GA - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 10 counts in 2020 election interference, violation of RICO Act, 14 Aug 2023 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Friday Fan said:
Another Republican candidate for POTUS. (That's how these things work. It isn't "we the people", it's "this candidate will harm my campaign")

For damages: I also think they would need to prove that he's an "illegitimate " candidate and if the "illegitimate candidate" wins and can't be seated, then damages occur to the candidate who lost. (It's weird)

I wonder if Christie will bite? He may have standing, but then there is the damages part.
Click to expand...
If he wins, why would anyone want to interfere. I mean if the voters have spoken.
 
Interesting to remember that Trump has never won the popular vote. In 2016, Hilary received more votes but Trump won the electoral vote. In 2020, Biden received more votes and more electoral votes.

Trump has never actually won the popular vote.

jmo
 
Inthedetails said:
Interesting to remember that Trump has never won the popular vote. In 2016, Hilary received more votes but Trump won the electoral vote. In 2020, Biden received more votes and more electoral votes.

Trump has never actually won the popular vote.

jmo
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if they don't win the electoral
 
CHICANA said:
If he wins, why would anyone want to interfere. I mean if the voters have spoken.
Click to expand...
If he is found guilty and is in prison, then it's kinda hard to be president. (Not saying that he will be found guilty, just saying if that happens. It would also need to be shown that the probability of this happening is fairly high)


BTW: People have sued to get dead candidates off the ballot and lost. Dead candidates have won. Then there is a special election.

In the case of POTUS, the VP would become the president.
 
Last edited:
IzzyBlanche said:
In 2020, the voters spoke and Biden won. Why would anyone want to interfere?

Yet here we are.
Click to expand...

Oh @IzzyBlanche, we’ve told you over and over that the only time the voters have spoken is if Trump wins. Any other result is an illegitimate and stolen election. How hard is that logic to understand? Sigh.
##sarcasm alert in case it wasn’t obvious##
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1697777499525005678

Summary: Attorney Ryan Goodman tweets a thread about Meadows testimony in which he stated he got involved in the fake electors scheme because he knew he would get yelled at by Trump if he didn't. Legally, such an admission implicates Trump but also shows Trump got the WH COS involved in the scheme. Points to a provision in the Hatch Act that bars the president from intimidating or commanding a federal employee to aid a candidate. Meadows admission strips him of the argument that all his conduct fell within his duties as COS. Further, his admissions contradict that he was attempting to transfer power to Biden. States the entire house of cards fell apart during cross and his testimony seriously injures his removal bid, guts his immunity defense and also opens the door for perjury charges.
-------------------------
* For folks who aren't aware the test for Supremacy Clause Immunity is very similar to the test for removal. I've been banging on for days how poor a witness Meadows was and IF he wins his removal bid it will, imo, be because the bar is so low rather than him presenting a halfway decent case. I heard someone on cable news say that IF Meadows actions were congruent with COS duties his attorneys could have called the last 5 Chiefs of Staff to bolster his testimony. That Meadows was his only witness says a lot.
JMO
 
BritsKate said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1697777499525005678

Summary: Attorney Ryan Goodman tweets a thread about Meadows testimony in which he stated he got involved in the fake electors scheme because he knew he would get yelled at by Trump if he didn't. Legally, such an admission implicates Trump but also shows Trump got the WH COS involved in the scheme. Points to a provision in the Hatch Act that bars the president from intimidating or commanding a federal employee to aid a candidate. Meadows admission strips him of the argument that all his conduct fell within his duties as COS. Further, his admissions contradict that he was attempting to transfer power to Biden. States the entire house of cards fell apart during cross and his testimony seriously injures his removal bid, guts his immunity defense and also opens the door for perjury charges.
-------------------------
* For folks who aren't aware the test for Supremacy Clause Immunity is very similar to the test for removal. I've been banging on for days how poor a witness Meadows was and IF he wins his removal bid it will, imo, be because the bar is so low rather than him presenting a halfway decent case. I heard someone on cable news say that IF Meadows actions were congruent with COS duties his attorneys could have called the last 5 Chiefs of Staff to bolster his testimony. That Meadows was his only witness says a lot.
JMO
Click to expand...
All legal explanations aside, the bottom line looks like Meadows helped overthrow his own nation's election because he didn't want to be yelled at.

Go ahead and risk being yelled at to protect your nation!

Trump sure surrounds himself with the best, doesn't he?


jmo
 
Defendants who so far have waived appearance at arraignment:

Donald Trump (candidate who lost election)
Rudy Giuliani (Trump lawyer)
Sidney Powell (campaign lawyer)
Ken Chesebro (Trump lawyer)
Jenna Ellis (campaign lawyer)
Bob Cheeley (lawyer)
Scott Hall (involved w/ Coffee County election breach)
Harrison Floyd (Black Voices for Trump)
Stephen Lee (pastor)
Mike Roman (campaign official)
Ray Smith (campaign lawyer)
Trevian Kutti (publisist)

source:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1697732409037291987
 
Defendants who have not yet waived
appearance at arraignment:
Mark Meadows (White House Chief of Staff who is afraid of being yelled at)
Jeffrey Clark (DOJ official)
Shawn Still (fake GOP elector)
David Shafer (GA GOP chair, fake elector)
Cathy Latham (fake elector, tied w/ Coffee County election breach)
Misty Hampton (Coffee County elections supervisor)
John Eastman (Trump lawyer)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1697733324330893739
 
Severance motions, so far:

"* Trump does not want to be tried with any defendant who requests a speedy trial.
* Ray Smith would like the judge to divide the defendants into 'manageable groups' for trial.
* Sidney Powell does not want to be tried alongside any defendant.
* Kenneth Chesebro does not want to be tried alongside any defendant, especially Sidney Powell."

FWIW: Ray, Powell, and Chesebro are all lawyers. Ray and Powell were lawyers for the campaign.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1697734594789777783
 
This is just my opinion but I've read Harrison Floyd is considering throwing his hat into another congressional race and he practically begged to be locked up in Fulton County - even denying a proposed bond. There's a recording by Fani Willis to his attorney that's been turned over to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Add to that some of his comments about Willis and her office post-indictment and it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't waive arraignment and would prefer be in person, in front of a camera, to plead. We'll see but he really comes across to me as highly opportunistic.

JMO
 
Last edited:
ilovewings said:
www.yahoo.com

State election officials prepare for efforts to disqualify Trump under 14th Amendment

Efforts to keep former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot under the 14th Amendment are gaining momentum as election officials in key states are preparing for or starting to respond to legal challenges to Trump's candidacy. The argument to disqualify Trump from appearing on primary or...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

The push to keep Trump off the ballot is gaining steam: it won't be easy--
Click to expand...
Here is the paper that was recently written by two conservative lawyers that outlines, in their assessment, how the 14th amendment can (and should) be used to disqualify Trump from being on the ballot. There is a table of contents so readers can jump to sections that are of particular interest. I found page 22, "Who (All) Can (Must) Faithfully Apply and Enforce Section Three?" interesting, for example.

papers.ssrn.com

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range
papers.ssrn.com
 
Inthedetails said:
Here is the paper that was recently written by two conservative lawyers that outlines, in their assessment, how the 14th amendment can (and should) be used to disqualify Trump from being on the ballot. There is a table of contents so readers can jump to sections that are of particular interest. I found page 22, "Who (All) Can (Must) Faithfully Apply and Enforce Section Three?" interesting, for example.

papers.ssrn.com

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range
papers.ssrn.com
Click to expand...
I am praying that the 14th amendment can be used to prevent Trump from getting on the ballot, but I was also thinking it will be very difficult. Then I had another thought, let's say ( God forbid) that Trump wins the presidency but the Dems get the house and Senate- Can they then impeach and convict him for the insurrection. I know impeachment failed in the past but the Republicans controlled the senate and so impeachment was not successful. If the Dems controlled both the house and senate Trump's powers would be greatly limited, though not totally.
 
ilovewings said:
I am praying that the 14th amendment can be used to prevent Trump from getting on the ballot, but I was also thinking it will be very difficult. Then I had another thought, let's say ( God forbid) that Trump wins the presidency but the Dems get the house and Senate- Can they then impeach and convict him for the insurrection. I know impeachment failed in the past but the Republicans controlled the senate and so impeachment was not successful. If the Dems controlled both the house and senate Trump's powers would be greatly limited, though not totally.
Click to expand...

From a nearly 50 page OLC memorandum:
We conclude that the Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office. As the length of this memorandum indicates, we think the question is more complicated than it might first appear. In particular, we think that there is a reasonable argument that the Impeachment Judgment Clause should be read to bar prosecutions following acquittal by the Senate and that disqualification from federal office upon conviction by the Senate bears some of the markers of criminal punishment. Nonetheless, we think our conclusion accords with the text of the Constitution, reflects the founders’ understanding of the new process of impeachment they were creating, fits the Senate’s understanding of its role as the impeachment tribunal, and makes for a sensible and fair system of responding to the misdeeds of federal officials.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 113 more.
Total: 2,749 (members: 114, guests: 2,635)

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
2,635
Total visitors
2,749
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,733
Messages
18,112,693
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top