The Trump Indictment Thread

[Yoused]

Alina Habba is a human skin animated by rats, each a rat skin animated by cockroaches.

​

She deceived a woman into firing her own lawyer in order to engage Habba's services so that she could draft a settlement that would leave the woman screwed by a ShitGibbon golf course. The woman's complaint was sexual harassment and rape by her boss – Habba wrote the settlement for eighteen thousand in damages (basically nothing in a case like this) along with a massive heap of NDAs.

Habba's behavior was beyond unethical, sprinting into fraudulent, and clearly contemptible. I would hope that she can be nailed for a lot more than her law license.

 

[Cmaier]

Well this is something…

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

 

[GermanSuplex]

Why the f*** bother having a constitution or insurrection laws if we’re not going to use them?

That’s the part that’s always bothered me with these Trump supporters… if this is all ok, what isn’t?

Anyways, let’s see what these polls say with Trump as a write-in candidate.

 

[theorist9]

Well this is something…

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

Yeah, that is a BFD. Just for fun, I checked the reporting on Fox and OANN, to see if this made their brains explode, and instead found surprisingly sober articles. [Though a good portion of Fox's article was quoting Trump's ridiculous reply.] Plus OANN explained exactly what the previous sticking point had been. I didn't see this in either the NYT or WaPo articles (it may be there somewhere, but buried):

"The decision from the Colorado Supreme Court reverses the previous ruling that held Trump engaged in insurrection by allegedly inciting a U.S. Capitol breach on January 6th 2021, but that presidents do not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as they are not an “officer of the United States.”"

Any prediction on how SCOTUS will rule?

 

[Eric]

Well this is something…

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

So, off to the SCOTUS where it gets overturned by a Trump heavy SC?

 

[Cmaier]

Yeah, that is a BFD. Just for fun, I checked the reporting on Fox and OANN, to see if this made their brains explode, and instead found surprisingly sober articles. [Though a good portion of Fox's article was quoting Trump's ridiculous reply.] Plus OANN explained exactly what the previous sticking point had been. I didn't see this in either the NYT or WaPo articles (it may be there somewhere, but buried):

"The decision from the Colorado Supreme Court reverses the previous ruling that held Trump engaged in insurrection by allegedly inciting a U.S. Capitol breach on January 6th 2021, but that presidents do not fall under the jurisdiction of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as they are not an “officer of the United States.”"

Any prediction on how SCOTUS will rule?

So, off to the SCOTUS where it gets overturned by a Trump heavy SC?

Seems to me that the big question for the SCOTUS to address is whether or not there must be enabling legislation. In other words, if only Congress can determine who falls under this disqualification rule, and congress has failed to act by enacting legislation, then the states would presumably have no basis to exercise their rights to keep this sort of “unqualified” person off the ballot.

One danger in all of this is that, depending on How things go, you can imagine a ruling that would mean that even someone who already was president twice could not be kept off the ballot. It’s all likely to be a very technical ruling. I wouldn’t assume that SCOTUS would be biased toward trump on this (or anything else, for that matter).

 

[theorist9]

Seems to me that the big question for the SCOTUS to address is whether or not there must be enabling legislation. In other words, if only Congress can determine who falls under this disqualification rule, and congress has failed to act by enacting legislation, then the states would presumably have no basis to exercise their rights to keep this sort of “unqualified” person off the ballot.

Is the fundamental question whether there is enabling legislation, or whether:

...only Congress can determine who falls under this disqualification rule...

I.e., I'm thinking the following: Since the Constitution grants power to the states to conduct federal elections, it may be that the states have this determination power as well. And if that's the case, then the states can disqualify candidates, irrespective of whether Federal enabling legislation exists. And if it's not, then they can't (since there isn't any enabling legislation that delegates this power to them). Is that not right?

 

[Cmaier]

Is the fundamental question whether there is enabling legislation, or whether:

I.e., I'm thinking the following: Since the Constitution grants power to the states to conduct federal elections, it may be that the states have this determination power as well. And if that's the case, then the states can disqualify candidates, irrespective of whether Federal enabling legislation exists. And if it's not, then they can't (since there isn't any enabling legislation that delegates this power to them). Is that not right?

It wouldn’t necessarily make sense for states to make the determination on their own. Then different states could reach different conclusions. The federal constitution determines qualifications, and there aren’t many. Born in the US. 35 years old. Haven’t already been President twice. Didn‘t foment an insurrection.

So what happens if somebody who has already been president twice runs again? Where is he or she stopped? It’s easy to figure out whether he or she has been president twice, but where does the constitution delegate that decision to the states? And what happens if a governor submits a slate of electors for someone who has been president twice? Who decides whether or not to count the electoral votes?

There are a lot of holes in the way that our constitution deals with this, combined with principles of federalism. Unanswered questions.

 

[Yoused]

I wouldn’t assume that SCOTUS would be biased toward trump on this (or anything else, for that matter).

If those justices are hard-RW ideologues, they would have reason to treat him unfavorably, as they would prefer to have a competent RW president to push effectively for their favored agenda, rather than the clueless buffoon that is Individual-ONE. Of course, the notion of having ideologues on the bench in the first place goes against the basic idea of justice.


Meanwhile,

Trump co-defendant posed with QAnon Shaman hours before lawyers dumped her

Lawyers dumped one of Donald Trump’s co-defendants in his Georgia election fraud case hours after she posed for a photo with the QAnon Shaman with a message that read, “cue the haters.”Trevian Kutti raises her middle finger in the photo with convicted Jan. 6 rioter Jacob Chansley — who famously...

www.rawstory.com

 

[rdrr]

Hang on, all this time I have been hearing on how the Trump nominees and now Justices were all qualified due to their strict view of the constitution like Scalia was. Black and White no context, straight up constitutionalist. Are we now suppose to believe that he context matters when it is convenient?

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

C'mon Supreme Court! You know you want to get rid of Trump

Upholding the 14th amendment against Trump isn't just the right thing to do — it will make life easier for the justices

www.salon.com

In summary, if the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado Court 14th Amendment decision they'd be doing the GOP, the country, and themselves a massive favor. Another GOP candidate would probably even have a better chance of winning against Biden than Trump and they wouldn't have to deal with 4 years of chaos he would throw in their courtroom.

 

[Yoused]

SCotUS does not respond to every petition put to them. They do not have to rule on this case, they can just ignore it.

 

[AG_PhamD]

C'mon Supreme Court! You know you want to get rid of Trump

Upholding the 14th amendment against Trump isn't just the right thing to do — it will make life easier for the justices

www.salon.com

In summary, if the Supreme Court upholds the Colorado Court 14th Amendment decision they'd be doing the GOP, the country, and themselves a massive favor. Another GOP candidate would probably even have a better chance of winning against Biden than Trump and they wouldn't have to deal with 4 years of chaos he would throw in their courtroom.

Colorado would do the world a favor preventing another 4 years of Trump. But this creates an extremely dangerous precedent if you ask me. Ultimately I think voters should hold the power to dictate who they want elected, with minimal influence by government officials, and certainly un-elected ones. Colorado’s decision only makes sense in my mind if Trump is charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection.

A second Trump term would at best be completely unproductive and divisive, and at worst be 4 years of Trump 100% focused on carrying out retribution to his opposition, even if it means burning down the world in the process. But I also am fearful of the direction of the Democrats- the amount of gaslighting is ridiculous, they are not focused on the right issues, and perhaps I am not disturbed by a number of states Dem leadership blocking primary contenders from the ballot despite candidates meeting the criteria. Such is the case in my state of Mass. I don’t think any of the Dem contenders should ever be president, but the apparent lack of democratic ideals within the party is troubling.

If you’re looking for Biden to have a second term, I’m not sure blocking Trump will support that outcome. I suspect Biden’s best chance of winning is running against Trump. Anyone else other than Trump with a pulse will likely trounce Biden. His biggest problem won’t be people voting for other candidates but people turning out to vote at all. Trump however evokes such a visceral reaction.

Idk.. I think by the time primary voting rolls around 70% of republicans will come to realize Trump has too much baggage and their chances are better off with someone else. With all his legal issues it will be amazing if he’s even available to campaign.

 

[Cmaier]

Colorado would do the world a favor preventing another 4 years of Trump. But this creates an extremely dangerous precedent if you ask me. Ultimately I think voters should hold the power to dictate who they want elected, with minimal influence by government officials, and certainly un-elected ones. Colorado’s decision only makes sense in my mind if Trump is charged, tried, and convicted of insurrection.

That’s certainly a reasonable position. On the other hand, the other qualifications for office require no such procedure - if someone is under 35 years old, must a state have a trial to prove it before disqualifying the candidate? And if they were born outside the country? If they have already served two terms as President?

And at the time the Constitution was amended to add the new requirement (you can’t be an insurrectionist after having taken the oath of office), they could have added language like what you are saying, but they didn’t. In fact, there was no criminal statute that they could refer to, because “insurrection” wasn’t a statutory crime. It’s pretty clear that when the state adopted the 14th amendment, they didn’t foresee a process like what you suggest. It’s not clear, though, what process they did assume.

 

[GermanSuplex]

There should be two options - enforce the amendment or get rid of it. If J6 isn’t a disqualifying event from holding office, then nothing is. A law or rule that’s unenforceable is useless.

Trump’s lawyers are literally arguing that being elected president gives you complete freedom and immunity for things you do during and after leaving office. And if you announce you’re running, you are immune then as well. It’s maddening his supporters go along with these arguments, oblivious that it means if Joe Biden is in fact secretly and personally overseeing the prosecution of Trump - that’s a perfectly acceptable and legal thing to do. He is president, after all. And if Trump wins, Biden should just declassify everything under the sun and take it home. But he shouldn’t tell anyone, why bother? It’s already been mentally declassified.

 

[Citysnaps]

Trump’s lawyers are literally arguing that being elected president gives you complete freedom and immunity for things you do during and after leaving office.

Pretty sweet. Cheat on your taxes, rob banks, hijack a plane to Europe cuz purchasing a ticket is for the little people (channeling Leona H), murder your enemies, and on and on.

 

[Herdfan]

There should be two options - enforce the amendment or get rid of it. If J6 isn’t a disqualifying event from holding office, then nothing is. A law or rule that’s unenforceable is useless.

The amendment requires a conviction. So if/when he is convicted of insurrection then it can be discussed. Which is why the Colorado action of removing him from the ballot will be going down 9-0 at SCOTUS.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

There should be two options - enforce the amendment or get rid of it. If J6 isn’t a disqualifying event from holding office, then nothing is. A law or rule that’s unenforceable is useless.

When the 14th amendment was passed if 1/6 happened along with the events leading up to it absolutely nobody would be going “That’s intriguing but doesn’t really apply here.” If it happened a couple years after the civil war Trump would be thrown in prison and that’s all history would remember him for. But since it’s been over a century we now have a bunch of chin strokers telling us to ignore the obvious and try to get out of it based on technicalities.

There’s no bigger evidence of the US being in decline than out of over 300 million people one party has decided to continually run cover for this criminal asshole as their party leader and savior, but when you look at who and what this country has grown to really value its not all that shocking.

 

[Cmaier]

The amendment requires a conviction. So if/when he is convicted of insurrection then it can be discussed. Which is why the Colorado action of removing him from the ballot will be going down 9-0 at SCOTUS.

The amendment makes no mention of a conviction at all. The plain language of the amendment makes it clear that committing the acts, not being convicted of something, is what is disqualifying. If you “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,” you are disqualified.

In 1871, for example, the federal court for the district of North Carolina in United States v. Powell found that a guy couldn’t become sheriff because he had enlisted in the confederate army. He wasn’t convicted of anything. (The posture of the case is a little weird - the case actually involves whether he could be indicted for holding the office despite being disqualified for it).

 

[GermanSuplex]

The amendment requires a conviction. So if/when he is convicted of insurrection then it can be discussed. Which is why the Colorado action of removing him from the ballot will be going down 9-0 at SCOTUS.

This has been discussed and debated by people far more educated on these things than you or I, and while it’s far from unanimous, many of the people making this case the strongest are lifelong conservatives. Not Trump conservatives, actual conservatives. Federalist society members and such.

In fact, I believe many would object to your premise because it requires injecting language that doesn’t exist. I’m not against that, mind you - some clarification on the 2A would be nice, mind you. But it’s the republicans consistent in their arguments in favor of the 2A who are using that plain language as a defense for booting Trump off the ballot.

It’s funny, because in Georgia, Trump is not trying to have his case moved because it would require him to admit he was an “officer of the United States”, and he claims he was not. This is Trump logic - the president is not an officer of the USA. But he knows that’s a BS argument - but he’s making it because the 14th amendment requires you the a member of congress or officer of the United States who has taken an oath.

Trump will probably next argue he didn’t take the oath.

The 14th Amendment is specific - it’s not about high crimes or misdemeanors like general impeachment, which gives Congress the right to decide to convict a president in “political court”. This is supposed to be self-executing and is based on things specifically like January 6. So I don’t think the 14th Amendment is fuzzy - I believe it’s quite clear.

The problem, of course, is then we split hairs. “What is an insurrection”? Theoretically, it could be argued a former president trying to remove a president against the law by violence isn’t “insurrection”. What is an “officer of the United States”? Common sense should dictate the freaking president is an office of the United States, but this is the world we live in now.

What does a president have to do for this to be enforced? Live stream himself attempting to overtake Washington by force?