I’d imagine that even that lot would be glad to see the back of him.
Can’t happen without some kind of legal conviction. The 14th Amendment states in Section 5,
“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This would preclude any state from denying Trump the ballot under the 14th Amendment. I’m not even sure the Jan 20 charges would disqualify him under 14 because he is not charged with rebellion or insurrection.
I am constantly banging the drum on the idea that we have to avoid falling into the trap that those who oppose trump are the good guys, and so we have to be incredibly vigilant on what the party still is at the point they finally put him behind them. But, it would be so sweet to see him get the treatment he gives to so many - as soon as they decide he has no value to them they drop him.
1 Like
It’s not such a stretch however to say that he’s “given aid or comfort to the enemies (insurrectionists) thereof” , no ?
Not a stretch at all. Being a nation under the rule of law, the matter must be adjudicated, though.
If Smith’s case is succesfully prosecuted next Spring , then it already will have been.
It wouldn’t, though, because Trump isn’t charged with insurrection or rebellion in the indictment. We’re actually in a grey area if he is convicted under the Smith indictment and wins reelection. Note the charges in the link.
I appreciate that , but what I’m saying is that in the course of the trial the evidence surrounding Jan 6 will have been examined to the nth degree and it’s most likely that what needs to be shown (aid and comfort) will almost certainly be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Then if one of the States was to take the drastic step of excluding him from the ballot they would surely argue that it’s already been litigated. Finally of course it would still most likely end up with the SC.
I still happen to think it’s unlikely but there is a path at least.
1 Like
I can see that argument. It could see suit being brought in federal court on those grounds, too. Grey enough area.
2 Likes
I’d already read that piece and was left a little confused as to exactly what the masterstrokes were that were alluded to in the header.
This case is the least of Trump’s worries by a long shot. A lot of legal commentators doubt whether it should have been charged in the first place and are sceptical that it will even make it to court.
What it did do though is make it a lot easier for both Fani Willis and Jack Smith to bring their own charges. By crossing the Rubicon and charging an ex-Prez it deflected a lot of the flak that they would have otherwise had to endure.
4 Likes
Even worse than anyone thought. 
You tell ‘em Sulu!
1 Like
I caught about the last twenty five minutes of this speech last night and , despite the usual soporific delivery , bar the occasional shouty bits , ( I actually think he should ditch the autocue and just read from notes , his voice is more natural and he comes across much better) , couldn’t help but be struck by the power of the words and the message therein. This reminded me of the way he went after Trump in 2020 and I think a revisiting of that is already long overdue.
It was a good speech and is good tactics , now just keep hammering the message Joe.
Freed article here: https://archive.ph/y90ly
And for those who have the stomach for it , here’s the speech in its entirety ;
2 Likes
Focusing solely on the fraud allegations?
FT article said that the challenges may be damaging to Trumps self-promotion that he is an astute business genius. Also makes it harder for Trump to defend his other cases on the basis of his credibility.
Furthermore, it could also make it hard for him to get new loans and may even put him at the mercy of lenders who wish to call in his existing loans in early.
1 Like
No mate , I was actually responding to this from sandsoftime about the Manhattan case.
[quote=“sandsoftime, post:1778, topic:287”]
‘Shrewd and successful’ moves by Manhattan district attorney are leaving Trump beaten: experts (msn.com)
(I really do need to start paying attention to replying directly to posters. Sorry for the confusion.)
fuck … I just did it again.
The more the other cases progress the more the Bragg case (focused on treating paying hush money over an affair as a undeclared campaign contribution) looks trivial and even political. Bragg’s predecessor in the role has since indicated multiple times that the Civil case James is taking on is one his office would have pursued criminally if it had stayed under his direction, which admittedly is a lot easier to say once its no longer your responsibility than when you’re running that office.
If there is anything praiseworthy about the Bragg case it’s likely more based on bravery and balls than in smarts, in that he was the one who crossed the rubicon. Some of the other prosecutors may dismiss that in the belief they would have been comfortable going first if at the point their case became chargeable there were no other charges pending, but we nor they will ever know that for sure because of what Bragg did.