Merged So what's next for Trump?

[Elixir]

SCOTUS will use the 'he hasn't been convicted yet' as their backdoor out of this.

Lower courts have ruled that he did “engage in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”. I’m sure they’ll wriggle out of addressing that question, and probably not use lack of a conviction as an excuse, since Cheato might well be convicted by Election Day.

It's making a spectacle of Republicans wailing for their right to overthrow democracy if that’s what their voters want, (at least as long as the fascist package is labeled “Patriotic”).


I guess all the other

 

[Shadowy Man]

SCOTUS could just get uber semantic and say that the 14th Amendment says he cannot “hold” office, not that he cannot run for office.

Of course that logic is kind of stupid but I don’t think it’s beneath the court, based on some of the opinions I have read.

 

[LoAmmo]

A conviction is not and never was part of the rule. Disqualification is triggered all on its own merely by having “engaged in” insurrection after having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Check, and check, for Donald J. Trump.

To rule otherwise, regardless of premise, is to openly and shamelessly admit a hyper-partisan Conservative bias and to telegraph that you care nothing for the very Constitution you’re ostensibly there to uphold.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

you care nothing for the very Constitution you’re ostensibly there to uphold.

That's true of all the Trumpers I know. Just like they don't know the POA didn't used to say "under god." The fact that other people easily grasp and understand thing they struggle to comprehend obviously makes them uncomfortable and even angry.

 

[Worldtraveller]

you care nothing for the very Constitution you’re ostensibly there to uphold.

That's true of all the Trumpers I know. Just like they don't know the POA didn't used to say "under god." The fact that other people easily grasp and understand thing they struggle to comprehend obviously makes them uncomfortable and even angry.

That's why (for us, anyway) the interviews that Jordan Klepper, for example, does with these idiots are so amusing. Sometimes, you can even see a little bit of cognitive dissonance pop up, but they quickly perform some sort of mental purge and just move on. It's somewhat fascinating, if a bit scary, to watch in real time.

 

[Elixir]

A conviction is not and never was part of the rule. Disqualification is triggered all on its own merely by having “engaged in” insurrection after having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Check, and check, for Donald J. Trump.

To rule otherwise, regardless of premise, is to openly and shamelessly admit a hyper-partisan Conservative bias and to telegraph that you care nothing for the very Constitution you’re ostensibly there to uphold.

Yup. Every court so far has agreed with the fact finding, that DJT is an insurrectionist.

It will be truly interesting (if not revealing) to see how SCOTUS handles this. It’s a thorny issue so I half expect them to duck it, and say “let the voters decide”, ignoring the fact that the Constitution has already “decided”. Or they might simply overrule the fact findings of all the lower courts and try to represent that they can’t really tell from the evidence that he’s an insurrectionist.

What I don’t expect is a forthright and honest ruling that respects the text and the intent of the Constitution. I hope I’m wrong, partly because I want to hear Cheato crying about the Biden Crime Family left wing activist democrat Supreme Court judges he appointed.

 

[Swammerdami]

So she didn't come forward and tell the investigators? or did she? Did she just wait until people read about it in her book?

Hear hear!

Cheney was licking the Orange Sociopath's scrotum as much as the next heinous Republican until his treasons^* became too blatant for even the daughter of Darth Vader to ignore. And even then, she's more interested in selling a few more copies of her book than in saving democracy.

I'm disgusted to see this rat-fink treated as a hero.

On the other hand, HUNDREDS of other top Republicans haven't even gone as far as Ms. Vader. I am beyond disgust. I have more respect for Mafia dons or hired gun-men than for present-day Republicans.


* - I guess to commit multiple treasons, as Trump has done, is very rare: The Firefox spell-checker marks "treasons" as wrong, even though it has no problem with "treason."

 

[Rhea]

(Pedant: don’t forget that Darth Vader’s Daughter was Leia, who was an actual hero of the resistance. So… metaphor breakdown. That’s all.)

 

[Elixir]

I have more respect for Mafia dons or hired gun-men than for present-day Republicans.

Ditto. And FWIW I include DJT in the former category.
It’s one thing to be a fascist slimeball, but it’s next level to be sucking fascist slimeball dick.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A conviction is not and never was part of the rule. Disqualification is triggered all on its own merely by having “engaged in” insurrection after having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Check, and check, for Donald J. Trump.

To rule otherwise, regardless of premise, is to openly and shamelessly admit a hyper-partisan Conservative bias and to telegraph that you care nothing for the very Constitution you’re ostensibly there to uphold.

Yup. Every court so far has agreed with the fact finding, that DJT is an insurrectionist.

It will be truly interesting (if not revealing) to see how SCOTUS handles this. It’s a thorny issue so I half expect them to duck it, and say “let the voters decide”, ignoring the fact that the Constitution has already “decided”. Or they might simply overrule the fact findings of all the lower courts and try to represent that they can’t really tell from the evidence that he’s an insurrectionist.

What I don’t expect is a forthright and honest ruling that respects the text and the intent of the Constitution. I hope I’m wrong, partly because I want to hear Cheato crying about the Biden Crime Family left wing activist democrat Supreme Court judges he appointed.

Roberts' court has always been a partisan affair but one that tries to keep the peace. I expect, as do others, that it's going to disallow states to exclude Orange Hitler but also find that Orange Hitler is not immune from prosecution.

 

[Elixir]

I expect, as do others, that it's going to disallow states to exclude Orange Hitler but also find that Orange Hitler is not immune from prosecution.

Right, that would be the outcome they’d like to put forth. But how are they going to finesse these facts?

* Trump is an insurrectionist (as determined by numerous courts) who took an oath to defend the Constitution

* Insurrectionists who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution are Constitutionally forbidden from holding office.

I can image a half dozen nitpicky ways they might try to make an obviously hypocritical argument for violating their Constitutional mandate, and might get it to stick with their six corrupt members, but it’s hard to see any of that BS flushing with the American public. Sucks to be them today.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I expect, as do others, that it's going to disallow states to exclude Orange Hitler but also find that Orange Hitler is not immune from prosecution.

Right, that would be the outcome they’d like to put forth. But how are they going to finesse these facts?

* Trump is an insurrectionist (as determined by numerous courts) who took an oath to defend the Constitution

* Insurrectionists who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution are Constitutionally forbidden from holding office.

I can image a half dozen nitpicky ways they might try to make an obviously hypocritical argument for violating their Constitutional mandate, and might get it to stick with their six corrupt members, but it’s hard to see any of that BS flushing with the American public. Sucks to be them today.

They could kick the can down the road and since this is a political party’s primary ballot it isn’t covered explicitly by the constitution.

Of course it makes no sense to allow a disqualified candidate even on the primary ballot because if they win the ballot would be moot.

 

[Elixir]

I expect, as do others, that it's going to disallow states to exclude Orange Hitler but also find that Orange Hitler is not immune from prosecution.

Right, that would be the outcome they’d like to put forth. But how are they going to finesse these facts?

* Trump is an insurrectionist (as determined by numerous courts) who took an oath to defend the Constitution

* Insurrectionists who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution are Constitutionally forbidden from holding office.

I can image a half dozen nitpicky ways they might try to make an obviously hypocritical argument for violating their Constitutional mandate, and might get it to stick with their six corrupt members, but it’s hard to see any of that BS flushing with the American public. Sucks to be them today.

They could kick the can down the road and since this is a political party’s primary ballot it isn’t covered explicitly by the constitution.

Of course it makes no sense to allow a disqualified candidate even on the primary ballot because if they win the ballot would be moot.

I usually play a daily online puzzle called Phrazle. Today’s answer was “egg on your face”.

How will those clowns look if they have to re-visit this next summer?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I expect, as do others, that it's going to disallow states to exclude Orange Hitler but also find that Orange Hitler is not immune from prosecution.

Right, that would be the outcome they’d like to put forth. But how are they going to finesse these facts?

* Trump is an insurrectionist (as determined by numerous courts) who took an oath to defend the Constitution

* Insurrectionists who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution are Constitutionally forbidden from holding office.

I can image a half dozen nitpicky ways they might try to make an obviously hypocritical argument for violating their Constitutional mandate, and might get it to stick with their six corrupt members, but it’s hard to see any of that BS flushing with the American public. Sucks to be them today.

They could kick the can down the road and since this is a political party’s primary ballot it isn’t covered explicitly by the constitution.

Of course it makes no sense to allow a disqualified candidate even on the primary ballot because if they win the ballot would be moot.

I usually play a daily online puzzle called Phrazle. Today’s answer was “egg on your face”.

How will those clowns look if they have to re-visit this next summer?

Yeah. I’m not saying it’s a smart move.

I’m sure they’ll come up with some twisted legal logic to get out of it. Though the easiest is just to say that it wasn’t an insurrection or Trump didn’t engage in it. And compare it to the civil war and say there was no army uprising or whatever.

 

[Elixir]

the easiest is just to say that it wasn’t an insurrection or Trump didn’t engage in it.

ZACKLY!!
Their easiest way out is to flatly assert that what everyone saw with their own eyes, what the courts ruled as Trump inciting, supporting and participating in an insurrection, never happened. It was just a mass hallucination.

What more could they possibly do to resurrect public confidence in their integrity and intent?


I don’t think their faces could even hold an omelet of that size.

 

[Shadowy Man]

the easiest is just to say that it wasn’t an insurrection or Trump didn’t engage in it.

ZACKLY!!
Their easiest way out is to flatly assert that what everyone saw with their own eyes, what the courts ruled as Trump inciting, supporting and participating in an insurrection, never happened. It was just a mass hallucination.

What more could they possibly do to resurrect public confidence in their integrity and intent?


I don’t think their faces could even hold an omelet of that size.

They’ll find a three hundred year old dictionary that defines insurrection in a particular way. And also say that because Trump himself didn’t invade the Capitol he didn’t engage.

I’m sure they’ll come up with something.

 

[Elixir]

I’m sure they’ll come up with something.

We all seem to agree on that.
I guess when you're a Supreme, you don't have to worry about stuff like passing the laugh test.

 

[TV and credit cards]

the easiest is just to say that it wasn’t an insurrection or Trump didn’t engage in it.

ZACKLY!!
Their easiest way out is to flatly assert that what everyone saw with their own eyes, what the courts ruled as Trump inciting, supporting and participating in an insurrection, never happened. It was just a mass hallucination.

What more could they possibly do to resurrect public confidence in their integrity and intent?


I don’t think their faces could even hold an omelet of that size.

They’ll find a three hundred year old dictionary that defines insurrection in a particular way. And also say that because Trump himself didn’t invade the Capitol he didn’t engage.

I’m sure they’ll come up with something.

Consider the breadth of definition of "aid and comfort".

Help; support; assistance; counsel; encouragement. As an element in the crime of treason, the giving of “aid and comfort” to the enemy may consist in a mere attempt. It is not essential to constitute the giving of aid and comfort that the enterprise commenced should be successful and actually render assistance. Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 62, 24 L. Ed. 992; U. S. v. Greathouse, 4 Sawy. 472, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254.

Now tell me Douchenozzle didn't publicly encourage. And I'll betcha they have much evidence of counseling.

 

[Shadowy Man]

the easiest is just to say that it wasn’t an insurrection or Trump didn’t engage in it.

ZACKLY!!
Their easiest way out is to flatly assert that what everyone saw with their own eyes, what the courts ruled as Trump inciting, supporting and participating in an insurrection, never happened. It was just a mass hallucination.

What more could they possibly do to resurrect public confidence in their integrity and intent?


I don’t think their faces could even hold an omelet of that size.

They’ll find a three hundred year old dictionary that defines insurrection in a particular way. And also say that because Trump himself didn’t invade the Capitol he didn’t engage.

I’m sure they’ll come up with something.

Consider the breadth of definition of "aid and comfort".

Help; support; assistance; counsel; encouragement. As an element in the crime of treason, the giving of “aid and comfort” to the enemy may consist in a mere attempt. It is not essential to constitute the giving of aid and comfort that the enterprise commenced should be successful and actually render assistance. Young v. United States, 97 U. S. 62, 24 L. Ed. 992; U. S. v. Greathouse, 4 Sawy. 472, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254.

Now tell me Douchenozzle didn't publicly encourage. And I'll betcha they have much evidence of counseling.

As I’ve stated before, his inaction while our Capitol was being breached would alone qualify for giving comfort to the enemy. Let alone everything else he did.

 

[AdamWho]

The Supreme Court isn't going to save Trump on the 'Presidential Immunity'. They may waffle on '14th Amendment disqualification' issue.

They look like they are going to drag their feet. Cowards.

Trump isn't going to be the Republican nominee. He is going the way of Giuliani