Apply Now!

The Trump Card...

muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
ATeam said:
I am focused on Trump because he presents a clear and present danger to our constitutional government. I am eager to see him out of race due to mental decline, disqualification, other legal rulings, physical illness, natural-cause death, MAGA abandonment, plane crash, Republican Party collapse, Trump's defection to Russia, or election loss. The man has been eating fast food and drinking Diet Coke most of his adult life. At his current age and unhealthy weight, he could stroke out in an instant. The nightmare scenario for Republicans is he has a partial stroke, leaving him obviously impaired, yet fully supported by his cultist followers. They'll say it's an act being put on by the stable genius who will prove to be brilliant at a later date, when he rises to save the day.

I have said before that there is a zero percent chance of Trump becoming president again. I still believe that because all of the above factors are in play. I don't care what the reason is. As long as it is legal, the sooner Trump is neutralized as a candidate for president, the better it will be for America.
Click to expand...
Why all the fret then? The prognostication from your post is that Trump has ZERO chance of winning the election. Why the rush to ramrod a trial before the election and likely abandon important constitutional issues that need to be examine if he’s going to certainly lose?

Biden also just got a clean bill by the doctor who said he’s ready for duty. I don’t see why there is such a desire to see Trump not even on the ballot come Election Day if it’s such a sure thing by you that he we won’t be president.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman
Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
muttly said:
Biden also just got a clean bill by the doctor who said he’s ready for duty. I don’t see why there is such a desire to see Trump not even on the ballot come Election Day if it’s such a sure thing by you that he we won’t be president.
Click to expand...
I am focused on Biden because he presents a clear and present danger to our constitutional government. I am eager to see him out of race due to his obvious mental decline, disqualification, other legal rulings, physical illness, natural-cause death, Palistinian supporters' abandonment, plane crash, Democrat Party collapse, or election loss. The man has already had two brain aneurisms that we know of. At his current age and obviously frail physical condition he could stroke out in an instant.

The nightmare scenario for the country is he has a partial stroke leaving him even more impaired and requiring Congress to enact the 25th amendment and install a totally incompetent vice president whose approval ratings are the lowest in history for that position. There is zero percent chance that she would be able to win a presidential election against any Republican candidate. As long as it is legal, the sooner these two and the other radical Democrats are defeated, the better it will be for America.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: danthewolf00, RLENT, ATeam and 1 other person
ATeam

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
muttly said:
Why all the fret then? The prognostication from your post is that Trump has ZERO chance of winning the election. Why the rush to ramrod a trial before the election and likely abandon important constitutional issues that need to be examine if he’s going to certainly lose?

Biden also just got a clean bill by the doctor who said he’s ready for duty. I don’t see why there is such a desire to see Trump not even on the ballot come Election Day if it’s such a sure thing by you that he we won’t be president.
Click to expand...
He has zero chance because multiple factors are aligned against him, and it only takes one of them to eliminate him from the presidency. The trials are a factor. Disqualification is a factor. His false financial wherewithal and falsely perceived strength is a factor that could give way in an instant (emperor has no clothes). The election itself is a factor. His health, mental and physical, are factors. His own ability to hurt himself with reckless acts or statements is a factor. My preference is he goes down as soon as possible to one factor or another. It's not about an election. Trump is a threat to American democracy and it is insane that he has come this far. He has become the leader of an authoritarian cult. He is a threat to the very system you want him to play in. Not this citizen. Not this voter. I advocate Trump no. I vote Trump no.

I will grant Trump one thing. By hook and by crook, he has come this far. The man knows how to work the system and manipulate marks like few others. He is hard to bring down.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
ATeam said:
muttly's ignorant characterization aside, I agree with your point. No one knows what they don't know.
Click to expand...

:clapping-happy:

ATeam said:
Nevertheless, it seems to me Garland could have and should have appointed a special counsel earlier than he did.
Click to expand...

It's his call ... ;)

ATeam said:
As you said, a whole lot of investigating was going on before Smith was appointed.
Click to expand...

Yup.

ATeam said:
DOJ does not need events to rise to a certain level to appoint a special counsel. Trump's status as former president was more than enough to appoint a special counsel early on.
Click to expand...

That presumes quite a bit.
 
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
muttly said:
That appointment has to by the president and with the consent of the senate.
So the first part of that “oversight mechanism” described above was avoided.
Click to expand...

Bzzzzt ... wrong:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and—
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
Click to expand...

28 CFR § 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

:joycat:

muttly said:
They’ve filed a motion regarding this.
rumble.com

Trump Says Jack Smith is ILLEGAL #trump #trial #court

Trump says Jack Smith's appointment and appropriations are both ILLEGAL in a motion to dismiss the Florida Classified Docs case.
rumble.com rumble.com
Click to expand...

Be interesting to see how the unqualified judge he appointed handles that ...

:joycat:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Pilgrim said:
The man has already had two brain aneurisms that we know of.
Click to expand...

The last of which happened in ... (wait for it) ... 1988 ...

:joycat:

Pilgrim said:
At his current age and obviously frail physical condition he could stroke out in an instant.
Click to expand...

If that's a concern you ought to be more worried about the unhealthy fatso wolfing down all those hamberders ...

:joycat:

Pilgrim said:
The nightmare scenario for the country is he has a partial stroke leaving him even more impaired and requiring Congress to enact the 25th amendment and install a totally incompetent vice president whose approval ratings are the lowest in history for that position.
Click to expand...

The Congress doesn't "enact the 25th Amendment" ... it was already "enacted".

That isn't how it works.

:dash2:

They act under it.

And it would be called "following the Constitution" ...

:joycat:

Pilgrim said:
There is zero percent chance that she would be able to win a presidential election against any Republican candidate. As long as it is legal, the sooner these two and the other radical Democrats are defeated, the better it will be for America.
Click to expand...

:joycat:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
The last of which happened in ... (wait for it) ... 1988 ...

:joycat:



If that's a concern you ought to be more worried about the unhealthy fatso wolfing down all those hamberders ...

:joycat:



The Congress doesn't "enact the 25th Amendment" ... it was already "enacted".

That isn't how it works.

:dash2:

They act under it.

And it would be called "following the Constitution" ...

:joycat:



:joycat:
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t get too worked-up over using the wrong word. We all know the gist of the post. BTW, Biden also has a history of AFIB.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
muttly said:
Why?
Click to expand...

... because Whack-a-doodle Wingnut "legal theories" aren't law ?

:joycat:

muttly said:
There are two clauses that they are referencing.
Click to expand...

They don't apply.

muttly said:
The president picks the U.S. attorneys, which the Special Councel is appointed from, not somebody off the street.
Click to expand...

Seems like maybe you might want to look up who Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski were ... ?

If those two don't handle it for you, there's a literal laundry list of others I can cite.

It appears (on the "illegally appointed" issue) you're confusing Independent Counsels - an office which was abolished when The Ethics in Government Act expired in 1999 - with the Office of Special Counsel, established under regulation from DOJ (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600)

It's a different thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
... because Whack-a-doodle Wingnut "legal theories" aren't law ?

:joycat:



They don't apply.



Seems like maybe you might want to look up who Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski were ... ?

If those two don't handle it for you, there's a literal laundry list of others I can cite.

It appears (on the "illegally appointed" issue) you're confusing Independent Counsels - an office which was abolished when The Ethics in Government Act expired in 1999 - with the Office of Special Counsel, established under regulation from DOJ (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, part 600)

It's a different thing.
Click to expand...
The special prosecutor was an inferior officer in the executive branch and the AG had oversight over them. But this special counsel answers to nobody.
The previous special prosecutors investigated the president.
With this special counsel, the “AG chose” him off the street without confirmation from the senate and he has investigated and is prosecuting the president’s political opponent.
So Biden has the best of both worlds. He has an unconfirmed prosecutor prosecuting his political opponent with no oversight.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT and Ragman
Pilgrim

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
muttly said:
We are told that Trump drinking diet cokes is unhealthy, but ok.
Click to expand...
Trump doesn’t drink alcohol or coffee, not sure about his overall diet. OTOH, Warren Buffett is 93, drinks 5 cherry cokes a day, eats McDonald's for breakfast and generally has lived on junk food all his life. This is the same diet he had 15 years ago when he was 78 and running a little company called Berkshire Hathaway.

This pathetic effort by the Democrats and the media to equate Trump's mental and physical condition to Biden’s senility and frailties is contrived BS - a desperate ploy that might succeed with flat-earthers and people who wear covid masks in their cars.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT, danthewolf00 and muttly
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top