Trump's over all tactic: delay, delay, delay

[MDawg]

Besides throwing everything at the other side (known in legalese as "papering" the sons of bitches) whether the pleadings make sense or not, Trump wants to slow down the wheels of justice so that he suffers no convictions or sustained civil verdicts before the November 2024 general election.

Any sort of conviction or judgment against him might turn potential voters against him, and lose him the Presidency, and if he never becomes President he can't pardon himself or delay the trials even longer.

For example here
Trump Urges Supreme Court Not to Fast-Track DC Immunity Claim
you'd think he'd want to Supreme Court to consider his immunity claim in the criminal election interference case, but that would rob him of the time delay benefit of having the DC Circuit consider the matter first, and then go on to the US Supreme Court. Trump's lawyers know their immunity claim is a straight loser, but they want to drag things out as much as possible.

Hell why not, delay is always on the side of the defense (unless the defendant screws up and picks up new charges while out on bail), and as long as unsuspecting donors are funding Trump's multi millions in legal fees, why not waste the court and everyone else's time with superfluous motions and delay tactics?

If you can't win, delay!

[1Hit1der]

If you can't win, delay!

The longer that one is in the game, then the more chance one has to win it.

[DGenBen]

Interesting,

But I think what everyone on here is really interested in is your thoughts about Kewlj?

[1Hit1der]

Interesting,

But I think what everyone on here is really interested in is your thoughts about Kewlj?

---> Is There in Truth No Beauty? (Star Trek: The Original Series).

https://anagram-solver.net/Interesti...j?partial=true

[DGenBen]

Interesting,

But I think what everyone on here is really interested in is your thoughts about Kewlj?

---> Is There in Truth No Beauty? (Star Trek: The Original Series).

https://anagram-solver.net/Interesti...j?partial=true

One of the better season 3 episodes although overall just fair.

Now if you get really stoned & watch the montage scene from Spock’s point of view where he goes insane, it becomes one of the best.

[MDawg]

Interesting,

But I think what everyone on here is really interested in is your thoughts about Kewlj?

When it comes to classic Star Trek and UNKewLyingJ, this comes to mind.

[1Hit1der]

Interestingly, that Star Trek scene resolves in almost the same way as the Go Directly to VCT card, with 911, and two 0's, at https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post169819 .

N0w listen to this carefully, N0rman - I am 1y1n9

---> Asylum for the Criminally Insane.

https://anagram-solver.net/n0w%20lis...9?partial=true


VCT must also be where no one has gone before. Ha.



Incidentally, it gets harder to tie up the loose numerological ends, let alone create them, with fewer posts to pick from.


1Hit1der
1Hit1der is online now
Silver
1Hit1der's Avatar

Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
86

[MDawg]

Grump got what he wanted from the US Supreme Court - declined to fast track considering the Presidential immunity claim.

So now the DC Circuit (3 judge panel) is set to hear the matter on January 9th. They might rule quickly - against Grump. Then he could ask for the full panel to reconsider the matter, and after losing that, petition for cert with the US Sup. Ct.

The US Sup. Ct. might handle the matter quickly. Or, it might even decline cert, which would leave the circuit judge ruling in place.

Bottom line - today, tomorrow or someday, Grump is going to lose on the issue of immunity. More likely than not he'll get convicted on that case especially if they manage to try him before the election.

And then, he is free to spend years trying to appeal the conviction and sentence. If he lives that long. You have to figure that no matter what all these civil fraud and criminal cases are wearing on him. He's used to opponents who lack the means to oppose all his legal shenanigans but the government isn't going to lie down it is committed to going all the way.


If he sustains a conviction on any of his four cases or doesn't win the Presidency he's in big trouble.

[kewlJ]

I am interested in the Colorado case removing Trump from the ballot that he will appeal to the US supreme court after Christmas. I have a theory I haven't heard mentioned and I am interested to hear some of the attorney's opinions, including Mdawg, if you can stop trolling long enough.

First, as an anti-Trumper, who wants my republican party back, I have mixed feelings because I don't like removing Trump from the ballot based on participating in an insurrection, when he hasn't been convicted of that. He hasn't even been charged with that. yes, we all saw him do it, but until he is convicted, there should be no penalty.

Now here is what I am thinking that I haven't seen mentioned. We do not have national elections in this country. We elect a president through 50 individual state elections. And States have the legal authority to run their elections anyway they want. Some have caucuses, some have primaries. Some have early voting for a month prior, some have only election day voting. Some have mail in voting, others don't. Some like Washington state and Colorado ONLY have mail vote....no election day polling places. Different states have different rules about even getting on the ballot. Some states require hundreds of thousands of signatures, while others it is just a filing fee.

So if States run their own elections, the Supreme court really has no authority and should not take the case. Now I don't suspect that is what will happen, because as we all know the US supreme court has injected itself into a state election case, in 2000 that determined the outcome of the Presidential election. So they do what they want. But they really should not take this case.

Thoughts?

[kewlJ]

And by the way if Trump was not allowed on the Colorado ballot and maybe a few other states but on the majority....well that happens all the time. Different 3rd party candidates meet the requirement on some states and not others (especially those with many signatures required) and end up being on 37 or 38 ballots and not on the others. It is a regular occurrence.

Joe Biden is actually not on the upcoming New Hampshire primary ballot, because his campaign errored in not meeting the deadline. Each state sets their own rules.

[soxfan]

This whole thing is so stupid. There was no insurrection, so not possible for Trump to be tried and convicted for something what never occurred , hey hey!!!!

[jpfromla]

For the fun of it. In 1860, one candidate was not on 10 ballots. Guess who won.

[MDawg]

KJ, the issue in CO and elsewhere is whether or not the 14th Amendment bars an insurrectionist from running for / being President. The 14th Amendment is part of the US Constitution. Some amendments have relied on court cases to hold that they apply to the states, but parts of the 14th Amendment state explicitly that it applies to the states, and in any case Section 3 of it also refers to "under the United States, or under any State" when it proscribes an insurrectionist from holding a federal or state office.

Section 3

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.

There are two issues here with regards to Grump:

1) Was he “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the” Constitution, after having “taken an oath…to support the Constitution”?

First off, yes he did take an oath to support the Constitution when he was first sworn into the Presidency.
Now he hasn't been convicted by Congress (he was impeached, but not convicted) or by any court of insurrection, but probably a court has a right to make that determination for itself. As well, the 14th Amendment doesn’t mention a need to be convicted or adjudged by any court, but rather simply to have “engaged” in insurrection is enough to trigger the prohibition. Anyway, the CO courts decided that they had the right to declare him an insurrectionist.

2) Does the 14th Amendment proscribe an insurrectionist from being the U.S. President?

The issue there is that while the 14th Amendment specifically proscribes someone from becoming a Senator or Congressman, or elector of the President and Vice-President, it doesn’t specifically state that an insurrectionist may not be THE President, other than by way of the probably all encompassing proscription to “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State” where it would seem that “any office, civil or military, under the United States” would include the office of the President.

Still, some people argue that if the Framers intended for the 14th Amendment insurrection clause to apply to the President it would have stated so explicitly and others argue that the history of the revisions of the 14th Amendment and its background of why it was written after the Civil War to keep insurrectionists out of office, support that it was intended to apply to the President. But most say simply that the plain language “hold any office” also applies to the President.

In any case, the one real world example we have is Jefferson Davis – he was a Senator before the Civil War and took an oath to uphold the Constitution, then led the South in insurrection against the United States, and was barred from ever being President by the 14th Amendment. Most would say that Grump is equally barred from being President, especially if he is ever convicted of insurrection.


As far as whatever else it appears you were saying about how the federal government should just leave the states alone to elect the President in all respects, Article II of the Constitution itself outlines exactly how the President is to be elected, it leaves open to the state legislatures how to elect their electors (based on the number of congressmen that state is entitled to in the US Congress), but those electors then are governed by the US Constitution as far as their voting for the President process.

Keep in mind that we are a Republic, not a Democracy, and we don’t elect the President directly – the electors whom we elect, do. The people in each state elect their electors, but then the electors go on to elect the President. This, most say, is because at that time the Framers didn’t think the American people were smart enough to elect their own President, at least not directly.

So, your argument falls short there in two respects - one is that the states don't elect the President not directly anyway, and two, the Fourteenth Amendment does apply to the states. So if it is decided that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to preventing a former President like Grump from holding the office of President ever again if he is held to be an insurrectionist, then the individual states would have to be stopped from sending up any electors who could potentially vote for Grump.

[1Hit1der]

For the fun of it. In 1860, one candidate was not on 10 ballots. Guess who won.

---> International Student House of Washington, D.C.

https://anagram-solver.net/%20%20%20...0?partial=true

So to sum up, while it's true that ballots were not distributed for Lincoln in the 10 slave-holding states mentioned and he didn't receive any votes there, it's not true that those states barred or removed Lincoln from the ballot. In 1860, there was no such thing as a ballot with multiple candidates to choose from, candidate-specific ballots were issued by political parties and not state governmental authorities, and Lincoln and the Republicans simply didn't bother to try to distribute ballots in the states where they knew he didn't stand a chance.

I wonder what the election of eighteen sixty will have to do with that of twenty twenty-four.

---> Life Ain't Worth Living (in the Old-Fashioned Way).

https://anagram-solver.net/I%20wonde...r?partial=true

[monet]

First, as an anti-Trumper

lul, do you go around saying you're an Anti-Clinton or Anti-Kennedy or any other Anti??
Trump has literally put a spell on you people that you go around calling yourselves an Anti-Trumper lol.
I heard someone talk about Trumpism the other day, lol.
Trump is not a Religion.
Trump is not an Ideology.
There is no such thing as Trumpism.

[MisterV]

Fuck Trump, fuck Biden: vote Libertarian!

[jbjb]

My vote will cost $98,418,502,532.

[mickeycrimm]

First, there was no insurrection. The worst I can go with is it was a protest that got out of hand. There were no weapons taken off the protestors. Only liars and dumb motherfuckers call it an insurrection.

Jack Smith would love, love, love, love, love, love and more love, to convict Trump of insurrection. But out of all the charges Smith made, insurrection wasn't one of them. Do you know why? Because there is no fucking evidence. If there was even a sliver of flimsy evidence then Smith would have charged Trump with insurrection. So just fucking forget the insurrection bullshit.

Is Trump trying to delay? First, the prosecution does not have a right to a speedy trial, only the defendent. Next, lawyers have to prepare a defense. In the Georgia case there are 19 defendents. There are thousands of documents involved that they have to go over with a fine tooth comb. It takes months, even years. One of the reasons Smith and his horde of lawyers want a fast trial is so the defense cannot prepare properly. The other reason is a Trump conviction before the election. Everyone knows Smith is railroading Trump.


Now, the 14th amendment. You motherfuckers need to go back to school. Here is Section 3:


Section 3

"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 first thing is the President takes a different oath than those in Congress. But that's not the big issue. The big issue is Section 5. This is what SCOTUS will focus on:

Section 5.
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

By this statement only Congress has the power to bar individuals from holding national office. They did not give any power to the states on the issue. And there was a damn good reason for them not to give any power to the states on issue. Here's a statement by MDawg:

"In any case, the one real world example we have is Jefferson Davis – he was a Senator before the Civil War and took an oath to uphold the Constitution, then led the South in insurrection against the United States, and was barred from ever being President by the 14th Amendment. Most would say that Grump is equally barred from being President, especially if he is ever convicted of insurrection."

It was not Mississippians that banned Davis. Congress made it clear they would not allow him and other ex-Confederates in Office. Mississippians would have never kicked Davis off of a ballot and Congress knew that. They knew that they couldn't give power to the states on the issue because the southern states would not cooperate and throw ex-Confederates off the ballot. Meanwhile, in 1860 Lincoln was not allowed on ballots in several southern states. So Congress held the power to themselves with Section 5.

SCOTUS will overturn Colorado based on Section 5. You heard it here first.

[mcap]

First, there was no insurrection. The worst I can go with is it was a protest that got out of hand. There were no weapons taken off the protestors. Only liars and dumb motherfuckers call it an insurrection.

Jack Smith would love, love, love, love, love, love and more love, to convict Trump of insurrection. But out of all the charges Smith made, insurrection wasn't one of them. Do you know why? Because there is no fucking evidence. If there was even a sliver of flimsy evidence then Smith would have charged Trump with insurrection. So just fucking forget the insurrection bullshit.

Is Trump trying to delay? First, the prosecution does not have a right to a speedy trial, only the defendent. Next, lawyers have to prepare a defense. In the Georgia case there are 19 defendents. There are thousands of documents involved that they have to go over with a fine tooth comb. It takes months, even years. One of the reasons Smith and his horde of lawyers want a fast trial is so the defense cannot prepare properly. The other reason is a Trump conviction before the election. Everyone knows Smith is railroading Trump.


Now, the 14th amendment. You motherfuckers need to go back to school. Here is Section 3:


Section 3

"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 first thing is the President takes a different oath than those in Congress. But that's not the big issue. The big issue is Section 5. This is what SCOTUS will focus on:

Section 5.
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

By this statement only Congress has the power to bar individuals from holding national office. They did not give any power to the states on the issue. And there was a damn good reason for them not to give any power to the states on issue. Here's a statement by MDawg:

"In any case, the one real world example we have is Jefferson Davis – he was a Senator before the Civil War and took an oath to uphold the Constitution, then led the South in insurrection against the United States, and was barred from ever being President by the 14th Amendment. Most would say that Grump is equally barred from being President, especially if he is ever convicted of insurrection."

It was not Mississippians that banned Davis. Congress made it clear they would not allow him and other ex-Confederates in Office. Mississippians would have never kicked Davis off of a ballot and Congress knew that. They knew that they couldn't give power to the states on the issue because the southern states would not cooperate and throw ex-Confederates off the ballot. Meanwhile, in 1860 Lincoln was not allowed on ballots in several southern states. So Congress held the power to themselves with Section 5.

SCOTUS will overturn Colorado based on Section 5. You heard it here first.

You're totally gay for Trump.

[1Hit1der]

SCOTUS will overturn Colorado based on Section 5. You heard it here first.

You're totally gay for Trump.

Mickey, if there's any more nuttiness out of SCROTUM, then public opinion will turn on it irreversibly, past the point of no return. Another big premature ejaculation by Mickey and the Manboys. Ha.