The Trump Card...

muttly · Dec 30, 2023

ATeam said:
I could have been more clear and said the court is said by many to be pro-Trump. That is not an unreasonable claim to make since the majority of justices are Republican appointees and three of them are Trump appointees.

Beneath my "pro-Trump" characterization is a touch of cynicism. In fact, this court has shown itself to be more pro-law than pro-Trump. In the political cases (not policy cases) Trump has argued before this court, the justices have ruled against him every time, except one. They did not express their findings in partisan or Trump terms. They expressed their findings as points of law.

Only three of the nine judges are Trump appointees.

Pilgrim · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
They voted for him to remain in office and retain all the executive powers as president, right?

Right - it's pretty simple. The Senate acts as the jury in an impeachment. In this case they voted "not guilty" of the charges brought by the House.

Ragman · Dec 30, 2023

Pilgrim said:
Right - it's pretty simple. The Senate acts as the jury in an impeachment. In this case they voted "not guilty" of the charges brought by the House.

And that's all they did.
To say he is "worthy", is to say they approve what he did.... Hmmmm, maybe they do.

ATeam · Dec 30, 2023

It's Not About "Naked Partisanship."

Pilgrim said:
... this nakedly partisan decision.

The California Secretary of State, a Democrat, declined to remove Trump from the California ballot. The Oregon Secretary of State, a Democrat, declined to remove Trump from the ballot. The same happened in Minnesota and Michigan. In those states, the Secretaries said absent action from the courts, they do not have the authority to remove Trump from the ballot. Without doing additional research, I believe other Democratic Secretaries of State in other states have similarly acted. Three of the seven Colorado Supreme Court justices, all appointed by Democrats, dissented from the decision of the majority four.

If this question was decided by naked partisanship, none of that would have happened. If it was about naked partisanship, all Democrats who have issued formal opinions on the issue would have opined against Trump. Democratic Secretaries of State would claim they do have the authority to remove Trump and they would do so.

Obviously that is not happening. So, obviously, this is not about naked partisanship.

muttly · Dec 30, 2023

Ragman said:
And that's all they did.
To say he is "worthy", is to say they approve what he did.... Hmmmm, maybe they do.

They looked at the evidence and decided to acquit him and allow him to retain all of his powers as President. If that’s not worthy, I don’t know what is.

ATeam · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
They looked at the evidence and decided to acquit him allow him to retain all of his powers as President. If that’s not worthy, I don’t know what is.

I stand on the beach and say the word "Orange." If that does not mean tomorrow is Thursday, I don't know what does.

ATeam · Dec 30, 2023

State by State Wrinkles

I just read this regarding Oregon election law.

"According to [Attorney] Meek, there is a stronger legal case to remove Trump from Oregon’s general election ballot than the primary ballot. That’s because Oregon law requires candidates to swear that they are qualified to enter office after they win the election, not beforehand – meaning the 14th Amendment is not applicable to a primary election because it does not choose the president, Meek said.

“'Even if you win the Oregon primary, that doesn’t mean that you’re nominated,' Meek told The Oregonian/OregonLive. 'And it certainly doesn’t mean that you’re elected.'" (Source)

The sooner SCOTUS rules on this issue, the better. The longer they wait, the more chaos will there will be.

Note: None of this chaos would be happening now had Trump peacefully and patriotically transferred power after he lost the election to Biden. Had Trump done that, there would be no Trump ballot challenges on 14th Amendment grounds.

Ragman · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
If that’s not worthy, I don’t know what is.

That's obvious.....

ATeam · Dec 30, 2023

Ragman said:
That's obvious.....

That's hilarious. LOL!!!

muttly · Dec 30, 2023

ATeam said:
I stand on the beach and say the word "Orange." If that does not mean tomorrow is Thursday, I don't know what does.

Interesting. That word salad explains a lot.

muttly · Dec 30, 2023

ATeam said:
It does not surprise me that you missed the point. That's OK. Don't worry about it. I'll lower my expectations next time.

I got the point. Like I said, it explains a lot.

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
The Senate acquitted Trump after hearing the evidence, thus deciding he was still worthy to be president under the Constitution.

Pesky fact:

Political decision by a political body.

Had no bearing whatsoever on the appeals court ruling that he could be sued and held liable by those harmed by his actions in furtherance of the Jan 6th insurrection.

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
They omitted the part where he said “peacefully” in his speech when they played it at the impeachment trial.

It isn't the prosecution's job to make the defense's case for them.

muttly · Dec 30, 2023

I concur:

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
They voted for him to remain in office and retain all the executive powers as president, right?

LOL ... no.

He was already out of office when the 2nd impeachment trial started.

Therefore they could not vote for either things you claim they did.

If you are going to comment on this, please learn the actual facts (and not "alternative" ones) ... and how it all works before doing so.

The only substantive thing (result) they were voting on that comes to my mind is whether or not they would remove his qualification to hold future office.

Ultimately, enough Republicans were not persuaded to do that ... and those not voting to do so failed to uphold their oath of office, thereby forever tarnishing their legacies and rendering themselves unfit to serve (IMO)

#ETTD

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
Not true. It was based on the evidence presented whether it deemed him not able( worthy in essence ) to continue as president

Like I said before: he was already out of office by the time the 2nd impeachment trial started.

There wasn't going to be any "continue as president" ...

Maybe run for another term in the future ... but no "continue" ...

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
They voted for him to remain in office and retain all the executive powers as president, right?

Hilarious ....

No ... that isn't what they did.

He was already out of office ...

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
They thought it was important enough to purposely omit it from public view.

Not. The. Prosecution's. Job. To. Make. The. Defense's. Case.

Let me know how many times you need me to repeat it.

muttly said:
Regardless, expect the SCOTUS to rule on this at some point as well regarding the impeachment clause.

Maybe.

Or maybe not.

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

muttly said:
I concur:
View attachment 23454

Looks like poor ol' Shippy has run aground ...

RLENT · Dec 30, 2023

Pilgrim said:
Right - it's pretty simple. The Senate acts as the jury in an impeachment. In this case they voted "not guilty" of the charges brought by the House.

Nope - that isn't correct at all.

Trump was voted as guilty by a majority (57 to 43) ... but because the standard to convict on impeachment is 2/3rds he was acquitted.

There is a difference between a verdict of acquittal and not guilty ... although the result is largely the same for a defendant.

Acquittal doesn't mean that the defendant is innocent ... it just means that the standard for conviction wasn't met.