The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Tue Dec 19, 2023 11:19 pm

And not just any judge, it was a state supreme court judge.

Punisher · Post by **Punisher** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 1:03 am

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:56 pm
Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:41 pm the 14A doesn't apply to him (yet).
The 14A says nothing about being convicted; it seemingly only requires demonstration that someone "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" in order to be disqualified.

Which, if you think about it, makes sense given what they were trying to address when the 14A was passed - preventing Civil War soldiers and leadership from gaining power in the federal government.

SEE: here:
The intent was to prevent the president from allowing former leaders of the Confederacy to regain power within the U.S. government after securing a presidential pardon. It states that a two-thirds majority vote in Congress is required to allow public officials who had engaged in rebellion to regain the rights of American citizenship and hold government or military office.

I have a question. Is insurrection and rebellion the same thing in this context?
If so, then does Trump have to be convicted of insurrection or can a judge do the same thing here and remove his citizenship?
I ask because that last line says congress has to approve regaining citizenship.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 10:54 am

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm

Wait, I thought that this Colo SC ruling was saying that Trump could not be on the ballot for the presidential election - not simply 'the primaries'.
I misread that.

This has suddenly become a bit of a nothing burger.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:49 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm Wait, I thought that this Colo SC ruling was saying that Trump could not be on the ballot for the presidential election - not simply 'the primaries'.
I misread that.

This has suddenly become a bit of a nothing burger.

Yeah, it seems there's virtually no chance this sticks in a way that actually matters (other than the precedent it might set if it spreads to other states, which also seems like virtually no chance).

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:21 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm Wait, I thought that this Colo SC ruling was saying that Trump could not be on the ballot for the presidential election - not simply 'the primaries'.
I misread that.

This has suddenly become a bit of a nothing burger.

It's actually saying he doesn't meet the qualifications to be president, therefore putting him on the ballot would be against election law. I'd think that would apply to any ballot.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:23 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm Wait, I thought that this Colo SC ruling was saying that Trump could not be on the ballot for the presidential election - not simply 'the primaries'.
I misread that.

This has suddenly become a bit of a nothing burger.

I assume that's because the primary ballots necessarily get printed before the general election ballots. But the relevant criteria (from the 14th amendment) is about elgibility to be president. So if this ruling sticks, then when time came to print the general election ballot, that the Colorado Secretary of State would say "Pursuant to court order and the 14th amendment, Donald Trump is not eligible to be president," and so would decline to put him on the general election ballot.

milo · Post by **milo** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:24 pm

As far as I can tell, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Trump is not eligible for the office of POTUS under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Therefore, under the laws of the State of Colorado, he cannot be on the primary ballot. The ruling also means that he can't be on the general election ballot either, but that won't matter until next year, if and when Trump has secured the GOP nomination.

The reason they are focused on the primary ballot now is that the Colorado Secretary of State will need to certify them soon so they can print them in time for the "Super Tuesday" primary on March 5, 2024.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:27 pm

Well, that's reassuring. I move it from 1% chance-to-matter to 5%.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:32 pm

What's going to be funny is when SCOTUS affirms this, and then a bunch of red states exclude Biden from the ballot for like encouraging BLM or something, leading us to President Cornel West in 2025.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:35 pm

I'd take that as a win.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:13 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:21 pm
Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm Wait, I thought that this Colo SC ruling was saying that Trump could not be on the ballot for the presidential election - not simply 'the primaries'.
I misread that.

This has suddenly become a bit of a nothing burger.
It's actually saying he doesn't meet the qualifications to be president, therefore putting him on the ballot would be against election law. I'd think that would apply to any ballot.

Right, that's how I read it at first too... but when the GOP's answer was "That's fine, we just won't put him on our State GOP Primary ballot, and instead do caucus votes." - it sounds like they don't think that.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:16 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:23 pm
Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm Wait, I thought that this Colo SC ruling was saying that Trump could not be on the ballot for the presidential election - not simply 'the primaries'.
I misread that.

This has suddenly become a bit of a nothing burger.
I assume that's because the primary ballots necessarily get printed before the general election ballots. But the relevant criteria (from the 14th amendment) is about elgibility to be president. So if this ruling sticks, then when time came to print the general election ballot, that the Colorado Secretary of State would say "Pursuant to court order and the 14th amendment, Donald Trump is not eligible to be president," and so would decline to put him on the general election ballot.

Okay, so CO-GOP are just tackling their first problem and they are punting on the general election ballot issue until it's an issue.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:18 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:32 pm What's going to be funny is when SCOTUS affirms this, and then a bunch of red states exclude Biden from the ballot for like encouraging BLM or something, leading us to President Cornel West in 2025.

But isn't the key here being the insurrection? Or is your point that they would try to paint BLM as an insurrection too (and pin it on Biden.)

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:20 pm

There's STILL always a tweet...

https://mastodon.social/deck/@georgetak ... 7580804684

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 6:13 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:18 pm
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:32 pm What's going to be funny is when SCOTUS affirms this, and then a bunch of red states exclude Biden from the ballot for like encouraging BLM or something, leading us to President Cornel West in 2025.
But isn't the key here being the insurrection? Or is your point that they would try to paint BLM as an insurrection too (and pin it on Biden.)

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 6:43 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 4:13 pm
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:21 pm
Unagi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 2:46 pm Wait, I thought that this Colo SC ruling was saying that Trump could not be on the ballot for the presidential election - not simply 'the primaries'.
I misread that.

This has suddenly become a bit of a nothing burger.
It's actually saying he doesn't meet the qualifications to be president, therefore putting him on the ballot would be against election law. I'd think that would apply to any ballot.
Right, that's how I read it at first too... but when the GOP's answer was "That's fine, we just won't put him on our State GOP Primary ballot, and instead do caucus votes." - it sounds like they don't think that.

I think it's more likely they just don't have another option. They've got to respond somehow.

Punisher · Post by **Punisher** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 7:38 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 3:32 pm What's going to be funny is when SCOTUS affirms this, and then a bunch of red states exclude Biden from the ballot for like encouraging BLM or something, leading us to President Cornel West in 2025.

Fine.
I'll do it. Wrote me in next year.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 10:10 pm

Now more threats of violence

In the 24 hours since the Colorado Supreme Court kicked former President Donald Trump off the state's Republican primary ballot, social media outlets have been flooded with threats against the justices who ruled in the case, according to a report obtained by NBC News.

Advance Democracy, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that conducts public-interest research, identified "significant violent rhetoric" against the justices and Democrats, often in direct response to Trump's posts about the ruling on his platform Truth Social. They found that some social media users posted justices' email addresses, phone numbers and office building addresses.

"This ends when we kill these f--kers," wrote one user on a pro-Trump forum that was used by several Jan. 6 rioters.

"What do you call 7 justices from the Colorado Supreme Court at the bottom of the ocean?" asked another user. "A good start."

Posts — whose images and links were included in the report — noted a variety of methods that could be used to kill those perceived as Trump's enemies: hollow point bullets, rifles, rope, bombs.

"Kill judges. Behead judges. Roundhouse kick a judge into the concrete," read one post on a fringe website. "Slam dunk a judge's baby into the trashcan."

Punisher · Post by **Punisher** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 10:13 pm

Nothing like polite discourse to liven up an issue.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Dec 20, 2023 10:18 pm

This is unfortunately what I expected. There is not likely going to be a peaceful solution to this political crisis. A large portion of a heavily armed population has a notion that democracy means only they have the right to win. If they don't win, it was stolen. There is no arguing with that.

I was just reading the The NY Times op ed on this topic and it is chock full of comments that are irrational and while not outwardly violent, they are seething nonetheless. The writer from the Editorial Board waded into the comments to try to push back on some of it. It's clear that there are a lot of folks who just don't believe in rule of law.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 5:55 am

Have they tied the Trump campaign to the fake electors yet? Once they have, doesn't that give all the connection they need to enact the 14th and in lord knows how many states? To say nothing of the Georgia pressure? Forget the double speak of his march the capitol, stand down stand by, I didn't actually say anything bullshit.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 9:23 am

This is what happens to countries falling into authoritarianism. They become societies without facts. That is where we are.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:07 pm

malchior wrote:This is unfortunately what I expected. There is not likely going to be a peaceful solution to this political crisis. A large portion of a heavily armed population has a notion that democracy means only they have the right to win. If they don't win, it was stolen. There is no arguing with that.

I was just reading the The NY Times op ed on this topic and it is chock full of comments that are irrational and while not outwardly violent, they are seething nonetheless. The writer from the Editorial Board waded into the comments to try to push back on some of it. It's clear that there are a lot of folks who just don't believe in rule of law.

Police state might also be the result. Maybe even most probable outcome.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:14 pm

It's definitely part of the equation. I still feel like our legal system isn't equipped to deal with this in any capacity - state or federal. Maybe I'm just naive, but I'm astounded that (legally) he's been able to remain viable as a candidate. Not just for issues directly related to all the non-political crimes he did before, during and after his Presidency, but the actual political stuff (like insurrection, witness intimidation, voting interference).

Sure, some of it is how the elite experience a different legal system, but the legal Teflon we've seemingly applied to a President (active, former) is rather surprising. It feels like it really shouldn't be up for debate and yet we're rolling into 2024 with him as the presumptive GOP candidate.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:35 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 1:14 pm yet we're rolling into 2024 with him as the presumptive GOP candidate.

And with a host of people itching to let the shooting begin is he isn't, especially if he isn't because of the rule of law designed to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:35 pm

This is the fascinating/pants wettening scenario that I never in a million years thought I would see. His cult may literally start shooting up things should he lose. We all know he'll NEVER admit he's lost, so he'll rile them up again with claims of fraud. Cheating and scamming is all he knows.

I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with military intervention in some areas should he lose.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:52 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 5:55 am Have they tied the Trump campaign to the fake electors yet? Once they have, doesn't that give all the connection they need to enact the 14th and in lord knows how many states? To say nothing of the Georgia pressure? Forget the double speak of his march the capitol, stand down stand by, I didn't actually say anything bullshit.

Who is they? A judge and justices have already made the connection and concluded based on evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:02 pm

Governing at it's finest-

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/436 ... amendment/

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) is set to introduce a bill barring federal funds for election administration from states “misusing” the 14th Amendment.

“Regardless of whether you support or oppose former President Donald Trump, it is outrageous to see left-wing activists make a mockery of our political system by scheming with partisan state officials and pressuring judges to remove him from the ballot,” Tillis said in a press release announcing the bill’s upcoming introduction Tuesday.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 3:13 pm

He later went on to extoll the virtues of extreme gerrymandering instead.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 2:52 pm Who is they? A judge and justices have already made the connection and concluded based on evidence that Trump engaged in insurrection.

I guess the they is investigative bodies looking into the fake electors. Who would the present, as evidence, their findings on whether the Trump campaign and therefore TFG were involved/in contact with the fake elector network, making the campaign culpable for tampering and trying to illegally overturn an election.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Dec 21, 2023 8:51 pm

Oh boy:

Then-President Donald Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time.

On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they'd look "terrible" if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings.

"We've got to fight for our country," said Trump on the recordings, made by a person who was present for the call with Palmer and Hartmann. "We can't let these people take our country away from us."

McDaniel, a Michigan native and the leader of the Republican Party nationally, said at another point in the call, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys."

To which Trump added: "We'll take care of that."

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 12:31 am

May the lot of them fall of liars in his wake like everyone else who stands firmly with his lies as truth. I take this one very personally, still. If only there were a way to see Paxton fall with them. That fucker seems to be charmed.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 2:15 am

Smoove_B wrote:Oh boy:

Then-President Donald Trump personally pressured two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers not to sign the certification of the 2020 presidential election, according to recordings reviewed by The Detroit News and revealed publicly for the first time.

On a Nov. 17, 2020, phone call, which also involved Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Trump told Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, the two GOP Wayne County canvassers, they'd look "terrible" if they signed the documents after they first voted in opposition and then later in the same meeting voted to approve certification of the county’s election results, according to the recordings.

"We've got to fight for our country," said Trump on the recordings, made by a person who was present for the call with Palmer and Hartmann. "We can't let these people take our country away from us."

McDaniel, a Michigan native and the leader of the Republican Party nationally, said at another point in the call, "If you can go home tonight, do not sign it. ... We will get you attorneys."

To which Trump added: "We'll take care of that."

Jack Smith will be interested...

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 3:51 pm

SCOTUS has decided to decline to take up the request to expedite Trump's claims of absolute immunity. Naturally that helps Trump and is a step in the direction of delay of his trial. Sounds like the DC Circuit is going to move fast and then we'll see if SCOTUS will delay it.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:03 pm

Nothing like a Friday afternoon news-you-don’t-want-widely-viewed drop impacting the future of democracy…

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:14 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:03 pm Nothing like a Friday afternoon news-you-don’t-want-widely-viewed drop impacting the future of democracy…

In the most recent podcast Popehat seemed to think even if they reject this request that things should move along quickly and not delay the trail more than a month or two - which would push it right into prime campaign season and awfully close to the election.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:41 pm

Where ruling in drumpf's favour will have maximum positive impact for him. Yay.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:42 pm

Biden should indulge in a little brazen shoplifting and drunk driving just to test whether Republicans truly believe POTUS is immune to prosecution.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:57 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:03 pm Nothing like a Friday afternoon news-you-don’t-want-widely-viewed drop impacting the future of democracy…

Bonus for a holiday weekend Friday afternoon.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:11 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:57 pm
Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 4:03 pm Nothing like a Friday afternoon news-you-don’t-want-widely-viewed drop impacting the future of democracy…
Bonus for a holiday weekend Friday afternoon.

And double bonus for including precisely zero explanation alongside the denial.