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?

[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.

[accountinquestion]

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.

You are a bit blinded if you don't see the level of cult-like behaviors following the guy around.

Kewl said it in the context of his statement. This is completely normal.

You're the one fed such nonsense that you're telling Kewl is is wrong for simply giving the context of his statement.

Here is a list from the "Cult Education Institute" .. Each is a "warning sign" of a cult. Lets put this in the context of "Is Trump a cult-leader" ? What he does is not like a real cult but I posit that there cult like behaviors are strong for many of his followers.

Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
Yes - definitely trump

Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
Yep, this is Trump.

Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
Well, this doesn't really fit because Trump's personal finances are not part of the cult but the lack of publishing tax returns and other misc things make this far more YES than no.

Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
Yes. First time I dislike Trump was him talking about the conspiracy of Latin countries sending their bad people. China China China.. etc. There is no measured talk for him.

A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
Yes but this isn't so much a thing. I will give him a neutral on this.

Abuse of members
Nah, Trump doesn't abuse his followers. I mean you can't given he is a politician.

Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
No, he abuses others but not his followers. He definitely has bullied people who oppose him but thats the nature of having such a group of troops.

Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
Lol. This doesn't fit so no, but it couldn't be yes either.

A belief that the leader is right at all times
Yes of course.

A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation
Yes of course.

Anyway bro the writing is on the wall. Wise up.

[Don Perignom]

Anyway bro the writing is on the wall. Wise up.

Read the writing while you still can. Latest climate analysis suggests it could be under water by 2022.

[1Hit1der]

Anyway bro the writing is on the wall. Wise up.

Read the writing while you still can. Latest climate analysis s̶u̶g̶g̶e̶s̶t̶s̶ augurs it could be under water by twenty twenty-two.

--->

Regyme pour congnoistre la latitude de la region et aussi la haulteur de la ligne equinotialle sur nostre orison. [System for knowing the latitude of the region and also the height of the celestial equator on our horizon.]

Beginnings: Geomancy, Builders' Rites and Electional Astrology in the European Tradition.

https://anagram-solver.net/Originall...o?partial=true


Interestingly, the word, augurs, instead of the word, suggests, also lowered the number of characters, to 164, which is the limit for the anagram solver.

And, it had to thus work out because of the 222 involved, which is the most potent numeral in numerology/gematria.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

You are a bit blinded if you don't see the level of cult-like behaviors following the guy around.

Kewl said it in the context of his statement. This is completely normal.

You're the one fed such nonsense that you're telling Kewl is is wrong for simply giving the context of his statement.

Here is a list from the "Cult Education Institute" .. Each is a "warning sign" of a cult. Lets put this in the context of "Is Trump a cult-leader" ? What he does is not like a real cult but I posit that there cult like behaviors are strong for many of his followers.

Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
Yes - definitely trump

Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
Yep, this is Trump.

Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
Well, this doesn't really fit because Trump's personal finances are not part of the cult but the lack of publishing tax returns and other misc things make this far more YES than no.

Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
Yes. First time I dislike Trump was him talking about the conspiracy of Latin countries sending their bad people. China China China.. etc. There is no measured talk for him.

A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
Yes but this isn't so much a thing. I will give him a neutral on this.

Abuse of members
Nah, Trump doesn't abuse his followers. I mean you can't given he is a politician.

Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
No, he abuses others but not his followers. He definitely has bullied people who oppose him but thats the nature of having such a group of troops.

Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
Lol. This doesn't fit so no, but it couldn't be yes either.

A belief that the leader is right at all times
Yes of course.

A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation
Yes of course.

Anyway bro the writing is on the wall. Wise up.

Cult Education Institute describes lefty fascist wingnuts to a tee. Lefties are deranged intolerate people.

[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.

[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

[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.

[MisterV]

Fuck Trump, fuck Biden: vote Libertarian!