╌>

Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case - ABC News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  3 weeks ago  •  199 comments

By:   ABC News

Appeals court rejects Trump's immunity claim in federal election interference case - ABC News
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals has rejected former President Trump's claim of presidential immunity in his federal election interference case.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Trump had wanted the case dismissed based on a claim of "absolute immunity."

ByKatherine Faulders andAlexander MallinFebruary 6, 2024, 10:16 AM ET• 3 min read

A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals has rejected former President Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity as it pertains to his federal election interference case.

"For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant," the judges wrote in their 57-page decision, saying that "Former President Trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law and he is answerable in court for his conduct."

"We reject all three potential bases for immunity both as a categorical defense to federal criminal prosecutions of former Presidents and as applied to this case in particular," the decision said.

MORE: Trump immunity hearing: Special counsel lawyer warns of 'frightening future' if Trump wins case

The judges heard arguments in early January on Trump's efforts to dismiss the case on immunity grounds.

Last week, after waiting nearly a month for the appellate court's decision, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan postponed the March 4 start date for Trump's trial.

Trump, who in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election, was seeking the dismissal of the case on the grounds that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation's highest office.

The former president, who attended the Jan. 9 hearing in person, has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the election interference charges as "a persecution of a political opponent."

The appeals court took up the matter after the Supreme Court in December denied special counsel Jack Smith's request to immediately take up Trump's claims of immunity, declining to grant a writ of certiorari before judgment -- meaning it would allow a federal appeals court to hear the matter first, which is what Trump's legal team had sought.

Smith had asked the Supreme Court to step in and quickly rule on the issue -- a potentially landmark decision that could, for the first time in American history, determine whether a former U.S. president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.

The issue may still end up before the Supreme Court, depending on how the appeal plays out.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    3 weeks ago

BOOM!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

bummer. now that seal team has to stand down... /s

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 weeks ago

The MAGAS? They got nothing. Zip!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

just like trump's legal costs, if he can't be held accountable, his supporters will be...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

And it is on to the Supreme Court

BOOM!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.2.1  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    3 weeks ago

And expect the exact same result.

BAM!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Thus, no conviction before the election

BA BOOM BOOM BOOM!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.2.3  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

More likely than not that SCotUS will not even take the case.

YOU'RE FIRING DUDS!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

They would prefer not to, but at this point it is unavoidable.

I prefer Devastator bullets.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.2.5  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

There is nothing requiring SCotUS to take the case.  The Appellate Court opinion was thorough, well-reasoned and excellent.

 Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.6  seeder  JBB  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.5    3 weeks ago

There is zero reason for the USSC to take a case involving settled law. I expect to see a pointed refusal from the USSC...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

They're all firing blanks including their impotent cult leader, the former 'president'

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.5    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.2.6    3 weeks ago

This isn’t “settled law.”  In fact, as the court explicitly said, it’s the exact opposite.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.10  seeder  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.9    3 weeks ago

Not in this case. This court said no. The USSC won't touch it!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.11  seeder  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @1.2.10    3 weeks ago
[not in this case.

[deleted.]  The Court specifically said  "The question of whether a former President enjoys
absolute immunity from federal criminal liability is one of first impression."    If you understand what those words mean, you'd understand it's not "settled law."

 The USSC won't touch it!

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    3 weeks ago
And it is on to the Supreme Court

Why? 

"Mommy!!!!!! The court said I am not immune to commit all the crimes I want!!!!!!! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!"

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.2.14  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.4    3 weeks ago
They would prefer not to, but at this point it is unavoidable.

They decide which cases they hear, Vic.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.2.15  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

So you feel that presidents should be above the law? If laws don't apply to all of us, they apply to none of us. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.15    3 weeks ago
u feel that presidents should be above the law? I

Because I pointed out accurately what the Court stated, you think it means I believe Presidents should be above the law?  

If laws don't apply to all of us, they apply to none of us. 

Did I miss you demanding  Biden be arrested for mishandling classified information? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.15    3 weeks ago

No, just republican 'presidents'.

If this was a Democratic President, he/she would have been hung already or in front of a firing squad, you silly goose.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.2.18  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.16    3 weeks ago

Did I miss you demanding  Biden be arrested for mishandling classified information? 

Deflection is noted. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.19  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.16    3 weeks ago
Did I miss you demanding  Biden be arrested for mishandling classified information? 

What crime, specifically, would one be charging Biden with here?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.19    3 weeks ago

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or

Storing classified  docs in a garage obviously violates this law

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.18    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.20    3 weeks ago
Storing classified  docs in a garage obviously violates this law

The charge would be gross negligence or knowing intent to hold information relating to the national defense.

Knowing intent would be difficult to establish with Biden and Pence, so gross negligence would have to be the charge.

I, personally, would consider this to be gross negligence for Biden and Pence.   They should have taken steps to ensure they returned all classified documents before leaving office.    Nobody should ever do that, but I suspect if the government were to literally (no threshold) execute this law they would be indicting quite a few officials.    As a matter of law, this clearly is not how our system has operated.

Trump not only has gross negligence, but he also has knowing intent.   On top of that we have intentional obstruction.   As I have noted in the past numerous times, if Trump had cooperated in the return of these documents there would be no issues.   They would have been returned and the matter would not even be publicly known.

Trump technically (arguably) would have broken the law (gross negligence) as with Biden et. al.   But like them, the matter would have been addressed with a focus on securing the documents rather than criminal charges.

But Trump went well beyond this and that is why he is in trouble.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.23  CB  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.15    3 weeks ago

The day the SCOTUS permits a president to commit whatever crime or crimes s/he wishes to do to the citizens of this country, I propose that year that every able-bodied America over 35 years of age should run for the office of President of the United States. Many can play stupid indulgent games just like Republicans. . . as a counterpoint. Let's see real CHAOS in the campaign cycle immediately.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.24  CB  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.22    3 weeks ago

The dude literally lied to the authorities of which he is/was one.  Such contempt for the office he once held and government officials who once served him, but as fate would have it he needs that very office again to save his sorry, ridiculously contemptible. . . self from personal ruin.

Trump is a real piece of work. He will abuse himself of Reagan's motto: "I'm from the government and I am here to help."  By, needing government to help him get out of extremely 'promising' court dates or a jail cell or worse: Prison!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.22    3 weeks ago
e, so gross negligence would have to be the charge.

I agree.  

Trump not only has gross negligence

Great, but the question was what Biden would be charged with. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.25    3 weeks ago
Great, but the question was what Biden would be charged with. 

Did you not read my comment?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.27  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.5    3 weeks ago

The appellate court denied Trump his 90 days to appeal.

Don't pretend they were fair.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.28  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.2.11    3 weeks ago

[REMOVED

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.29  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.27    3 weeks ago

Why would the former 'president' need 90 days to appeal.  You don't sound so confident as you were yesterday.  LOLOLOLOL

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.2.30  Gsquared  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.27    3 weeks ago

You are wrong.  There are 90 days to file for a writ of certiorari (which you are referring to as an "appeal") with the Supreme Court per Rule 13.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. 

The Appellate Court set a deadline of February 12 to apply for a stay of the Appellate Court decision or the case will return to the trial court to proceed.

Eminently fair and reasonable.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.31  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.30    3 weeks ago

Thanks for the truth, as usual G-squared.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.32  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.30    3 weeks ago

Helps to have an attorney on the forum

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.33  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.30    3 weeks ago

the appellate court also destroyed every legal argument trump's lawyers presented to advance their case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.34  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.2.33    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
1.2.35  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @1.2.33    3 weeks ago

Their legal arguments were worthless.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.36  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @1.2.35    3 weeks ago

... just like their client.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.37  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.2.36    3 weeks ago

and his supporters...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.38  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.2.37    3 weeks ago

... a complete failure and total loss.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    3 weeks ago

He is not above the law

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JBB    3 weeks ago

Good!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3  Snuffy    3 weeks ago

I don't think this makes a lot of difference as (1) it's going to be appealed to SCOTUS and (2) it doesn't get the trial in DC started anytime soon. The longer the trial waits the more it will seem to people that this is election interference by the DOJ.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3    3 weeks ago

The evidence that Donald Trump tried to subvert the 2020 election is overwhelming. 

There most likely are stupid people who will believe Trump is being picked on, but hopefully clearer heads will prevail. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

Way to not reply to what I posted. 

The evidence as presented by the Jan 6th Committee was overwhelming, but one has to wonder what they did not show.

There most likely are stupid people who will believe Trump is being picked on, but hopefully clearer heads will prevail. 

And that's why I posted what I did. If the trial is delayed until summer (which is possible as there will be two SCOTUS appeals now) will more people think that this is election interference by the DOJ? I think the answer is yes.

And please accept that nowhere in this am I defending that piece of shit. Personally I would love for Trump and Biden to have an immediate televised debate. Maybe that would convince enough idiots to not support either one of them and force the parties to bring forth better candidates.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago
There most likely are stupid people who will believe Trump is being picked on, but hopefully clearer heads will prevail.

Not necessarily "stupid", but most definitely "willfully ignorant".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
but one has to wonder what they did not show

Do you have even 1 shred of evidence that they withheld any evidence that would be germane?  If so, please link it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
Do you have even 1 shred of evidence that they withheld any evidence that would be germane? 

You're asking me to prove a negative, please explain how that is even possible. What I said is that one has to wonder what evidence they had that they did not show. Do you really want to say that in the 10 public hearings and the final report that the committee released all the evidence?  We know they didn't.

The final report by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection will provide the most comprehensive account yet of what led to the worst attack on the Capitol in more than 200 years. But it’s not likely to include all of the evidence the panel collected in its 18-month investigation.

Congress is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and House rules, which lawmakers approve with each new Congress, set an at minimum two-decade timeline before the public can see records that are preserved.

That means that potentially millions of pages of depositions, cellphone and text records, emails, staff notes and analysis by outside organizations compiled as part of the committee’s investigation that don’t make it into the official final report or aren’t released before the end of the year won’t become public for decades — if they ever do at all.

What happens to the evidence produced for the Jan. 6 committee report when Republicans gain House control? - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Yes, one can rightly blame Republicans for that as they blocked the creation of an independent nonpartisan commission which would have been required by law to disclose much of the underlying evidence. But it's right there that a lot of evidence has not been released and won't be for decades if ever. As it's not been released, how do we know what is germane yet hidden for someone's benefit. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
Do you really want to say that in the 10 public hearings and the final report that the committee released all the evidence?  We know they didn't.

What evidence?  

The evidence that Trump tried to subvert the election is overwhelming, and it exists both on video and on social media postings, and in the sworn testimony of trump white house insiders. 

The claim to "unknown evidence" comes from people who are not familiar with the facts. Its not really a matter of opinion. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

"peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

Once again, you fail to reply to what I posted. 

What evidence?  

The evidence that Trump tried to subvert the election is overwhelming, and it exists both on video and on social media postings, and in the sworn testimony of trump white house insiders. 

The claim to "unknown evidence" comes from people who are not familiar with the facts. Its not really a matter of opinion. 

What you are saying here is that the evidence that was released is the ONLY evidence that matters, and anything that wasn't released was just not important or germane to the facts. That is the very definition of an opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong to state yours is fact. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
What you are saying here is that the evidence that was released is the ONLY evidence that matters, and anything that wasn't released was just not important or germane to the facts. That is the very definition of an opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong to state yours is fact. 

Just tell us what sort of evidence that is "hidden" could change the facts. If you think there is such evidence, please tell us what you think it is, or might be. 

We know what the evidence is against him, so what is the evidence in his favor? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

No evidence from Trump has even been floated; we simply have Trump’s claim that everything he did was proper and covered by immunity.

If Trump can offer a persuasive defense, I will be quite surprised.   It is of course possible, but given all we know about Trump and his behavior during his Big Lie, it is unlikely.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.4    3 weeks ago
You're asking me to prove a negative

Bullshit.  I am asking you to prove that they withheld germane evidence.  That is not a negative and it is based on your claim.  If you make a claim that is unproveable, you should never have made it.

Do you really want to say that in the 10 public hearings and the final report that the committee released all the evidence?  We know they didn't.

Read my question, then look up the missing word that you are failing to address and doing your best to ignore.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.11  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

Once again you can't reply to what I post. Let me try to make this as clear as possible. How am I supposed to know about what evidence that has not been released to the public states? All I said is that there was a lot of evidence from the Jan 6th Committee that was never released to the public and WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT EVIDENCE STATES. Yes, everything that was released in the ten televised hearings and what was released in the final report paint a rather damning picture of Trump. But that's not all the evidence and we just don't know what wasn't released. Who knows, there may be more evidence that proves Trump did mastermind this and should be prosecuted for insurrection and removed from the November ballot. I want the full picture, why don't you? 

Why is that so hard to understand?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.12  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

See 3.1.11

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
You're asking me to prove a negative
Bullshit.  I am asking you to prove that they withheld germane evidence.  That is not a negative and it is based on your claim.  If you make a claim that is unproveable, you should never have made it.

I never made that claim, I said there was a lot of evidence that has not been released to the public and I would like it all to be released.

You are pissing about the word "germane"? Answer this question then. How is anybody in the public arena supposed to know what evidence might be germane if it HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC?  I'm not ignoring anything, you are ignoring what I posted in the first place. In no way was I defending Trump, in no way did I indicate that I felt what was released was wrong. What I said is that there is a lot of evidence that was not released and I would like to see it. 

Who knows, there may be evidence in there that Trump truly did act in insurrection and should be indicted for that, taken to trial and put into prison, and removed from the November ballots. But without seeing that information that has not been released, how would anybody know?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.10    3 weeks ago

See 3.1.4

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
But that's not all the evidence and we just don't know what wasn't released.

You are the one who doesnt understand. You claim there is more evidence than the committee released. What is it?  Does Trump have an explanation for why he sat watching tv for three hours while the riot was underway? He was asked that exact question a little while back by Meet The Press. His answer?  "I'm not going to tell you that". 

There was testimony from numerous people that white house personnel pleaded with him to do something. He did nothing. Why not?  Because he wanted the riot to succeed. 

This is only one example out of dozens. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.13    3 weeks ago
What I said is that there is a lot of evidence that was not released and I would like to see it. 

You cant even describe the potential nature of such evidence. Sometimes there isnt two sides to the story. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.17  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.15    3 weeks ago

You are trying to force me into making a defense for Trump and I never said anything about his defense.  All I've ever fucking stated is that there is more that was not released. I'm just done with this as you don't want a conversation, you only want capitulation to your points. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.17    3 weeks ago
All I've ever fucking stated is that there is more that was not released. ..I'm just done with this as you don't want a conversation, you only want capitulation to your points. 

Whatever. You have totally failed to make a valid point. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.16    3 weeks ago
Sometimes there isnt two sides to the story.

Three. Yours, mine, and the truth.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

You'd have to be a complete and total imbecile to believe that this is election interference by the DOJ.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

Of course not, just the endless defense of the indefensible and this is election interference by the DOJ.

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.12    3 weeks ago

How does that apply to my post?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.19    3 weeks ago

Nope

It is WE who have the truth on OUR side.

John is correct, as he usually is.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.24  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.22    3 weeks ago

I believe that if Trump had any of the unreleased evidence that showed him in a good light that he would be very quick to release it and capitalize on it. As he does not have access to that evidence either the same answer can apply. He doesn't have it and we don't have it. I would love to know what else they looked at and what they chose not to release (and why). 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.24    3 weeks ago

What could possibly show the traitorous scumbag in a good light?

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.26  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.25    3 weeks ago

how about a 40 watt bulb in an 8x10 room?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.27  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.23    3 weeks ago
It is WE who have the truth on OUR side. John is correct, as he usually is.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.28  Snuffy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.27    3 weeks ago

Yep...

Every one wishes to have truth on his side, but it is not every one that sincerely wishes to be on the side of truth.

Every one wishes to have truth on his... Richard Whately - Forbes Quotes

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.29  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.24    3 weeks ago
As he does not have access to that evidence either the same answer can apply.

I am sure the republicans on the bi partisan Jan 6th committee would not have allowed any evidence to be hidden that could show Donald in a good light.  S/

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.30  seeder  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.29    3 weeks ago

You are wrong. Watch the January 6th Hearings. Get back to us. What? You never have and never will? Isn't that special?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.31  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @3.1.30    3 weeks ago
You are wrong.

So  you are saying  the republicans on the bi partisan Jan 6th committee would have allowed any evidence to be hidden that could show Donald in a good light.  Finally.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.32  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.9    3 weeks ago
If Trump can offer a persuasive defense, I will be quite surprised.   It is of course possible,

Its possible in the same way that someone can jump out a 20th floor window and flap their arms and fly away. is possible. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.24    3 weeks ago

We will eventually find out.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.26    3 weeks ago

yeah and minus that bronze orange glop on that ugly face it might not look quite so ugly

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.35  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

Clearer heads will prevail. MAGAs won't be any clearer than they are now, because they like the 'denseness' of the haze that they are ingesting to get 'high' on Donald Trump.  He will let them down sooner or later. . . the question will be how hard the landing for each of them will be. Some will move on. Some will crash and burn. Some others will take their own lives as a protest. . . and the world will continue to turn as it has for the 'duration.'  Trump for all his bluster and troubles will be a smear on himself and his family name. Going to the heights with the whole world looking in awe at him . . . and the fool tried to best the world at the games it invented!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.36  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Personally I would love for Trump and Biden to have an immediate televised debate. Maybe that would convince enough idiots to not support either one of them and force the parties to bring forth better candidates.

"Personally" I suggest that you UNCHAIN Biden from Donald J. Trump in your remarks. Biden does not have any court date on the 2024 calendar of the courts or the legislature. It is unfair to talk about age anyway, because 'everybody' ages—just ask NTers of a certain age. The parties have 'spoken' even as they continue to 'speak' volumes about what their wishes are through the actions right before yours, mine, our faces.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.37  CB  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

And one as to ask why does MAGAs hold Trump up above reproach and any other GOP/Conservative?  Why does the GOP/conservatives shitcan valid political thought when Trump says to shitcan it? 

Well, I can answer whys: Because the GOP/MAGAs are Trump hosts, his 'army.'  Donald, is He that is above all other republicans/conservatives . . . thus, Trump naysayers must flee before Him (them, and their swatting/phone pranks/hate speeches, censures, outright threats).

Trump demands loyalty especially from his lieutenants, underlings, and hanger-ons. . .even as He tasks his hosts to hold the line on every 'hill' and 'battle ground'. . .even as he expends them individually and collectively as "cannon fodder."  They are His clean rags made filthy and tossed away. None of the hosts can escape the gaze that captures them mind, body, and spirit and pins them to Him.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.38  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.1.7    3 weeks ago

And what you are suggesting is judges can't judge and juries can proper verdicts, because they have done so already to the satisfaction of many other judges and yet you invalid them all with a longing for something to date you have no reason to question or have expectation of seeing in action.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.39  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

Through himself writing on social media and his lawyers entering court filings, Trump has been providing the best defense he can muster. . . and it is not persuasive enough to call a halt to individual proceedings. Of course, Trump hosts would love to just have one more 'turn' at this one or that one. I seem to recall that SCOTUS turned Donald Trump away during the fiasco that was/is "The Big Lie" when he tried to get SCOTUS to do him a 'transactional" (for their seats on the bench) and they practically let him "go fish."

Trump literally intended to come up to SCOTUS with bogus filings and explanations, de facto, turning the highest court in the U.S. into a corrupt court, because he put three justices on it. The highest court saw through the attempt then and it would serve the "Robert's Court" to remember that this time around too!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.40  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.1.36    3 weeks ago
"Personally" I suggest that you UNCHAIN Biden from Donald J. Trump in your remarks. Biden does not have any court date on the 2024 calendar of the courts or the legislature.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what you copy/pasted to reply to. Neither one of these two should be on the November ballot, we need better candidates. We very likely won't get them but as I stated if they were to have a televised debate right now then more people may see that they both need to be replaced.

It is unfair to talk about age anyway, because 'everybody' ages—just ask NTers of a certain age.

When it comes to who to elect as POTUS, age is both fair and relevant to include in the conversation. Members here on NT may be older and may have some cognitive decline but they are not being called on to handle a government crisis or global issue so it's not right to compare those of us on NT to the President.

The parties have 'spoken' even as they continue to 'speak' volumes about what their wishes are through the actions right before yours, mine, our faces.

Yes, I understand the parties have their desires regardless of what citizens want. That's why the last sentence of what you copied/pasted is relevant. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.1.41  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.1.38    3 weeks ago

And what you are suggesting is judges can't judge and juries can proper verdicts, because they have done so already to the satisfaction of many other judges and yet you invalid them all with a longing for something to date you have no reason to question or have expectation of seeing in action.

The comment you replied to was dealing with the Jan 6th Committee, not judges and juries. 
 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1.42  Ozzwald  replied to  CB @3.1.37    3 weeks ago
Why does the GOP/conservatives shitcan valid political thought when Trump says to shitcan it? 

Easy. 

Trump controls the minds and wallets of all the racists, bigots, and misogynists' left in America.  If they don't follow him like beaten dogs, they lose too much of their campaign financing.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.43  devangelical  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.42    3 weeks ago

political zombies.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.44  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

"I'M GOING TO WADDLE DOWN TO THE CAPITOL WITH YOU WHERE WE HAVE TO FIGHT LIKE HELL OR YOU WON'T HAVE A COUNTRY ANYMORE"

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.45  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.44    3 weeks ago

Ouch! That has got to burn. Good Job!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.44    3 weeks ago

Have fun!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.47  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.1.45    3 weeks ago

He crapped in his depends when the Secret Service wouldn't let the tub of lard former 'president' go with them like he promised his white supremacist mob.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.2  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @3    3 weeks ago
(1) it's going to be appealed to SCOTUS

To draw this out as long as possible it will be appealed first for a full panel before it goes to the SCOTUS. Of course the prosecution will try to hurry it along. The question will be what the judge does. She can order the case to proceed while the appeal process goes on.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @3.2    3 weeks ago

True, but she's already removed the case from the calendar while the appeal process plays out. As the appeal process isn't done, would she even bother to put it back on the calendar? And the longer the wait is, the more it can seem like election interference. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.2.2  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
...the longer the wait is, the more it can seem like election interference. 

One of the reasons they should televise them all. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.2.3  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
...she's already removed the case from the calendar while the appeal process plays out.

I was just reading Trump's lawyers have until midnight next Monday to file an emergency appeal with the SCOTUS. Do you think the SCOTUS will take it up, or leave it? Trump can appeal any final case ruling so I'm leaning the SCOTUS may punt looking for something safer to rule on, if they need to.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3    3 weeks ago

Had to get through this hurdle to get to the SCotUS.

People predisposed to conspiracy already think this is strictly political and that Trump did nothing wrong.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    3 weeks ago
Had to get through this hurdle to get to the SCotUS. People predisposed to conspiracy already think this is strictly political and that Trump did nothing wrong.

True, and there are too many who already think that way. My concern is that the longer this drags on more people are going to be thinking of election interference by the DOJ and this administration. Trump has already been campaigning on it and his support among Republicans keeps going up. Not a good sign. 

That's one of the reasons why I would kind of like to see Trump and Biden do a televised debate right now. Seeing those too asshats in action might convince enough people that neither of these two should be on the ballot and force the two parties to bring up someone better.

Another concern I have is the longer this drags on, the more Trump is in the news and the more he pushes it to his benefit. If he does win the Oval Office in November, I can't even imagine the constitutional crisis it would cause should he attempt to pardon himself. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.3.2  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.1    3 weeks ago
If he does win the Oval Office in November, I can't even imagine the constitutional crisis it would cause should he attempt to pardon himself. 

He only needs to drag it long enough to get elected and have his cherry picked DoJ kill and bury it all. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.3  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @3.3.2    3 weeks ago

At least that would avoid a constitutional crisis. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.3    3 weeks ago
At least that would avoid a constitutional crisis. 

According to MSNBC and CNN we had at least  12  constitutional crisis in the 4 years Trump was president.  I am sure we can survive another.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.5  seeder  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.4    3 weeks ago

Additional hyperbolic misinformation will be flagged as trolling...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.6  Snuffy  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.4    3 weeks ago
According to MSNBC and CNN

And we can trust them, right?  They would never make shit up...  sigh

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.6    3 weeks ago
They would never make shit up.

Of course not, one of them is "The most Trusted name in News".  Of course having Darth Vader do their commercials makes one wonder.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.8  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.1    3 weeks ago
My concern is that the longer this drags on more people are going to be thinking of election interference by the DOJ and this administration. Trump has already been campaigning on it and his support among Republicans keeps going up. Not a good sign.

trump is the one stalling the legal progress at every turn, in every case.

That's one of the reasons why I would kind of like to see Trump and Biden do a televised debate right now. Seeing those too asshats in action might convince enough people that neither of these two should be on the ballot and force the two parties to bring up someone better.

why would biden want to legitimize anyone whose candidacy is in question and has 91 federal charges pending? at this date it would only benefit trump, and why do that during a campaign. besides, trump would never agree to standing in a soundproof booth with a curtain and kill switch on his mic...

Another concern I have is the longer this drags on, the more Trump is in the news and the more he pushes it to his benefit. If he does win the Oval Office in November, I can't even imagine the constitutional crisis it would cause should he attempt to pardon himself.

it wouldn't be a crisis for long. fortunately for all of us, [deleted] probably be more concerned about his cultists that are already marching to the beats of his witch hunt victim drumset. he's got almost 9 months left to stir that pot of mentally challenged supporters into blind loyalty before the next election is called against him, if he can stay out of jail that long. they've previously demonstrated how well they handle bad news (facts) as a group and they've had a lot more time to organize since the last dress rehearsal. plus they're just as expendable to him, if not more so now, as the insurrectionist morons that stormed the capitol for him the last time. I expect trump to pull out every stop in an attempt to save himself from the inevitable, just like any criminal would...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.3.8    3 weeks ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.3.8    3 weeks ago

But, but, but it looks like election interference by the DOJ and just wait, some just have to have the last word, no matter what.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.10    3 weeks ago

I forgot to mention that of course all of this is the fault of the Democrats and President Biden,

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.11    3 weeks ago
I forgot to mention that of course all of this is the fault of the Democrats and President Biden,

And now you have 'set the record straight'!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.3.8    3 weeks ago
trump is the one stalling the legal progress at every turn, in every case.

Please describe how Trump is dictating dates to the courts.  And how he has that power that no defendant in US history has EVER had.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.14  Snuffy  replied to  devangelical @3.3.8    3 weeks ago
My concern is that the longer this drags on more people are going to be thinking of election interference by the DOJ and this administration. Trump has already been campaigning on it and his support among Republicans keeps going up. Not a good sign.
trump is the one stalling the legal progress at every turn, in every case.

Yeah he is. Doesn't change anything that I wrote.

That's one of the reasons why I would kind of like to see Trump and Biden do a televised debate right now. Seeing those too asshats in action might convince enough people that neither of these two should be on the ballot and force the two parties to bring up someone better.
why would biden want to legitimize anyone whose candidacy is in question and has 91 federal charges pending? at this date it would only benefit trump, and why do that during a campaign. besides, trump would never agree to standing in a soundproof booth with a curtain and kill switch on his mic...

Neither one belongs on the November ballot, but barring some miracle these two are going to be there. A televised debate might show enough people that neither one is worth their vote and then the parties can get some better candidates. Has nothing to do with legitimizing anybody as neither one deserves to be on the November ballot.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.14    3 weeks ago

You always prove me correct.

lol

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.16  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.15    3 weeks ago

Would be nice to know what you are talking about rather than just the usual snarky argument. Why don't you state what I proved correct? 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.14    3 weeks ago

If we want better candidates these two need to debate like...tomorrow. I would like to see better candidates but I think we're stuck with the 2 old guys

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.18  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.17    3 weeks ago

I'm afraid you're right. It's a shame that we're stuck with these two. But hey, maybe Martians will land next week and shake up the entire world...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.19  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.1    3 weeks ago

Trump, if elected, is almost certainly going to be negatively disruptive for the nation.

It will be a mess.

Especially since so many GOP politicians do his bidding.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.20  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.19    3 weeks ago
Especially since so many GOP politicians do his bidding.

Is it a problem that so many Democratic politicians do Biden's bidding, or is it just one-sided?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.21  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.19    3 weeks ago

True. But you could swap Biden and DNC in there and it's the same. Way too many politicians vote almost all the time with POTUS, provided they are of the same party. We need to get rid of both of them, but I'm afraid we're stuck with them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.22  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.20    3 weeks ago

Trump is an order of magnitude worse than Biden.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.23  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.21    3 weeks ago

Yes neither should be PotUS but they are not equally bad.   Trump is clearly far worse for the nation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.24  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.22    3 weeks ago
Trump is an order of magnitude worse than Biden.

Not an answer. Why are you refusing to answer such a simple question?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.25  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.24    3 weeks ago

You cannot see that my answer affirms that it is not one-sided?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.25    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.27  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.23    3 weeks ago
but they are not equally bad.

But it doesn't matter as neither one deserve our vote or the office. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.28  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.27    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.29  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.27    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.30  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.27    3 weeks ago
But it doesn't matter as neither one deserve our vote or the office. 

Of course it matters.   If one is facing a situation where neither candidate deserves our vote but one of them is going to be PotUS, it most definitely matters unless they are equally bad (and you comment implies that you do not think they are equally bad).

I see Trump as an order of magnitude worse for our nation than Biden.   It seems obvious to me that the priority should be to ensure Trump is not elected, even if the only possible way left to do that is to elect Biden.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.18    3 weeks ago

Or we could get hit by an asteroid....

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.3.32  Thomas  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.3    3 weeks ago
At least that would avoid a constitutional crisis. 

Frying pan to fire?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.33  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.16    3 weeks ago
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3    3 weeks ago

'election interference'

The defense of the indefensible is mindboggling.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.4.1  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @3.4    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.4.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4.3  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.2    3 weeks ago

their demigod won't have any alone time at club fed... no more cheeseburgers or chicken nuggets, boo hoo hoo...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.4.3    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.4.3    3 weeks ago

Or Big Macs or KFC

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4.6  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.5    3 weeks ago

his legion of morons can pay for his ground floor room at club fed and have a reverse drive up window put in. he can use his former POTUS office allowance to hire a receptionist to answer the phone and place fast food delivery orders for him.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Snuffy @3    3 weeks ago
The longer the trial waits the more it will seem to people that this is election interference by the DOJ.

You mean it's not?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.5.1  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.5    3 weeks ago
The longer the trial waits the more it will seem to people that this is election interference by the DOJ.
You mean it's not?

No, it isn't. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.5.1    3 weeks ago
No, it isn't. 

Opinions will vary.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.5.3  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.5.2    3 weeks ago
Opinions will vary.

Only among the stupid and willfully ignorant. 

The cases against Trump were being investigated before Trump declared his candidacy even though he declared extremely early. The fact that he declared early can be construed as cover for making the assertion of interference instead of the other way round. Personally, I think he needed somebody to help defray the litigation costs.

He is a scumbag who never should be allowed to hold public office again because, as should be plainly evident to anyone, he holds no respect for the spirit or word of the CotUS. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.5.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.5.3    3 weeks ago

Again.  Opinions will vary.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.5.5  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @3.5.1    3 weeks ago

He's just copying someone's incorrect assumption as well.  Ridiculous.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.5.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Thomas @3.5.3    3 weeks ago
Only among the stupid and willfully ignorant. 

And who the stupid and willfully ignorant are is also an opinion.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.5.7  Thomas  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.5.6    3 weeks ago

Not in this case. You can protest till the cows give blue milk. The facts in this case are quite clear and the evidence is solid. No amount of nuh-uh is going to change the facts no matter how you or Trump want them to. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.5.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  Thomas @3.5.7    3 weeks ago

Yes, and that is your opinion

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.5.9  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.5.8    3 weeks ago
Thomas @3.5.3 ☞ He is a scumbag who never should be allowed to hold public office again because, as should be plainly evident to anyone, he holds no respect for the spirit or word of the CotUS. 
RdtC @3.5.6 And who the stupid and willfully ignorant are is also an opinion.
RdtC @3.5.8Yes, and that is your opinion

The super majority of comments in a forum are opinion.   We all know that.   It is pointless to endlessly repeat that platitude.

Your comments in this sub thread have been vague and devoid of any real substance.   So what is your opinion;  do you think Trump should be allowed to hold pubic office again?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.10  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.5.6    3 weeks ago

I think that Biden and Trump aren't worth voting for.

Neither is worthy.

Vote for someone different!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.11  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @3.5.3    3 weeks ago
Only among the stupid and willfully ignorant. 

The intelligent and informed think alike.

Wow.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.5.12  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.5.10    3 weeks ago
Vote for someone different!

Who do you recommend?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.5.13  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.5.10    3 weeks ago

We will see soon enough who the other options are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.14  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.12    3 weeks ago
Who do you recommend?

Same as the other times you have asked the same exact question.

Someone NOT named Trump or Biden,  unless one is satisfied with failure and simply wants more of it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.15  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.5.13    3 weeks ago

Almost any option is better.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.16  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.12    3 weeks ago

My opinion won't matter, and you have already decided your vote under various circumstances, so why ask?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.5.17  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.5.15    3 weeks ago

I am sure Gavin will be glad to hear that.  jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.5.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.9    3 weeks ago
It is pointless to endlessly repeat that platitude.

That is your opinion

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.5.19  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.5.14    3 weeks ago

You recommend we vote for someone other than Trump or Biden yet when asked for a specific recommendation you retort: someone other than Trump or Biden.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.5.20  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.5.16    3 weeks ago
... so why ask?

Obviously, people are interested in who else they could reasonably consider for PotUS.    Plenty of people (per the polls) want a choice other than Biden or Trump.   So when someone repeatedly recommends people vote for someone other than Biden or Trump, the natural question is 'who do you recommend?'.

Apparently you have nothing to offer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.21  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.19    3 weeks ago
You recommend we vote for someone other than Trump or Biden yet wh

Time to stop beating a dead horse.

I have often said I would vote for Haley, do you not remember??

I am sorry my answer didn't satisfy you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.20    3 weeks ago

Apparently you aren't satisfied with the answers to your incessant questions.

take that as a hint to ask different, better questions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.5.23  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.5.21    3 weeks ago
I have often said I would vote for Haley,

This is now the first time you have answered my question in response to it being asked by me.

I agree.   That is a good answer right now.   If the GOP would get their collective act together, they could nominate her instead of Trump.

If she does not get the nomination and we are stuck with Biden v Trump, one of those two old men will be PotUS.   I will do what I can to prevent the traitor and likely convicted felon from securing the power of the presidency.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.24  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.23    3 weeks ago
This is now the first time you have answered my question in response to it being asked by me.

Utterly false.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.25  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.23    3 weeks ago
If she does not get the nomination and we are stuck with Biden v Trump, one of those two old men will be PotUS.   I will do what I can to prevent the traitor and likely convicted felon from securing the power of the presidency.

Yes, I am aware.

I just can't allow myself to vote for one so incompetent.

I realize millions of others have no qualms about returning a failed President to office no matter what he has done.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.5.26  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.5.25    3 weeks ago
I just can't allow myself to vote for one so incompetent.

And that is a perfectly reasonable way to operate.   If Trump has no realistic chance to win, I will vote my conscience too and that will be for someone I would like to see as PotUS.

But if Trump has a chance to win, I am going to use my vote to help prevent him from winning.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.5.27  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.26    3 weeks ago
And that is a perfectly reasonable way to operate. 

Yes, I think so.

I don't find it reasonable to vote for failure,  though, and thus can't make myself do it.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.5.28  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.9    3 weeks ago
 So what is your opinion;  do you think Trump should be allowed to hold pubic office again?  

That question has been asked and answered several times before and you did not like/accept my answer.  Why would I go down that same road again?  Why would you ask the same question again if you know you will not like/accept the answer?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.5.29  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.5.28    3 weeks ago

It is a pathetic ploy to avoid answering a question by falsely claiming that you already answered it.

The fact that you spend time writing an excuse rather than simply answering the question illustrates this.   Nothing but dodging and deflecting.

Take a stand.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.5.30  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.5.29    3 weeks ago

That question has been asked and answered several times before and you did not like/accept my answer.  Why would I go down that same road again?  Why would you ask the same question again if you know you will not like/accept the answer?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Snuffy @3    3 weeks ago

I'm quite interested in watching this.  It is possible that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, and by doing so score a point towards its not being considered biased in favour of Trump.  If they DO hear the case, then should they decide against Trump it will have the same effect as not hearing the case.  But if they decide in favour of Trump I am sure that it will score points for those who feel that the SCOTUS has become a useless biased piece of shit.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.6    3 weeks ago

It is possible that the SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, and by doing so score a point towards its not being considered biased in favour of Trump


six weeks or so ago: the attorney prosecuting trump:


“It is of imperative public importance that [Trump’s] claim of immunity be resolved by [the Supreme] Court...[O]nly this Court can definitively resolve [Trump’s immunity claim”

it would be nice, for once, if the left could ever stick to an argument, ever.   Whatever the court does, they scream bias towards trump, 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.6.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.6.1    3 weeks ago

I provided my opinion as to whether or not the SCOTUS could be considered biased.  As well, since I'm neither a leftist nor a rightist I opine depending on how I feel about an issue, and don't follow party lines or current ridiculous fashion, such as "woke".  I was wondering that if the SCOTUS refuses to hear it, then does not the existing decision of the Appeals Court set the precedent as having been the final arbiter of the issue?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.6.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.6    3 weeks ago

I've now seen that my first possible scenario didn't happen, and I read an opinion that if the decision to disallow States from making that decision is a nine-justice unanimous decision that would negate bias as well.  Let's see where this goes.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4  Ed-NavDoc    3 weeks ago

As the great Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till it's over." As the last sentence in the article says. "The issue may still end up before the Supreme Court, depending on how the appeal plays out." So whooping and hollering for joy at this time may be a tad premature. I personally prefer to wait and see.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4    3 weeks ago

We get it...

1280

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JBB @4.1    3 weeks ago

I'm not a Trump supporter, so I would not know. I don't like Trump but I dislike Biden even more.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Yet, you support Trump here regularly regardless of how you claim to vote...

Your message comes through clearly!

original

[ This flagged comment and the previous one stand.  Flag or respond, but don't do both. ]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JBB @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

Please feel free to quote where I have ever stated I support Trump and do be specific. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
Please feel free to quote where I have ever stated I support Trump and do be specific. 

Some apparently believe that if you aren't spouting incessantly about Trump 24/7/365 then you are supporting him.

Asking for a quote is a good tactic when YOU know what you have rather clearly stated.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Very true.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.1.6  Split Personality  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Please do not flag a comment that you already responded to

thanks

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

Understood.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Still waiting for a answer that cannot be answered.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

strict rules ...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
5  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

Unsurprising.  Seems rather obvious that Trump was just being a shithead arguing for absolute immunity.  

Unfortunately for Democrats, Trump being a shithead won't change voter's opinion of Biden.  And 2024 will be a referendum on the incumbent Biden.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @5    3 weeks ago
Seems rather obvious that Trump was just being a shithead arguing for absolute immunity.  

His lawyers were really arguing for time.  That is the important thing in this election.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 weeks ago

So that Trump might get to pardon himself?

GTFOOH!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.2  devangelical  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    3 weeks ago
So that Trump might get to pardon himself?

the most delusional cultists believe in that possibility, but this ruling helps to cut that legal theory off at the knees.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6  Mark in Wyoming     3 weeks ago

This was expected, the next step is to request that the same court consider the case en banc and not just a 3 judge panel, we shall see how much more time that takes.

After that then the SCOTUS can consider if they will take the case or not.

Being appealed to SCOTUS is no guarantee they will hear it , especially if they feel all lower court proceedings and rulings were correct.

Which is why I think they didn't allow it to be fast tracked to them in the first place when smith requested it,  this way they can say the accused was afforded the due process of law and the courts totally.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
7  Gsquared    3 weeks ago

Sanity prevailed.

I cannot imagine for one second that the Supreme Court of the United States will overrule this Appellate Court opinion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
8  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

The idea that a former president is totally immune from prosecution is absurd.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @8    3 weeks ago

It has long been settled law that nobody, even a President, is above the law. Until now nobody imagined testing the limits like Trump has. So far his life story is of a man getting away with everything unchecked...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9  MrFrost    3 weeks ago

It would have been easier and saved a lot of time had trump just not broken the law in the first place, but...elect a criminal and this is what ya get. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @9    3 weeks ago

Too bad, when all is said and done, when found guilty, it seems that he should be held responsibly financially also for court costs and all the time and investigations looking into this, he should be responsible for that too.

I know that sounds naive but as everyone is probably aware, I know nothing of the law.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10  devangelical    3 weeks ago

>>ff thru commercial from 3:09 to 4:39

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
10.1  Thomas  replied to  devangelical @10    3 weeks ago

"I think that might be a you thing"

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
11  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

No immunity?   Maybe he should have worn a mask.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
11.1  Gsquared  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11    3 weeks ago

That's funny.

 
 

Who is online

GregTx
MonsterMash
Igknorantzruls
Mark in Wyoming
mocowgirl
shona1
JohnRussell


69 visitors