Trump’s Troubles

Yup. Of course a lot of this has been reported in bits and pieces and discussed in various corners of Xitter for months, but the only aspect of the story that is widespread knowledge at the moment is the Capitol Hill mob on 6 January. The details of how strange groups of people claiming to be electors started turning up and trying to get in side doors to present their own college votes is proper banana republic stuff.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I must have missed the time BLM disrupted the process of certifying an election.

I was directly talking about the events on Jan 6th at the Capitol.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I was directly talking about the events on Jan 6th at the Capitol.

That’s what the protestors/rioters/whatever were doing on that day - trying to stop the Electoral College votes count at the Capitol by Pence.

https://www.npr.org/sections/congres...-than-ceremony

https://wapo.st/4buKpBl

The Supreme Court on Thursday seemed prepared to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado ballot, expressing deep concerns about the ability of a single state to disqualify a candidate from seeking national office. The indications from the justices came as they heard arguments on the unprecedented question of whether Trump should be barred from the ballot because of his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.


The justices heard arguments Thursday on a ruling from Colorado’s top court that declared the leading Republican presidential candidate ineligible for a second term because of a post-Civil War provision of the U.S. Constitution that disqualifies insurrectionists.


Justices from across the ideological spectrum warned of troubling political consequences if the Colorado ruling is not reversed.

Trump’s attorney argued that the Jan. 6 attack was a “riot,” not an insurrection, and said the constitutional provision in question does not apply to the president. He also argued that Congress would have to pass specific legislation authorizing states to bar candidates from the ballot. Some of the justices expressed skepticism toward those claims, suggesting that Trump’s lawyer was trying to parse the letter of the law beyond reason.

The justices’ questioning of the lawyer representing Colorado was far more pointed, however. Liberal and conservative justices alike warned that if Colorado had its way in declaring Trump ineligible, a single state could decide for the rest of the nation whether a presidential candidate is permitted to run. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that would create an “unmanageable” situation…

… Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, concluded that “there seemed to be very little support for Colorado’s side” among the justices.
“One concern kept coming up: that there’s a federal interest in presidential elections, and having states being able to interfere could lead to a race to the bottom,” Hasen said. He said he expects a “lopsided ruling reversing Colorado,” with eight and perhaps all nine justices ruling to overturn the decision.

Seems a fair concern - since it’s for a national federal office, not state.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://wapo.st/4buKpBl



Seems a fair concern - since it’s for a national federal office, not state.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://wapo.st/4buKpBl



Seems a fair concern - since it’s for a national federal office, not state.

This is also why I think they need to run national elections at the federal level. It seems absurd to me that voting procedures, regulations, and so on can be decided state by state when it has a national impact. It causes headaches each election but most notably in 2000 and Flordia.

It’s a curious one because it doesn’t address Section 3 directly at all, just Colorado’s right to do something that affects the entire federal election. If the SCoTUS ducks the issue by using that as an excuse not to take a difficult decision, then it leaves open the very real chance of Trump becoming president elect and someone challenging him on the basis of the constitution at that very late stage.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

then it leaves open the very real chance of Trump becoming president elect

So you think he’ll beat Biden?

Originally Posted by Pierre

So you think he’ll beat Biden?

Much depends on whether any of his criminal trials conclude before election day. If he’s a convicted felon, polling increasingly suggests people will turn away from him. There’s already a grassroots Republican ‘never Trump’ movement.

If he isn’t criminally convicted, then it’s going to be too close to call, and the Dems share a chunk of the blame for that for allowing the Joe Show to shamble on in the way they have. They really needed an anointed successor two years ago, making clear he only ever intended to be a one-term president. I can’t believe they think it’s business as usual, going for a second term with someone who will be 86 at the end of the next presidential term - assuming he lives that long.

[jfman]

This guy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-age-questions

Originally Posted by jfman

This guy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-age-questions

I’m surprised it took you that long to find an example

[jfman]

I totally agree the Dems have dropped the ball allowing it to get to here.

[Pierre]

If Trump is not blocked by whatever reason.

And goes against Biden

Trump wins.

The Dems have some gymnastics to perform. Biden would never see out a second term anyway.

Meanwhile…



If Trump wants to appeal the verdict he has to post bond for the full amount + interest.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Meanwhile…



If Trump wants to appeal the verdict he has to post bond for the full amount + interest.

Wow, Trump doesn't have that type of money. I wonder what happens next?

Meanwhile from Andrew Neil.

So special counsel has decided not to charge President Biden for his mishandling of classified documents. But the reason given is devastating: basically he’s not fit to stand trial. He can’t even remember when he was VP. This from the special counsel — a remarkable read: