Edited December 29, 20231 yr by Lord Liaden

17 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The Maine Secretary of State rules that Trump does not qualify for the Presidential ballot, due to his role in the Jan. 6th events.  Turns out, it's how the Maine law works...it first has to go through the SoS's office, as the chief election officer for the state.

 

This entire election is shaping up to be ugly, in ways that transcend the normal electoral politics. The entire structure of the election is going to be called into question, if Trump doesn't win...he'll assert the whole process was poisoned, if he's not on all the ballots.  And in any state if he's excluded?  Oh man...nightmare.  Alternate selection of electors, election challenges, potentially CONSTANT objection to seating delegates when the time comes to certify the delegates. Absolute chaos.

 

Let's be honest here - if Trump was on every state's ballot, there were no ongoing criminal trials involving him, and he were to lose the 2024 election - there would still be alternate slates of electors, election challenges, CONSTANT objection to seating delegates when the time comes to certify the delegates, as well as CONSTANT baseless claims of a stolen election in the years following the election.

 

As support to this claim, I submit as evidence:  the 2020 election and the last 3 years.

 

When dealing with a toddler prone to tantrums, giving in is not the way to go.  You nip that **** in the bud.

Mike Popok is stating that Trump has lost his bid to be immune to the DC Metro cops law suit.

CES

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

Let's be honest here - if Trump was on every state's ballot, there were no ongoing criminal trials involving him, and he were to lose the 2024 election - there would still be alternate slates of electors, election challenges, CONSTANT objection to seating delegates when the time comes to certify the delegates, as well as CONSTANT baseless claims of a stolen election in the years following the election.

 

As support to this claim, I submit as evidence:  the 2020 election and the last 3 years.

 

When dealing with a toddler prone to tantrums, giving in is not the way to go.  You nip that **** in the bud.

 

Oh, I agree, he'd do a lot of it, but what I'm suggesting is it'll be MUCH more prevalent...even in states where Biden (presumably) wins by a comfortable margin, rather than just a handful of close races.  And...hmm.  The House can't conduct normal business without a Speaker, but the electoral college function is a mandated one, and is presided over by the President of the Senate...but objections separate everyone back to their normal chambers, so that would seem to imply needing a Speaker.  So maybe, just maybe...the alt-right tries a brutal delay, by yanking the chair out from under the Speaker?  Given a Biden victory, I suspect the Democrats would vote against a motion to vacate, tho.

Huh.  Semi-curious.  Watching Yet Another Bowl Game....zzzzzzzzzzz, for the most part.  It's the end of the 3rd, so of course ESPN runs 2-3 times the normal number of commercials.  <sigh>  

 

One of em was kind of amusing.  Picture of a trash fire, then a whole bunch of quotes about DeSantis, his campaign, and the dumpster fire it's been.  (Their words.)  Paid for by the SFA Fund.

 

I was figuring, huh, probably a Trump fund...????

 

Nope.  Nikki Haley.  

The surprise is...does Haley really think she needs to blast DeSantis?  OK, she and DeSantis are pretty much even, at 2nd/3rd behind Trump, so...if somehow Trump can be tossed off several major ballots, or otherwise disqualified, or have his support collapse due to convictions?  Well, maybe it'll matter then.  I can't recommend trying to hold your breath until Trump'll be forced out of the election, tho.

3 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

The surprise is...does Haley really think she needs to blast DeSantis?  OK, she and DeSantis are pretty much even, at 2nd/3rd behind Trump, so...if somehow Trump can be tossed off several major ballots, or otherwise disqualified, or have his support collapse due to convictions?  Well, maybe it'll matter then.  I can't recommend trying to hold your breath until Trump'll be forced out of the election, tho.

 

Everyone in that field is angling for either the VP position behind Trump, or the presidency if Trump somehow manages to get himself removed.  Their standing relative to Trump doesn't matter in either case.

7 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Everyone in that field is angling for either the VP position behind Trump, or the presidency if Trump somehow manages to get himself removed.  Their standing relative to Trump doesn't matter in either case.

 

LOL  apparently so, because just now, there was a DeSantis PAC ad attacking Haley on China......  

 

I can laugh now but we know this is gonna get old REAL, REAL fast............

EDIT:  side thought.  Is Trump going to accept ANYONE who's run against him, this time around?  I'm thinking...no, on the basis that running against him will still be viewed by him, as disloyalty.  We've got the reports that the #1, #2, #3, and #4 priority for his nominees will be loyalty.  

The Haley Civil War sound bite was pretty bad....

Edited December 30, 20231 yr by Dr. MID-Nite

Well... From a certain point of view, Haley's first statement was factually correct. The Civil War was fought about the relation between government and individual rights. It's just that the Confederacy's core principle was that government must, above all else, prevent a certain caste of people from enjoying any rights at all.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Trump's team is great at missing deadlines and botching things up. Then when the court rules against them, they will both go to social media and take it into appeal, both of which are incorrect solutions. 

3 hours ago, Asperion said:

Trump's team is great at missing deadlines and botching things up. Then when the court rules against them, they will both go to social media and take it into appeal, both of which are incorrect solutions. 

 

On the contrary, Trump and his team know the cases are lost if they actually go to trial.  Their entire strategy is based around delaying the trials until after the election is stolen in November, whereupon they will become moot.  Hence the deadline missing.

Trump's strategy has always been delay delay delay, which is how he has run his debt collectors out of business because he can afford that but they couldn't. In this case, he has a deadline that he has to meet and if he doesn't he faces jail time. If his presidential claim doesn't go through, he has to think what else he can do to run the clock.

CES 

Trump has never run up against a legal challenger with more money and resources than him, and whom he can neither bribe nor intimidate. I don't think he appreciates how far out of his league he is.

11 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Trump has never run up against a legal challenger with more money and resources than him, and whom he can neither bribe nor intimidate. I don't think he appreciates how far out of his league he is.

 

Why would he?  To date this strategy has never failed him.  He is not in jail.  He has never been convicted of a crime by a jury. 

And he's gotten the delay in the insurrection trial, because the Supreme Court said no, we're not fast-tracking the presidential power question.  The late March trial date there looks infeasible.

 

Gotta agree with Old Man.  The root problem is that the US trial system is *built* for delays...especially in criminal trials.  He'll continue to antagonize, to force judges to issue rulings like the gag order...that he can then challenge and cause more delay...throughout the proceedings.  Heck, the Georgia case is already too late to influence the nomination.

The march date might be unfeasible but the DC court of appeals is going to be making their decision mid January. Then if Trump loses, he has to go to the Supreme Court and ask them to speed up their deliberations

CES

 

55 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

The march date might be unfeasible but the DC court of appeals is going to be making their decision mid January. Then if Trump loses, he has to go to the Supreme Court and ask them to speed up their deliberations

CES

 

 

Why?

Trump can ask the SC to continue to hold the DC trial on hold until they make their final ruling...and that probably WILL be granted, as if his actions were covered by privilege, there's no trial.  The appeals court's ruling isn't the last word, and the trial's on hold until we have that.  That's why Smith tried to get the SC to take the case directly, rather than wait for the lower court.

At this moment the SC has ruled that the DC court has to make their ruling first. Then Trump has to appeal that ruling to get to them. Once the DC court makes their ruling, the trial is back on until SCOTUS issues another stay.

CES  

3 minutes ago, csyphrett said:

At this moment the SC has ruled that the DC court has to make their ruling first. Then Trump has to appeal that ruling to get to them. Once the DC court makes their ruling, the trial is back on until SCOTUS issues another stay.

CES  

 

Which they will almost certainly do.

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Which they will almost certainly do.

Doesn't matter because to get that stay, Trump has to argue that the SC has to go fast instead of slow, because until they issue it, he will be getting cooked in court. he has to argue the same thing Smith argued as the appealer.

CES 

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Which they will almost certainly do.

 

I'm not so sure. Even this SCOTUS can't be blind to the implications of supporting Trump's argument of presidential immunity. Because it cuts both ways. If the POTUS can't be held legally accountable for his actions while in office, anyone holding the office could do whatever they want in order to keep power. Including Joe Biden, should he lose the next election. (In principle, of course. I don't believe he would.)

Something the Republicans should do is to kick Trump out of the party. At the same time, the democrats should refuse him access to their party. If this happens, the only option he has left for continuing his political aspersions would be through a minor party. Since the primary parties control a minimum of 2/3 of the votes, I doubt he would ever have sufficient power to make even a scratch. 

12 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I'm not so sure. Even this SCOTUS can't be blind to the implications of supporting Trump's argument of presidential immunity. Because it cuts both ways. If the POTUS can't be held legally accountable for his actions while in office, anyone holding the office could do whatever they want in order to keep power. Including Joe Biden, should he lose the next election. (In principle, of course. I don't believe he would.)

 

I agree with that argument when it comes to the final decision...but not while issuing the temporary stay. 

13 hours ago, csyphrett said:

Doesn't matter because to get that stay, Trump has to argue that the SC has to go fast instead of slow, because until they issue it, he will be getting cooked in court. he has to argue the same thing Smith argued as the appealer.

CES 

 

Not true.  Smith's argument was that time was critical, to ensure the public interest, yes.  Trump's lawyers only need to argue that in the event they win their appellate point, the entire case goes *poof*...therefore, allowing the trial to proceed when there may be no legal basis for it, is improper and punishes a non-guilty client.  You can't try someone who's innocent.  Smith was arguing for an extraordinary action;  Trump's lawyers will be arguing for a normal action...and one that the lower court ALSO granted.  The trial was put on hold *until the appellate court decided the appeal.*  Same argument holds for the next-level appellate court...the Supreme Court.

 

I think NOT staying the trial is by far the least likely action.  What's far more likely is they decline to hear the case in the first place, rejecting the appeal.  THAT is possible;  they may think, as LL notes, the Trump claim is untenable.  Their review of the appellate court record is enough;  they don't need to hear arguments.  I don't think they'll do that, but they've rejected enough of Trump's weak arguments that they might.  But if they choose to hear the appeal?  They'll issue the stay.

 

In principle, the pre-trial processes might continue once the appellate court renders its decision, assuming it's against Trump, but once Trump files a notice to appeal (which probably has to be done quickly), those processes probably won't move forward at least until the SC decides to take the case or not.  If if the processes do continue?  Well, the SC will almost certainly decide to take the case, or not, LONG before the trial date.

2 hours ago, Asperion said:

Something the Republicans should do is to kick Trump out of the party. At the same time, the democrats should refuse him access to their party. If this happens, the only option he has left for continuing his political aspersions would be through a minor party. Since the primary parties control a minimum of 2/3 of the votes, I doubt he would ever have sufficient power to make even a scratch. 

 

It is a dream of mine that Trump spins off to create his own MAGA party, thereby splitting the conservative vote and guaranteeing Democratic control of the executive and legislative branches.  But that's exactly why it won't happen.