The sad part is while this validates everything sane people have been saying about January 6th, Trump and his minions will just say this proves that the system is broken because they’re going after a good man who was just doing his job etc.
When you have zero morals, the bullshit writes itself.
Can we pretend that I shared the “I understood that reference” Captain America meme right here where it belongs?
43 percent thought God helped Tim Tebow throw touchdowns. Let’s keep this going.
What keeping this going might look like: Less than half can name all 3 branches of US government, with 26 percent unable to name a single branch.
Only about one third of Americans know that it’s Thomas Jefferson on the nickel.
These people vote.
I’m afraid this will be underappreciated, but you have my upvote.
…and my axe (or something)
I don’t confidently predict anything for the upcoming election. I couldn’t possibly count the amount of random shit that could happen between now and then.
That’s not how the legal system works I’m afraid. To give you an example of why this doesn’t work, let’s take a look at the Russiagate conspiracy theory that many people still fervently believe today. Turns out it was complete and utter nonsense:
Oh man, there’s a lot to untangle here but the short answer is that you seem to have been badly fooled by their denials of wrongdoing. Barr was Trump’s fixer and covered for him on this one and you’re actually citing him as if he was a trustworthy source. A federal judge later blasted Barr for his lack of candor in summarizing Mueller’s findings. The Republican-led Senate Intel Committee found that Manafort, Trump’s campaign chair, was meeting with a Russian agent almost daily, “before, during, and after the election” and sharing internal campaign polling data. So the collusion came straight from the top of the campaign. The FEC chair Ellen Weintraub had to make public statements twice reminding the public that it is a federal crime to accept anything of value connected to an election from a foreign representative. The Trump Tower meeting where they were hoping to get dirt on Hillary Clinton was, factually speaking, collusion with Russia in plain sight. Their defense was that they didn’t actually have any dirt to offer, but only after Trump publicly walked back multiple lies about the purpose of the meeting.
If you recall, the Trump admin stonewalled the Mueller investigation, bucking subpoenas to testify and stonewalling them for requested documents. They were found to have been using encrypted messaging apps to talk to each other and these foreign operatives. That’s why Mueller stated all the ways that the Trump campaign obstructed justice. If you believe the people who obstructed justice and hindered the investigation were innocent because Mueller couldn’t find enough evidence to pin collusion on them, I’m not really sure what to tell you except that you seem to have left out the overwhelmingly strong possibility that they successfully obstructed the Mueller investigation. Regardless, the Senate Intel Committee did find examples of Russian collusion related to the election. You might want to double-check where you get your news from and question why they wanted to convince you that Russiagate was a hoax.
I don’t even live in your shithole country. I’m just watching it tear itself apart from the outside.
Why are you wasting people’s time with your half-informed takes then? It’s pretty arrogant for you to act like you know what you’re talking about when you so clearly don’t.
It’s an investigation of a politician so politics are going to be involved. People are making it out to be purely political in nature, but he did very clearly commit crimes. He was caught on tape committing felonies…people that call it political don’t seem to have had that part sink in with them yet.
He. Was. Caught. On. Tape. Committing. Felonies.
Address that fact if you want to appear as if your judgment in the matter isn’t compromised by your politics and your bias.
Haven’t really heard a roadmap from you folks about what a non-political prosecution of Trump would look like. So, seriously, how could we prosecute Trump for the crimes he committed in a way that was not political? From where I sit, people have been treating him with kid gloves because they’re so worried about appearing political. It’s insane to hear people complain about a two tiered justice system in his case when he is plainly benefitting from that reality. Anyone else would’ve been in jail a LONG time ago.
I don’t pretend to know what the Supreme Court will do with the case, but I do know that the trust in them to do the right thing is at an all-time low in this country. They’ve been in a legitimacy crisis ever since overturning Roe v. Wade and their failures to disclose financial conflicts of interest have only made it worse.
You seem like you have a lot to sort out, best of luck with that.
Is that a yes that you’re trying to use the “POTUS isn’t an office” ruling from before it was overturned? Because that one did seem absurd to me. Since the amendment was designed to prevent confederates from taking power, it was silly on its face to assume it wouldn’t apply to the president, a leap in logic and sound judgment only made possible by hyper-fixating on the word “office.” Especially when it contains a provision to remove the disqualification by a 2/3 vote, but not a provision to remove it if you win the presidency.
Sounds like you’re taking wild and unprecedented liberties with your resume acting like your backseat driver legal instincts are better than the Colorado Supreme Court’s legal decisions…people who I assume are far more educated, qualified, and experienced than you.
The amendment actually says “…engaged in ainsurrection or rebellion…” Trump did, factually speaking, engage in insurrection. The plain text of the amendment does not say anything about a criminal conviction for insurrection, and being ineligible for office holding is not a criminal penalty. Seems pretty plainly like you’re the one taking liberties to me.
Just trying to be clear before I respond, are you saying it doesn’t apply to the office of the president as the court initially ruled before it going to the Colorado Supreme Court? The Maine Secretary of State addressed that argument as if it were kind of nonsense and hinged on an interpretation of the word office inconsistent with the aim of the amendment in its context, missing the forest for the trees in terms of intent.
My gut instinct was the same as yours actually. But it’s not about my instinct, it’s about the interpretation of the law as written and the record of events of J6 when applied in that specific context.
Making an honest judgment call referencing the case law, constitution, state law, and precedent and then staying the decision to not go into effect until higher courts can rule on it is, despite my gut instinct, exactly the right call.
We all know this will end up at the Supreme Court, including the people who did their due diligence to write their best legal opinions.
I do believe the RNC tried that argument. It’s going to look different from state to state because the power to run their own elections is vested in the states. The Maine SoS cited some procedural arguments that are specific to Maine in her decision to keep Trump off the ballot.
Problem is that Trump hasn’t actually been convicted of insurrection, which is the necessary legal basis for such a ruling.
Citation needed. Maine’s Secretary of State fully addressed this exact topic. There is no language in the constitution or the amendment that says they must have been charged or convicted of insurrection and the SoS makes a pretty solid argument that she’s bound by her duties to make a call on the matter. She used the official Jan 6th hearings as an evidence-based proceeding while acknowledging that it was curated with intent and needs to be put in that context. She did stay her decision until higher courts ruled on the matter.
Beats me, I’m in a border state and it’s not even remotely uncommon to hear people speaking Spanish. I do my best to speak it back.