So you have no idea about the US constitution which sets out the fundemental structure of the democratic republic and is basically a 'How To' book for the country. It's the longest surviving written charter of government in the world.
I have a lot of issue with US politics, judiciary and ethics, but the more I hear about the consitution, the more I understand how it has endured and how it was meant to be used to create a better environment for it's citizens.
It still has so much potential, which is awe inspiring.
It still has relevance some 237 years after it was written despite how much society has changed.
I've spent a lot of time listening to people whether Republican, Democrat, or other. I've listened to men and women, young and old, educated and not.
I've listened to a lot of lawyers.
I've listened to mainstream media and the more obscure.
I've read, I've cross referenced and I've fact checked. I've worked out who I can take at face value, who is more emotional, or theatrical and who is downright deceptive, or untrustworthy.
I've made notes and I've spent time bringing everything together in my posts because it's a learning experience.
I hear what you're saying about the unfair editing in Carpgate and whilst it's very not nice and may be symbolic to an extent, I think it's about time you stopped telling me that I'm stupid when you get all frustrated because you can't express yourself.
I get the impression that a lot of US citizens know very ittle about the constitution, even though yours is all in one place and can be carried in your pocket if necessary.
It should be taught in schools, but maybe there'd be uproar over teaching kids they're all equal.
I think the article, or snippet I read said the cups were changed later.
They were changed from foam to double walled cups to keep in line with customers' environmental views, so maybe it's all a bit shadowy what happened when and why.
McDonalds doesn't seem to be the kind of business that makes improvements out of the goodness of it's heart. Did you have the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy standoff on your side of the pond?
If we could look back at all the things he said and did that are related to him trying to overturn the election, I think we would be overwhelmed by the frequency and escalating progression.
This ruling moves things along a bit, especially with the unusual step of giving Trump only six days to apply for a stay of the Mandate (the mandate is the ruling they've just made.)
I think the defendent would usually have 30 days to apply for a temporary stay so a hearing could be held within 45 days to see if the trial will be stayed while the Supreme Court reviews the appeal.
If Trump doesn't apply for a stay so he can appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, the Mandate will be in effect as of 12th February. Judge Chutkan can then set a new trial date mindful that Team Trump is owed another two months of preparation time. That might be the beginning of May to early June with completion before the election.
If Trump appeals to the Supreme Court and they accept it for review, they may issue a ruling within a week, or they may take months. Assuming they also affirm that Trump doesn't have absolute Sovereign immunity (they'd be nullifying their own jobs if they do) it may push the trial back to August/September which may upstage the election, or interfere with Trump's campaign. Whichever, Trump will have something to whine about.
So, baited breath for the next few days, but in the meantime, the Stormy Daniels hush money criminal trial is set to start on March 25th. Whilst it's essentially a simple fraud case (i.e. quick enough for a May/June DC trial start date) it has implications with respect to election interference - it might be argued at some point that he deliberately deprived the electorate of the full value of their vote by hiding information pertinent to their decision making.
As for 'getting rid' of someone in the race, in the US, incarceration does not preclude someone from running for, or being in presidential office. The electorate has a right to know, however, if they are voting for a convicted felon, or not. The Stormy Daniels hush money case is ironically quite good for that full-disclosure purpose because it's a very low level criminal fraud case: Trump may end up a convicted felon, but is unlikely to receive a prison sentence. Voters' decisions could be made on largely ethical/moral grounds rather than on the basis of practicality.
Disqualifying Trump might be another way of 'getting rid' of him, but the constitution 'gets rid' of unqualified people as a matter of course, i.e. if they're under the age of 35, or not natural born citizens. In the event that at least one state is able to, and does disqualify him, that's a matter of constitutional law.
I don't see Russia bending over backwards to allow competitor citizens due process and every defense available to them. They tend to chuck people off balconies, or secrete them in cold, isolated prisons, don't they?
Certainly, in the UK we don't through this kind of rigmarole. If our Prime Minister makes so much as a social faux pas we have a committee meeting about it, decide it's a jolly poor show and then pressure the old bean to resign for the good of the country. And if that doesn't work, parliament can kick the Prime Minister out with a vote of no confidence.
On the other hand, if Trump were to be re-elected, he has already said lots of shit about his intentions that are more in keeping with Putin's kind of dictatorial rule. He can't seem to stop himself from blurting stuff out.
Clearly CS is making changes to it's 100% free status.
I've seen the advert to upgrade, I have no notice on my profile about it being free with ads, but I've tried two adblockers and this is the only site where they don't work. I'm so overwhelmed with flashing, moving and changing adverts that my cursor frequently freezes.
It's a long, long time since I became a member, but I have a sneaky feeling that to do so relied on agreeing to CS having the intellectual property rights to any contribution I make.
I'm happy to discuss Biden's successes and failures if you create a blog about it, but this one is about the machinations of the US justice system with respect to Trump's indictments.
Trump is a character in the play, but I think of him as being in a supporting role. The real story is whether the US constitution, legislature and judiciary can survive a coup.
If it can, it rather elevates the model having been put to the test. If it can't, it possibly forebodes an existential crisis globally.
The responsibility lies with McDonald's because the coffee was hot enough to cause serious injury quickly and had no warning, or the coffee was hot enough to cause serious injury quickly and the container was not up to the task of containing the hot liquid.
Water temperature of 49C (120F) will take 10 minutes to cause a serious burn, but 60C (140F) will take 3 seconds. Coffee burns above 80/85C.
Bear in mind that outlets that serve hot food and drinks also have a duty of care to their overworked and underpaid staff. Busy establishments are dangerous places with respect to knocks, bumps and spills - 3 seconds is not enough time to get wet clothing off, or douse yourself with cold water.
Another aspect of the 57-page ruling by the DC District Court is the constitutional doctrine of the seperation of powers. It requires that the principal institutions of state - executive, legislature and judiciary - should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens' liberties and guard against tyranny.
Furthermore, the president is vested with executive power which entails the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
You are accurate wth respect to the practical implications of Team Trump's claims of absolute Sovereign immunity. Trump could start beheading his wives on trumped up charges of infidelity and incest instead of divorcing them. The thing is, his claims also imply that President Joe Biden could eliminate the opposition with impunity.
Biden was president elect until he was inaugurated, so Trump was still president on January 6th, but this District Court applied the Impeachment Judgement Clause in part of their ruling. The Impeachment Judgement Clause states that impeachment conviction only extends to removal and disqualfication from office and that a president can also be criminally prosecuted for criminal acts whilst in office.
If my memory serves me correctly, there was also an interlocutory motion filed by Team Trump in the DC case suggesting that he was acting within the outer bounds of his duties of presidential office and as such is immune from prosecution. Whist legislaters do enjoy absolute immunity from many lawsuits, it was ruled that when running for re-election he was acting in the capacity of a presdential candidate just like any other presidential candidate and not in the capacity of his duties as president.
Even when Trump was trying to scupper the US Postal Service with the aim of invalidating mail-in votes via delay, he was acting as presidential candidate Trump, not President Trump. Think of his presidential campaign and election interference as side hustle.
In conclusion, whilst Trump was president on January 6th he wasn't immune from criminal prosecution for acts within, or outside the outer bounds of his duties of office.
Did that answer your questions, or were you looking for something specifically relating to Trump's claims of election fraud?
The point I was making is that you've read something and either repeated it without question, or added more to it from your own imagination.
I tried to verify your figure and the nearest I got was an estimate of at least 3,500 legal actions in that time period, but that included his own legal actioning and litigation. It's common knowledge that he's never been shy when it comes to suing, or threatening people and one legal action might amount to no more than one threatening letter by one of his lawyers.
Trump ordering two, or three threatening letters a week for 35 years is doable; Trump being dragged into a new bogus court case two, or three times a week is not.
4,000 bogus court cases in 35 years would surely be newsworthy and sanctionable, just as Trump has been sanctioned for filing frivolous suits.
Finally, it pisses on your own argument that Trump's current legal woes are politically motivated if he has a 35 year prior history of being falsely sued two, or three times a week. These few current cases must be a holiday-like lull by comparison.
This is off topic and too dense to address in detail.
Suffice it to say, the chap in the video competely bypassed the multiplexity of colour, race, or ethnic prejudice and mistakenly tried to claim that it directly and immutably equates to wealth.
Whilst racial prejudice is linked with keeping people of colour in poverty through many a nefarious means, wealth does not preclude someone from being a casualty of racial prejudice.
Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael and William Bryan shot Ahmaud Abery to death for running whilst Black. How much money he had, or didn't have is utterly irrelevant.
The first drone strike that Trump authorised after his inauguration killed 22 civilians including 10 children under the age of 12. He described it as a 'win'.
I'd be well pleased if every last war criminal on the planet were prosecuted, regardless of nationality, or political party. That would include our former Labour leader, Tony Blair.
Who in their right mind would think it's okay for someone to get away with war crimes?
And by the way, absolute federal Sovereign immunity is limited to specific areas such as core legislative acts, or statements made on the floor of the legislature. It doesn't extend to criminal acts as was affirmed earlier today in the DC appellate court (see op.)
online today!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,988)
RE: Has anyone seen Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with President Vladimir Putin?
Is it wrong to pray for Tucker to be muzzled by a six pack yolk...?