The Trump Card...

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This is developing way faster than I anticipated...

If this question is not quickly taken up by the US Supreme Court, lawsuits like these are certain to be filed in all 50 states. State Republican parties will likely foot the bill, but Trump's attorneys will be involved too. Trump is going to have to sell a lot of coffee mugs to keep his lawyers on the job.
This nonsense will probably go nowhere fast, but somebody will try it anyway.
From the Breitbart article: (emphasis mine)

"Scanlan said he views the January 6 Capitol riot as a “really unfortunate event in our history” but cautioned that he is not “really qualified to say whether that was an ‘insurrection’ or not.”
“I think that is for the courts to decide,” Scanlan added."


It's pretty clear the courts have already decided. In spite of the declarations of the Jan 6th committee and pronouncements from Democrat politicians, the mainstream media, and Trump haters everywhere, there was no insurrection or rebellion on Jan 6th, 2021. This is an outright lie that has been perpetrated by the Democrats and liberal anti-Trump crowd that has grown into a Big Lie that has been repeated loudly and often. But it obviously doesn't hold up in court. Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection, nor even incitement. That's because Smith and the other prosecutors know it's a loser. They're taking a shotgun approach instead.

"It is significant that the Department of Justice has prosecuted hundreds of persons for their involvement in the Jan. 6 incursion at the Capitol, but has not charged anyone, including Trump, with insurrection under this or any other statute...

But you can be sure of one thing: Someone is going to try this. Some official somewhere will cite the new interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, to remove Trump from a ballot. And then, who knows what will happen?"


 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
It's pretty clear the courts have already decided.
Yes, it is clear, not from what the courts have not ruled, but from what this court and the New Mexico Supreme Court have ruled. Was there an insurrection? Yes! Can someone be removed from office because he participated in an insurrection? Yes!


Is this nonsense? Nope. Three state Secretaries of State are now openly talking about this issue. None are saying they will disqualify Trump from the ballot, but all recognize that it is virtually certain lawsuits will be filed seeking to do so. The Secretaries are seeking guidance now because they have elections to run and they want to be fully prepared when this issue rises and the ballot qualification/disqualification decisions must be made.

This is not "nonsense [that] will probably go nowhere fast." It is a legitimate constitutional question that will be before the US Supreme Court in the near future.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman and RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Pilgrim’s article has some excellent arguments. I’ll add an additional article to that.
Where in the 14th Amendment does it mention a president? It doesn’t.
It was not written pertaining to a president.IMG_4270.jpegIMG_4271.jpeg

 

Attachments

  • IMG_4269.jpeg
    IMG_4269.jpeg
    279.2 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Pilgrim and RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yes, it is clear, not from what the courts have not ruled, but from what this court and the New Mexico Supreme Court have ruled. Was there an insurrection? Yes! Can someone be removed from office because he participated in an insurrection? Yes!


Is this nonsense? Nope. Three state Secretaries of State are now openly talking about this issue. None are saying they will disqualify Trump from the ballot, but all recognize that it is virtually certain lawsuits will be filed seeking to do so. The Secretaries are seeking guidance now because they have elections to run and they want to be fully prepared when this issue rises and the ballot qualification/disqualification decisions must be made.

This is not "nonsense will probably go nowhere fast." It is a legitimate constitutional question that will be before the US Supreme Court in the near future.
They’ll be using the Supreme Court precedent of the term “officer” in their ruling.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Pilgrim’s article has some excellent arguments. I’ll add an additional article to that.
Where in the 14th Amendment does it mention a president? It doesn’t.
It was not written pertaining to a president.
As usual, I'm not rising to argue against the memes you post. I'm content to wait for the relevant officials and attorneys work this through in court. I happen to think Trump will be constitutionally disqualified from being placed on the ballot. But I'm not an attorney so I'll not argue this in depth here. I'm content to let the experts work it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Definition: officer (noun) - someone who is appointed or elected to an office and who holds a position of trust.

For example:

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities.

No need to complicate the simple ... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
This nonsense will probably go nowhere fast, but somebody will try it anyway.
Just today, the New York Times did a decent summary piece about this. It discusses the states now involved and the ways they are involved. It talks about the liberals and conservatives who are advancing the issue. It discusses the likely path the the US Supreme Court and the potential ruling about this there. It explains why first-primary New Hampshire is surfacing as the focal point now.

As I've explained before, I have no interest in debating the merits of the views here on EO. I'm content to leave that to the constitutional scholars and expert attorneys who will argue this in court. My interest is watching the issue is develop and seeubg what impact it has on Trump himself and voters on both sides of the debate.

While the New York Times is a noted liberal publication, I think conservatives will find this article to be a fair summary of the issue as it stands today.

Link to the article
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Is This True? Did Trump Post Nearly 100 Times on Truth Social Today?

On Twitter, Ron Filipkowski is saying, "Trump is having a complete meltdown on Truth Social today, maniacally making nearly 100 posts with [over 30 videos of himself]. In this clip, he is calling on GOP prosecutors around the country to start locking up Democrats to avenge him."

Ignoring the "meltdown" part, Is that true? Did Trump post nearly 100 times on Truth Social today?

Is it also true that he slammed DeSantis several times but did not mention even once the people of Florida who are being hit by a hurricane?

Never mind. I guess it is true, as shown here:


Four Questions:

1. What kind of person posts like this?

2. What kind of people listen to this?

3. What set Trump off on a day-long rant like this?

4. With all the other things a presidential candidate could talk about, Trump talks about this. Is he losing it under the pressure of four indictments and two major civil suits?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
3. What set Trump off on a day-long rant like this?
Possibilities:

*Yesterday, Judge Chutkan set the election interference trial date for March 4, 2024.

*Today, Trump buddy Guiliani was found liable for defaming two Georgia election workers (setting Trump up to be sued too?)

*Today, NY AG Letisha James asked the judge for a summary judgement, which if granted, will massively punish Trump and the Trump Organization for the misdeeds charged in the lawsuit James brought.

*Today, he was forced to decide whether to waive arraignment or attend the arraignment in the GA RICO case.

*He is growing increasingly agitated that House Republicans have not impeached Biden.

*His lawyers keep telling him to shut up.

*He may be seeing the discovery materials which shows the Republican witnesses against him and their sworn testimony.

*Yesterday, he felt his hopes fade for getting his GA case moved to federal court as he processed how poorly Meadows did on the stand, and saw the follow-up question the judge asked.

*It's beginning to dawn on him that it is indeed possible that he will soon be a convicted felon, jailed for a long time.

That's what I'm thinking may have set him into this out-of-control rant. One of these? Some of these? All of these? These and something else? Whatever it was, Trump was clearly out of control today.

MAGA reply: No, no, no. Trump is always in control. He is a stable genius with a master plan. This day-long rant was intentional and carefully scripted. Stay tuned. You'll see. Trump wants these indictments. It's all part of his secret plan in which everyone who wears a red hat wins! You'll see. Trump is the source of all truth. We trust him more as a source of truth than our own family. We trust him more than our clergy. Stay tuned. You'll see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Possibilities:

*Yesterday, Judge Chutkan set the election interference trial date for March 4, 2024.

*Today, Trump buddy Guiliani was found liable for defaming two Georgia election workers (setting Trump up to be sued too?)

*Today, NY AG Letisha James asked the judge for a summary judgement, which if granted, will massively punish Trump and the Trump Organization for the misdeeds charged in the lawsuit James brought.

*Today, he was forced to decide whether to waive arraignment or attend the arraignment in the GA RICO case.

*He is growing increasingly agitated that House Republicans have not impeached Biden.

*His lawyers keep telling him to shut up.

*He may be seeing the discovery materials which shows the Republican witnesses against him and their sworn testimony.

*Yesterday, he felt his hopes fade for getting his GA case moved to federal court as he processed how poorly Meadows did on the stand, and saw the follow-up question the judge asked.

That's what I'm thinking may have set him into this out-of-control rant. One of these? Some of these? All of these? These and something else? Whatever it was, Trump was clearly out of control today.

MAGA reply: No, no, no. Trump is always in control. He is a stable genius with a master plan. This day-long rant was intentional and carefully scripted. Stay tuned. You'll see. Trump wants these indictments. It's all part of his secret plan in which everyone who wears a red hat wins!
Meadows did bad on the stand? Did you hear that from MSNBC?
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Meadows did bad on the stand? Did you hear that from MSNBC?
Analysts on MSNBC and others I read, yes. My conclusion after hearing/reading what I did; Meadows hurt himself more than he helped himself, and some of what he said hurt his co-defendants too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Is This True? Did Trump Post Nearly 100 Times on Truth Social Today?

On Twitter, Ron Filipkowski is saying, "Trump is having a complete meltdown on Truth Social today, maniacally making nearly 100 posts with several videos. In this clip, he is calling on GOP prosecutors around the country to start locking up Democrats to avenge him."

Ignoring the "meltdown" part, Is that true? Did Trump post nearly 100 times on Truth Social today?

Is it also true that he slammed DeSantis several times but did not mention even once the people of Florida who are being hit by a hurricane?

Never mind. I guess it is true, as shown here:


Four Questions:

1. What kind of person posts like this?

2. What kind of people listen to this?

3. What set Trump off on a day-long rant like this?

4. With all the other things a presidential candidate could talk about, Trump talks about this. Is he losing it under the pressure of four indictments and two major civil suits?
Is a hundred posts/ reposts supposed to be too much? I counted the amount of posts/ reposts from the gal “meltdown” Skyleigh and she had about 100 in about 3 hours,
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Is a hundred posts/ reposts supposed to be too much?
The volume and content of the posts is enough to prompt me to question the man's mental stability. As I asked, is he losing it under the pressure of four indictments and two major civil suits?

There are likely many thousands of people online who post hundreds of times a day for various reasons. But they are not running for president and they are not expected to be rational or sane.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman
Top