Look at this. The FBI and DOJ are so corrupt and so intent on covering up their conspiracy that they throw their own agent provocateur under the bus. Do you know what they do to FBI agents in prison?!?! I hope the DOJ will at least let the poor guy be put in Ad Seg given how much work he did.
Federal prosecutors have recommended a six-month term of imprisonment for a man at the center of a right-wing conspiracy theory about the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that autocracy-- for lack of a better word -- is good. autocracy is right. autocracy works. autocracy clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. autocracy, in all of its forms --autocracy for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind. And autocracy-- you mark my words -- will save malfunctioning corporation called the USA.
Trump argues quite a bit about the events at the Capitol and that he encouraged the crowd to be peaceful. (He seems to admit that didn't listen to him). He also argues his belief in a rigged election was justified because of "an avalanche of irregularities" etc.
But the entire Trump brief never mentions the fake electoral certificates or any of the other stuff he and Eastman, Giuliani, Chesebro et al. are accused of. So if you don't even address that stuff, I don't see how you win the appeal. A court will see that as a concession or a capitulation. Unless the hope is that the SCOTUS will simply say presidential immunity exists, but its up to the jury (or the district court judge) to determine whether all of Trump's behavior was within his official acts as president? Hard to figure out what is going on, but this seems like a total failure by Trump's lawyers.
Trump argues quite a bit about the events at the Capitol and that he encouraged the crowd to be peaceful. (He seems to admit that didn't listen to him). He also argues his belief in a rigged election was justified because of "an avalanche of irregularities" etc.
But the entire Trump brief never mentions the fake electoral certificates or any of the other stuff he and Eastman, Giuliani, Chesebro et al. are accused of. So if you don't even address that stuff, I don't see how you win the appeal. A court will see that as a concession or a capitulation. Unless the hope is that the SCOTUS will simply say presidential immunity exists, but its up to the jury (or the district court judge) to determine whether all of Trump's behavior was within his official acts as president? Hard to figure out what is going on, but this seems like a total failure by Trump's lawyers.
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
Trump argues quite a bit about the events at the Capitol and that he encouraged the crowd to be peaceful. (He seems to admit that didn't listen to him). He also argues his belief in a rigged election was justified because of "an avalanche of irregularities" etc.
But the entire Trump brief never mentions the fake electoral certificates or any of the other stuff he and Eastman, Giuliani, Chesebro et al. are accused of. So if you don't even address that stuff, I don't see how you win the appeal. A court will see that as a concession or a capitulation. Unless the hope is that the SCOTUS will simply say presidential immunity exists, but its up to the jury (or the district court judge) to determine whether all of Trump's behavior was within his official acts as president? Hard to figure out what is going on, but this seems like a total failure by Trump's lawyers.
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
They likely will side with him to ensure he can run and will simply narrow their arguments enough so that similar future presidential actions and behavior can be taken up in court as well (i.e., cherry picked by the conservative majority). Less probable is that they just kick the issue back to states and he's off the ballot. That's also risky because future R run states can claim that when Joe Biden spoke slowly or was too old he too eroded democracy and should be off the ballot. Clearly that's a bit harder to do but you get where I'm going with this.
Trump argues quite a bit about the events at the Capitol and that he encouraged the crowd to be peaceful. (He seems to admit that didn't listen to him). He also argues his belief in a rigged election was justified because of "an avalanche of irregularities" etc.
But the entire Trump brief never mentions the fake electoral certificates or any of the other stuff he and Eastman, Giuliani, Chesebro et al. are accused of. So if you don't even address that stuff, I don't see how you win the appeal. A court will see that as a concession or a capitulation. Unless the hope is that the SCOTUS will simply say presidential immunity exists, but its up to the jury (or the district court judge) to determine whether all of Trump's behavior was within his official acts as president? Hard to figure out what is going on, but this seems like a total failure by Trump's lawyers.
There is evidence he knew he legit lost and was the one pushing for others to figure out how to keep him in power.
What nobody is talking about is the fact that the President of the United States does not run elections. He does not supervise elections. He is not the decider in any way shape or form of whether an election is legit, rigged or whatever. It is not in his wheelhouse of job duties or responsibilities. He has no authority to do so. It matters not what he believes or doesn't believe.
So to claim that all of Trump's actions fall into the outer perimeter of his duties is insane. The only way that argument flies legally is if we abandon our form of government and assume the President is a King.
If DJT's supporters would get off the - it's political and fake bandwagon we could try him and find him guilty and rid ourselves of the menace he's created.
We NEED the real Republican Party back (and I hope to God that THIS isn't the real Republican Party.
Trump argues quite a bit about the events at the Capitol and that he encouraged the crowd to be peaceful. (He seems to admit that didn't listen to him). He also argues his belief in a rigged election was justified because of "an avalanche of irregularities" etc.
But the entire Trump brief never mentions the fake electoral certificates or any of the other stuff he and Eastman, Giuliani, Chesebro et al. are accused of. So if you don't even address that stuff, I don't see how you win the appeal. A court will see that as a concession or a capitulation. Unless the hope is that the SCOTUS will simply say presidential immunity exists, but its up to the jury (or the district court judge) to determine whether all of Trump's behavior was within his official acts as president? Hard to figure out what is going on, but this seems like a total failure by Trump's lawyers.
He hangs his hat on having said at the end of his speech to be peaceful, but going radio silent for 2 hours while the capitol was under attack makes it clear what his intentions were.
What nobody is talking about is the fact that the President of the United States does not run elections. He does not supervise elections. He is not the decider in any way shape or form of whether an election is legit, rigged or whatever. It is not in his wheelhouse of job duties or responsibilities. He has no authority to do so. It matters not what he believes or doesn't believe.
So to claim that all of Trump's actions fall into the outer perimeter of his duties is insane. The only way that argument flies legally is if we abandon our form of government and assume the President is a King.
Trump argues quite a bit about the events at the Capitol and that he encouraged the crowd to be peaceful. (He seems to admit that didn't listen to him). He also argues his belief in a rigged election was justified because of "an avalanche of irregularities" etc.
But the entire Trump brief never mentions the fake electoral certificates or any of the other stuff he and Eastman, Giuliani, Chesebro et al. are accused of. So if you don't even address that stuff, I don't see how you win the appeal. A court will see that as a concession or a capitulation. Unless the hope is that the SCOTUS will simply say presidential immunity exists, but its up to the jury (or the district court judge) to determine whether all of Trump's behavior was within his official acts as president? Hard to figure out what is going on, but this seems like a total failure by Trump's lawyers.
He hangs his hat on having said at the end of his speech to be peaceful, but going radio silent for 2 hours while the capitol was under attack makes it clear what his intentions were.
He also made his intentions clear when he told his supporters to take their country back and to "fight like hell".
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
They likely will side with him to ensure he can run and will simply narrow their arguments enough so that similar future presidential actions and behavior can be taken up in court as well (i.e., cherry picked by the conservative majority). Less probable is that they just kick the issue back to states and he's off the ballot. That's also risky because future R run states can claim that when Joe Biden spoke slowly or was too old he too eroded democracy and should be off the ballot. Clearly that's a bit harder to do but you get where I'm going with this.
The states supreme courts are only legally able to bar Trump under the 14th Amendment, for aiding an insurrection. That doesn't open any future opportunities for Republican states to bar Biden or anyone else.
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
The states supreme courts are only legally able to bar Trump under the 14th Amendment, for aiding an insurrection. That doesn't open any future opportunities for Republican states to bar Biden or anyone else.
For someone who seems to understand today's GOP, you sure don't seem to understand today's GOP.
Trump argues quite a bit about the events at the Capitol and that he encouraged the crowd to be peaceful. (He seems to admit that didn't listen to him). He also argues his belief in a rigged election was justified because of "an avalanche of irregularities" etc.
But the entire Trump brief never mentions the fake electoral certificates or any of the other stuff he and Eastman, Giuliani, Chesebro et al. are accused of. So if you don't even address that stuff, I don't see how you win the appeal. A court will see that as a concession or a capitulation. Unless the hope is that the SCOTUS will simply say presidential immunity exists, but its up to the jury (or the district court judge) to determine whether all of Trump's behavior was within his official acts as president? Hard to figure out what is going on, but this seems like a total failure by Trump's lawyers.
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
I don't think absolute immunity like you describe (murder) is at issue. It's "absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President." I think the SCOTUS (and maybe DC appeals court) will find that such immunity exists (it's never been decided before).
If the SCOTUS does find it exists, then the question becomes whether the acts alleged in Indictment fall within Trump's official acts as president. I think he has punted on that by not even mentioning most of the allegations against him in his appeal. So he either loses the appeal because he seems to have conceded it all, or he didn't have to address any of that and somehow it gets returned to the trial court and the jury (or the judge in a motion) decides what is an official act or not an official act. But I'm unclear how all that plays out. Anyone?
If DJT's supporters would get off the - it's political and fake bandwagon we could try him and find him guilty and rid ourselves of the menace he's created.
We NEED the real Republican Party back (and I hope to God that THIS isn't the real Republican Party.
Nice fantasy. But a political party is comprised of its members and is defined by its actions.
What you have been seeing for years IS the real Republican Party.
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
They likely will side with him to ensure he can run and will simply narrow their arguments enough so that similar future presidential actions and behavior can be taken up in court as well (i.e., cherry picked by the conservative majority). Less probable is that they just kick the issue back to states and he's off the ballot. That's also risky because future R run states can claim that when Joe Biden spoke slowly or was too old he too eroded democracy and should be off the ballot. Clearly that's a bit harder to do but you get where I'm going with this.
That's a different set of appeals from the Colorado and Maine disqualifications. I don't know what the SCOTUS does there if it ever gets there. If more states disqualify Trump, do they have to consider each appeal independently because each state has different election procedures? Or do they try to issue some blanket rule that any state election procedure that disqualifies a candidate who has not been criminally convicted of insurrection is un-Constitutional? It seems they would trend for the latter to make things easier for the SCOTUS and uniform, but it's probably harder for SCOTUS to declare every state election procedure in America un-Constitutional without even reviewing them than many people think it is.
If DJT's supporters would get off the - it's political and fake bandwagon we could try him and find him guilty and rid ourselves of the menace he's created.
We NEED the real Republican Party back (and I hope to God that THIS isn't the real Republican Party.
Yep. My only wish for Christmas was that GOP voters would come to their senses and abandon this criminal. There's plenty of non-criminals who can beat Biden.
We know that's what Moscow Carlson wanted the GOP to do back in 2020! "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait."
If the SCOTUS were to decide Trump can't be touched because of Presidential immunity that would mean a President could commit any crime, including murder, and not be subject to legal action. The SCOTUS would lose whatever shreds of credibility it still has if it were to take that position. I doubt the Court would sacrifice itself for Trump.
I don't think absolute immunity like you describe (murder) is at issue. It's "absolute immunity from prosecution for his official acts as President." I think the SCOTUS (and maybe DC appeals court) will find that such immunity exists (it's never been decided before).
If the SCOTUS does find it exists, then the question becomes whether the acts alleged in Indictment fall within Trump's official acts as president. I think he has punted on that by not even mentioning most of the allegations against him in his appeal. So he either loses the appeal because he seems to have conceded it all, or he didn't have to address any of that and somehow it gets returned to the trial court and the jury (or the judge in a motion) decides what is an official act or not an official act. But I'm unclear how all that plays out. Anyone?
Well, yeah, a POTUS has immunity from official actions taken as a president, but what he did on 1/6 was in no way, one of them. Of course, the Supreme Court will reject Trump’s claim of immunity. All Trump and his attorneys are trying to do is delay the trial.
If DJT's supporters would get off the - it's political and fake bandwagon we could try him and find him guilty and rid ourselves of the menace he's created.
We NEED the real Republican Party back (and I hope to God that THIS isn't the real Republican Party.
Yep. My only wish for Christmas was that GOP voters would come to their senses and abandon this criminal. There's plenty of non-criminals who can beat Biden.
We know that's what Moscow Carlson wanted the GOP to do back in 2020! "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait."
A 'version' of the GOP that could come to their senses no longer exist. If you are a Repub/Conservative you have to realize that now. 1 of the current non-Orange sh!t stain candidates has committed to not pardoning Mango Mussolini. The disease is fatal and will exist as long as their are host available.
