trump disqualified from holding office again by Colorado Supreme Court.

Story by Kanishka Singh, Costas Pitas and Dan Whitcomb  • 

1h. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding office and is removed from the state's 2024 ballot over the 2021 US Capitol attack, a court filing showed.

The ruling makes Trump the first presidential candidate in US history to be deemed ineligible for the White House under a rarely used provision of the US Constitution that bars officials who have engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.

This, if it is a genuine report of a Colorado State Supreme Court decision, and is let stand after legal challenge in a superior appeal court, should excite the person most affected into a public response.

There is so much being published over the net from people determined to wreck the US election system with fake news stories [on the lines of Cambridge Analytics game-playing] all for the benefit of one candidate that their game [unfortunately] may be so close to success that I have doubted the truth of this Colorado Court decision report.

Reuters and US News agencies are covering the report.

aloyisious

To protect his assets, Rudy Giuliani has filed a petition for bankruptcy in US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, court documents showed. In the filing, Giuliani said he had between $100 million and $500 million in liabilities and $1 million to $10 million in assets.

Giuliani said he owed $148 million to Ruby Freeman and Wandrea Moss, the two former Georgia election workers.

The filing also listed President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, as a creditor, without specifying the amount Giuliani owed him. Hunter Biden in September sued Giuliani for violating his privacy over data allegedly taken from his laptop.

Giuliani listed the Internal Revenue Service and New York State Department of Taxation and finance among his creditors.

beggars_bush

We all knew it would end badly for Rudy once he got in with Trump

aloyisious

If Rudy does not get a miracle or a friend to help him out of his "sudden" bankruptcy and financial liquidity problems without legal complications, the value of his friendship with the last republican president will have to be recognized and accepted at more than face value. Trump will have some problem being the source of a hand-out to Rudy, given the interest prosecutors have in his financial interests and standings.

aloyisious

The USSC has turned down the Special Prosecutors plea to rule quickly on whether or not Trump can be prosecuted over election subversion. I don't know yet if this is a bonus for Trump or whether it was done [as a holding procedure] to delay on a decision on whether the Colorado State Supreme Court decision to order that Trump's name be removed from that state's ballot papers is valid to see if other states supreme courts make similar decisions to strike Trump's name off the ballot list.

One thing on my mind is that the USSC has apparently chosen [in recent decisions on matters involving Federal Govt - incl courts - decisions versus individual US States] to rule in favour of the individual states in order to protect the states rights from Federal Government interference in the right to decide on some issues for themselves. It could be good if the balance of power was given back to the states courts for any decision on the inclusion, or deletion, of Trump's name on individual states ballot papers where his active role in the Capitol insurrection is concerned on constitutional grounds, giving further protection to the states from overbearing federal courts interference. Trump has been railing for the individual states to have the right to make more decisions in their own courts where their citizens rights are concerned to protect them from Federal Govt interference and he may have hooked himself by error.

HalloweenJack

He (and the Republicans) won't be bothered one bit by the irony. Its just another example of Republican hypocrisy:

Restricting access to abortions for all while paying for abortions in your personal life.

Banging on about cancel culture and freedom of speech while banning books.

Decrying homosexual behaviour while secretly engaging in homosexual behaviour.

Championing states' rights while also shutting them down.

Whenever it comes to something involving themselves, it is never about any standing up for the general principles that they espouse and wish to apply to society. It is always about what position benefits them most on a case-by-case basis.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121528458#Comment_121528458

Maybe it was also as simple a case as the SC trying not to get involved with anything Trump related? Through the convenience of shunting stuff back to "states rights". They may be Trump appointees but they're about the only Republicans who can avoid the glare of MAGA's extremism. If they ruled on this, and perhaps one can speculate they'd have to agree Trump was liable for prosecution all things considered(?), then that would surely have resulted in Trump impersonating Donald Sutherland from Invasion of the Body Snatchers, screaming "disloyal" and his gaggle of cult members following suit.

Kavanaugh et al have the cushiest number in the federal government - a job for life - and as long as they stay small c conservative - Roe v Wade notwithstanding - they can stay outta the game of politics.

aloyisious

It would be good for other state supreme courts to rule against Trump being on the ballot in their states and publishing their opinions leading to said decisions ASAP, to accentuate that the reasoning behind their decisions were based on HOME STATE law and not favouritism or party affiliation. Hopefully Colorado state's supreme court will publish the opinion-piece behind it's decision.

Not withstanding the USSC decision to deny the prosecutors request for the rapid hearing, I suspect Trump would have liked the issue of his culpability of insurrection to be heard fast and denied fast in his favour instead of having it hanging around toward election time so he could trumpet more of his fake news lies about being the victim of a witch-hunt.

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121528909#Comment_121528909

I disagree on the second part; Trump's plan has always been to delay things for as long as possible to become president again and tell the DOJ leader he puts in place to drop the case against him. In addition as long as the case keep rolling he can keep gaslight his followers to give him more money "for his defence" as well as harden up the general voting base as it's all a witch hunt. A quick decision (esp. if ruled against him) would ruin that; now he gets his NY trial delayed (most likely) further. As for the SC; they simply want to delay as long as possible to have to deal with anything more controversial as their standings is at it's lowest already and no matter their ruling they would be cursed out.

spacecoyote

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529171#Comment_121529171

Yes, I agree. He doesn't want a fast ruling, he wants it delayed as long as possible.

He'll push for delays, then say, its am election year, so needs to be delayed till after the election. If he wins, everything's out the window, if he loses, I'd guess some of the cases may be beyond statute of limitations by 2025?

aloyisious

Original post deleted and transferred in a dual-reply to Nody and Spacecoyote.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121529171#Comment_121529171

If the USSC has not heard Trumps case against the different state SC's which [may] decide to delete him from the election ballot papers, then theoretically he would be likely to invite his followers to again rise on his part to overturn the next election result as he would be the runner-up, on the basis that the other candidate would have been on the ballot papers in all the states.

That election result would probably force the hand of the USSC to rule on the validity of the election result [and the validity of the amendment's use in it] because the loser was denied an equal chance in the election in order for it [the USSC] to make a stand with the constitution and what it [the USSC] holds to be true [inclusive of - implicitly - the insurrection amendment].

If the USSC still declined to hear any appeal from the loser on the use of the amendment, then it would have de facto, and even de jure, sided against his appeal.

@spacecoyote: Where it comes to some cases being statute barred [if they are directly related to the election and not state or civil claim law suits against him] he'll probably do his nut about the USSC being disloyal to him, a 2nd-time sore loser.

Itssoeasy

So rudys got the set now. He’s financially bankrupt to go along with being morally bankrupt for years.

aloyisious

Following on from the Colorado State Supreme Court decision to overturn a lower district court judge decision who found that Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, but had said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause was intended to cover the presidency.

The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine that the framers of the amendment, fearful of former confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land.

The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.

The above information is contained in an AP report on incidents involving the SC judges after they made their ruling. DENVER (AP) — Police said Tuesday they are investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and providing extra patrols around their homes in Denver following the court's decision to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's presidential primary ballot.

aloyisious

Michigan State Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit against Trump's name been on that state's election ballot and ruled to uphold a lower state ruling that Trump's name can stay on that State's election ballot papers. Michigan's courts took a hearing over the 14th amendment being directly related to Trump's action/s on the 6th Jan 2020 where the actions of the insurrectionist rally called together in Washington DC on his say-so and his behalf directly impacted [as US legal people say] 0n the presidential election recorded result.

Seemingly, according to the following news media report, both Colorado and Michigan State Supreme courts heard their respective cases on the same grounds but both courts came to different understanding and rulings on the same issue.

Check out the reporting in/from the following media source for details on the above ruling..... https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8364889153f588e0JmltdHM9MTcwMzYzNTIwMCZpZ3VpZD0wYjkyYjAwZC1mOGE4LTY4ZDktMzIxOC1hM2I3ZjllNTY5YzMmaW5zaWQ9NTQ3OA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=0b92b00d-f8a8-68d9-3218-a3b7f9e569c3&psq=Has+Michigan+state+supreme+court+ruled+against+Trump&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGhlZ3VhcmRpYW4uY29tL3VzLW5ld3MvMjAyMy9kZWMvMjcvZG9uYWxkLXRydW1wLW1pY2hpZ2FuLWJhbGxvdC1zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LWRlY2lzaW9u&ntb=1

beggars_bush

Trump won't be winning Maine in the next election

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121546147#Comment_121546147

I'm assuming that Trumps legal team will be asking Maine's State SC to overturn Maine's Sec State's decision to order the removal of his name from the state's list of candidates on the same basis as in the other state's: that the USSC has not ruled on the legal constitutionality of the Insurrectionist amendment barring people from standing for public office elections by deciding if [or if not] the presidency is withing the range of public offices liable to be denied to insurrectionists.

IMO, it's brave for Maine's Sec State to take a forward position in removing Trump from the list of people legally allowed to run for election in Maine to public office without going through that state's court system [unless she took legal advice and legal sounding from within that state's legal system]. Fair play to her for standing up to a man who would tear down the house again if he regained the office of the presidency.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121546147#Comment_121546147

He won Maine's second congressional district and one electoral college vote in 2016 and 2020.

aloyisious

In a manner which could be relevant to the GOP and Trump and their desire for him to stand for public office, given what happened to police officers on the 06th of Jan 2020, North Dakota GOP leaders have urged a GOP lawmaker [Nico Rios] from ND's state house to resign after he lost the head when stopped by Police for failing to keep in lane while driving. He refused to take a breath-test and went on a bigoted homophobic rant at the officers. His behaviour was caught and recorded on the officers body cameras. Mr Rios apologised later saying he was deeply embarrassed by his behaviour.

But his apology hasn’t deterred North Dakota House majority leader Mike Lefor from leading calls for Rios to resign on Tuesday (26 December). 

“There is no room in the legislature, or our party, for this behaviour,” Lefor said, according to the Associated Press.

“I understand people make mistakes, but his comments and defiance to law enforcement are beyond the pale. In addition, any lawmaker attempting to use his or her elected position to threaten anyone or skirt the law is completely unacceptable.”

aloyisious

Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen [according to a response he made to Judge Furman questions about a motion he and his lawyer made to the judge to end his supervision by the court] in Manhattan Federal court told the judge that he didn't know the case citations he researched online through Google Bard were AI computer generated and did not exist in law or in fact. Mr Cohen gave the research he got online to his own lawyer to help the case that lawyer presented to Judge Furman not realising it was fake.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121549037#Comment_121549037

The very best people.

aloyisious

It's probably electoral hope moves that the other two lesser leading candidates to Trump for the GOP candidacy slot have said that, if elected, they would pardon him [of any federal charges]. DeSantis and Haley have both signalled they would grant clemency to the former president because it would be in the nation’s “interest” to do so.

“A leader needs to think about what’s in the best interest of the country,” Ms Haley said in New Hampshire on Thursday. “What’s in the best interest of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail, that continues to divide our country. What’s in the best interest of our country is to pardon him so that we can move on as a country and no longer talk about him.”

The next day in Iowa, Mr DeSantis said: “We got to move on as a country”. “Like Ford did to Nixon, because the divisions are just not in the country’s interest,” said the Florida governor, referencing Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon.

I get a sense that both DeSantis and Haley are playing to "wavering" Trump voters in GOP land with their statements hoping to draw those voters into their folds while "offering" an olive-leaf branch to Trump's section of the GOP, maybe hoping that section might get him to change his mind on a run for office again. They would of course have to be genuine in their offers to give Trump clemency if elected in order to get the Trump-fans in office on the hill to stay peaceful after election. The problem for them is Trump being unlikely to agree to such a deal if people would no longer talk about him, just forget about him as an office-holder.