Trump Statistics

[dorankj]

You just admitted the strategy! Tie him up in in court to try and prevent him from campaigning and while you’re at it, see if you can bankrupt him. It’s ONLY political, and you’re guaranteeing his re-election.

[just-jim]

.
A good recap of all the current charges against the guilty orange one,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... es-tracker

91 criminal charges in FOUR CRIMINAL cases. Three of those cases will begin March 2024. The other in May 2024.

Then 2 Civil cases against him:

1. An existing $5 million judgement against him, now has the another $10 million claim, for defamation, scheduled for trial beginning in January.
2. A federal Civil case for fraud - for $250 Million. That one begins in October.

Guilty, Depends donnie is soon going to be kinda busy for the next 7 or 8 months! After that, he will likely be bankrupt and/or in Prison.

Ken - you need to actually READ this.
It isnt flappy hand waving ‘buu buuu buu but her e-mails!’, or ‘Hunters laptop!!’ or ‘Biden crime family!!!!’.
These are REAL cases, with hard evidence filed by prosecutors who dont frivolously file charges.
.

[dorankj]

‘Lies, damn lies and statistics!’ Biden’s been over 400 days of vacation! Worse approval than Trump at this point and you damn well know the ‘indictments’ are from hardcore political zealots with shaky legal ground at best and probably all will fail!

[pasayten]

[Rideback]

From the charging documents:

According to the unsealed indictment, Trump is charged with:

Conspiracy to defraud the United States;
Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding;
Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and
Conspiracy against the right to vote and have one’s vote counted.

J6 is only a piece of the puzzle where J6 has been called the final act. I'm fine with recognizing your links naming insurrection as an illegal act. And the charges in the indictment all fall into the law's definition of an insurrection. Much better minds than you or me, including judges that presided over J6 defendants, have called J6 an insurrection. What Smith's team is going after is the larger picture where the planning, the lying, the disinformation Trump & his coharts used is what drove the final days of the election to be ultimately the obstruction of an official proceeding.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... nuary-6th/

J6 defendants have already been found guilty of attempts to obstruct an official proceeding. The charges against Trump now have a solid foundation thanks to the work from the bottom up of the prosecutors to test each premise.

[Fun CH]

Chris, read your own links. Read the indictments. What you seem to be confusing is the elements or the breakdown of Trump's effort to effect an insurrection. They match up.
https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/w ... ndictment/

Regardless of your attempt at conflation, the charges against Trump are staggering.

you still can't answer a simple question. I'm not confusing anything. Ive only posted here to correct the misinformation you posted where you stated there was no law concerning inciting an insurrection. I posted that law and here we are.

But let's see if you're the one who is confused.

Is there a law concerning inciting an Insurrection, yes or no?

Its a simple question. If you can't answer that question I see no point in continuing this conversation with you.

[Rideback]

Chris, read your own links. Read the indictments. What you seem to be confusing is the elements or the breakdown of Trump's effort to effect an insurrection. They match up.
https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/w ... ndictment/

Regardless of your attempt at conflation, the charges against Trump are staggering.

[Fun CH]

The truth is out there in plain view, just because you choose KellyAnne Conway's tact of 'alternative facts' won't set you free. But you go ahead and keep beating that dead horse, I'm sure there's a couple of bot flies that will rise up and reward you.

or you can present a counter argument of why you stated that Trump wasn't charged with Insurrection because there is no law that covers insurrection. Then I posted the Insurrection law and now you're trying to back pedal and defend your argument with an attack?

Generally when people resort to the kind of attack argument that you're presenting above, they can't defend the misinformation that they posted.

So rideback is there a law that covers insurrections or not? Yes or No?

Is the law that I quoted that covers insurrection fake? Yes or No?

Sorry I call out opinionated misinformation when I see it. That insurrection law that I posted is fact, not the alternative facts that you presented, and that's a fact.

[Rideback]

This is the a piece pulling it all together of where things stand.
https://www.justsecurity.org/87750/the- ... president/

'The task for the U.S. Supreme Court should not be hard. While the 14 Amendment has very broad sweeping terms to define the evidence of insurrection or rebellion, Republican leaders had no difficulty defining Trump’s actions. For example, Kevin McCarthy on the House floor said: “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. … He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor: “There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” His own Vice President Mike Pence: “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States, and anyone who asks someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.”

What’s more, a 57-43 majority of the U.S. Senate voted to convict Trump under an Article of Impeachment for “incitement of insurrection,” which could have barred him from future office. And indicated they would have voted to convict but concluded the Senate lacked jurisdiction since Trump was then no longer president.'

[dorankj]

The new ‘Russia collusion’ lie! You don’t have to ever be right (or admit when the facts prove you wrong) just repeat and beat anyone down who doesn’t agree wholeheartedly! Why are you so scared of democracy? Carry on.

[Rideback]

This is the study referenced in the WaPo piece David refers to. It is thorough, historical and conclusive.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4532751

[mister_coffee]

From the Washington Post:

Opinion: Forget the Trump trials. He might already be ineligible for 2024.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... residency/

Fair use quotes:

But there’s a serious argument that, separate from any criminal charges, Trump is constitutionally disqualified from returning to the White House because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. And if the Constitution bars him from the presidency, then he’s not entitled to be on the ballot, and it becomes the job of state election officials to keep him off.

Two prominent conservative scholars have added their voices — and, more important, their extensive analysis of the relevant historical record — in support of this argument. They conclude that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to prohibit former federal officeholders who joined the Confederacy from holding office again, applies broadly to any “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States and not solely to the South’s secession from the Union.

These scholars explain in a forthcoming law review article that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was an insurrection within the meaning of this clause and, crucially, that Trump engaged in this insurrection within the clause’s meaning, by both fomenting it and failing to exercise his presidential powers to stop it once it was underway. Refuting the view that the president is not an “officer” to whom this provision applies, these scholars cogently note that John Tyler was a former president and John Breckinridge a former vice president who both joined the Confederacy, and surely the framers of the 14th Amendment intended its disqualification from future office to apply to the likes of them.

[Rideback]

The truth is out there in plain view, just because you choose KellyAnne Conway's tact of 'alternative facts' won't set you free. But you go ahead and keep beating that dead horse, I'm sure there's a couple of bot flies that will rise up and reward you.

[Fun CH]

You’re not dealing with people who care a whit about truth, only getting their way and forcing everyone else to agree with them (like little children) in spite of the truth!

they do seem to take opinion as fact and rely on obfuscation when facts are contrary to their opinions.

Its like, here is the law, and their like "yea but here is an expert opinion why can't you read".

They can't seem to see the part that they play in the great divide and eroding democratic values.

BTW, nice application of "Flood the Zone". You had them doing it without them knowing that they were participating in Steve Bannon's political strategy.

[mister_coffee]

A lot of people are very confused.

You don't need to be convicted of anything to be found unqualified for office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. All you need is a finding of fact by someone reasonably in authority (e.g. a state's Secretary of State or a District Court Judge in a given state) and it applies. Note that there is no judicial process required, and certainly no criminal judicial process.

In Trump's case, I'm pretty sure it would quickly move over to federal court and be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And it would be anybody's guess what would happen at that point.

In fact, after the Civil War, most of the Section 3 cases that were brought were brought as civil cases. In nearly all cases the defendants resigned the posts they were not qualified for.

Again, this is not a criminal proceeding at all. In fact, the President has no power to "pardon" people disqualified by Section 3. Only Congress has that power through a 2/3 vote (which happened with the 1872 Amnesty Act and later during the Spanish American War and again later in the 1970s for some weird reason).

The vast majority of people disqualified by Section 3 were people who served in the Confederate Army or the CSA government. Only a handful have been disqualified since then.

[Rideback]

Chris, did you watch the interview I posted with Tribe & Luttig? I'm at a loss how anyone can read their piece in the Atlantic as well as watch the interview, understand that their voices are based on lifetimes of studying the Constitution and the law and not get how Trump will not be qualified to run for office or hold office. Get a grip.

[dorankj]

You’re not dealing with people who care a whit about truth, only getting their way and forcing everyone else to agree with them (like little children) in spite of the truth!

[Fun CH]

Chris, Trump was not specifically indicted for 'inciting an insurrection' because there is no law that is so named. What he was charged with are within the law and charges that have already been adjudicated successfully in the courts against members of the mob from J6 as well as the harsher crimes of sedition against the leaders like Stuart Rhodes.

https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/w ... ndictment/

Above link gives the specific DC charges.

hmmm... This quote is contrary to your point. Out again lol.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or Insurrection
Simply put, this law makes it illegal to incite, assist with, or participate in a rebellion or insurrection against United States laws and authority. 18 U.S.C. 2383 insurrection and rebellion charges are almost never filed due to free speech issues."

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys ... h%20issues.

[Rideback]

Chris, Trump was not specifically indicted for 'inciting an insurrection' because there is no law that is so named. What he was charged with are within the law and charges that have already been adjudicated successfully in the courts against members of the mob from J6 as well as the harsher crimes of sedition against the leaders like Stuart Rhodes.

https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/w ... ndictment/

Above link gives the specific DC charges.

[just-jim]

.
As MC points out the ‘insurrection’ part of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is in play here.

The 14th amendment, of the 3 so-called ‘post civil war’ amendments, is a VERY strong one, indeed!

Here is Section 3 of the amendment:

“Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Here is a discussion of how this section relates to J6 and guilty donnies actions (you have scroll down a bit)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee ... nstitution
.

[Rideback]

Chris, if you don't like to read then here's the 2 Constitutional scholars explaining how Trump is disqualified from the office of the Presidency.

https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/ ... 1177797850

[mister_coffee]

I'd be careful and note that Couy Griffin had not been charged or convicted with respect to inciting an insurrection. He was charged with trespassing. But he was still found by a New Mexico state court to be ineligible to hold public office by virtue of Section 3 of the Fourteenth amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couy_Griffin

Also, historically, all but a handful of ex-confederate officers who were covered by section 3 were never charged with any crime at all. Even fewer were actually convicted. But section 3 most definitely applied to them until the Amnesty Act of 1872. And applied to a smaller number of confederate officials even after that.

[just-jim]

.
We now have tiny guilty donnie’s booking photo into the Fulton County jail on Georgia State charges:
.

.

ANOTHER first - first time a former president booked into jail! Hooray!
.

[Fun CH]

No, again Chris, the point of the article by Luttig & Tribe is based on Trump's incitement, encouragement and aid of an insurrection. That is counter to your continuing point that he said at one point to act 'peacefully' which you seem to think then negates every other action.

No Ridback again, was Trump charged with inciting an insurrection on J6? No

Media opinions don't really matter do they?

Jim, can't you figure out what ken is doing? Flooding the zone. And he has you guys doing it too. Lol

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/media/st ... index.html

"The Democrats don't matter," Bannon told Lewis. "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with sh**."

Anyway these types of conversations are totally pointless. I'm out again. Lol

[just-jim]

So you guys here don’t actually believe in democracy! Can’t allow us “cousin f-ckers” to have a say. Piss -off Jim!

I said nothing of the sort. Words do actually mean what they say…

I was commenting on your - apparent - continuing use of a news source that doesn’t respect you at all, in addition to lying to you. Which you are willing to not only believe but pass on. AND expect the rest of us to believe!

I didn’t call you a cousin-fu*ker. Fox News did.

No one is censoring you or stopping you from doing anything.


However, I never did thank you for your June 8 post:

You can **** off Jim you “unsavory acronym”! Yeah, seems real “free expression”

So, you can f**k off, now, Ken.
.