January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[MDlaxfan76]

If in the first two years of the Biden presidency, when the Dems controlled both Houses, Congress had passed a law that either specifically said Trump had engaged in an insurrection or that the Attorney General had the authority to determine whether someone had engaged in an insurrection and was thus disqualified from holding office, anyone think this Supreme Court would have held that law unconstitutional?

Yup, 6-3 or 5-4.
They'd have claimed that it would need to be in federal court with all appeals and they'd have reversed the conviction at the end.

This decision was way, way simpler to reach.

[MDlaxfan76]

Personally, I think all four of judges writing dissenting concurrences were right that the majority should have decided on narrower grounds and not expanded the role of Congress, but that's getting into the Constitutional weeds.

Yes, but this is the part that folks like me that can't stand the election games that parties play (gerrymandering, making it hard for the poor) are applauding.

You can bet that a future case on gerrymandering for House Districts, etc, will cite chapter and verse from this decision....14th Amendment means that Congress, and thereby the SCOTUS, determines how Federal elections are held.

Now granted, this assumes the SCOTUS will actually follow their own freaking rulings, which is, I know, asking a lot....but I can't wait to see this decision being put into practice.

I feel and agree with that pain.

Yet it would take a filibuster proof majority and Senate and a House and a President to all agree with reversing gerrymandering, etc. It should happen, but will it?

But even then you're assuming that this SCOTUS would agree to follow the same logic and principle. They will claim this only was about the 14th.

[cradleandshoot]

Wow, what a hostile crowd. It's always much more fun when FLP ideology crashes and burns on this forum. Liberals really do suck when they not only lose but get their asses handed to them on a silver platter in the process. If Trump wins in November this forum will be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Wow, what a hostile crowd. It's always much more fun when FLP ideology crashes and burns on this forum. Liberals really do suck when they not only lose but get their asses handed to them on a silver platter in the process. If Trump wins in November this forum will be more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Another great contribution. Quite a day of stupid. Maybe time for bed.

[a fan]

Personally, I think all four of judges writing dissenting concurrences were right that the majority should have decided on narrower grounds and not expanded the role of Congress, but that's getting into the Constitutional weeds.

Yes, but this is the part that folks like me that can't stand the election games that parties play (gerrymandering, making it hard for the poor) are applauding.

You can bet that a future case on gerrymandering for House Districts, etc, will cite chapter and verse from this decision....14th Amendment means that Congress, and thereby the SCOTUS, determines how Federal elections are held.

Now granted, this assumes the SCOTUS will actually follow their own freaking rulings, which is, I know, asking a lot....but I can't wait to see this decision being put into practice.

I feel and agree with that pain.

Yet it would take a filibuster proof majority and Senate and a House and a President to all agree with reversing gerrymandering, etc. It should happen, but will it?

Why would Congress have anything to do with it? Who just stepped in to tell Colorado how to run their elections: Congress, or SCOTUS?

SCOTUS. So.....file a lawsuit in a gerrymandered State. What is LIKELY, is that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear it....because that's their only "out".

This is a SOOPER-broad 14th Amendment ruling, if you ask me. But I'm not a lawyer.

But even then you're assuming that this SCOTUS would agree to follow the same logic and principle. They will claim this only was about the 14th.

Oh, no argument there. This ASSUMES intellectual honesty.

If this case was held in a top-notch Grad School philosophy seminar? Case closed. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter for how Federal elections are run. Period.

....but that ain't reality, and the SCOTUS has NOTHING to do with the law and intellectual honesty. If it did? MOST cases would be unanimous decisions. Before the Court of the last 2020's? 43% of cases were unanimous. IMHO, that number should be far higher.

Now? SCOTUS is at 23% of 9-0 decisions. This is an embarrassment to both logic, and our Constitution.

As the kids say: it is what it is.

[old salt]

...and now we know why it was Unanimous: the SCOTUS just opened the barn door, telling Americans that when it comes to Federal elections (as opposed to State), the 14th Amendment hands power to the Federal Government. They cite the 14th again and again.

This is FANTASTIC, and will kill State Gerrymandering if anyone is smart enough to sue. It will also allow the Federal Government to step in, and ensure that Federal elections are fair.....so now the ol' Republican game of making it easy for the rich to vote, and hard for the poor is in question.

Awesome outcome. I'll take it.


Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

yup, though the conservative SCOTUS may ignore this line of reasoning, though that would be opposed by the pro-democracy folks on the Court.

But definitely a powerful line of reasoning.

Picture the SCOTUS stepping in, and forcing all States to adopt a uniform, Colorado-Style election that makes it EASY to register and vote.

Or....and this would make me happier because of the irony of R's getting what they CLAIM to want: the Fed stepping in and disallowing all absentee ballots or "ballot harvesting". And then watch as R's lose election after election because it's harder for the elderly to vote.

We'll see. This could take years or decades. But the die is cast.

...dream on. All the Supremes did is draw a line where states rights end => that's in keeping a candidate off the ballot based on the 14th Amendment.

Had Trump been charged & convicted of conspiring in, or leading, an insurrection (aka due process), they likely would have ruled him ineligible to be on all state ballots, based on the 14th Amendment.

Biden & Garland waited too long to appoint a SC to go after Trump for Jan 6th, ...& even then, no charges include Insurrection.

[dislaxxic]

BIDEN didn't do SHIRT on this score Swabby. Not one iota. He has, like any GOOD president, stayed out of this sort of thing. Its ludicrous and sheer dumbassery to imply otherwise.

The Key Disagreement In The Liberal Justices’ Concurrence On The Trump Ballot Ruling

"Activist Judges" was a perjorative that rightwingnuts used to love to toss around when a ruling from a more liberal court went against their ideology. THIS court continues to do NOTHING but act in a purely partisan way. It's absolutely atrocious behavior.

...three justices ― liberals Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson ― disagreed vehemently with the assertion by the five conservative justices ― John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ― that Section 3 could only be enforced for federal offices by specific congressional legislation. Fellow conservative Amy Coney Barrett issued a separate concurrence that refrained from elaborating on her disagreement with the majority opinion, concluding “our differences are far less important than our unanimity.”

Invoking the court’s controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, which decided the razor-thin outcome of the 2000 election in favor of Republican George W. Bush, the liberal justices declared that the majority’s decision had gone too far by potentially closing off other avenues for federal courts and Congress to prevent insurrectionist candidates from gaining office.

“Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on,” the three liberals write in a concurrence that reads like a bitter dissent. “They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.HANDOUT VIA GETTY IMAGES
The liberal concurrence took issue with the fact that the majority had not only ruled on whether the state of Colorado could enforce Section 3 against federal candidates but also on who could instead: namely, Congress, and only Congress, via legislation. In short, they argued, the decision removes power from the courts to rule on if someone was, in fact, an insurrectionist. The decision “forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision,” according to the liberals’ concurrence. Such enforcement could arise “when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score,” they contended.

Such a situation could arise if someone brings a legal challenge to an action by a future President Trump, like, say, a declaration of emergency in order to federalize police officers to round up undocumented immigrants for deportation.

Similarly, it could negate any federal court review if Trump appointed anyone who engaged in the Jan. 6 plot to a federal office, such as former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark.

In doing this, the liberals argued, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”

As the liberals noted, “nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.” Instead, they argued, the majority relied on flimsy precedent and cherry-picked historical quotes to create a new precedent, making Section 3 all but unenforceable in the courts.

THIS is the kind of bullshirt we get with conservative legal thinking. Read it again:

“They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

That's right. They're trying to make it AOK to be an oath-breaking insurrectionist and hold US Federal office.

..

[a fan]

...and now we know why it was Unanimous: the SCOTUS just opened the barn door, telling Americans that when it comes to Federal elections (as opposed to State), the 14th Amendment hands power to the Federal Government. They cite the 14th again and again.

This is FANTASTIC, and will kill State Gerrymandering if anyone is smart enough to sue. It will also allow the Federal Government to step in, and ensure that Federal elections are fair.....so now the ol' Republican game of making it easy for the rich to vote, and hard for the poor is in question.

Awesome outcome. I'll take it.


Ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_19m2.pdf

yup, though the conservative SCOTUS may ignore this line of reasoning, though that would be opposed by the pro-democracy folks on the Court.

But definitely a powerful line of reasoning.

Picture the SCOTUS stepping in, and forcing all States to adopt a uniform, Colorado-Style election that makes it EASY to register and vote.

Or....and this would make me happier because of the irony of R's getting what they CLAIM to want: the Fed stepping in and disallowing all absentee ballots or "ballot harvesting". And then watch as R's lose election after election because it's harder for the elderly to vote.

We'll see. This could take years or decades. But the die is cast.

...dream on. All the Supremes did is draw a line where states rights end => that's in keeping a candidate off the ballot based on the 14th Amendment.

This is how Trump apologists like you think: you think that the libs will NEVER play this game of packing the Court, and coming up with silly rulings.

Got news for ya: different Justices can, and will, look at it differently than you want. Reasonable Justices will laugh their *sses off at the idea that this "ONLY" applies to this exact thing happening in 2024. It's a bunch of grown adults with pretty terrific CV's crossing their fingers so that they can try and say later "oh, this ruling only applies to this exact POTUS, and in no other way is this Federal Judges telling States how to run their elections".

Right. Well, watch what happens when the Senate flips, and Dem Senates play this same game-----and tell the R's in the Senate to get bent, and put the most far left Justices on the bench they can find.

All because your team stopped governing and working with Dems, and instead, worked to pack the Court.

I'm DELIGHTED Trump will be the next POTUS, because I'm going to rub it in your nose every time he does something that royally F"s the working class, and hands even MORE money to the Coastal LIbs.

Yep, You and TrumpNation will get your man. But you forget that he doesn't govern like a Conservative.....so the libs will win no matter what.

Had Trump been charged & convicted of conspiring in, or leading, an insurrection (aka due process), they likely would have ruled him ineligible to be on all state ballots, based on the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, no. Nowhere did they put that in writing. This is you, telling the Forum what YOU want. The didn't say boo about whether or not Trump had committed insurrection. And in case you didn't notice, the Constitution doesn't say boo about "convicted in a Federal Court of insurrection".

It's a nice, vague sentence, designed to keep insurrectionists from playing games with insurrectionists. You know: exactly what you are doing here.

Do you remember how many of Trump's toadies are now convicted felons because they tried to cheat the GA people out of their choice for President.

Of course not. You don't care. Naturally, if Trump was a Dem? You and your buds would be losing their minds about "how could the Dems possibly let this guy be their candidate?"

Instead? This is YOUR man, OS. YOUR leader. The guy that YOU let do whatever he wants, and you'll find a reason why it's fine.

Enjoy your next four years. I know I'll be sitting here, getting ready for more tax cuts, while the working class you CLAIM to care about falls even further behind. F them, right? What's more important than helping them, is your magic letter R.

You can't eat hate, OS. And you can't send your kids to a good school by "sticking it the gays." TrumpNation better figure this out at some point, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[old salt]

BIDEN didn't do SHIRT on this score Swabby. Not one iota. He has, like any GOOD president, stayed out of this sort of thing. Its ludicrous and sheer dumbassery to imply otherwise.

The Key Disagreement In The Liberal Justices’ Concurrence On The Trump Ballot Ruling

"Activist Judges" was a perjorative that rightwingnuts used to love to toss around when a ruling from a more liberal court went against their ideology. THIS court continues to do NOTHING but act in a purely partisan way. It's absolutely atrocious behavior.

...three justices ― liberals Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson ― disagreed vehemently with the assertion by the five conservative justices ― John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ― that Section 3 could only be enforced for federal offices by specific congressional legislation. Fellow conservative Amy Coney Barrett issued a separate concurrence that refrained from elaborating on her disagreement with the majority opinion, concluding “our differences are far less important than our unanimity.”

Invoking the court’s controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, which decided the razor-thin outcome of the 2000 election in favor of Republican George W. Bush, the liberal justices declared that the majority’s decision had gone too far by potentially closing off other avenues for federal courts and Congress to prevent insurrectionist candidates from gaining office.

“Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on,” the three liberals write in a concurrence that reads like a bitter dissent. “They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.HANDOUT VIA GETTY IMAGES
The liberal concurrence took issue with the fact that the majority had not only ruled on whether the state of Colorado could enforce Section 3 against federal candidates but also on who could instead: namely, Congress, and only Congress, via legislation. In short, they argued, the decision removes power from the courts to rule on if someone was, in fact, an insurrectionist. The decision “forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision,” according to the liberals’ concurrence. Such enforcement could arise “when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score,” they contended.

Such a situation could arise if someone brings a legal challenge to an action by a future President Trump, like, say, a declaration of emergency in order to federalize police officers to round up undocumented immigrants for deportation.

Similarly, it could negate any federal court review if Trump appointed anyone who engaged in the Jan. 6 plot to a federal office, such as former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark.

In doing this, the liberals argued, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”

As the liberals noted, “nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.” Instead, they argued, the majority relied on flimsy precedent and cherry-picked historical quotes to create a new precedent, making Section 3 all but unenforceable in the courts.

THIS is the kind of bullshirt we get with conservative legal thinking. Read it again:

“They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

That's right. They're trying to make it AOK to be an oath-breaking insurrectionist and hold US Federal office.

..t

So why did AG Garland wait so long to appoint a SC to investigate Trump's part in Jan 6 ? He knew the election timetable.
Had Trump been indicted, convicted & sentenced of any charge including insurrection, there would be a 14th Amendment legal basis to keep him off the ballot that the Supremes would likely uphold.

[a fan]

BIDEN didn't do SHIRT on this score Swabby. Not one iota. He has, like any GOOD president, stayed out of this sort of thing. Its ludicrous and sheer dumbassery to imply otherwise.

The Key Disagreement In The Liberal Justices’ Concurrence On The Trump Ballot Ruling

"Activist Judges" was a perjorative that rightwingnuts used to love to toss around when a ruling from a more liberal court went against their ideology. THIS court continues to do NOTHING but act in a purely partisan way. It's absolutely atrocious behavior.

...three justices ― liberals Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson ― disagreed vehemently with the assertion by the five conservative justices ― John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ― that Section 3 could only be enforced for federal offices by specific congressional legislation. Fellow conservative Amy Coney Barrett issued a separate concurrence that refrained from elaborating on her disagreement with the majority opinion, concluding “our differences are far less important than our unanimity.”

Invoking the court’s controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, which decided the razor-thin outcome of the 2000 election in favor of Republican George W. Bush, the liberal justices declared that the majority’s decision had gone too far by potentially closing off other avenues for federal courts and Congress to prevent insurrectionist candidates from gaining office.

“Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on,” the three liberals write in a concurrence that reads like a bitter dissent. “They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.HANDOUT VIA GETTY IMAGES
The liberal concurrence took issue with the fact that the majority had not only ruled on whether the state of Colorado could enforce Section 3 against federal candidates but also on who could instead: namely, Congress, and only Congress, via legislation. In short, they argued, the decision removes power from the courts to rule on if someone was, in fact, an insurrectionist. The decision “forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision,” according to the liberals’ concurrence. Such enforcement could arise “when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score,” they contended.

Such a situation could arise if someone brings a legal challenge to an action by a future President Trump, like, say, a declaration of emergency in order to federalize police officers to round up undocumented immigrants for deportation.

Similarly, it could negate any federal court review if Trump appointed anyone who engaged in the Jan. 6 plot to a federal office, such as former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark.

In doing this, the liberals argued, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”

As the liberals noted, “nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.” Instead, they argued, the majority relied on flimsy precedent and cherry-picked historical quotes to create a new precedent, making Section 3 all but unenforceable in the courts.

THIS is the kind of bullshirt we get with conservative legal thinking. Read it again:

“They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

That's right. They're trying to make it AOK to be an oath-breaking insurrectionist and hold US Federal office.

..t

So why did AG Garland wait so long to appoint a SC to investigate Trump's part in Jan 6 ? He knew the election timetable.
Had Trump been indicted, convicted & sentenced of any charge including insurrection, there would be a 14th Amendment legal basis to keep him off the ballot that the Supremes would likely uphold.

[MDlaxfan76]

BIDEN didn't do SHIRT on this score Swabby. Not one iota. He has, like any GOOD president, stayed out of this sort of thing. Its ludicrous and sheer dumbassery to imply otherwise.

The Key Disagreement In The Liberal Justices’ Concurrence On The Trump Ballot Ruling

"Activist Judges" was a perjorative that rightwingnuts used to love to toss around when a ruling from a more liberal court went against their ideology. THIS court continues to do NOTHING but act in a purely partisan way. It's absolutely atrocious behavior.

...three justices ― liberals Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson ― disagreed vehemently with the assertion by the five conservative justices ― John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh ― that Section 3 could only be enforced for federal offices by specific congressional legislation. Fellow conservative Amy Coney Barrett issued a separate concurrence that refrained from elaborating on her disagreement with the majority opinion, concluding “our differences are far less important than our unanimity.”

Invoking the court’s controversial decision in Bush v. Gore, which decided the razor-thin outcome of the 2000 election in favor of Republican George W. Bush, the liberal justices declared that the majority’s decision had gone too far by potentially closing off other avenues for federal courts and Congress to prevent insurrectionist candidates from gaining office.

“Even though ‘[a]ll nine Members of the Court’ agree that this independent and sufficient rationale resolves this case, five Justices go on,” the three liberals write in a concurrence that reads like a bitter dissent. “They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan opposed part of the majority's decision in Trump v. Anderson.HANDOUT VIA GETTY IMAGES
The liberal concurrence took issue with the fact that the majority had not only ruled on whether the state of Colorado could enforce Section 3 against federal candidates but also on who could instead: namely, Congress, and only Congress, via legislation. In short, they argued, the decision removes power from the courts to rule on if someone was, in fact, an insurrectionist. The decision “forecloses judicial enforcement of that provision,” according to the liberals’ concurrence. Such enforcement could arise “when a party is prosecuted by an insurrectionist and raises a defense on that score,” they contended.

Such a situation could arise if someone brings a legal challenge to an action by a future President Trump, like, say, a declaration of emergency in order to federalize police officers to round up undocumented immigrants for deportation.

Similarly, it could negate any federal court review if Trump appointed anyone who engaged in the Jan. 6 plot to a federal office, such as former Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark.

In doing this, the liberals argued, “the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office.”

As the liberals noted, “nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate.” Instead, they argued, the majority relied on flimsy precedent and cherry-picked historical quotes to create a new precedent, making Section 3 all but unenforceable in the courts.

THIS is the kind of bullshirt we get with conservative legal thinking. Read it again:

“They decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

That's right. They're trying to make it AOK to be an oath-breaking insurrectionist and hold US Federal office.

..t

So why did AG Garland wait so long to appoint a SC to investigate Trump's part in Jan 6 ? He knew the election timetable.
Had Trump been indicted, convicted & sentenced of any charge including insurrection, there would be a 14th Amendment legal basis to keep him off the ballot that the Supremes would likely uphold.

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

[old salt]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

[Seacoaster(1)]

So no possibility that Trump committed any crimes? Grand juries just screwed up? Civil Jury in E. Jean just got it wrong? Paying off hookers to silence them for election purposes and then taking it as a business expense is OK? Storing classified documents in the resort toilet not a big deal?
But the defense of the criminal Mike Flynn is a righteous endeavor. You're so laughably in the bag for Trump. "Blah, blah." How about a glass of STFU.

[old salt]

So no possibility that Trump committed any crimes? Grand juries just screwed up? Civil Jury in E. Jean just got it wrong? Paying off hookers to silence them for election purposes and then taking it as a business expense is OK? Storing classified documents in the resort toilet not a big deal?
But the defense of the criminal Mike Flynn is a righteous endeavor. You're so laughably in the bag for Trump. "Blah, blah." How about a glass of STFU.

...so don't vote for him. That has nothing to do with an insurrection.

[jhu72]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

... right, it's the prosecutors who are the problem for prosecuting crimes. Trump voters think this is a problem, NOT ALL VOTERS. It's interesting that large swaths of Trump country have a history for supporting lawlessness. The parents and grandparents of many of these folks loved the gangsters of the 20s / 30s robbing the banks. The G-men and the bankers were the enemy, the gangsters were all Robin Hoods. It's in the DNA.

[PizzaSnake]

Putin has defeated the US without firing a shot by fomenting internal dissent and exploiting our fractured political process.

Oh, and our “honor system” constitutional democracy has shown its manifold weaknesses.

I guess it was a good run. Going to be an ugly unwinding.

[youthathletics]

Putin has defeated the US without firing a shot by fomenting internal dissent and exploiting our fractured political process.

Oh, and our “honor system” constitutional democracy has shown its manifold weaknesses.

I guess it was a good run. Going to be an ugly unwinding.

Our Congress has done this for years, we are merely a reflection of their behavior; collateral damage.

[jhu72]

Putin has defeated the US without firing a shot by fomenting internal dissent and exploiting our fractured political process.

Oh, and our “honor system” constitutional democracy has shown its manifold weaknesses.

I guess it was a good run. Going to be an ugly unwinding.

The Constitution needs a big rewrite. It poorly reflects the majority today and is totally insufficient for a modern society of 330 million. The biggest problem is relying on the "honor system", needs a lot of rewrite to include definition of process.

[MDlaxfan76]

These guys simply can't imagine that those who revere the rule of law believe that politics should not drive their prosecution decisions.

Further, they think that since they'd have no issue with their POTUS telling their AG who to prosecute and when, and the AG doing so, regardless of evidence achieved through investigation, it means that those who revere actual justice are at fault for not letting their political preferences drive their decisions.

As fundamentally dishonest people, they can't imagine honesty.

Blah, blah. Why didn't Jack Smith indict Trump for anything that included "insurrection" in the charges.

If Trump were convicted in Fed Court on any charges that included "insurrection" then he could be ruled ineligible under the 14th Amendment.

AG Garland could have directed the DC US Atty to investigate & prosecute Trump for insurrection. He would not have needed to defer to a EC.

You"re thus claiming, in effect, that Biden's AG does not think that Trump is an insurrectionist & should not be denied the opportunity to run for President &, if elected, serve again.

That's why it is so obvious that this is an abuse of the political system for political purposes.
The Dems want Trump to run, because he's the (R) candidate they have the best chance of defeating,
but they want to damage him with litigation from local, state & federal prosecutors. ...& it's apparent to voters.

See bold above. Should be 'nuff said.

But it isn't for you and your MAGA friends.

Smith, as an apolitical prosecutor should, is prosecuting only the charges he believes he can prove to a jury 12-0.
He's not charging what he thinks could get hung given the partisan impulses of potential jurors...and in this climate, getting a unanimous verdict is extremely difficult.

As it is, despite the overwhelming evidence we've seen of each of these charges, it's gonna be an uphill battle for the prosecution.

[MDlaxfan76]

Putin has defeated the US without firing a shot by fomenting internal dissent and exploiting our fractured political process.

Oh, and our “honor system” constitutional democracy has shown its manifold weaknesses.

I guess it was a good run. Going to be an ugly unwinding.

Our Congress has done this for years, we are merely a reflection of their behavior; collateral damage.

or...they reflect our electorate. Cowards.