Trump’s Troubles

Originally Posted by Pierre

He allegedly lied about the size of Trump Tower?

Lock him up.

Here’s an idea … you try lying about your assets to get a loan or reduce your tax bill and see what happens.

I get you’re now invested in the idea of Trump being badly done by, but try and look at what’s actually going on here. No need to drink any social media kool aid, just official court material is quite damning enough.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Pierre

He allegedly lied about the size of Trump Tower?

Lock him up.

No allegedly about it. He lied about many properties size and value.

[Hom3r]

Whatever happen he will be the next president, sadly

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Whatever happen he will be the next president, sadly

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court begins deliberation on the question of whether Trump is disqualified from office by Section 3 of the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which bans someone who has been an oath-bound officer of the United States from taking office again, if they have participated in, or facilitated, an insurrection.

There is a lengthy but informative discussion here:

https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder...utm_medium=web

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

which bans someone who has been an oath-bound officer of the United States from taking office again, if they have participated in, or facilitated, an insurrection.

Which will be fine for him, because any sensible person will conclude that he didn’t.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Which will be fine for him, because any sensible person will conclude that he didn’t.

I think you maybe need to read the article, and some of the academic commentary linked from it, before you make confident assertions about the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution.

It *isn’t* clear cut - that’s why the court is looking at it.

[1andrew1]

Tell us that you don't understand Section 3 of the 14th Amendment without telling us.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Which will be fine for him, because any sensible person will conclude that he didn’t.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you maybe need to read the article, and some of the academic commentary linked from it, before you make confident assertions about the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution.

It *isn’t* clear cut - that’s why the court is looking at it.

Election interference aside, as I’m not 100% up to speed with that and what he wanted Pence to do….but whatever it was Pence didn’t do it anyway.

But looking directly at the events of Jan 6th. Any reasonable person would conclude that it was not an insurrection, it was at best a disturbance, at worst a riot……..but nothing on the scale of BLM.

It wasn’t a coup, there was no organisation or direction or planned outcome.

If you want to prosecute Trump I am 100% sure with a good constitutional lawyer you could argue that it meets the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution but that doesn’t mean it was, and just highlights what your end game is.

You don’t want Trump on the ballot, that’s fine. It’s not up to us.

But a very large % of Americans do, and as far as I can tell there’s no reason why shouldn’t be.

True Democracy is electing whoever you choose, and if electing Trump is so abhorrent that you must override democracy to ensure it doesn’t happen, you have to ask yourself how much you’re really invested in democracy.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If you want to prosecute Trump I am 100% sure with a good constitutional lawyer you could argue that it meets the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution but that doesn’t mean it was, and just highlights what your end game is.

Surely, the only relevant definition of insurrection here is the one defined by the US constitution?

It's irrelevant how a few random Brits on the Internet might define it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Surely, the only relevant definition of insurrection here is the one defined by the US constitution?

Yes, and if that is not twisted by democrats, he’ll be fine.

It's irrelevant how a few random Brits on the Internet might define it.

Amazing

Originally Posted by Pierre

Amazing

But true. Our armchair legal definitions are besides the point. The SCoTUS is looking at this precisely because there is a case to examine, and urgently. The terms used in the constitution are ordinarily understood in the context in which they were drafted - as the article i provided goes to some length to point out - which means that 21st century, social media friendly definitions of ‘insurrection’ are irrelevant. What the constitution’s drafters meant, however, is for the SCoTUS to determine - and whether January 6 triggers that clause.

There are interesting times ahead, and for us distant observers the most rewarding approach (even if you tend to one side or the other) is not to pretend you have something definitely worked out, when you really, really haven’t.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Election interference aside, as I’m not 100% up to speed with that and what he wanted Pence to do….but whatever it was Pence didn’t do it anyway.

But looking directly at the events of Jan 6th. Any reasonable person would conclude that it was not an insurrection, it was at best a disturbance, at worst a riot……..but nothing on the scale of BLM.

It wasn’t a coup, there was no organisation or direction or planned outcome.

If you want to prosecute Trump I am 100% sure with a good constitutional lawyer you could argue that it meets the legal meaning of terms in the US constitution but that doesn’t mean it was, and just highlights what your end game is.

You don’t want Trump on the ballot, that’s fine. It’s not up to us.

But a very large % of Americans do, and as far as I can tell there’s no reason why shouldn’t be.

True Democracy is electing whoever you choose, and if electing Trump is so abhorrent that you must override democracy to ensure it doesn’t happen, you have to ask yourself how much you’re really invested in democracy.

The election interference and he wanted Pence to do is at the heart of the charges against him - he tried to get Pence not to count the legal Electoral College votes, and to substitute an alternate slate of illegal votes.

The fact that Pence refused to do this doesn’t lessen the crime - if a bunch of people plan to rob a bank, but don’t do so by because they are stopped by the police before they complete the bank robbery, it’s still a crime (conspiracy to commit).

Here’s the timeline on his attempts to pressure Pence to illegally overturn the Electoral College votes.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/latest-fed...y?id=101918701

The indictment specifies repeated instances by Trump and the co-conspirators to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to use "his ceremonial role at the certification to fraudulently alter the election results."

Between Christmas and Jan. 3, 2021, the former president allegedly talked to Pence and repeated his false claims about the vice president's role at the certification, according to the indictment. Pence pushed back against those claims, prosecutors allege.

In a Jan. 1, 2021, conversation, Trump allegedly berated Pence for refusing to go along with his proposal, the indictment said.

"In response, the Defendant told the Vice President, 'You're too honest.'" Within hours of the conversation, the Defendant reminded his supporters to meet in Washington before the certification proceeding, tweeting, "The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!"

On Jan. 4, 2021, Trump met with Pence, one of the co-conspirators, the vice president's Chief of Staff and the vice president's counsel to convince Pence that he should reject Joe Biden's electoral votes or resend them back to the states.

"During the meeting, as reflected in the Vice President's contemporaneous notes, the Defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, 'Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes' and 'We won every state,'" the indictment said.

Trump met with Pence again on Jan. 5, 2021, to convince him to overturn the election, but the vice president refused, the indictment said. Trump allegedly "grew frustrated and told the Vice President that the Defendant would have to publicly criticize him," according to prosecutors.

"Upon learning of this, the Vice President's Chief of Staff was concerned for the Vice President's safety and alerted the head of the Vice President's Secret Service detail," the indictment said.

Here’s what Trump has been charged with in connection to January 6th.

- one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States applies to Trump's repeated and widespread efforts to spread false claims about the November 2020 election while knowing they were not true and for allegedly attempting to illegally discount legitimate votes all with the goal of overturning the 2020 election, prosecutors claim in the indictment.

- one count of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding was brought due to the alleged organized planning by Trump and his allies to disrupt the electoral vote's certification in January 2021.

- one count of obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding is tied to Trump and his co-conspirators' alleged efforts after the November 2020 election until Jan. 7, 2021, to block the official certification proceeding in Congress.

- one count of conspiracy against rights refers to Trump and his co-conspirators alleged attempts to "oppress, threaten and intimidate" people in their right to vote in an election.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/11914...ictment-counts

In summary, Trump and his advisers spread false information about voter fraud, urged Republican state officials to undermine the results in states that Biden won, assembled false slates of electors and pressured Mike Pence, the vice president, to unilaterally toss out the legitimate results.

… all of which is likely why none of the legal argument reflected in the Snyder article even bothers discussing whether the mob outside Congress constituted an ‘insurrection’. The heart of the issue is the attempts to nobble the electoral college.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

but nothing on the scale of BLM.

I must have missed the time BLM disrupted the process of certifying an election.

Originally Posted by Chris

… all of which is likely why none of the legal argument reflected in the Snyder article even bothers discussing whether the mob outside Congress constituted an ‘insurrection’. The heart of the issue is the attempts to nobble the electoral college.

As discussed in this article

https://www.voanews.com/a/charges-ag...e/7209154.html

The indictment alleges that Trump and his associates attempted to subvert the Electoral College in the aftermath of the election on November 3, 2020.

Immediately after it became apparent that he had lost the election, Trump and his allies began spreading claims that the results in many of the states that Biden won had been fraudulent. Those claims were untrue and were eventually proved false in dozens of lawsuits.

However, while holding out hope that they might be able to persuade some state officials to change their results, Trump’s associates began contacting individuals who had been the former president’s pledged electors in several targeted states.

According to the indictment, Trump and his associates persuaded these individuals to agree to meet on the same day as the certified electors and to hold an election in which they would declare that Trump had received their electoral votes, even though they had no legal authority to cast electoral votes.

At first, the effort was characterized as an attempt to “preserve” an alternate slate of electors in each of these states in case efforts to get officials to overturn state election results were successful. Some of the individuals who participated in the scheme did so in the belief that their votes would not be sent to Congress unless their states officially declared Trump the winner.

However, according to prosecutors, the plan changed in the weeks following the election. The indictment presents evidence that Trump and his associates ultimately decided that they would cause the false vote counts to be sent to Congress regardless of the outcome of their efforts to change election results in the individual states.

The indictment alleges that an attorney working on Trump’s behalf provided detailed instructions for the creation of fraudulent votes to be sent to Congress. In the end, seven slates of fake electors sent results to Washington before the January 6 joint session of Congress.

While the fake electoral votes were not accepted by Congress, many of the individuals who signed the false certifications have either been charged with crimes under state laws or remain under investigation.