The Trump Cesspool Thread- a place to drop misc Trump turds

GermanSuplex said:
In what way? Seems like he's doing better, he's getting ready to secure another plea from Trump's head book cooker.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to go after Trump for his illegal offenses, but do it while being black and you see Republicans losing their minds.
 
Apparently, Judge Engoron is being very careful as to how he handles this case, doing his level best to choke off as many avenues for appeal as possible.

BB1hShLh.img
 
Eric said:
Yeah but the SCOTUS is stacked with his people and have little doubt that they'll decide the 14th amendment does not apply to him and states will be forced to keep him on the ballot. Not that I think he'll win anyway but that court is heavily compromised and will pave the way out for any challenges that may come his way.
Click to expand...

I dunno. The plan was to stack the court with conservative anti-abortion justices, not pro-Trump fanatics. While it's almost a guarantee that Thomas, and maybe Alito, will side with Trump, the rest are pretty much up in the air.

My prediction is that they're going to find some way to make some wishy washy decision that doesn't hamper Trump's campaign in any way, yet still keeps the question of of whether the states can determine who does or doesn't belong on their ballots entirely open for future legislation.
 
GermanSuplex said:
In what way? Seems like he's doing better, he's getting ready to secure another plea from Trump's head book cooker.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Trump, but he has pissed off a lot of people by releasing the illegal immigrants who assaulted the cops without bail (you know, one of the ones who flipped off the cameras as he was walking out of jail). This guy:

1707335185439.png





The people and police unions (can't be an effective DA if the police unions hate you) are putting pressure on the Governor to remove him. She is pissed so we will see. She has a meeting with him on Friday to discuss his soft on crime policies. And since they were recently arrested in Phoenix, Bragg will be under more pressure to prosecute them since it is obvious they left the jurisdiction while out on bail.

Similar situation to Willis in that if he is removed, it will be up to a different prosecutor to proceed or not.
 
Herdfan said:
Nothing to do with Trump, but he has pissed off a lot of people by releasing the illegal immigrants who assaulted the cops without bail (you know, one of the ones who flipped off the cameras as he was walking out of jail). This guy:

View attachment 28279




The people and police unions (can't be an effective DA if the police unions hate you) are putting pressure on the Governor to remove him. She is pissed so we will see. She has a meeting with him on Friday to discuss his soft on crime policies. And since they were recently arrested in Phoenix, Bragg will be under more pressure to prosecute them since it is obvious they left the jurisdiction while out on bail.

Similar situation to Willis in that if he is removed, it will be up to a different prosecutor to proceed or not.
Click to expand...

Ok, valid complaints... but I think you're putting the cart way before the horse. Any prosecutor who walks in to replace either Bragg or Willis (and you guys are taking a story, assuming the worst and then plotting based on that) will be under scrutiny for other things, including whether or not they continue the Trump case(s).

What if a judge finds Willis and her prosecutor's relationship has no bearing on anything? The relationship isn't even the issue, its a vague accusation of misappropriated funds or embezzlement.

This is what Trump wants - muddy the waters, so he can shit in them undetected. It's not going to work. Two things can be true - Bragg may not be handling one thing well, but it does not have a bearing on his case against Trump. Is the gist of this "Why prosecute poor little old Trump when cops are being beat?"

That's a white collar criminal refrain, one Trump has used many times himself.
 
AG_PhamD said:
It definitely seems like we’re barreling to some sort of constitutional crisis.

I think the founders assumed a President who committed a violation of law would be impeached and removed from office, thus barring him/her from ever holding office again.

I’m not sure why there would be any expectation that crimes committed while being president could not be later prosecuted. If an ex-President is immune, why did Ford pardon Nixon? In fact come to find out decades later Nixon had been indicted with 4 criminal charges by a grand jury.

Although Trump does have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, I don’t believe they will disgrace themselves by providing favorable rulings to Trump specifically just to see him elected. Whatever you think of their ideologies I don’t think any justice is that dishonorable to sacrifice their reputation and legacy being a Trump sycophant. I would expect these justices well understand their rulings have effects long after Trump.

As someone who believes in the fair application of the law and importance of maintaining individuals rights, I don’t think you should be able to ban a candidate from an election based on the *accusation* of a crime (ie insurrection) without a trial and right of the accused having the ability to defend himself. I don’t want to see another term of Trump, but really don’t want to see this kangaroo court nonsense legitimized, starting a terrible precedent (that unfortunately may already be upon us).

Meanwhile Trump proves himself to be the luckiest man ever with this whole Fanni Willis scandal in GA. The GA case seems to be one of the most serious cases against him- and it seems because Willis is a corrupt DA who can’t help having an affair with her prosecutor, Trumps case will undoubtedly be delayed until after the election. This may be for the best in terms of avoiding a constitutional crisis, but a second Trump term will likely induce a crisis of its own.
Click to expand...


Sincere question as you seem to be somebody who would rather Trump go away but are also fine if he wins the election, what's your best-case scenario if he does win? What do you hope he accomplishes? Is there anything you predict he will do (or attempt) that you wish he wouldn't?
 
AG_PhamD said:
It definitely seems like we’re barreling to some sort of constitutional crisis.

I think the founders assumed a President who committed a violation of law would be impeached and removed from office, thus barring him/her from ever holding office again.

I’m not sure why there would be any expectation that crimes committed while being president could not be later prosecuted. If an ex-President is immune, why did Ford pardon Nixon? In fact come to find out decades later Nixon had been indicted with 4 criminal charges by a grand jury.

Although Trump does have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, I don’t believe they will disgrace themselves by providing favorable rulings to Trump specifically just to see him elected. Whatever you think of their ideologies I don’t think any justice is that dishonorable to sacrifice their reputation and legacy being a Trump sycophant. I would expect these justices well understand their rulings have effects long after Trump.

As someone who believes in the fair application of the law and importance of maintaining individuals rights, I don’t think you should be able to ban a candidate from an election based on the *accusation* of a crime (ie insurrection) without a trial and right of the accused having the ability to defend himself. I don’t want to see another term of Trump, but really don’t want to see this kangaroo court nonsense legitimized, starting a terrible precedent (that unfortunately may already be upon us).

Meanwhile Trump proves himself to be the luckiest man ever with this whole Fanni Willis scandal in GA. The GA case seems to be one of the most serious cases against him- and it seems because Willis is a corrupt DA who can’t help having an affair with her prosecutor, Trumps case will undoubtedly be delayed until after the election. This may be for the best in terms of avoiding a constitutional crisis, but a second Trump term will likely induce a crisis of its own.
Click to expand...
Kangaroo court? Section 3 of the 14th amendment's third section is clear in saying someone who "(has) engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" shall hold office. Anyone who paid attention to the January 6th Committee hearings, read the opinion of Colorado's Supreme Court, or perused the decision of the Court of Appeals would recognize this represents far more than an idle "accusation."
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Sincere question as you seem to be somebody who would rather Trump go away but are also fine if he wins the election, what's your best-case scenario if he does win? What do you hope he accomplishes? Is there anything you predict he will do (or attempt) that you wish he wouldn't?
Click to expand...

If he wins, we’ll be here debating if a octogenarian raping his daughter in the Oval Office is a part of his presidential duties, whether or not non-whites are protected under the constitution, and we’ll have a ceremonial-only “election” as he runs for a third term. Secretary of State “Sloppy” Steve Bannon will form a new UN with Russia and North Korea.

You can say that sounds insane, but it’s way closer to what’s going on now than the stuff that’s currently happening would have been viewed in 2016.

Can you imagine another half-decade of this escalating madness (or longer if Trump isn’t crowned Supreme Leader)?

Anyone both-siding these issues are missing the planet for the oranges.
 
Roller said:
Kangaroo court? Section 3 of the 14th amendment's third section is clear in saying someone who "(has) engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" shall hold office. Anyone who paid attention to the January 6th Committee hearings, read the opinion of Colorado's Supreme Court, or perused the decision of the Court of Appeals would recognize this represents far more than an idle "accusation."
Click to expand...

Lets
Over-Analyze
Gasbag’s
Insane
Cases

Logic is an acronym in MAGA world. I think he absolutely should be barred from the ballot, and I would only be willing to grant him a pass because he’s the first kind of criminal we’ve had of this sort, at this level, and I do think the obvious question is “how do we determine exactly what is insurrection, how we determine someone is guilty of it, and who gets to decided?”. Basically, I’m willing to grant him a luck pass, not out of mercy or even in the name of democracy, but the rule of law should be clear, and sometimes bizarre cases serve to set future precedent, even if it means an obvious criminal gets off on a technicality.

Basically, he should be banned or this thing needs to not be waved off the by the Supreme Court, but decided in full with some sort of decision on whether Trump engaged in insurrection. If they ban him, they’ll have a reason. But if not, they should clarify how it is determined one engaged in insurrection, and how states can determine to remove someone for that reason. Either way, we need a substantial answer, not kicking the can down the road, which will solve nothing and probably make things worse.
 
Yoused said:
There really is no scandal to be found there. The CFSG team is furiously flapping around like a cornered fish.
Click to expand...

CFSG?

The purpose of a special prosecutor to avoid a conflict of interest between the government and the defendant, therefore an independent counsel is chosen with the expectation of integrity and impartiality. When the DA is schtupping the special prosecutor, it’s easy to see how impartiality could easily become an issue. It doesn’t help this guy Wade had reportedly was not a prominent lawyer and had no experience in the relevant area of law. One of the other special prosecutors, reportedly the state’s foremost RICO experts, was apparently paid $100 less per hour than Wade during the same period.

Frankly, I think the financial aspect of this is the least relevant, though the pay discrepancy is a bit of a red flag. Wade claims his normal rate is $550/hr. One could argue however if the relationship pre-dated his hiring, Willis is providing an opportunity to become famous by winning the case.

Willis had been previously booted from prosecuting one of the fake electors who is now Lt. Gov because she ran a fundraiser for his gubernatorial election opponent while the guy’s case was before a grand jury. That’s some extremely poor judgement.

Now with Trump’s case, the problem for the court is that Willis, regardless of whether or not Wade was overpaid, chosen for the wrong reasons, or can be impartial has created the optics of impropriety and conflict of interest. Given the high profile and controversial nature of the case it is essential that it is handled perfectly every step of the way. If you ask me the actions of these two has tainted their credibility.

Willis accusing the effort to disqualify her was rooted in racism doesn’t help. Clearly she knows this is what defense lawyers do- drudge up COI’s to derail the case before it begins. Pulling the race card seems awfully vindictive.

Nonsense like this diminishes the credibility of the court and the legitimacy of the charges.

I believe Trump should will be prosecuted for these charges regardless of Willis and Wade. But now the judge has to hold hearings on whether or not they need to be removed- which delays the case which is already on an unrealistic schedule before the election. And if they are removed from the case, the case may not even start before the election as new special prosecutors will have to be retained.
Roller said:
Kangaroo court? Section 3 of the 14th amendment's third section is clear in saying someone who "(has) engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" shall hold office. Anyone who paid attention to the January 6th Committee hearings, read the opinion of Colorado's Supreme Court, or perused the decision of the Court of Appeals would recognize this represents far more than an idle "accusation."
Click to expand...

You do realize if you’re that the Jan 6th committee and CO committees hearings did not provide Trump any opportunity to defend his case. I’m not even disputing their conclusions- I think it’s more than likely he met the criteria. But these proceedings did not allow Trump to pose a defense to charges levied. You’re smart enough to know that is the very definition of a kangaroo court, even if their conclusion is ultimately correct. But how can we know that when we’re dealing with a legal situation that has no precedent and has not been relevant since the civil warn )in a very different context).

There is an expectation of due process in this country, and certainly when it involves one’s right to run for office, one of the most important rights we have. If the state is going to permanently revoke such a fundamental right, there damn well be a fair legal process involved. Or has the right to a defense also been arbitrarily suspended too? It’s a very dangerous precedent to set- especially when a situation like this has never occurred before in our history. It’s just asking to for the same practice to be misused in use the future and not necessarily in your interests.

And why stop with Trump? Perhaps every elected official that failed to impeach Trump and/or those who supported his election fraud hoax should be arbitrarily regarded as insurrectionists as well.

It seems reasonable that to implement legal consequences for insurrection, one must be justly tried and found guilty first. The closest thing to a trial was the impeachment which was unfortunately unsuccessful, but they never even charged trump with insurrection? Why not- genuinely curious.

You know, this is a perfect example of the ends justifying the means. The same misguided way of thinking that brought about Jan 6th.

Again, I think Trump almost definitely could be found guilty of insurrection amongst a host of other crimes worthy of disqualification using a process that aligns with our tradition of due process. Maybe state election boards and prosecutors shouldn’t have waited 3 years to start addressing these cases.

Thay said, if Trump can magically dodge these cases long enough and gets elected, it’s frankly terrifying to think what he’ll try to do to seek out retribution against his political rivals. And hypothetically in 2028, is he going to give up power in a smooth transition (unless to Don Jr. Maybe)? Part of me doesn’t see how that is possible.
 
Last edited:
I have an idea of what I’d like to see… the Supreme Court rule against Trump and keep him off the ballot, and just explain why, and state that the way this was decided was the proper legal course. States can remove, candidates can appeal. The process may be different from state to state. That way, anyone can file their phony ballot bans (as republicans will no doubt do in revenge at some point in the future), but it will get nowhere unless and until the Supreme Court decides. I think that would be fair, if possible under the system we have. Just say “we take these on a case by case basis. Had he been under the legal age, we wouldn’t have accepted the case. In matters of more gray areas, we will decide.”

Seems reasonable. Banning Trump upholds state laws, but at the highest level. And he should be on the ballot unless and until legal options are exhausted. I think that’s a fair compromise.
 
AG_PhamD said:
You do realize if you’re that the Jan 6th committee and CO committees hearings did not provide Trump any opportunity to defend his case. I’m not even disputing their conclusions- I think it’s more than likely he met the criteria. But these proceedings did not allow Trump to pose a defense to charges levied. You’re smart enough to know that is the very definition of a kangaroo court, even if their conclusion is ultimately correct. But how can we know that when we’re dealing with a legal situation that has no precedent and has not been relevant since the civil warn )in a very different context).

There is an expectation of due process in this country, and certainly when it involves one’s right to run for office, one of the most important rights we have. If the state is going to permanently revoke such a fundamental right, there damn well be a fair legal process involved. Or has the right to a defense also been arbitrarily suspended too? It’s a very dangerous precedent to set- especially when a situation like this has never occurred before in our history. It’s just asking to for the same practice to be misused in use the future and not necessarily in your interests.

And why stop with Trump? Perhaps every elected official that failed to impeach Trump and/or those who supported his election fraud hoax should be arbitrarily regarded as insurrectionists as well.

It seems reasonable that to implement legal consequences for insurrection, one must be justly tried and found guilty first. The closest thing to a trial was the impeachment which was unfortunately unsuccessful, but they never even charged trump with insurrection? Why not- genuinely curious.

You know, this is a perfect example of the ends justifying the means. The same misguided way of thinking that brought about Jan 6th.

Again, I think Trump almost definitely could be found guilty of insurrection amongst a host of other crimes worthy of disqualification using a process that aligns with our tradition of due process. Maybe state election boards and prosecutors shouldn’t have waited 3 years to start addressing these cases.

Thay said, if Trump can magically dodge these cases long enough and gets elected, it’s frankly terrifying to think what he’ll try to do to seek out retribution against his political rivals. And hypothetically in 2028, is he going to give up power in a smooth transition (unless to Don Jr. Maybe)? Part of me doesn’t see how that is possible.
Click to expand...
Trump's lawyers did argue his case against disqualification in front of Colorado Judge Wallace. She found Trump engaged in insurrection, but ruled he couldn't be kept off the ballot because it was unclear whether 14.3 applied to the president. In my opinion, that's an alarmingly weak reason - if the president isn't an officer of the U.S., what is he or she? The Colorado Supreme Court overturned the ruling. Notably, several of the plaintiffs were longtime Republicans, including one who voted for Trump in 2020.

Trump refused to comply with a subpoena from the January 6 Committee, as did multiple others who could have argued his case. His subpoena was eventually dropped just before the committee was about to disband. And Trump also refused to testify at his second impeachment trial in the Senate. Trump knows he does poorly when he testifies, whether in a court of law, a deposition, or some other official proceeding. He'd much rather bloviate and yell "witch hunt" at his rallies and press conferences and on his social media platform.

The framers of 14.3 didn't say a court trial was a prerequisite for disqualifying someone from office, possibly because they believed the circumstances under which section 3 could reasonably be invoked would be obvious in the context of Reconstruction. They also didn't envision a narcissistic sociopath becoming president. I find it hard to understand how any clear-thinking individual could see what happened on January 6 and conclude anything but that Trump engaged in insurrection or gave aid or comfort to those who did.

I'll be surprised if the SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of Trump's United States) doesn't find some grounds to overturn the Colorado decision. And I do agree with you on two points. First, Garland should have appointed a special prosecutor much sooner. And second, we face the real possibility that Trump will again be president and do what you said he would.
 
AG_PhamD said:
Maybe state election boards and prosecutors shouldn’t have waited 3 years to start addressing these cases.
Click to expand...


A lot of time was spent (wasted?) considering how Trump’s violent rubes might take it and if it is then even worth the effort. That continues to be part of the decision making process today, especially by Republican Congress members. Turns out we do in fact negotiate with terrorists, even if indirectly. I also think there was a time when he would have been given a free pass if he just stayed out of public life. The only reason he announced his run way too early was so he could then go “political witch hunt hit job” at any legal issue thrown at him including a jay walking ticket.

The right likes to say the left has an equivalent violent element to the right’s, but proof that they don’t even believe their own bullshit is zero fucks are given to how the left will react to right-wing legislation. Not even a sneeze pause. Just ram it through. They know the left violent hordes aren’t coming for anybody, but there’s a good chance they think seeing an unarmed citizen holding a protest sign is somehow an act of violence.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
The right likes to say the left has an equivalent violent element to the right’s, but proof that they don’t even believe their own bullshit is zero fucks are given to how the left will react to right-wing legislation. Not even a sneeze pause. Just ram it through. They know the left violent hordes aren’t coming for anybody, but there’s a good chance they think seeing an unarmed citizen holding a protest sign is somehow an act of violence.
Click to expand...
You want proof of this mentality, look no further than the Merrick Garland obstruction vs. the Amy Coney Barrett ram job. Same scenario, just zero fucks given and hypocrisy on a new level.
 
rdrr said:
You want proof of this mentality, look no further than the Merrick Garland obstruction vs. the Amy Coney Barrett ram job. Same scenario, just zero fucks given and hypocrisy on a new level.
Click to expand...

Good example but not really something the average citizen is going to get violent over. But even on the things that animates the left, none of them are making death threats if their college debt doesn’t get erased or they don’t get nationalized healthcare, or the most laughable, don’t get on board with the Biden agenda.
 

Similar threads

Eric
Trump says if elected he will force federal workers to pass a political test and fire them if they fail
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Yoused
Yoused
Back
Top