The states better start doing their job and piling up their cases to ban Trump out of their ballots.
Donald Trump The First - Indicted The Fourth
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Another good video of Brian Tyler Cohen and Glenn Kirschner explaining today's decision by the appellate court in the new episode of The Legal Breakdown.
I had to check if this is real, and it is. This is kind of amazing, because it clearly shows that Trump is bought and paid for, and couldn't give a crap about the woke agenda. There's just no way that this wasn't partly written by Anheuser-Busch after they donated to his campaign.
Wonder how much that cost Anheuser-Busch. The fact it's correct in his tweet shows that someone else wrote it 
And ironically, now makes me want to boycott their beer (if I drank it in the first place).Wonder how much that cost Anheuser-Busch. The fact it's correct in his tweet shows that someone else wrote it
Truth for hire. MAGA.
I had to check if this is real, and it is. This is kind of amazing, because it clearly shows that Trump is bought and paid for, and couldn't give a crap about the woke agenda. There's just no way that this wasn't partly written by Anheuser-Busch after they donated to his campaign.
All that's missing is a "post something like..."
I had to check if this is real, and it is. This is kind of amazing, because it clearly shows that Trump is bought and paid for, and couldn't give a crap about the woke agenda. There's just no way that this wasn't partly written by Anheuser-Busch after they donated to his campaign.
Trump's motions for a mistrial have been denied in the E. Jean Carroll case by a federal judge.
This fecking guy...
I think the IRS should send special agents at Trump's banks and then just wire the money straight to Carroll's bank accounts just to end this saga once and for all. No need to wait for him to do it on his own accord (which he never will).
Quite the constitutional & political case, perhaps one of the most important in our history…
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If the Supreme court overrules it, I hope some 21-year-old runs for president, since the rules in the constitution no longer matter.
I reckon they've written most of it, it's fairly coherent and not in all caps.
I had to check if this is real, and it is. This is kind of amazing, because it clearly shows that Trump is bought and paid for, and couldn't give a crap about the woke agenda. There's just no way that this wasn't partly written by Anheuser-Busch after they donated to his campaign.
listening to this and it's not looking good. The conservative justices are taking a completely antagonistic slant to their questioning of the CO attorney. Compared to the amiable mood to Trumps lawyer it is shocking.
How will his base react to it though? So many idiots posting insta/tik tok and Twitter videos of them shooting bud light packs with their guns. But will they be smart enough to work out Trump is just on the grift again?
Did Anheuser-Busch donate to Trump previously? Or is this just a move by executives to get the MAGA crowd back onside so they start buying Bud Light again?
Don't do it yourself. They're die-hard states rights until they're not. Die-hard originalists until they're not.
The decision is already made, they're not 'allowed' to do anything but let him run. I guarantee it's all been sorted. I actually feel some sympathy to Roberts, who will have overseen the end of the court's legitimacy.
This was never supposed to actually be successful. Even lib legal pundits have said it could end up 7-0 against.
Yeah I haven't heard any pundits who thought this would be successful.
I didn't think so either, but it is the naked antagonism that has been shocking. I actually agree that is should fail as the follow up to this SC signing off on a single state controlling ballot access for insurrection would cause chaos.
I think the case is fairly complicated to be honest.
- Can presidents even be excluded?
- Can a president be guilty of insurrection?
- If a president is guilty of insurrection, how is that determined?
- Can a president who was not impeached be considered guilty without a criminal conviction?
- If it is determined he is guilty, does that mean the president could be excluded under section 3?
- Can states even invoke the 14th amendment?
- It's not clear whether or not states themselves can invoke the 14th amendment without federal involvement.
- If they can, how freely can they do so?
- If they are free to do so whenever they want to, what is the burden of proof?
- What precedent does it set? Does this allow states to invoke the 14th amendment against anyone without any reasonable mechanism?
- Does Trump even meet the criteria?
- Trump has not been convicted of anything
- He avoided impeachment through a technicality, but some of the comments made by senators at the time may be used to argue he qualifies, is that enough?
- Can you justify removing a candidate who has support from 70% of the republican party without a 2/3s majority in congress?
- If you can argue that he does qualify, how long should congress be given to have a vote to be reinstated?
- Is it reasonable to remove Trump from the ballot on the say-so of academics and state-officials?
- What precedent would it set?
- Will states be allowed to exclude presidential candidates simply on the determination of state-officials?
- What would this mean for other clauses that are unclear on the mechanism of guilt?
- What would a ruling mean for impeachment? He was technically aquitted for insurrection, albeit on a technicality.
- Trump is currently indicted for a number of crimes connected to Jan.6th. If the SC determines he's guilty of insurrection, what does that mean for his other indictments?
Last edited:
The correct avenue for this was always the Impeachment process in Congress. Trump should have been Impeached. And THEN he would be barred automatically. So I get the frustration that lead to Colorado making the action on a state basis. But, it should be voted down.
GOP controlled states would easily do tit for tat removal of a Democrat. We have seen this with the sham Biden impeachment inquiries. They don't even bother with "evidence".
GOP controlled states would easily do tit for tat removal of a Democrat. We have seen this with the sham Biden impeachment inquiries. They don't even bother with "evidence".
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is exactly why I wouldnt debate him if I was Biden. There is 0 benefit. And all the positives go to him getting more conspiracies and more nonsense out on the airwaves.
I disagree. He has to show he isn't weak, old and incapable of dealing with someone like Trump. He needs to show he's still Scranton Joe, and that Trump can't cope with him. If Trump becomes the nominee, it is in the best interest of Biden to debate him. Trump doesn't tend to do very well against Biden, because Biden actually fights back. With all the criminal charges, the Jean E Carrol case and the dozen different issues with his businesses, Joe Biden has a dozen things he can beat him up on. Trump is bound to get himself into trouble if he debates Biden - if anything there's no upside for Trump.
Trump was impeached, twice in fact, but that is the first part of the process, to be removed requires 2/3rds of the Senate to convict and that was never going to happen for reasons that had nothing to do with guilt
Personally I wouldn't wager on it.
Yea, Trump is the perfect logical antithesis against such charges.
If Biden's cognitive decline is a problem, the he should welcome Trump not wanting to debate him. In such a scenario, Trump would be the one actually wanting a debate.
Agree. And Trump won’t really have a leg to stand on, since he skipped the GOP debates when it didn’t suit him. Of course, they are going to spin that it’s different in the general and so on, but it will sound hollow.
He does not have to show that at all. Said it before but if you are inclined to vote for Trump that will not change. The only thing that can change in Biden's favor is voter enthusiasm which would mean voter turnout which is going to be what gets him re elected. He would be better served directly talking to voters in some format Town Halls, whatever than letting Trump ramble on prime time in the guise of "debate".
I guess I don't fundamentally understand what anyone wanting a debate would be looking for. Trump is a fraud, he is unintelligent, he has no actual policy of his own. We know he will lie, we know he will push conspiracy.
What can Biden "get him" on? No matter what happens, right wing media is going to say Trump won, the moderators are on Biden's side blah blah. If by get him you mean make him say something or disparage Carroll again thus earning another multi million dollar lawsuit by her. Sure I can see that maybe.
I get personally wanting to see the "spectacle" maybe. But, we all have had friends and family etc and co workers who are just so locked into their position. Especially if they are MAGA like some of my co workers. You cannot reason with them. You cannot present "evidence and facts" and show them they are wrong. Same as Trump. If he stands there and says I am the legitimate President you were falsely handed the White House to Biden. There is nothing that Biden can say or do to "debate" that.
You think there aren't sizeable chunks of the US electorate who are thinking exactly that
All of that is correct, but Biden needs to shed the fumbling old man image. A debate is the most effective way to do that. Not because Trump is a better alternative or because a debate will get into policy differences, or because sensible people need to be convinced, but because it gets the most coverage and traction. He needs to shed that image, because that is his number one issue with voter turnout. They are both too old, but only one of them wants to be a dictator, so it shouldn't be a very difficult choice - but apparently it is for some people.
The question of course, is if he can actually be vibrant and on point enough to do that.
This is logical and you have a point. However, in practice, I don't see any advantage of a debate. It will not get Biden any more votes. Sure, it will generate "clicks" and make some noise. But more votes? I don't think so.
Trumpism is a religion. Those who believe in Trump, will vote for Trump. After all that has happened in the past 8 years, I don't think that any "independent" voter does not know what Trump is and what he represents. Everyone who doesn't want four more years of Trump will vote for Biden, there is no other choice. It doesn't matter how old Biden is, or what his health is, or what his cognitive abilities are. I'd vote for a tree to avoid four more years of Trump.
This November, the choices are two: Trump, or Not-Trump.
I think there'll be a lot of abstaining going on unfortunately. Hopefully it won't be too much and Biden gets over the line
A debate between Biden and Trump is highly unlikely, and not precisely because of Biden.
More abstaining than in other elections? I don't know, it could be.
But my point is that the people who don't really mind having Trump as their president, will not be convinced to go out and vote just because Biden was coherent in a debate. Biden is not going to get any more votes because of a debate. In these elections, people will vote for Trump, or against Trump. The main issue is Trump, everything else is not really important, not even Biden himself. It is Trump's last chance to become president again. This is actually a referendum: YES or NO to Trump?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How long do we have to wait until the Supreme Court decides?