EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
Don't let him do that to you.
Just ignore it.
I have the idiot on ignore, guys.
You know how these old forum forms work though....sometimes ya just look to see what's going on.
I don't care about him calling everyone "stupid libs" and yada yada yada.

Its when he is now calling everyone "stupid fucking libs" and getting away with it that a line has been crossed.
Excuse my phrasing, but next he will be telling everyone to "suck his MAGA d1ck"....that's how this sort of thing goes.
I just expect better of this otherwise excellent forum.
 
C

chrysler82000

Full Audioholic
Did you bother reading more than the headline of the link you posted?

"In her swift dismissal of the case, Judge Robin Rosenberg, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, did not determine the 14th Amendment's applicability in Trump's case. Instead, Rosenberg ruled that the plaintiffs, Boynton Beach attorney Lawrence Caplan and two others, lacked "standing" to bring the challenge. "

So no determination was reached, as the right person/organisation with appropriate "standing" has to bring the case to court.... and that has yet to happen.

and referring to this analysis:
The 14th Amendment theory that could define 2024: Is Trump eligible to run? - POLITICO

"Most likely it would need to be enforced as the result of a lawsuit. A candidate running against Trump in either the Republican primary or the general election would have the cleanest path into court, because they could argue that they are directly harmed by Trump’s presence on the ballot. "
Yeah I read it. And posted it. Case DISMISSED!!! What else do you need to know?
 
C

chrysler82000

Full Audioholic
Neither did you. Next time read the link, you a$$ sandwiches!

The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory.

-----

.....preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.

-----

For Trump and his allies were running their own campaign to spoil the election. The President spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.

-----

The usual tools of data, analytics and polling would not be sufficient in a situation where the President himself was trying to disrupt the election, he wrote. “Most of our planning takes us through Election Day,” he noted. “But, we are not prepared for the two most likely outcomes”–Trump losing and refusing to concede, and Trump winning the Electoral College (despite losing the popular vote) by corrupting the voting process in key states. “We desperately need to systematically ‘red-team’ this election so that we can anticipate and plan for the worst we know will be coming our way.”

-----

On March 3, Podhorzer drafted a three-page confidential memo titled “Threats to the 2020 Election.” “Trump has made it clear that this will not be a fair election, and that he will reject anything but his own re-election as ‘fake’ and rigged,” he wrote. “On Nov. 3, should the media report otherwise, he will use the right-wing information system to establish his narrative and incite his supporters to protest.” The memo laid out four categories of challenges: attacks on voters, attacks on election administration, attacks on Trump’s political opponents and “efforts to reverse the results of the election.”


-----

Podhorzer credits the activists for their restraint. “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it,” he says. “Wednesday through Friday, there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident like everyone was expecting. And when that didn’t materialize, I don’t think the Trump campaign had a backup plan.”
read it again, ignoring the partisan spin. Everything Molly wrote happened. You been spun around to believe it was all a conspiracy. the conspiracy was and has not changed since 2016, a coup to take down a president.
 
C

chrysler82000

Full Audioholic
read it again, ignoring the partisan spin. Everything Molly wrote happened. You been spun around to believe it was all a conspiracy. the conspiracy was and has not changed since 2016, a coup to take down a president.
"At the same time, Democratic lawyers battled a historic tide of pre-election litigation. The pandemic intensified the parties’ usual tangling in the courts. But the lawyers noticed something else as well. “The litigation brought by the Trump campaign, of a piece with the broader campaign to sow doubt about mail voting, was making novel claims and using theories no court has ever accepted,” says Wendy Weiser, a voting-rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. “They read more like lawsuits designed to send a message rather than achieve a legal outcome.”

You can read the 29 page report. "Most secure election" how many times have you been told that? That's called brain washing....the fraud was there, but your not allowed to know:

 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
read it again, ignoring the partisan spin. Everything Molly wrote happened. You been spun around to believe it was all a conspiracy. the conspiracy was and has not changed since 2016, a coup to take down a president.
I've read the column in its entirety. *My quotes are from the article. You should try to read it.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
"At the same time, Democratic lawyers battled a historic tide of pre-election litigation. The pandemic intensified the parties’ usual tangling in the courts. But the lawyers noticed something else as well. “The litigation brought by the Trump campaign, of a piece with the broader campaign to sow doubt about mail voting, was making novel claims and using theories no court has ever accepted,” says Wendy Weiser, a voting-rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU. “They read more like lawsuits designed to send a message rather than achieve a legal outcome.”
-to sow doubt about mail voting, was making novel claims and using theories no court has ever accepted,

- “They read more like lawsuits designed to send a message rather than achieve a legal outcome.”
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
-to sow doubt about mail voting, was making novel claims and using theories no court has ever accepted,

- “They read more like lawsuits designed to send a message rather than achieve a legal outcome.”
Mail voting is why the Democrats are finally winning, and it's here to stay.
Republicans are going to try to throw shade at the source of all their recent defeats until the end of time.
Nice to see they get shut down every time.

I've personally heard some MAGA people I know raising holy hell over mail voting...like it can be rigged.
I just say "Wait until they do online voting, and before you say that isn't safe...I just signed up for and received my Social Security without ever speaking to another human or signing any actual papers."
Actually it was 5 years ago.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I have the idiot on ignore, guys.
You know how these old forum forms work though....sometimes ya just look to see what's going on.
I don't care about him calling everyone "stupid libs" and yada yada yada.

Its when he is now calling everyone "stupid fucking libs" and getting away with it that a line has been crossed.
Excuse my phrasing, but next he will be telling everyone to "suck his MAGA d1ck"....that's how this sort of thing goes.
I just expect better of this otherwise excellent forum.
Rather than reply to his profanity with profanity of your own, hit the Report button on the lower left side of a post. Give the mods your reason why you object to profane language. Do it enough, and it will have an effect. I'll join you in that effort.
 
adk highlander

adk highlander

Sith Lord
Rather than reply to his profanity with profanity of your own, hit the Report button on the lower left side of a post. Give the mods your reason why you object to profane language. Do it enough, and it will have an effect. I'll join you in that effort.
No need. I had enough. He is gone now.
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
Rather than reply to his profanity with profanity of your own, hit the Report button on the lower left side of a post. Give the mods your reason why you object to profane language. Do it enough, and it will have an effect. I'll join you in that effort.
done and done...
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Mark Meadows filed to move the Georgia case to federal court. He might succeed, but the court would still be trying states law charges (other than a federal defense). Basically, state courts do not have jurisdiction to decide issues of federal law, but federal courts have jurisdiction to decide both federal and state law, provided there is a federal law that gives the federal court jurisdiction in a particular situation.

Here's an interesting quote attributed to a former senior Trump campaign staffer:

>>>“Not a surprise Meadows and Trump are trying to move to federal courts,” said a former senior Trump campaign staffer, speculating Trump will likely do the same.

“Friendlier audiences. They say when you’re in a hole, stop digging. But people in the Trump sphere just buy bigger diggers—Meadows included. They’re guilty as hell and they know it.”<<<

The judge rejected Meadows motion to move his case to federal court:

>>>A federal judge has rejected former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’s attempt to move his charges in the Georgia election interference case to federal court.

The ruling was a broad rejection of arguments from Meadows that his case should be heard in federal court because he was acting in his capacity as chief of staff at the time.<<<


This will probably be appealed so this decision is probably not the end of the removal issue.

This is a blow to Meadows because the court essentially said he has no federal defenses to the state criminal charges.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The judge rejected Meadows motion to move his case to federal court:

. . .

This will probably be appealed so this decision is probably not the end of the removal issue.

This is a blow to Meadows because the court essentially said he has no federal defenses to the state criminal charges.
Meadows already filed an appeal:

>>>Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on Monday raised concerns he could be convicted in the Georgia election interference case before a decision is made on whether he should be tried in federal court.

A judge on Friday denied Meadows’s attempt to move his charges out of state court, and he quickly filed an appeal.

Even as Meadows continues his fight, the ruling enables the state court to meanwhile enter a conviction for him. So Meadows is now urging a federal judge to pause the effect of Friday’s denial.<<<



Removal appears to be a close question in this case so it's unclear if the appeals court will uphold the district court decision.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
For clarity, if an election official in a state declares that Trump cannot be on the ballot, a private citizen would most likely have standing to bring a lawsuit challenging that determination by an official on the basis that it is allegedly depriving the citizen of his or her right to vote for Trump (i.e. this would be an injury (alleged at least) to the citizen in his or her capacity to vote as a citizen).

Standing can be a bit tricky and it depends on the facts of a case.
According to Tribe, the plaintiffs in the Colorado case have standing under the law in Colorado:

>>>Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe shared his insights on the power of a Colorado lawsuit seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot.

Six Colorado voters filed the lawsuit last week with the help of watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. . . .

Tribe told MSNBC’s Ari Velshi on Sunday the lawsuit is the strongest challenge yet, in part because the plaintiffs “clearly have standing under Colorado law” and ironclad research backing up their complaint.

Tribe explained that Colorado “is a special place” because “unlike many other states, Colorado has a specific statute which allows registered voters to take the secretary of state to court and demand that the secretary of state exclude anyone who doesn’t meet all of the qualifications, even at the primary stage.”<<<



Trump's lawyers filed to have this lawsuit moved to federal court, but they apparently realized Trump doesn't have standing to move the case:

>>>Then in a motion filed by the petitioners on Friday, Trump’s lawyers, apparently upon further consideration, realized that they do not have standing to move this case to federal court and are not opposing it’s return to state court.<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Despite this....

...there is now this.
Doing it without a vote certainly looks weak. From the NYT article:

>>>The apparent decision not to seek a vote was a tacit acknowledgment by Mr. McCarthy that he lacks the numbers to do so amid G.O.P. divisions. Several Republicans, including those from districts Mr. Biden won, have indicated they did not support an impeachment inquiry unless investigators could tie the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the president’s son who engaged in transactions with overseas firms, to his father, or uncover evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.<<<

It's not clear that anyone in the senate is in favor of this:

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Doing it without a vote certainly looks weak. From the NYT article:

>>>The apparent decision not to seek a vote was a tacit acknowledgment by Mr. McCarthy that he lacks the numbers to do so amid G.O.P. divisions. Several Republicans, including those from districts Mr. Biden won, have indicated they did not support an impeachment inquiry unless investigators could tie the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the president’s son who engaged in transactions with overseas firms, to his father, or uncover evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.<<<

It's not clear that anyone in the senate is in favor of this:
It certainly looks like a futile effort at impeachment. I can only imagine that McCarthy et al. are ineptly motivated by revenge that appeals only to their MAGA backers.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top