Merged So what's next for Trump?

[Artemus]

Li'l Donnie had a really bad week. In yet another court loss the judge said that Trump's speech to the rioters on Jan. 6 "is the essence of civil conspiracy."

The funny thing is, even if the rioters had been successful in stopping the certification, the Biden campaign would have sued and the courts would have confirmed Biden as president anyway. That's the great thing about having three branches of government. The mass stupidity of the Trumpers is surpassed only by the stupidity of Trump himself.

um, no, the plan was to throw it to the House of Reps to decide--the Supremes would have gone along with that, I think.

What they were planning is irrelevant. The SCOTUS declared the election final in 2000 when there were acknowledge legitimate concerns about the outcome Florida. No way in hell they would allow an election that had no question whatsoever be overturned because a fool refused to perform his ceremonial duty.

On what basis? Pence says the EVs are out of order, SCOTUS has zero power to say otherwise. They can say the VP doesn't have authority to do this, but if the VP continues, it means no one gets the majority of EVs, we go to the House.

The Trumpsters lost 60 court cases for a reason. They would not win this one.

I don't think this ever gets to the Court.

It would go straight to the SCOTUS on the basis that Pence had no constitutional right say that the EVs are out of order (something that Pence himself ultimately concluded). It went to the SCOTUS in 2000. I'm honestly surprised that people think it would not have in this case. There is a third branch of the government for exactly these types of situations. They wouldn't sit by idly while the election was stolen.

 

[Elixir]

The GQP would have declared Trump the winner. At that point SCOTUS becomes irrelevant. He’d have been sworn in and half of his second term elapsed before any case contesting the GQP’s decision even came before the SCOTUS.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It would go straight to the SCOTUS on the basis that Pence had no constitutional right say that the EVs are out of order (something that Pence himself ultimately concluded). It went to the SCOTUS in 2000. I'm honestly surprised that people think it would not have in this case. There is a third branch of the government for exactly these types of situations. They wouldn't sit by idly while the election was stolen.

You're thinking how it SHOULD work in a democracy.
The WHOLE POINT of this exercise was to subvert democracy. Trump had coconspirators in House and Senate, DoJ, DoD, and his chosen judges in SCOTUS.
They'd been doing two things for four years.
1) screaming about the threat of a Deep State Conspiracy out to wrest the vote from the People
2) building up and appointing a deep state conspiracy to wrest control of the vote

If everyone that tried to sue for Biden's sake was arrested for electoral fraud, it would not have made it to the SCOTUS chambers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Li'l Donnie had a really bad week. In yet another court loss the judge said that Trump's speech to the rioters on Jan. 6 "is the essence of civil conspiracy."

The funny thing is, even if the rioters had been successful in stopping the certification, the Biden campaign would have sued and the courts would have confirmed Biden as president anyway. That's the great thing about having three branches of government. The mass stupidity of the Trumpers is surpassed only by the stupidity of Trump himself.

um, no, the plan was to throw it to the House of Reps to decide--the Supremes would have gone along with that, I think.

What they were planning is irrelevant. The SCOTUS declared the election final in 2000 when there were acknowledge legitimate concerns about the outcome Florida. No way in hell they would allow an election that had no question whatsoever be overturned because a fool refused to perform his ceremonial duty.

On what basis? Pence says the EVs are out of order, SCOTUS has zero power to say otherwise. They can say the VP doesn't have authority to do this, but if the VP continues, it means no one gets the majority of EVs, we go to the House.

The Trumpsters lost 60 court cases for a reason. They would not win this one.

I don't think this ever gets to the Court.

It would go straight to the SCOTUS on the basis that Pence had no constitutional right say that the EVs are out of order (something that Pence himself ultimately concluded). It went to the SCOTUS in 2000.

Florida went to SCOTUS, not Congress. The trouble is, if the EVs are contested, they are contested. The Constitution is clear on what to do if there is no majority vote taker.

I'm honestly surprised that people think it would not have in this case. There is a third branch of the government for exactly these types of situations. They wouldn't sit by idly while the election was stolen.

The trouble is, if the VP interferes, I'm not certain it matters what SCOTUS says. This becomes doubly a problem if the Senate is in on the steal... which takes the VP out of it.

 

[Elixir]

Florida went to SCOTUS, not Congress under the Clinton administration

FIFY.
Things have changed since then.

 

[Artemus]

Haven't figured out the quoting on this version of the board yet, so

Florida went to SCOTUS, not Congress. The trouble is, if the EVs are contested, they are contested. The Constitution is clear on what to do if there is no majority vote taker.

...

The trouble is, if the VP interferes, I'm not certain it matters what SCOTUS says. This becomes doubly a problem if the Senate is in on the steal... which takes the VP out of it.

The SCOTUS can and routinely does overrule the executive and legislative branches when they are behaving outside of constitutional requirements. All part of the checks and balance system. The courts had already ruled 60 times that the claims had no merit. Under a genuine constitutional crises it would reach the SCOTUS within days, if not hours. And as much as I disagree with politics of the current majority, I have no doubt that they would nullify the objections as meritless and confirm that Biden had been elected. The only "legal opinion" that claimed otherwise was written by mentally deficient Trump lawyers. Luckily Pence recognized that and spared the country of that crises.

 

[Elixir]

The SCOTUS can and routinely does overrule the executive and legislative branches

I think you mean “could and did”.
The government under trump had no branches or separation of powers.

 

[Artemus]

The SCOTUS can and routinely does overrule the executive and legislative branches

I think you mean “could and did”.
The government under trump had no branches or separation of powers.

Come on, they already had ruled against him on more than one occasion: US Supreme Court Rejects Trump-Backed Bid to Overturn Election.

The ruling was slightly longer than the one-sentence "motion denied" response in a Pennsylvania case earlier this week.

 

[ZiprHead]

Likelihood of criminal charges against Trump rising, experts say

Some ex-prosecutors call on DoJ to accelerate investigation after House panel’s allegations Trump broke laws to overturn election

www.theguardian.com

The likelihood of a criminal investigation and charges against Donald Trump are rising due to allegations by a House panel of a “criminal conspiracy” involving his aggressive drive to overturn the 2020 election results, coupled with a justice department (DoJ) inquiry of a “false electors” scheme Trump loyalists devised to block Joe Biden’s election.

Former federal prosecutors say evidence is mounting of criminal conduct by Trump that may yield charges against the ex- president for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress on 6 January or defrauding the US government, stemming from his weeks-long drive with top allies to thwart Biden’s election by pushing false claims of fraud.

A 2 March court filing by the House January 6 panel implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win, and Trump faces legal threats from justice department investigations under way into a “false electors” ploy, and seditious conspiracy charges filed against Oath Keepers who attacked the Capitol, say department veterans.

The filing by the House panel investigating the 6 January assault on the Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump supporters stated that it has “a good-faith basis for concluding that the president and members of his campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States”.

 

[bleubird]

Trump Loses Arbitration Case & Is Ordered To Pay Large Sum To Plaintiff

Donald Trump has lost in court again — for a guy who seems so eternally sure of himself, he certainly does appear to consistently fall rhetorically flat on his face. The Trump campaign has been ordered to pay over $350,000 in various fees after trying to enforce a non-disclosure agreement that...

bipartisanreport.com

Can he appeal this?

 

[crazyfingers]

Can he appeal this?

Here is the ruling. It's an Arbitration. More than I would read even if I was an expert in New York state Arbitration law.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21449177/3-10-22-order-alva-johnson-fees-trump-arbitration.pdf

 

[ZiprHead]

Donald Trump sues Hillary Clinton over 2016 Russian collusion allegations

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump on Thursday sued his rival in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton, and several other Democrats, alleging that they tried to rig that election by tying his campaign to Russia. The lawsuit covers a long list of grievances the Republican former...

www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump on Thursday sued his rival in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton, and several other Democrats, alleging that they tried to rig that election by tying his campaign to Russia.

The lawsuit covers a long list of grievances the Republican former president repeatedly aired during his four years in the White House after beating Clinton, and comes as he continues to falsely claim that his 2020 election defeat by Democratic President Joe Biden was the result of widespread fraud.

"Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty," the former president alleged in a 108-page lawsuit filed in a federal court in Florida.

The suit alleges "racketeering" and a "conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood," among other claims.

A Clinton representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Trump said he was "forced to incur expenses in an amount to be determined at trial, but known to be in excess of twenty-four million dollars ($24,000,000) and continuing to accrue, in the form of defense costs, legal fees, and related expenses."

The defendants in Trump's lawsuit include Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer.

A dossier written by Steele, which was circulated to the FBI and media outlets before the November 2016 election, set out unproven assertions that Russia had embarrassing information about Trump and some of his Republican campaign's advisers and that Moscow was working behind the scenes to defeat Clinton.

A 966-page report issued by a Republican-led U.S. Senate committee in 2020 concluded that Russia used Republican political operative Paul Manafort and the WikiLeaks website to try to help Trump win the 2016 election.

This seems like a very bad idea for Trump.

 

[blastula]

At least he finally admitted Russia was a hostile sovereignty.

 

[ZiprHead]

This will go nowhere. Basically he's accusing that these people are lying in a political campaign. I don't believe that has ever been prosecutable, be it civilly or criminally. Not to mention it opens up Trump and his campaign to discovery. I suspect when that happens they'll drop the lawsuit and act like it never happened.

Not to mention that Hillary could turn around and sue him for the same.

 

[crazyfingers]

Trump is motivated by three things.

Money
Fame
"Getting even" with people who get in his way for either of the above.

And he doesn't think very far ahead

 

[Keith&Co.]

This will go nowhere. Basically he's accusing that these people are lying in a political campaign. I don't believe that has ever been prosecutable, be it civilly or criminally. Not to mention it opens up Trump and his campaign to discovery. I suspect when that happens they'll drop the lawsuit and act like it never happened.

Not to mention that Hillary could turn around and sue him for the same.

This will go nowhere because it isn't meant to.
He needs money. Idiots will send him money to sue Hillary, DNC, etc., but he does not dare actually enterring discovery.
And his lawyers won't want to face the same risks that kept Giuliani and his posse from actually saying 'election fraud' in court.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump and sons to appear for depositions in fraudulent marketing lawsuit

Former President Donald Trump and two of his sons have agreed to appear for questioning in a yearslong lawsuit alleging the family participated in a fraudulent marketing scheme.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Former President Donald Trump and two of his sons have agreed to appear for questioning in a yearslong lawsuit alleging the family participated in a fraudulent marketing scheme.

The former president will appear for his deposition on June 16, and his sons Don Jr. and Eric will be deposed on May 10 and May 12, respectively, according to Friday court filings with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ivanka Trump may also be called in for questioning, but a date has not yet been set.
The class-action lawsuit, filed in 2018, alleges the family used Donald Trump’s former reality TV show The Celebrity Apprentice to urge participants to invest in a telecommunications company while secretly pocketing millions of dollars. Plaintiffs say they were misled, arguing the former president used his reputation as a successful entrepreneur to convince them the investments would be worthwhile.

 

[Artemus]

Haven't figured out the quoting on this version of the board yet, so

Florida went to SCOTUS, not Congress. The trouble is, if the EVs are contested, they are contested. The Constitution is clear on what to do if there is no majority vote taker.

...

The trouble is, if the VP interferes, I'm not certain it matters what SCOTUS says. This becomes doubly a problem if the Senate is in on the steal... which takes the VP out of it.

The SCOTUS can and routinely does overrule the executive and legislative branches when they are behaving outside of constitutional requirements. All part of the checks and balance system. The courts had already ruled 60 times that the claims had no merit. Under a genuine constitutional crises it would reach the SCOTUS within days, if not hours. And as much as I disagree with politics of the current majority, I have no doubt that they would nullify the objections as meritless and confirm that Biden had been elected. The only "legal opinion" that claimed otherwise was written by mentally deficient Trump lawyers. Luckily Pence recognized that and spared the country of that crises.

Judge Carter's ruling on admissibility of the emails planning Jan. 6th included this:

In this email, a colleague forwards to Dr. Eastman a memo they wrote for one of President Trump’s attorneys. The memo sketches a series of events for the days leading up to and following January 6, if Vice President Pence were to delay counting or reject electoral votes. The memo clearly contemplates and plans for litigation: it maps out potential Supreme Court suits and the impact of different judicial outcomes. While this memo was created for both political and litigation purposes, it substantively engages with potential litigation and its consequences for President Trump. The memo likely would have been written substantially differently had the author not expected
litigation.

Even Trump insiders knew it would go straight to the SCOTUS. And they knew they would lose:

Ultimately, Dr. Eastman conceded that his argument was contrary to consistent historical practice,37 would likely be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court,38 and violated the Electoral Count Act on four separate grounds.3
...
Litigation was never Dr. Eastman’s motivation for planning the events of January 6, perhaps because, as he conceded, his legal
theories would be rejected “9-0” by the Supreme Court.

One has to wonder, what was his motivation?

 

[Keith&Co.]

One has to wonder, what was his motivation?

I assume a claim of improper election mishandling, tossing the ball around u til Trump could justify staying in power, suspending litigation, and declaring all dissent part of the conspiracy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump Is Now Asking Putin to Dig Up Dirt on the Biden Family

The former president is once again asking for Russia to help boost his political prospects

www.yahoo.com

Donald Trump famously called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s emails ahead of the 2016 election. He’s now calling on Vladimir Putin to dig up dirt on President Biden’s family.

The ask came during an interview with Just the News on Real America’s Voice, with the former president citing a Senate report that found a Russian oligarch once gave $3.5 million to a company he claims was founded by Biden’s son, Hunter. “Why did the mayor of Moscow’s wife give the Bidens, both of them, $3.5 million? That’s a lot of money,” Trump said. “She gave him $3.5 million so I would think Putin would know the answer to that,” Trump said. “I think he should release it. I think we should know that answer.”

The Senate report to which Trump is referring is a partisan report Republicans released in 2020. The report found that Yelena Baturina gave $3.5 million to a firm called Rosemont Seneca Thornton in 2014. Hunter Biden was the co-founder of a firm called Rosemont Seneca Advisors. Biden’s lawyer told CNN that this is not the same firm that received the “consultancy agreement” payment from Baturina. There is no evidence the payment was corrupt or that Hunter Biden had anything to do with it.