About me...?
All about me is chaos. I'm thinking of promoting myself to the Goddess of Entropy.
It might be fun.
Better fun than being Empress of the Universe, anyway. I abdicated because the tiaras weren't as shiny as I expected for the pos
[read more]
Would YOU like to post a blog on Connecting Singles? Have you written blogs that you'd like to share with other members? Posting your blogs shows your skill and creativity and helps members get to know you better. Your blog will appear on the Connecting Singles Blogs page and also in a link on your profile page. Click here to post a blog »
Comments (52)
Clarence is another corrupt political hack whom receives zillions on the side from Republicans
Of course, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court as they are all in Trump's pocket, and he will promise their continuation in return for rejecting the Colorado Court's decision.
Trump's yes men are more interested in preserving their lucrative positions than ruling a lawful decision.
It will be interesting to see if other states follow Colorado.
Clarence is another corrupt political hack whom receives zillions on the side from Republicans
Of course, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court as they are all in Trump's pocket, and he will promise their continuation in return for rejecting the Colorado Court's decision.
Trump's yes men are more interested in preserving their lucrative positions than ruling a lawful decision.
It will be interesting to see if other states follow Colorado.
Trump has indicated that if he regains power he will tear up the constitution. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to make constitutional legal rulings.
So far the Supreme Court has rejected every single appeal to them by Trump relating to his stolen election claims - remember there were some 50/60 suits Trump filed in a bid to overturn the results.
The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling only applies to the primaries as I understand it, but I think once the Supreme Court makes a ruling at the federal level, it will apply to all states.
I find it funny that Trump has threatened the Supreme Court's existence and is now expecting them to corruptly help him gain the power to action their demise.
Also,we (who love him and his political ideas)) woudl need someone who could take over anyway eventually, so do 4 more ywars relly matter so much- maybe not. Besides they would be on him like hawks as last time and I forsee that this tme around he would hardly get nothing done.
My conclution is he might as well drop out.
My post above.
My post above.
Also,we (who love him and his political ideas)) woudl need someone who could take over anyway eventually, so do 4 more ywars relly matter so much- maybe not. Besides they would be on him like hawks as last time and I forsee that this tme around he would hardly get nothing done.
My conclution is he might as well drop out.
You have it rather arse about face, however.
Trump has aready indicated that should he regain power he will ensure he has ultimate power by tearing up the consitution and using the justice system for his own personal gain. He has to do that in order to avoid going to prison for the rest of his life.
The evidence against him is overwhelming because his speech and actions have been recorded. With his co-defendents flipping as well, he would have to be intellectually incapacitated not to see his likely future through the courts.
He will never voluntarily drop out of the presidential race because it is his only escape route where he would maintain his status, wealth and power.
If he is disqualified, his only other option is to flee to a 'shithole' nation which has no extradition treaty with the US. That would be dependent on whatever funds he has managed to hide before his business empire had full-time auditors put in place. I imagine he'll be at a 'shithole' nation's mercy if one should allow him to stay and that will cost him dearly both financially and personally.
The fact that you conclude Trump would voluntarily drop out of the presidential race is a measure of how little you understand him, or the comprehensive legal procedings against him.
Let's just say I don't believe the (negative) hype, and I ain't alone.
If American tentacles around the world was not so strong and the effect so large
then I'd not care more over it than who run Luxemburg.
I similarily don't care very much who is in charge here in Norway.
But the USA dictates so many things for the world on so many arenas
that this is important.
Trump has all my support but it's not cos his elegant shirt or nice hairstyle.
Or what his enemies would say- a misogynist racist
megalomaniac calculating selfish disgusting bully.
No it's not that neither that draw me to him.
I simply fancy his policies.
You have it rather arse about face, however.
Trump has aready indicated that should he regain power he will ensure he has ultimate power by tearing up the constitution and using the justice system for his own personal gain. He has to do that in order to avoid going to prison for the rest of his life.
The evidence against him is overwhelming because his speech and actions have been recorded. With his co-defendents flipping as well, he would have to be intellectually incapacitated not to see his likely future through the courts.
He will never voluntarily drop out of the presidential race because it is his only escape route where he would maintain his status, wealth and power.
If he is disqualified, his only other option is to flee to a 'shithole' nation which has no extradition treaty with the US. That would be dependent on whatever funds he has managed to hide before his business empire had full-time auditors put in place. I imagine he'll be at a 'shithole' nation's mercy if one should allow him to stay and that will cost him dearly both financially and personally.
The fact that you conclude Trump would voluntarily drop out of the presidential race is a measure of how little you understand him, or the comprehensive legal procedings against him.
I think your language reveal who you are as a person.
Not so respectful one could suggest, at least on a gray day.
Based on that don't be too surprised next time I just say something like
"you got that off your chest" in order to hopefully escepe this type of half a page of shyte.
Maybe now you understand better why Luke and me call it hating.
You do hate Trump, I see that in the way you speak about him.
Now... I actually prefer your true self as shown here though,
to when you try to pack it all in with academic words you learned in Uni back when,
just to come across as superior to the average cs user.
This style is at least easy to grasp.
Clarence is another corrupt political hack whom receives zillions on the side from Republicans
Your comment about Clarence Thomas is relevant because the issue of Colorado disqualifying Trump will certainly make it to the Supreme Court.
Already there's talk that Thomas, who should recuse himself, most likely won't.
Given that his wife, Ginni was a good part of the involvement in denying the outcome of the 2020 election, she was also a participant in the rally January 6th Capitol attack.
Does more need to be said about it? Me thinks so...
Not so respectful one could suggest...
It was also Trump who referred to Haiti and African countries as 'shithole' nations.
It appears that Trump's language is only revealing when you think they're my words.
I said Trump would have to be intellectualy incapacitated to not realise the trajectory of his legal situation - the implication of that is he's not stupid. I also have no idea why you think 'his only escape route where he would maintain his status, weath...' and 'cost him dearly' is bad language, hateful, or revealing about myself as a person.
'Arse about face' is a mild British expression meaning 'the wrong way round'.
Cognitive dissonance is when someone changes the narrative to alleviate their discomfort when events challenge their belief system.
.....................................The second issue dogging the Colorado decision is that rebellion and insurrection against the United States is a federal crime. Trump has not been tried or convicted of any such crime. To say “we all know he’s guilty from what we’ve read online” is not how the American justice system is supposed to work.
For a state court judge and then the supreme court of that state to, in effect, convict him of that crime without a jury or even a trial on that crime, but instead as an ancillary issue in a different kind of proceeding, is unfair. It’s a backdoor insurrection conviction.
As such, it’s probably a violation of another key element of the 14th Amendment, the Due Process Clause. That clause declares that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Unlike the insurrection clause, the Due Process Clause has been applied thousands of times.
Now, let’s forget about the legalisms for a moment. The Supreme Court is always conscious that its power is like gasoline in a gas tank. The more of it they use, the less of it they have. They’re still smarting from criticism over the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore back in 2000. Chief Justice Roberts is especially wary about overreaching by the Court.
Their instinct will be to let the people, not the courts, decide Trump’s fitness for office. They’ll reverse the Colorado decision not on substantive grounds that he did not engage in an insurrection, but on Due Process grounds that he never got his day in court.
That would effectively end the matter. Even the most serious of the criminal cases against Trump do not charge him with insurrection. So, he probably won’t get his day in court on the insurrection crime because he’s never been charged with it.
What he will get is his day at the polls next Nov. 5. That’s as it should be. This is too important for judges to decide. It’s a matter for the people.
Glenn Beaton practiced law in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The views herein are his alone, and should not be attributed to any other person or organization.
.....................................The second issue dogging the Colorado decision is that rebellion and insurrection against the United States is a federal crime. Trump has not been tried or convicted of any such crime. To say “we all know he’s guilty from what we’ve read online” is not how the American justice system is supposed to work.
Couy Griffin was removed from office for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment only having been found guilty of the misdemeanor crimes of trespass and disorderly conduct on January 6th.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't specify that a criminal conviction is necessary to disqualify, just that an officer engaged in specified activities.
The law is applied and tried according to it's fit, not it's frequency of use.
Their whole purpose is to rule upon constitutional matters and Trump's qualification to run for the presidency is a constitutional matter.
If this case isn't the 'be all and end all' of why they exist, I don't know what is.
Sorry Jacs for the hijack!
You will go to your graves thinking you supported the right side. That irks me a little gotta say.
Your statements above is wrong, if it's me you have in mind when talking about
Cognitive dissonance.
No events in this kafkesque bull courtcases against Trump and his team
are events challenging my belief system. Actually it strenghtens my faith in him.
Sorry Jacs for the hijack!
Regardless, hope you will get your bf permanently into your life. I wish you both well and a happy life together. I wouldn't wait too long though. Hurry up getting him under your roof as life is short Kal.
You do not understand what is at stake here?
I'll tell you and listen like you never did before:
losing power back to the people, lead by Trump.
That man has to be stopped at any cost.
Have you heard aboupt "corruption"
Bill really accelerated it.
Anyways- don't let me break up your party.
My plan is to leave this blog now u see...
Why would their instinct be to not do their job?
Their whole purpose is to rule upon constitutional matters and Trump's qualification to run for the presidency is a constitutional matter.
If this case isn't the 'be all and end all' of why they exist, I don't know what is.
Besides,I do trust Glenn's Law-expertise over your emotional stuff by a Country-mile!
Your questions indicate how uninformed in US-Customs and Laws you really are!
And,read the whole Article, don't cherrypick like you usually do!
Besides,I do trust Glenn's Law-expertise over your emotional stuff by a Country-mile!
Your questions indicate how uninformed in US-Customs and Laws you really are!
And,read the whole Article, don't cherrypick like you usually do!
Where do you think I have obsfucated and why?
Where and why do think my response was emotional?
Please inform me where I lack. I'm always interested to learn.
[Definition: President, the officer in whom the chief executive power of a nation is vested.]
"No person shall hold any office [the office of the President] , civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as an executive officer [the President] of any state (or all States), to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same (the United States), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof (the United States)."
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Note: there is no indication in the text that the intent in the ruling applies to any specific event or timescale.
[Definition: President, the officer in whom the chief executive power of a nation is vested.]
"No person shall hold any office [the office of the President] , civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as an executive officer [the President] of any state (or all States), to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same (the United States), or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof (the United States)."
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Note: there is no indication in the text that the intent in the ruling applies to any specific event or timescale.
Do you have any thoughts on how it should be applied, that is, how the act of insurrection etc. should be established in the case of the president? Is Judge Wallace's ruling sufficient?
Do you have any thoughts on whether the Supreme Court will accept Jack Smith's appeal for review, or whether they will uphold, or overturn the the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Trump is disqualified?
Do you have any thoughts on how it should be applied, that is, how the act of insurrection etc. should be established in the case of the president? Is Judge Wallace's ruling sufficient?
Do you have any thoughts on whether the Supreme Court will accept Jack Smith's appeal for review, or whether they will uphold, or overturn the the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Trump is disqualified?
The Colorado District court denied the motion at first but then decided to go ahead and found the result you have so I'd say it's a solid result. No more than that I can say because I haven't studied it.
I'm waiting to see what other states if any, will follow Colorado.
The Colorado District court denied the motion at first but then decided to go ahead and found the result you have so I'd say it's a solid result. No more than that I can say because I haven't studied it.
I'm waiting to see what other states if any, will follow Colorado.
Judge Wallace's ruling that the presidential office isn't an office, or that the presidential oath doesn't include the word 'support' in reference to the constitution is bizarre to me.
I get trying to decide how to establish an act of insurrection fairly, but in the absence of a specific measure being stated in the constitution, I don't agree it is dependent upon a specific insurrection criminal conviction.
I'm not convinced by the purist argument of the founding fathers' intent, either. We're not in a position to know what they were thinking and they weren't in a position to foresee Donald Trump. I'm not sure it matters if 3/14 was meant for this situation - the important element is whether it fits this situation.
Having said that did my posts not address your two questions?
I removed the superfluous options and fitted the President into the formula for a positive match in 14/3 which gives us a backup to our opinion. A qualified lawyer could take that and phrase it in legalese, my education only covered Contract Law.
He didn't even win against Hillary. A dead horse would've won against Hillary, but not him. Jeessuusss.
He couldn't win against half-dead Biden. And now again.
They say Trump, you think cirque.
And yeah, the cirque begun - they accuse 'im in mutiny against whatever. ***laughing***
Having said that did my posts not address your two questions?
I removed the superfluous options and fitted the President into the formula for a positive match in 14/3 which gives us a backup to our opinion. A qualified lawyer could take that and phrase it in legalese, my education only covered Contract Law.
I think I asked more than two questions and I think you answered the first subject - Judge Wallace's ruling that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection satisfies the application of 3/14 and a criminal conviction for insurrection is not necessary.
The second subject was having a guess at what the Supreme Court's next move will be, which you didn't answer.
He didn't even win against Hillary. A dead horse would've won against Hillary, but not him. Jeessuusss.
He couldn't win against half-dead Biden. And now again.
I have wondered if the Republican use of underhand technology (aka cheating) may have been why Trump couldn't believe he'd lost in 2020 unless the Democrats had also cheated.
And yeah, the cirque begun - they accuse 'im in mutiny against whatever. ***laughing***
I am getting tired of courts setting rules. We have a congress. Now we have a court that by passes the constitution and sets laws?
This country has surpassed socialism and marching head on to communism. We dont need to worry about Nazis, we have courts.
Haley came out against Trump because he is the disrupter. That is why we LIKE him. Upsets the apple cart. Goes against the good old boys club that belongs in a nursing home. If we passed a 50 year old age limit on congress, we would be left with 14 members!