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.
I wasn't asking you to take sides, I was asking for your opinion on the other two points because your analysis of 3/14 (I like this shorthand) seems pretty straight forward to me.
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?
Men's trouser flies crystaline and crunchy with years of accumulated urine is a vivid memory.
I don't recall any unwashed, or odorous women's trousers, but women did bring me their husband's unwashed clothing at times. I guess they were too familiar with their husband's scent to notice how over-powering it was.
Sometimes women's clothing would smell horribly of sysnthetic perfume, but perhaps familiarity with female scent meant I rarely detected any individual underlying body aroma.
I don't understand that metaphor. Where, how, why is the Supreme Court legally restricted from the amount of judements it can make and over what time period? Surely they rule over, or rescind back to lower courts whatever is appealed to them according to the rule of law, not some intangible quantity?
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.
Except the decision that Trump engaged in insurrection wasn't made "from what we've read online", but after Judge Sarah Wallace's considered review of the evidence presented to her in the Colorado 2nd Judicial District.
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.
Except he hasn't been convicted of insurrection, but it was found that he did indeed engage in insurrection according to the evidence presented.
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.
Except there was and still is due process to determine if Trump qualifies for presidential office through the proper channels. There are many types of legal processes, for example, Trump was found civilly liable for s*xual abuse and that he did indeed rape E. Jean Carroll without being found criminally guilty.
If the frequency of a constitutional, or legal application were an issue with respect to applying the constitution or any law, the constitution, or any law would not exist.
The law is applied and tried according to it's fit, not it's frequency of use.
I think Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech would fall foul of current hate crime law in the UK, particularly as there was an uptick in violent race-based crime following its presentation.
Trump posted “...allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” I misquoted saying 'tear up' instead of 'terminate', but still, Trump's words.
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.
Not just cognitive dissonance, but preemptively so - I'm impressed.
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.
The path of self-preservation for the Supreme Court is in upholding the the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
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.
Clearly you have watched very little of the J6 footage and your story is not backed up by the evidence.
A coup, or an invasion, needn't be violent, destructive, nor well organised. However, the attempted insurrection did involve violence and destruction of property by a significant number of people. There were elements of organised behaviour.
I was around 7/8 years old when I was told at Catholic school that there were more Catholics than any other religion/denomination so the Catholics must be right and everyone else wrong.
I could see the ridiculousness of that argument even at that age: If I'm in a room full of kids who all want to stamp on a butterfly it doesn't mean I'm wrong in thinking the butterfly should be set free.
What you're talking about is peer pressure: I should believe your stories about how the US, or the world works because lots of people tell the same stories.
What evidence has persuaded you that the 2020 election was stolen?
If it's okay to blame a lack of security, or policing for J6 rather than J6ers, then serial killing, rape, home invasion, bank robbery, etc. is also the fault of poor security and policing. Every time there is a crime should we exonerate the person who did it and blame someone else for not stopping the crime?
I challenged you and you dismissed me without even the slightest reference to the challenge.
Why should anyone believe the stories you tell about US politics when they appear as much a product of your imagination as the inaccurate stories you tell us about ourselves to our faces?
On many occasions you have made statements about what I believe, what I think, my level of intellience or lack thereof, my level of sense or lack thereof, what I am doing.
I know you are making up these stories because I know what I think, what I believe, etc., and you are invariably incorrect.
I assume you do it to try and make sense of your world.
When you post detailed narratives of what is going on in the world without any explanation of where your ideas come from, I can only assume you are likewise making up stories to make sense of your world.
When I post, I go to some length reading and listening to others whether Democrat, Republican, or other. I sift through all the information, research bits that I don't understand and pull everything together based on research, the law, opinions including my own, etc.
I learn in the process and I hope to provide a reasonably well-rounded, rational, well argued nugget that others may understand and hopefully challenge and/or expand upon.
What I don't do is argue the case for people who pluck stories out of their arse, whatever their agenda. I don't do it because I can't rationalise fantasy in the political genre.
I'm pretty sure Shaye Moss said in her testimony that her phone was going non-stop while she was in the police station which she ignored whilst filing her complaint. In the end the police officer started fielding the calls and so witnessed some of the harassment directly.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, nor quite what you're asking, but Ireand's s*xual revolution has been compacted into a relatively short time period in relatively recent history.
I think maybe that has affected behaviour, like leaving children unsupervised in a cake shop before they've learned the boundaries of polite society.
I stopped opening mail from Irish chaps a long while ago because so many of them were really rather unpleasantly obscene.
I've always assumed it's a function of s*xual repression and misogyny from a long history of Catholic oppression. It's like some men don't have the experience, or skills to know how to behave within a more sexually liberated framework.
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,998)
Trump Disquaified
I'm not happy with the objections so far though.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.