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

In this article, Stephen Collinson wrote that high prices caused by the pandemic have a greater resonance with most voters than the matter of democracy.

This might sound unusual but, as it's from Trump's side it's possibly not. Trump's legal team have asked Judge Chutkan to hold Jack Smith in contempt of court after the special prosecutor [in their opinion] took steps to advance the case against Trump after a judge put the case on hold. The steps taken by Smith was the handing over to the defence thousands of pages of evidence and an exhibit list while the case was on pause. They claim Smith also filed a motion a week later after the handover of the evidence to them which “teems with partisan rhetoric" and “false claims.”.

I don't know whether they had originally asked for the handover of the prosecutors evidence and list from Smith in Judge Chutkan's court [as I understand is normal for the defence and the prosecution sides in cases] or were told by Smith in court conversations that he would do so. If they were aware, smoke is getting in peoples eyes.

The case involved seems to be the one where Smith was investigating Trump in respect to interference with the real 2020 election result so Trump could falsely claim to be the person elected to the presidency.

Hung by their won petard, and rightfully so.

If Trump does get elected again [supposing that the USSC decides that section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't apply to election-candidates to the office of the presidency - which in itself leaves the door open to any serving president to rebel directly and forcefully against the constitution and the US itself, knowing they can run again should they behave the way that Trump did], I expect most if not all of those sentenced to jail over their part in the Insurrection bid would expect to be pardoned by Trump.

It would certainly mean that those freed from prison would be able to seek election themselves to the presidency - something that should be impressed on the USSC [and on those GOP seated in Washington friendly with those on the USSC] - before it decides on the election issue, whether or not the freedom from prison was down to a pardon or completion of prison sentence.

If he did - on legal advice -pardon those convicted and/or on trial, I would not like to have been on the bench, prosecution or jury panel at any of the insurrectionists trials. If he didn't pardon them, presumably it would rebound on him for declining any clemency requests from those believers. IMO, it would certainly be a major error of judgement to do so to those in/of the GOP who supported him on the hill on 06/01/2020, and at all other times since then. I wouldn't like to be the Trump AG of the day.

They could take a page from Trump's rulebook and tell the USSC all manner of invented "facts" including what he plans to do with the USSC as a fixture when re-elected.

Something I had asked myself was the where-abouts of the USSC building in Washington. According to the net, it's located just one block from the Capitol Building in Washington. I don't know what body provides its security. I presume the judges there took due recognition of what actually happened so near their work-building in 2020.

If that is accepted to be legally correct: He was tried for insurrection according to the constitution, found guilty in the house of Congress and let off in the Senate on a "loophole" basis that he was no longer the sitting president [an acceptance by the Upper House that he had lost the election] then maybe the USSC could use the houses votes to declare that he had been recognized by both houses to be an insurrectionist.

That being the cold hard fact, it could give the USSC the opportunity to say that both houses of congress had decided that Trump was an insurrectionist on the 06/01/2020 in line with the constitution and federal law, that there would be no need for a rehash of his impeachment trial [a double jeopardy] and the Colorado court merely recognized the fact that Trump had been found against in what counted as a constitutional court [both upper and lower houses in congress] in line with federal law.

The nub of the issue is the fact that Trump refuses to accept that he should as liable to the rule of US law as every other US citizen merely because it doesn't fit his personal opinion. He has had his day in court over his voluntary acts and deeds linked to the insurrection which he fomented for his personal benefit, not for the benefit of the constitution and other US citizens.

One other thing the USSC could discover is find that it did not, due to conflicting links to Trump or pre-existing commitments, have sufficient members to get a quorum to sit and decide if the Colorado court decision tallied with and was lawful within the wording and meaning of Section 3 of the 14 amendment, leaving the issue unresolved until some date in the future. 2030 sounds a nice round figure.

Edit: Hopefully the USSC could also provide a judgement [with or without request] on whether the office of the presidency is a public office and falls within the remit of section 3, amendment 14.

USSC doesn't hear evidence, it's rules on matters of law and the interpretation of it

Three sitting presidents have been impeached. None have been convicted.

Fair enough, he wasn't convicted in the senate on the charge brought in the impeachment proceeding in the house. An actual decision by vote in the senate that he was not guilty of that charge would have been more valuable to Trump than a failure to provide either a guilty or a not guilty verdict.

The rights of the individual states to make their own decisions on whom to allow on their own ballot papers is a valuable right worth defending. Jay unfortunately missed the bus to stake his claim BEFORE the USSC decided to hear the suit placed by Trumps legal team on those of other states.

His decision to use a probable USSC ruling on the prior moves of other states to take Trump off their ballot paper seems risky, as Trump is the sole candidate named as an Insurrectionist intent on depriving congress of the lawful acceptance of the documents certifying the actual vote result of the US voters. His statement made it clear that he intends to use the USSC ruling on the removal of Trump's name from Colorado's ballot list ONLY IF the USSC agreed that Colorado's decision is legal and set what he described as a new standard. It seems that Jay is more interested in protesting a possible USSC ruling against Trump, not actually having as a motive the protection of the individual states rights to decide who's name goes on the ballots.

The SC are originalists. When it suits them.

Trump is playing the "patriot" card in Iowa, claiming the real insurrection is here and now down at the border where other governments have emptied their prisons and lunatic asylums and sent the inmates to the border while the people he had at his 2020 rally were patriotic and peaceful - peaceful and patriotic, tried and jailed in the US, were now hostages.

Mr Trump said in Iowa: “When you talk about insurrection, what they’re doing, that’s the real deal. That’s the real deal. Not patriotically and peacefully — peacefully and patriotically.” The mention of peaceful and patriotic is apparently from his speech to his 06/01/2020 rally before the peaceful rally stormed the Capitol building.

It doesn't really take a genius to see why he's using the word hostages to describe his jailed insurrectionist followers or where he lifted it from, nor at whom, beside Trump supporters, his remarks were aimed at.