The video you cited suggests that Trump is already disqualified from holding public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and that anyone who puts him on the ballot will be breaking the law.
If that's the case, then the trial isn't necessary to disqualify Trump and the argument that the trial is about election interference is irrelevant. I'm not suggesting that Trump isn't also held accountable for his actions via a criminal suit in it's own right.
If, however, it must be proven that Trump is guilty of insurrection, rebellion, or any other action cited in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment before it can be applied, the video you cited bypassed the tenet that Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
I've looked at a number of presentations which explain the law very well, but I'm loathe to repost, or cite them if they imply that a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. If we do that, aren't we acting in the manner of which the defendent himsef has been accused?
However much we may believe he is guilty, or innocent, Trump is entitled to a fair trial including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However well-crafted we may think that the prosecution case, or defense is, a verdict is never guaranteed until it is pronunced.
As members of the public, if we can't uphold the basic principles of the judicial system, should it be televised? I understand the importance of transparency, but maybe not at the risk of a fair trial, or appeals on that basis.
Will the transcripts of, and evidence in the trial be a matter of public record once the trial is over? If so, then there is no need to televise it as a matter of transparency.
I don't think it will be particularly transparent for most people because it won't be anything like a TV drama. The legal technicalities will be challenging at least some of the time and the sheer volume of evidence will likely be overwhelming. Jack Smith has presented that the prosecution side will take 4-6 weeks. The defense will give their estimated time frame a week from today, if I remember rightly. Together it could run into months.
I rather think a televised record in the public domain will provide a level of transparency that can be scrutinised long after the tensions of the moment have ebbed...by people who understand the technicalities.
Are you suggesting that the trial is unecessary with respect to eliminating Trump from from the race, ergo claims that the motive for the trial being election interference is moot?
I agree that supporters will likely complain either way, so why do most people want the trial to be televised?
If you were wealthy and/or influential prior to Nazi Germany you were expected to function at a high rank during Hitler's regime. Just like anyone else, non-compliance was a death sentence for you and your family, including your children. There was a spectrum of compliance from those who revelled in committing atrocities to those who made a public show of obedience whilst resisting in private in various ways.
And none of it was the fault of the children.
If we ignore, or revel in human suffering because of a group's collective 'otherness', what makes us different from a tyrant?
Besides, look at what happened after WWI: when people see their chilldren painfully starving they look for somene to blame. Also, anyone promising to save them will seem reasonable.
If the Russian people starve after the war, of course it will be the West's problem. It will be a humanitarian issue as well as in our best interests to provide relief. To be careless and cruel in those circumstances is perpetuate the cycle of abuse.
No, I'm pointing out that you view these tyrannical leaders and their actions from the perspective of your childhood experiences.
You recognise the abusive relationship, but your coping strategies are those of a child victim in a skewed family.
It is on topic because the blog is fundementally about an abusive relationship. How we view the conflict and it's develpments depends upon our knowledge and/or personal experience.
Y'know, when mum goes along with whatever dad wants, however unreasonabe his demands. She does it to avoid a beating, or death, or in fear of her children getting hurt.
Maybe dad isn't a big bad wolfie. Maybe he's a weak man who thinks abusive behaviours make him look big and tough. Maybe it's his strategy to avoid any risk of getting hurt himself because he feels too fragile to cope with that.
The trouble is, he fails to understand that in behaving like a tyrant he depletes himself as well as everyone else.
Tiger's comment earlier, the one you said was a nursery story, is how healthy relationships work.
Hmmm...I don't think we have the same aversion to communism that the US has. We might not be as socialist as the Nordic countries, but we're far less right wing and less frightened of equality than the US.
Even with the Russian poisonings in the UK in recent years, Russia is not something we talked about much before the invasion of Ukraine.
Maybe it looks different from the outside, but I was really surprised to hear that I have a 'big problem with Russia'. I guess I have a problem with any oppressive regime, but that includes aspects of the UK.
I read most of Mike Pence's energy pan, but glazed over given the right wing subliminal language and the circumnavigation of environmental issues passed off as reality.
Given that Mike Pence believes that an unmarried man and woman have no need to have dinner together unchaperoned, his reality will not be that people can't find one person to date on here, it'll be that they can't find two.
He's clearly either in cloud cuckoo land, or being economic with the truth through his teeth.
My understanding is that Ukrainian refugees can apply for a three year leave of stay, so even if some were transported to the UK Star Trek style on the day Russia invaded, they still have 18+ months leave left.
I'm not saying their status in the UK is without difficulties. Some have been made homeless by their host families, affordable rented accommodation is difficult to find, some have married British people and started families, etc.
Rishi Sunak, our second generation immigrant Prime Minister who has had a life of elite privilege appears to have a particular problem with other immigrants. I don't expect any of the overseas members of our communities will be treated with dignity and humanity with him at the helm, but I don't think even that muppet of a leader tried to send 100,000 Ukrainian refugees back home last week.
I think maybe Sunak might have stamped his feet reiterating that the three year leave to stay is not a pathway to permenant settlement, three years leave being estimated as enough time for the conflict to end. I can only find this information from a Ukrainian source, however, as there seems to be no recent mention of it in the British media.
Inevitably the situation will have to be reviewed, and I believe parliament is already being petitioned to recognise that the situation isn't that simple for our Ukrainian guests. We cannot send them home regardless of the circumstances without breaking our own human rights laws.
I asked if it was usual in the US to shame people for being unwell. You can't disagree with an opinion I don't have, or a statement I haven't made.
If Mtch Mcconnell wasn't being shamed, why are protesters chanting, "Shame on you!" at him?
It doesn't make sense to me that the protest was about him having that blank moment of unknown origin, when there is controversy with respect to him both supporting and disavowing Trump. He didn't vote to impeach Trump when he had the (second) opportunity, but denounced him and his election fraud claims less than an hour before the insurrection kicked off.
It's a strangely impassioned protest at a picnic over a brain fart moment, unless of course there is some reason why the overt hostility is being downplayed in the news.
Might he be a witness for the prosecution with respect to the latest charges filed against Trump?
What does 'his own district' mean? Wouldn't his district have both Republican and Democrat supporters living in the area?
Presumaby it's extremely unlikely that a mix of Republican and Democrat supporters got together to protest and heckle him, therefore it's likely one, or the other.
And why would protesters chant, "Shame on you!" if it was just about his age and recent alleged health issues?
Surely, 'shame on you' must refer to something he has done. None of us deliberately get old, it just kinda creeps up on us when we blink, or something.
I kinda skipped through the video because it was too cringeworthy t sit through for the full 5+ minutes, but I'm pretty sure I heard a chant break out of "Shame on you!"
Would that be Republican, or Democrat supporters chanting 'retire' and 'shame on you'? Is it really about his health?
The reason accounts get closed so quickly is likely because CS closes them, maybe after they are reported by members.
Personally, I couldn't be bothered to report them. There are so many, they reappear anyway and if CS doesn't vet the new members, I'm not doing their work for free.
Y'know, I was pretty surprised there were two genuine profiles in the first ten of my unopened mail.
Getting mail within minutes of them joining is because you are an active member who appears at the top of lists. I've just opened a batch of mail and I may send a 'Thanks, but only here for the blogs/forums' mail to the two genuine members now I've opened them - that will bump me up some list somewhere and increase the flood of scammer mail.
It's unfortunate that you have to open mail to block and delete.
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,989)
Trump's Trial
I think you misunderstood my question.The video you cited suggests that Trump is already disqualified from holding public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and that anyone who puts him on the ballot will be breaking the law.
If that's the case, then the trial isn't necessary to disqualify Trump and the argument that the trial is about election interference is irrelevant. I'm not suggesting that Trump isn't also held accountable for his actions via a criminal suit in it's own right.
If, however, it must be proven that Trump is guilty of insurrection, rebellion, or any other action cited in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment before it can be applied, the video you cited bypassed the tenet that Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
I've looked at a number of presentations which explain the law very well, but I'm loathe to repost, or cite them if they imply that a guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion. If we do that, aren't we acting in the manner of which the defendent himsef has been accused?
However much we may believe he is guilty, or innocent, Trump is entitled to a fair trial including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However well-crafted we may think that the prosecution case, or defense is, a verdict is never guaranteed until it is pronunced.
As members of the public, if we can't uphold the basic principles of the judicial system, should it be televised? I understand the importance of transparency, but maybe not at the risk of a fair trial, or appeals on that basis.
Will the transcripts of, and evidence in the trial be a matter of public record once the trial is over? If so, then there is no need to televise it as a matter of transparency.