Trump Rivals Were Hoping for a Courtroom Knockout. Time Is Running Out.

Loading

By Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman

Donald Trump’s political opponents had hoped his legal difficulties would torpedo his third run for the presidency. But a knockout blow before the election is looking increasingly unlikely.

The former president, who looks poised to sew up the Republican presidential nomination after his win Tuesday in New Hampshire, is proving less vulnerable on the legal front than many of his critics predicted.

His lawyers are having success maneuvering to delay any legal reckoning. And he has profited from good fortune in the two trials that pose his greatest political vulnerability: those on his efforts to reverse his 2020 election loss.

Thanks to a serendipitous challenge to a law he has been charged with breaking, the Supreme Court could water down Trump’s federal election-interference case in the coming months. Meanwhile, the parallel prosecution in Georgia faces steeper odds after allegations the prosecutor leading it may have hired a paramour to run the trial.

All the while, Trump has raised money on his legal battles, seeing his support grow as he depicts himself as a victim of partisan prosecutors marshaling a crooked justice system to thwart his bid for a second term in the White House. Prosecutors have denied that claim.

“Everything has broken his way in connection with feeding his political narrative of being a victim,” said Ty Cobb, a now critical former Trump lawyer. “He’s had some very lucky breaks.”

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said the former president’s campaign trail success is a sign that some voters view the prosecutions as politically motivated, adding that Trump would win the election in “dominating fashion.” A spokesman for the federal special counsel, Jack Smith, declined to comment, and a spokesman for Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A conviction could still pose general election problems for Trump. An exit poll published by CNN found that 42% of New Hampshire Republican primary voters, who include a sizable number of independents, said Trump would be unfit to serve if convicted. A Wall Street Journal poll in December found Trump leading Biden by four points, but Biden winning by one point if Trump had a federal conviction.

A legal obstacle course

Trump was charged last year in four separate criminal cases totaling 91 criminal counts. Two cases relate to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, including one from local prosecutors in Georgia and one from Smith, the federal special counsel. Another case from Smith charged Trump with improperly retaining classified documents after leaving office, and a fourth came from local prosecutors in New York over his hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election.

Trump’s opponents long cast that legal obstacle course as possibly fatal to his 2024 prospects. “The problem for Donald Trump in all of this is his own conduct. He’s his own worst enemy,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said after Trump’s first federal indictment last year.

At least for primary voters, that argument has fallen on fallow ground. This month, Christie dropped out of the GOP presidential nomination race with his campaign stalled.

Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters rallied around the former president’s accusation of an organized “witch hunt,” as did most of his primary rivals, keen not to alienate his devoted base. Even his one remaining Republican rival, Nikki Haley, has only obliquely referred to Trump’s legal jeopardy, calling him an agent of “Republican chaos.”

Trump, whose mug shot has become a campaign point of pride, has yet to face any comeuppance in court. He is scheduled to go on trial on the federal election-interference charges in Washington on March 4. But that date is on hold as he appeals his claim, rejected by the trial judge, that a former president generally can’t face criminal prosecution for official acts he took while in office.

Courts have been skeptical of the sweep of Trump’s immunity claim, but the challenge, which he is expected to try to take to the Supreme Court, is likely to delay any trial for several months.

Unforeseen support

An unrelated case the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear could also help Trump at trial. Joseph Fischer, a small-town police officer from Pennsylvania who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, pro-Trump riot at the U.S. Capitol as Congress met to certify President Biden’s election win, is one of hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

That charge also comprises two of the four counts Trump faces. It stems from a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002—enacted after the Enron financial scandal—making it illegal to destroy records to interfere with official proceedings, or otherwise obstruct influence or impede them. Fischer challenged the use of the statute, saying Congress’s vote certification wasn’t the type of proceedings the law was intended to cover. If Fischer wins, Trump could, too.

“The question is, can you obstruct justice even when there is no evidence, or no investigation?” said Nick Smith, who unsuccessfully argued the case for Fischer and several other Jan. 6 defendants before a federal appeals court.

Prosecutors counter that the law properly covers the rioters’ violent actions, which forced lawmakers to halt the proceedings and flee to safety.

The high court could also narrow the law’s scope so it doesn’t limit Trump’s case, which accuses him of fraudulently trying to alter the documented electoral results. “If Sarbanes-Oxley history requires some sort of document offense, then we have that,” said Timothy Heaphy, who was the chief investigative counsel for the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

Either way, the open case could force the judge to push back the trial further until the Supreme Court decides, legal experts said, likely in June.

Trump also could get a break in Georgia. Fulton County District Attorney Willis is facing allegations made public this month that she was dating special prosecutor Nathan Wade when she awarded him a lucrative contract to take on the case, and that Willis herself benefited financially from the arrangement. Willis hasn’t commented on the allegations directly but has attributed the criticisms to racial bias.

Those allegations aren’t likely to force either Willis or Wade off the case, some legal-ethics experts have said. But they could infect the case at trial, where any local juror will have heard about their alleged affair, said Chris Timmons, an Atlanta defense lawyer who has prosecuted cases under the same racketeering law used against Trump.

“I have lost cases that were slam dunks when jurors thought the evidence was there but said, ‘We don’t think it’s fair,’ ” said Timmons, who is an ABC News contributor. “If they look at this and think there is something wrong with the investigation, even if they think the evidence is there, they will express their displeasure by acquitting.”

Slowly wending its way through court in South Florida, meanwhile, is the federal case stemming from Trump’s handling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club. That trial is set for May, but a likely postponement has been signaled by the judge, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated by Trump in 2020 and confirmed by the Senate shortly after his November electoral loss.

Trump’s lawyers have privately cheered the random assignment process that directed his case to Cannon, who has allowed lawyers to tangle for months over evidentiary issues, criticized prosecutors and said she would revisit in March Trump’s request to push off the trial date.

“He got incredibly lucky to get that judge,” Cobb said.

So far, the criminal cases have only buoyed Trump. A Journal poll in December 2022 found the former president’s standing among Republican voters had fallen and that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis held an early lead over him for the 2024 nomination. A year and four indictments later, DeSantis ended his presidential bid this month and endorsed Trump after losing to him in Iowa’s caucuses by 30%.

Thwarting a Trump victory was never a factor in getting grand juries to indict him, prosecutors have said repeatedly, but that intent remains a watchword among Trump supporters. “If creative prosecution was designed to hurt him politically, it clearly hasn’t,” said James Trusty, another former lawyer for Trump.

LINK

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

None of the law fare launched against President Trump will be successful. The left had a hope that any one of the four would be the death nil of Trump. They cannot defeat Trump because the people want Trump.

*knell

Trump loses no support due to the charges because there is no doubt that the charges are 100% politically motivated. Cases like the fraud charges in NYC leave no doubt. Fani’s case in Georgia is also absurd on its face and Jerk Smith’s case dances around the insurrection accusation because, while they want that implication to stay alive in antagonist’s minds of an insurrection that never happened, they know there is no possible chance to actually charge insurrection. It’s all theater.

Now, a “jury” awarded the NUT, E. Jean Carroll, $83 million for her “reputation”. It’s as if the leftists want to make it clear just how little regard they have for our justice system and want there to be no mistaking that if YOU were to try and cross this fascist regime, nothing would stand in their way of utterly destroying you.

1/28/24 – US historians sign brief to support Colorado’s removal of Trump from ballotTwenty-five civil war and Reconstruction scholars support invoking 14th amendment to bar Trump from ballot over January 6

Twenty-five historians of the civil war and Reconstruction filed a US supreme court brief in support of the attempt by Colorado to remove Donald Trump from the ballot under the 14th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from running for office.

“For historians,” the group wrote, “contemporary evidence from the decision-makers who sponsored, backed, and voted for the 14th amendment [ratified in 1868] is most probative. Analysis of this evidence demonstrates that decision-makers crafted section three to cover the president and to create an enduring check on insurrection, requiring no additional action from Congress.”

Amicus briefs allow interested parties to make relevant arguments. Earlier this month, nearly 180 Republicans joined a brief in support of Trump.

The 25 historians – among them James McPherson of Princeton, the pre-eminent civil war scholar – pointed to 1860s congressional debate.

“Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th amendment, challenged sponsors as to why section three omitted the president. Republican Lot Morrill of Maine … replied, ‘Let me call the senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office civil or military under the United States”.’ Johnson admitted his error; no other senator questioned whether section three covered the president.”

The historians also cited Andrew Johnson, in 1868 the first president impeached, referring to himself as “chief executive officer”.

Pointing out that section 3 of the 14th amendment is self-executing, and that “no former Confederate instantly disqualified from holding office under section three was disqualified by an act of Congress”, the historians also noted that Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, cited his own disqualification as reason an indictment for treason should be quashed.

“Contemporary information provides direct evidence of the enduring reach of the 14th amendment,” the historians wrote. “Congress … chose to make disqualification permanent through a constitutional amendment.

Some political and legal observers have suggested Trump should be allowed to run regardless of the constitution, because to bar him would be anti-democratic.

In a forthcoming article for the New York Review of Books, seen by the Guardian, Sean Wilentz of Princeton – an eminent historian not part of the supreme court brief – calls such arguments “risible”.

“By their reasoning,” Wilentz writes, “Trump’s misdeeds aside, enforcement of the 14th amendment poses a greater threat to our wounded democracy than Trump’s candidacy. In the name of defending democracy, they would speciously enable the man who did the wounding and now promises to do much more.”

Trump and allies including Elise Stefanik of New York, a House Republican leader, have refused to commit to certifying the result should Trump lose in November.

Wilentz continues: “Whether motivated by … fear of Trump’s base, a perverted sense of democratic evenhandedness, a reflexive hostility toward liberals, or something else, [commentators who say Trump should stay on the ballot] betray a basic ignorance of the relevant history and thus a misconception of what the 14th amendment actually meant and means. That history, meanwhile, has placed the conservative members of the supreme court in a very tight spot.”

Wilentz says justices who subscribe to originalism, a doctrine that “purports to divine the original intentions of the framers [of the constitution] by presenting tendentious renderings of the past as a kind of scripture”, will in the Colorado case have to contend with evidence – as presented by the historians’ brief – of what the framers of the 14th amendment meant.

Recently used to remove the right to abortion and to gut voting rights, originalism now threatens, Wilentz says, to become a “petard … exploding in the majority’s face.”

He also writes: “The conservative majority of the supreme court and the historical legacy of the [Chief Justice John] Roberts court have reached a point of no return. The law, no matter the diversions and claptrap of Trump’s lawyers and the pundits, is crystal clear, on incontestable historical as well as originalist grounds … the conservatives face a choice between disqualifying Trump or shredding the foundation of their judicial methodology.”

If the court does not “honor the original meaning of the 14th amendment and disqualify Donald Trump”, Wilentz writes, “it will trash the constitutional defense of democracy designed following slavery’s abolition; it will guarantee, at a minimum, political chaos no matter what the voters decide in November; and it will quite possibly pave the way for a man who has vowed that he will, if necessary, rescind the constitution in order to impose a dictatorship of revenge.”

Last edited 24 days ago by Greg

Not going to happen pea brain

Your idiots put originalists in the Supreme Court. Now it’s going to bite them on the butt, because the original understanding and intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment was clearly demonstrated by their words and actions.

Last edited 24 days ago by Greg

Where is biden today? At the beach?

You do not have the Constitutional awareness to make a statement like that. You are, in fact, a Constitutional illiterate.

I’m not the one who filed the amicus curiae brief.

You have neither the education or training, nor the intellect to file an amicus brief. As I said, you are Constitutionally ignorant.

Just admit that and go on down the road.

You have neither the education or training, nor the intellect to file an amicus brief. 

He didn’t say he wanted to. He’s just discussing a brief filed by someone else.

He’s just discussing a brief filed by someone else.

Communist Greg doesn’t have the knowledge, or intellect, to discuss an amicus written by anyone.

Wilentz says justices who subscribe to originalism, a doctrine that “purports to divine the original intentions of the framers [of the constitution] by presenting tendentious renderings of the past as a kind of scripture”, will in the Colorado case have to contend with evidence – as presented by the historians’ brief – of what the framers of the 14th amendment meant.

Recently used to remove the right to abortion and to gut voting rights, originalism now threatens, Wilentz says, to become a “petard … exploding in the majority’s face.”

He also writes: “The conservative majority of the supreme court and the historical legacy of the [Chief Justice John] Roberts court have reached a point of no return. The law, no matter the diversions and claptrap of Trump’s lawyers and the pundits, is crystal clear, on incontestable historical as well as originalist grounds … the conservatives face a choice between disqualifying Trump or shredding the foundation of their judicial methodology.”

Tom Cotton calls Joe Biden a coward.

Name calling is what they do.

Says the pot.

Thanks for providing the comments of someone who clearly is grifting a claim of being a “historian.” It not only gives us a sample of the trash you read but the trash we need not read.

a doctrine that “purports to divine the original intentions of the framers [of the constitution]”

The man is a total idiot. There is no need to “divine” the original intentions of the Framers. The Framers were quite clear of their intentions as written not only in the Federalist papers but in their individual and personal writings.

Can you really get any more gullible or any dumber?

Originalism postulates that constitutional text must be understood today in the same way it was meant to be understood when it was written. The exchange between Reverdy Johnson and Lot Morrill leave no doubt that the office of president was included in the scope of Section 3. “Any office civil or military” was obviously meant to be all inclusive. The exchange leaves no doubt that the words mean precisely what they say. The Office of the President is an office of the United States government. It’s crazy to think otherwise.

“Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th amendment, challenged sponsors as to why section three omitted the president. Republican Lot Morrill of Maine … replied, ‘Let me call the senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office civil or military under the United States”.’ Johnson admitted his error; no other senator questioned whether section three covered the president.”

Last edited 24 days ago by Greg

“Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th amendment, challenged sponsors as to why section three omitted the president. Republican Lot Morrill of Maine … replied, ‘Let me call the senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office civil or military under the United States”.’ Johnson admitted his error; no other senator questioned whether section three covered the president.”

Source?

You don’t care about the source. Whatever the source, you’re going to say that it is insufficient. “Source?” is your handy, well-worn method of avoiding grappling with the facts at hand.

The Framers were quite clear of their intentions as written not only in the Federalist papers but in their individual and personal writings.

If the Framers were as clear as you think, there would be no opposing viewpoints by lawyers on Constitutional matters.

If the Framers were as clear as you think, there would be no opposing viewpoints by lawyers on Constitutional matters.

Ding, ding, ding. Give Groomer the prize for the dumbest comment of the day.



Explain how I’m wrong.

Explain how I’m wrong.

Mostly due to ignorance. Sometimes pure stupidity, but a desperate clinging to a failed and degenerate ideology plays a part each time.

Not “why.” How. You can’t even get that right.

Due to ignorance and stupidity is how.

Are you unable to refute anything with facts? Or is it all namecalling?

Well, the first thing you are going to need is an insurrection. Then you can figure out who the insurrectionists are.

You don’t have an insurrection.

Communist Greg doesn’t have the knowledge, or intellect, to discuss an amicus written by anyone.

To be fair, you’ve never shown that you have. You apparently see yourself as a World’s Expert on a variety of topics that you don’t seem to understand at all.

Are you Greggie’s buttboy? You sure do rush to his defense.

Bottom line; neither of you have any intellect when it comes to the U.S. Constitution.

There was no “insurrection”. So, the issue is kind of settled.

Only idiots believe it was an insurrection when 500K came armed with flags and waterbottles.
What is this?

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Soros-Backed Los Angeles DA Pays Konnech Corp CEO $5 Million and Covers Up China’s Meddling in US Elections

Last edited 24 days ago by kitt

You have been ass raped again greg.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-remain-illinois-2024-ballot-after-14th-amendment/story?id=106765313

Trump can stay on Illinois 2024 ballot after 14th Amendment challenge, officials say

Last edited 22 days ago by TrumpWon

Your cult leader is failing as CIC. More dead on his watch.

Tell me again how Trump brought peace to the Middle East, put Iran in its place, contained North Korea, controlled Putin, and resolved our differences with China. Tell me how he supports the rule of law. Tell me how he solved the illegal immigration problem and brought deficits under control.

Four years of peace and prosperity. Americans have no confidence in biden.

Trump is toxic. The courtroom knockout is coming.

Last edited 24 days ago by Greg

The only thing you have is hate. Slink off into your world of misery.

Sure it is now go take your meds and rest.

Well, you’ve summed it up pretty nicely.

Tell us, Comrade Greggie, in the mass persecution of Trump supporters, who has been charged with “insurrection?”

You left wingers are really getting desperate. Meanwhile, Joe Biden stands at a podium clearly exhibiting signs of advanced dementia and you say nothing.

You are a slug.

The 25 historians – among them James McPherson of Princeton, the pre-eminent civil war scholar – pointed to 1860s congressional debate.

“Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland, a Democratic opponent of the 14th amendment, challenged sponsors as to why section three omitted the president. Republican Lot Morrill of Maine … replied, ‘Let me call the senator’s attention to the words “or hold any office civil or military under the United States”.’ Johnson admitted his error; no other senator questioned whether section three covered the president.”

None of the thousands of post-Civil War insurrectionists barred from holding office were prosecuted for insurrection. Even Jefferson Davis was ultimately released without standing trial. Prosecution and conviction for insurrection were not and are not required.

Last edited 24 days ago by Greg

Again, tell us, Comrade Greggie, in the mass persecution of Trump supporters, who has been charged with “insurrection?”

It doesn’t matter that none have been formally charged.

None of the thousands of post-Civil War insurrectionists barred from holding office were prosecuted for insurrection. Even Jefferson Davis was ultimately released without standing trial. Prosecution and conviction for insurrection were not and are not required.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was conceived as the alternative to criminal prosecution, imprisonment and the gallows as the remedies to insurrection and treason.

Last edited 24 days ago by Greg

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was conceived as the alternative to criminal prosecution, imprisonment and the gallows as the remedies to insurrection and treason.

Wrong. I love it when you prove you’re an idiot.

Your opinion doesn’t matter. The convictions of the originalist justices will be tested by an argument that rests on their own proclaimed theories. They will remain true to them, or undermine their own credibility. It’s a tough spot, with Trump breathing down their necks. It’s a test of their beliefs and their courage.

Last edited 24 days ago by Greg

 their own proclaimed theories.

Source?

Oh, my, what pathetic sources. You even resorted to Wikipedia.

Keep trying, simpleton.

See? That’s exactly what I referred to in my other comment. You are absolutely unable to grapple with facts, so you pooh-pooh the source. I’d bet money that you didn’t even check to see what the sources were.

Then the requisite namecalling.

I viewed ALL of Comrade Greggie’s sources, groomer. Did you?

Or do you just rely on those like Howard Zinn?

I viewed ALL of Comrade Greggie’s sources, groomer.

Then you should easily be able to refute what’s being said with facts.

Then you should easily be able to refute what’s being said with facts.

You assume I disagree with the arguments provided in Comrade Greggie’s links.. You should quit making assumptions.

You assume I disagree with the arguments provided in Comrade Greggie’s links.

Probably because you called them “pathetic.” Is that not what you meant, or do you have some private definition of “pathetic” that you haven’t yet shared with the rest of us?

Wikipedia is a pathetic source. You don’t know who writes their material.

Comrade Greggie said this:

“Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was conceived as the alternative to criminal prosecution, imprisonment and the gallows as the remedies to insurrection and treason.”

That is wrong and if you were an honest or informed person, you would agree.

Now go back to being Comrade Greggie’s buttboy.

So you did disagree. You just wanted to—what?—try to assert dominance or something?

So you did disagree. 

Why do you care? Why is my opinion so important to you? Do you always disagree/agree with all aspects of a topic?

The Supreme Court should be hearing oral arguments on Colorado’s removal of Trump from the ballot in 10 days. Maybe you should mosey on over to Washington with your megaphone.

I’m sure you will be there with your megaphone, and your clown nose.

Instead of wasting your time here, why don’t you study history? Or is it your goal to remain a dumbass?

You have no insurrection.

Not only no “insurrection,” but the Supreme Court today just called for the release of Jan 6th “insurrectionists,” because of malicious prosecution.
They said the charge that they impeded an official meeting was fake.
And that they were overcharged.

Who barred them?

Well? Who barred them?

Of course, at that time, they had an insurrection to work with. You don’t.

biden is a gelatinous blob of skin. He doesn’t know ho he is or where is. A career failure.

greg won’t talk about biden because there is nothing there about which to speak.

Last edited 24 days ago by TrumpWon

Cowards plainly know they cant beat Trump in a fair election
comment image

Empty acreage doesn’t vote. People vote. There are more voters in areas where there’s higher population density. You’ve made a population density map into a lie.

Guess where most of the food and energy is produced, what would happen if those empty acre votes decided to just keep it all for themselves?

Their state economies would collapse.

Still waiting for you to provide your sources.

But I know you are full of sh!t and you will never provide them.

No there are plenty of red states to feed and keep warm, Blue cities would be looted clean in days. And if you havent noticed the tax payers in those shitholes are bailing to red states, or the sticks.

Last edited 24 days ago by kitt

They would go broke if they’re not selling their products.

They are going broke now, the big food companies are making the dough, damn you are dull.

What do you think Trump would do about that? Price controls? Limits on corporate profit margins? How would he use his unconstrained powers of office to bring down prices?

You don’t think about fascism when it’s dressed in a Trump suit.

You’re pretty smug that Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden has f**ked things up so badly that it will be difficult for anyone to repair the damage. I know, from watching Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden, you think the President has “unconstrained powers” but, in fact, he doesn’t.

First, he unleashes the energy industry. No bounds, no restrictions, open it up and bring energy prices down. He restarts the Keystone.

Puts an end to all subsidies to illegal immigrants and shuts down the border to illegal immigration. That saves the nation $500 billion a year.

If he can muster the power in Congress, he gets laws passed that protects the fossil fuel industry from government assault. That way they can feel confident to invest in new refineries and expand exploration and production.

But, true, it will take time for the effects to be felt among those so seriously screwed over by Democrats and Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden because they have done such a thorough job of wrecking the nation.

Lower taxes on the Farmers that farm not the corps sucking subsdies and not planting.
Heavy subsidies on non-gmo and no glysophate.

Last edited 23 days ago by kitt

Careful, you sound like a leftist ready to regulate.

Not regulate free them from the monsanto poison
Read again what I would like to subsidize, natural farming. Farmers Saving the best seed not the Monsanto debt trap.

Last edited 23 days ago by kitt

Right. Like I said. Toxic chemicals are an issue on the left. Monsanto is not popular on the left. Regulation is how you control that. Big corporations don’t make changes that cut their profits voluntarily. They’ll sometimes even try to hide the harm that their products and corporate strategies do.

The tobacco industry is a classic example. The industry cost millions of Americans years of life and good health.

Last edited 23 days ago by Greg

And donating to Democrats is how they avoid that.

Good morning D M

Good morning!

The FDA needs to be Jacked up, gmo and other frankenfoods should be clearly marked. Not a fan of floride in the water, people are getting wise to toxic waste. You can pick on cigarettes all you want but there are many drugs approved that cause cancers.
The Left is retarded, they took the Indian off the Butter and kept the land, yet no world peace.
Whats up with the soup chuckers and the Mona Lisa? Those asswipes need a bit of Prison time.

Idiots are everywhere—left, right, and in between. They get far too much attention.

comment image

Copy machines vote. For Democrats.

Talk about debunked—The blue areas are where most of the people are. The red is mainly dirt.

And the blue areas are mostly crime and shit.

The blues areas regularly kick the butts of the red areas in national elections, and it’s because the blue areas are full of actual people, and people generally prefer Democrats to Republicans.

Yeah, blue indicates where those too dependent upon the government are. They HAVE to vote for socialism because they are ignorant.

When the taxpatyers all move away all they will be left with is takers. DEI idiots running the joint. Eventually ghost towns.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/11/07/ghost-towns-america-zip-codes-highest-vacancy-rates/38371381/

Last edited 24 days ago by kitt

Democrats are fascist, gutless cowards. Instead of all this lawfare and unconstitutional bans, why not just have good candidates and good policies?

Oops

Massachusetts Supreme Court Strikes Down Petition to Bar Trump From 2024 Ballot

UPDATE: Illinois Biden Ballot Removal Petition Recommended for Dismissal by Hearing Officer

Guess that 14th Amendment Hail Mary not going so well. What’s next?

Georgia case likely to be thrown out, jack shits case will be kneecapped by the USSC and the two lunatic NY cases will be overturned on appeal. Ya got nuthin.

Maybe some states don’t want to look like spoiled crybaby little butthurt bitches when the Supreme Court laughs these cases out of court.

01/29/24 – Illinois officials to weigh whether to boot Trump off ballot

The Illinois State Board of Elections is expected to vote Tuesday on whether former President Trump should be removed from the state’s primary ballot under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The forthcoming decision comes after retired Republican judge Clark Erickson, who oversaw a hearing on Friday, recommended on Sunday that the state’s election board dismiss voters’ petition to remove Trump from the ballot, arguing the board did not have time or authority to properly consider the matter before the March 19 primary.

He said there was “no opportunity for meaningful discovery or subpoena of witnesses” and that state laws “prohibit the Election Board from addressing issues involving constitutional analysis.”

Erickson wrote, however, that there is a “preponderance of evidence” that Trump engaged in insurrection, and, if the state election board does not agree with his reasoning to dismiss the voters’ petition, the board should remove his name from the ballot.

“In the event that the Board decides to not follow the Hearing Officer’s recommendation to grant the Candidate’s Motion to Dismiss, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board find that the evidence presented at the hearing on January 26, 2024 proves by a preponderance of the evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and should have his name removed from the March, 2024 primary ballot in Illinois,” Erickson wrote…

Have you ever noticed that your only chance against Trump is to find some extra-Constitutional means to keep him from running?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is about as constitutional as anything gets.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The office of President has never been considered as an officer of the United States. Stop lying traitor.

A group of 25 historians just filed an amicus curiae brief disproving that claim with records dating from the time the 14th Amendment was debated and adopted. The question of whether it covered the president came up and was answered. “Any office, civil or military, under the United States” means exactly what it says. “Any” is all encompassing.

This is an originalist argument that can’t be blown off without abandoning the entire originalist philosophy. I don’t expect originalist justices of the Supreme Court to destroy their own credibility. They might try to dodge the question, however.

Last edited 23 days ago by Greg

I realize English is not your primary language but you seem to not understand Amd. XIV, Sec 3 at all.

But then, you’re an idiot.

On the contrary, it’s perfectly clear and totally understandable. The words mean exactly what they say.

The individual states are constitutionally empowered to determine who is qualified to appear on their election ballots.

Several have determined that Trump ISN’T, having broken his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution by attempting to disrupt and corrupt a constitutional process with mob violence and electoral fraud.

He has since made statements clearly indicating he will respect neither law nor the Constitution.

Last edited 23 days ago by Greg

Trump broke no oath. Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden broke the law by being installed through election fraud. Only the Democrats exhibit totalitarian and fascist behavior.

ONLY Democrats.

Trump has publicly stated he believes law and the Constitution can be disregarded when the situation requires it.

He believes that HE is the one to decide when it does.

Last edited 22 days ago by Greg

Well it seems the statement is true in emergency situations, just shut down businesses and churches, call out a swat team if they want to serve a few beers.
Not just the President but governors seem to have this power.

Last edited 22 days ago by kitt

How many times is Comrade Greggie going to make that false claim?

He apparently wants to convince us what a liar he is.

OK, I’m convince.

When a lie, no matter how many times it’s been proven a lie, is all you have, you HAVE to keep using it.

And who elected these “historians”?

01/29/24 – Big business braces for potential return of Trump

Big business is bracing for the return of former President Trump, as Republican voters appear certain to give him a third shot at the White House. 

After Trump scored key wins in Iowa and New Hampshire against former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley — the preferred choice of some major business figures — corporate leaders seem keen on getting out of the former president’s crosshairs. 

“Most senior businessmen I talk to can’t stand the guy. They just recognize that he’s very dangerous for the country,” said Larry Harris, a finance professor at the University of Southern California and former chief economist at Securities and Exchange Commission.

“But nobody wants to open their mouth. Because unless everybody acts simultaneously, whoever pops up gets beaten down immediately.” …

That’s Trump’s modus operandi. They all fawn over the guy, while secretly praying that he gets taken down in court or struck by lightning on the golf course. It’s the same spineless bullshit with the GOP.

The Hill. The Propaganda. Finance professor at USC. I think the results from his first term is much more indicative of what we’ll see. Economic growth.

The coming idiocracy; four years of Trump as a dictator

Last edited 23 days ago by Greg

Trump has never done anything dictatorial. Never. Nothing.
That is Robin Ware/Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware/Pedo Peter/idiot Biden and the Democrats.

“And so it went, for generations…”

I guess you have no reality to support your position.

Peddling that nonsense again. Will you ever learn?