The Trump Indictment Thread

[Citysnaps]

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

Or that he had his fingers crossed behind his back so that doesn't count.

 

[Herdfan]

The amendment makes no mention of a conviction at all.

Yes, you are correct.

I can't find the article right now, but it basically laid out how the 14A gave Congress the power to pass laws related to it. This was done in the late 1800's and again in the mid-1900's. The laws Congress passed require a conviction.

-----------------

I am confident that SCOTUS will overturn this somewhere between 7-2 to 9-0.

Not sure it matters. Trump can win the nomination without Colorado and he isn't winning Colorado in the general anyway. So this is more of a "feel-good" thing than something that will seriously affect him. And Michigan said no. That would have been an important state. CO and MA are not.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Yes, you are correct.

I can't find the article right now, but it basically laid out how the 14A gave Congress the power to pass laws related to it. This was done in the late 1800's and again in the mid-1900's. The laws Congress passed require a conviction.

-----------------

I am confident that SCOTUS will overturn this somewhere between 7-2 to 9-0.

Not sure it matters. Trump can win the nomination without Colorado and he isn't winning Colorado in the general anyway. So this is more of a "feel-good" thing than something that will seriously affect him. And Michigan said no. That would have been an important state. CO and MA are not.

The Supreme Court will really have to do some mental gymnastics to explain why a president who tries to remain in office despite losing an election should be given another go when we have an amendment that supposedly prevents such a thing. It’s essentially crowning a monarch.

This is destined for the Supreme Court, and I think it’s 50/50 on if Trump survives. He’s got an extreme conservative bench, but even they will probably be cautious about this ruling… it paves the way for presidents to essentially do whatever they want, if not outright, then by manufacturing a fake crisis for them to break the law, like Trump did by lying about the election

The court cant just say “Americans get to choose the president”, because you could make the same argument about someone who is not a citizen, or of legal age. You can just say ”why should Americans be denied their choice?” And so you can render the constitution mostly moot.

If this behavior is all ok, then what isn’t? The 14th amendment seems like it was made specifically for this scenario, this isn’t like them trying to nail Trump on some outlandish our outdated segment of some law or jargon in the constitution.At some point, laws, rules and common sense has to take control. Trump is trying to skate by all of his self-made crisis by public pressure campaigns instead of defending himself on the merits, and he’s trying to return to office the same way - not through votes, but through pressure. It isn’t enough for him he got into office without the support of most Americans, he just wants to bypass it all and have a foregone conclusion; “I win or the whole damn thing is rigged.“ Which is literally the opposite spirit of democracy. If elections were absolute before they were held…. there would be no need to hold them.

Thats an elementary school tactic, it doesn’t work with me, and it shouldn’t work with most Americans. I don’t even think these are complex cases, they’re just unprecedented and people are scared of the fallout. And rightfully so. Someone is going to have to be a leader, stand up and say “WTF are you people thinking?” This isn’t complicated. He tried to unlawfully remain in office. He’s a traitor and he’s unfit.”

The only thing that would make any of this understandable would be with any shred of evidence of widespread fraud. Which doesn’t exist, and still wouldnt have made Trump’s actions lawful.

 

[Citysnaps]

Yes, you are correct.

I can't find the article right now, but it basically laid out how the 14A gave Congress the power to pass laws related to it. This was done in the late 1800's and again in the mid-1900's. The laws Congress passed require a conviction.

-----------------

I am confident that SCOTUS will overturn this somewhere between 7-2 to 9-0.

Not sure it matters. Trump can win the nomination without Colorado and he isn't winning Colorado in the general anyway. So this is more of a "feel-good" thing than something that will seriously affect him. And Michigan said no. That would have been an important state. CO and MA are not.

Curious...

How do you personally feel about a past US president, now facing 91 felony counts across four indictments, doing his damnedest to weasel and obfuscate his way out of facing justice, where juries can hear and view evidence, and render verdicts of either not guilty or guilty. In essence, escaping justice, believing he's special and above the law, unlike ordinary people.

Would that be a President you'd be proud of being the leader of the United States, and setting a good example for others?

 

[Roller]

Yes, you are correct.

I can't find the article right now, but it basically laid out how the 14A gave Congress the power to pass laws related to it. This was done in the late 1800's and again in the mid-1900's. The laws Congress passed require a conviction.

-----------------

I am confident that SCOTUS will overturn this somewhere between 7-2 to 9-0.

Not sure it matters. Trump can win the nomination without Colorado and he isn't winning Colorado in the general anyway. So this is more of a "feel-good" thing than something that will seriously affect him. And Michigan said no. That would have been an important state. CO and MA are not.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress can override the prohibition against holding office based on an individual’s having “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” That seems pretty clear.

Section 5 further states that “Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” As I understand it, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that such legislation must be intended to correct violations of rights protected in other sections, so it’s unclear how this would apply to Section 3, which doesn’t grant rights per se.

Interestingly, section 3 only applies to people who previously took an oath to support the Constitution. So I guess it doesn’t prohibit insurrectionists from holding office if they haven’t done so previously.

 

[Cmaier]

Yes, you are correct.

I can't find the article right now, but it basically laid out how the 14A gave Congress the power to pass laws related to it. This was done in the late 1800's and again in the mid-1900's. The laws Congress passed require a conviction.

-----------------

I am confident that SCOTUS will overturn this somewhere between 7-2 to 9-0.

Not sure it matters. Trump can win the nomination without Colorado and he isn't winning Colorado in the general anyway. So this is more of a "feel-good" thing than something that will seriously affect him. And Michigan said no. That would have been an important state. CO and MA are not.

No, the law congress passed does not require a conviction. See 18 USC 2383.

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.“

This law was created in 1948. It does create a criminal offense (hence prison), but does nothing to override amendment 14 paragraph 3 (which, btw, says nothing about prison)

 

[Herdfan]

Curious...

How do you personally feel about a past US president, now facing 91 felony counts across four indictments,

The case would be a lot stronger if those were convictions and not just indictments by partisan DA's.

That said, I don't want him to run. He brings chaos with him wherever he goes. But he is still preferable to Biden IMHO in many ways in terms of his policy positions.

No, the law congress passed does not require a conviction. See 18 USC 2383.

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.“

This law was created in 1948. It does create a criminal offense (hence prison), but does nothing to override amendment 14 paragraph 3 (which, btw, says nothing about prison)

I bolded the word SHALL. Now I am not a lawyer (I was admitted to Law School, but then I read 1L by Scott Turow and decided it was not going to be for me), but I do know the term SHALL is not optional. I also don't like the work incapable. Seems week and usually refers to mental capacity. Barred or prohibited would be much stronger words.

So while the 14A, S3 doesn't mention imprisonment, the statute does. So why has he not been fined or imprisoned? It is a requirement of that statute.

And yes, that is the section I was referring to. Just couldn't remember the year.

We will know more by the 4th which is the deadline for ballot approval.

One question for you. I reread the court's order and it only refers to the primary ballot. What do you think will happen if he is the nominee? Will they have to do this all over again?

 

[Citysnaps]

The case would be a lot stronger if those were convictions and not just indictments by partisan DA's.

That said, I don't want him to run. He brings chaos with him wherever he goes. But he is still preferable to Biden IMHO in many ways in terms of his policy positions.

If he's innocent he and his attorneys should be demanding a speedy trial so he can get on with his campaign. ASAP.

Instead, he's weaseling/obfuscating hoping the primary will come before any trial. Hmmm... I wonder why?


"The case would be a lot stronger if those were convictions and not just indictments by partisan DA's."

I've seen no evidence of that. And if they were "partisan," at the end of the day his innocence or guilt will be determined by a jury of citizens after considering the mountains of evidence (phone call audio recordings, video footage, loads of witnesses, trump's public statements, phone logs, loads of classified documents that were intentionally hidden, etc) presented to them during a trial.

Any other person would want that speedy trial to clear their good name.

 

[Yoused]

But he is still preferable to Biden IMHO in many ways in terms of his policy positions.

Individual-ONE had no policy positions. Grift. A BIG BEAUTIFUL WALL WITH MY NAME ON IT! is a stunningly bad idea, any way you look at it.

SPACE FORCE! – yawn

All he is really interested in is smash government. And I do understand the motivation behind that, but letting the plutocracy run rampant, which is the net result, is essentially a recipe for America flambé. That will not end well for those of us who have to live here.

I also understand that Joe the President's policy positions are largely status quo, which is not the path toward making the US more livable for several hundred million Americans. But the RW approach of turning the country into a feudo-capitalist shithole seems like a much worse strategy.

 

[GermanSuplex]

The idea I would vote for a criminal traitor because I liked their policies more than the more rational candidate is ludicrous. Yet, the most Trump supporters can do to condemn him is say “Yeah, he’s an issue, but I like his policies more.”

Apparently, people think policy decisions on things like infrastructure or routine international policy affairs is more pressing than a guy who says he wants to be a dictator on day one, because his policies are better?

There has to be something deeper at play in the psychology of anyone willing to cast a vote for Trump. It’s deeper than policy. And how far does this “better policy” exemption go? Clearly it’s enough for a man found legally liable for sexual assault. What would it take for someone to say “I agree with him on policy, but he’s unfit”?

I like Senator Menendez’ policy decisions, but I would vote for a principled non-MAGA conservative over any such corrupt candidate, of any party. That people like Trump’s policies or dislike Biden is not what I can’t figure out, it’s why they don’t find someone who isn’t a train wreck? Who’s actually a conservative? Trump doesn’t even have any actual “policy” views besides very stereotypical Republican talking points. He probably can’t mention details of any bill he passed or hopes to pass. It’s all hyperbolic talking points beyond “build the wall”.

While the circumstances are unprecedented, Trump would also not be the first assumed nominee to end up a loser. Primaries and momentum are strange, I thought Biden’s campaign was on its death bed before SC. One unexpected loss in one state could cascade into big problems for him.

 

[Citysnaps]

Apparently, people think policy decisions on things like infrastructure or routine international policy affairs is more pressing than a guy who says he wants to be a dictator on day one, because his policies are better?

Something just occurred to me.

trump's not shy respecting, looking up to, and loving Putin, Un, Maduro, (and no doubt Idi Amin if still alive), probably because they're strongman dictators and trump wants to go down in history being like them. And maybe... republican folk similarly have that same kind of intrinsic dictator love and believe trump is their messiah?

Not sure that I've properly phrased the above. But there sure is something really weird going on with respect to dictator love, trump, and the republican party.

 

[Cmaier]

Something just occurred to me.

trump's not shy respecting, looking up to, and loving Putin, Un, Maduro, (and no doubt Idi Amin if still alive), probably because they're strongman dictators and trump wants to go down in history being like them. And maybe... republican folk similarly have that same kind of intrinsic dictator love and believe trump is their messiah?

Not sure that I've properly phrased the above. But there sure is something really weird going on with respect to dictator love, trump, and the republican party.

Not that weird. When was the last time a republican won the presidency by actually winning the popular vote? And the last time it was done by more than 600 disputed votes in Florida?

If you know you are in the minority and cannot win elections and implement your “policies” the legitimate way, dictatorship would seem to be plan B.

 

[Yoused]

When was the last time a republican won the presidency by actually winning the popular vote?

Technically, W Bush received about three million more votes than Kerry in '04. This must be tempered by the declaration of Warren O'Dell, president of Diebold Voting Systems, who promised to deliver Ohio to W. Naturally, Ohio used Diebold machines, and exit polling in that state did not seem to align with the reported result. The '04 election should not be viewed as highly legitimate, though I hestate to call it genuinely corrupt.

 

[Cmaier]

Technically, W Bush received about three million more votes than Kerry in '04. This must be tempered by the declaration of Warren O'Dell, president of Diebold Voting Systems, who promised to deliver Ohio to W. Naturally, Ohio used Diebold machines, and exit polling in that state did not seem to align with the reported result. The '04 election should not be viewed as highly legitimate, though I hestate to call it genuinely corrupt.

If I give you ‘04, it doesn’t dispute my point. That’s a lot of elections in the last 20 years where the majority of voters have rejected republican presidential candidates.

 

[Agent47]

Not that weird. When was the last time a republican won the presidency by actually winning the popular vote?

The fact that there's a difference at all shows how flawed the system is in the first place

 

[Alli]

This is destined for the Supreme Court, and I think it’s 50/50 on if Trump survives. He’s got an extreme conservative bench, but even they will probably be cautious about this ruling… it paves the way for presidents to essentially do whatever they want, if not outright, then by manufacturing a fake crisis for them to break the law, like Trump did by lying about the election

And if the SC buys into this line, then Biden can just remain in office without even bothering with an election, because the president can do whatever he wants.

The idea I would vote for a criminal traitor because I liked their policies more than the more rational candidate is ludicrous. Yet, the most Trump supporters can do to condemn him is say “Yeah, he’s an issue, but I like his policies more.”

His policies? Like halting all immigration? Like re-instating a Muslim ban? Like lowering taxes for the top 1% (again), while continuing to raise taxes for the poor and what’s left of the middle class? Like banning all forms of birth control? Like creating a police state? Like getting rid of the ACA?

What kind of idiot likes his policies? Do people not understand that these are his policies?

 

[Citysnaps]

His policies? Like halting all immigration? Like re-instating a Muslim ban? Like lowering taxes for the top 1% (again), while continuing to raise taxes for the poor and what’s left of the middle class? Like banning all forms of birth control? Like creating a police state? Like getting rid of the ACA?

Picky, picky, picky...

Getting back to reality... it's bewildering how much damage he's caused, along with the hate he fomented for the crazies out there in such a relatively short period of time. His track record will be the gold standard future US wannabe dictators will be measured against.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Not that weird. When was the last time a republican won the presidency by actually winning the popular vote? And the last time it was done by more than 600 disputed votes in Florida?

If you know you are in the minority and cannot win elections and implement your “policies” the legitimate way, dictatorship would seem to be plan B.

That’s why I think “democracy is at stake!” isn’t going to work with a certain element on the right. To them democracy is synonymous with getting screwed and not getting what they want over many decades. The real issue is our government being completely captured and corrupted by the wealthy and corporations but that would require punching up and the right would much rather punch down.

You could also argue an element of the young left doesn’t really care about democracy either, but that’s less about being screwed over decades and more about earning social justice badges in the moment, the most noble of endeavors.

The unwritten contract with corporations and the wealthy is they are allowed to economically rape and pilage as long as they drop just enough scraps to prevent a civil war or somebody like Trump taking office. But since the greed in this country knows no bounds they couldn't even stick to that extremely low bar and here we are.

 

[Herdfan]

And if the SC buys into this line, then Biden can just remain in office without even bothering with an election, because the president can do whatever he wants.

It doesn't matter what the SC does. Trump doesn't need CO to win the primary and he won't win it in the General. All it does is give Biden CO before any votes are counted. He wins it anyway.

His policies? Like halting all immigration? Like re-instating a Muslim ban? Like lowering taxes for the top 1% (again), while continuing to raise taxes for the poor and what’s left of the middle class? Like banning all forms of birth control? Like creating a police state? Like getting rid of the ACA?

What kind of idiot likes his policies? Do people not understand that these are his policies?

Immigration - Yes, he wanted to halt immigration - during COVID. He did not want to halt it at any other point. Illegal immigration, yes. Can't understand why anyone would want what we have going on now. At some point it is going to affect everyone. Then what.

Muslim Ban - It wasn't a Muslim ban. It was a 90/120 day pause for people from 7 countries. So even Christians from those countries couldn't enter.

Taxes - You do realize that Federal Revenues INCREASED after these cuts (2020 not withstanding).

Birth control - please supply sources for this. I know of no birth control bans Trump did. Or even suggested.

The ACA - The GOP has been trying to do away with this since 2010. Trump was just the latest to try.

 

[Roller]

Immigration - Yes, he wanted to halt immigration - during COVID. He did not want to halt it at any other point. Illegal immigration, yes. Can't understand why anyone would want what we have going on now. At some point it is going to affect everyone. Then what.

Then why haven't Trump or the Republicans proposed meaningful immigration reform that recognizes the value of immigrants to this country, including performing work that nobody else will do?

Muslim Ban - It wasn't a Muslim ban. It was a 90/120 day pause for people from 7 countries. So even Christians from those countries couldn't enter.

A pause that just happened to apply to Muslim-majority countries.

Taxes - You do realize that Federal Revenues INCREASED after these cuts (2020 not withstanding).

I've read many articles that say the opposite, so it's hardly as settled as you make it seem.

Birth control - please supply sources for this. I know of no birth control bans Trump did. Or even suggested.

Yeah, Trump's nomination of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court had nothing to do with their expected votes on abortion.

The ACA - The GOP has been trying to do away with this since 2010. Trump was just the latest to try.

Again, show me a bona-fide attempt by Trump or the Republicans to offer a reasonable alternative that wouldn't leave millions of Americans without healthcare coverage.