TRUMP CONVICTED

VaSmile said:

The proper instinct of a true skeptic. As much as I wish for the death of the GOP I know that it must be a slow gradual one. If the removal of Trump and his cohorts causes a rapid crumble of the GOP to where democrats have a over whelming majority in all 3 branches at all 3 levels any party becomes an oligarchy and worse times will be ahead. I am fearful of the prospect

Click to expand...

160 years ago in a time of national polarization an American political party died, the Whigs went extinct, and the republicans were born. There is no constitutional reason a third or fourth and even 5th party could not participate in American politics. Only state laws in mostly red states prevent this and put-up unconstitutional roadblocks, the constitution is silent on political parties, they did not exist at the founding. Political parties are private organizations really, like unions and other associations and are not or should not be connected to the government. Congress might be bicameral; but they are still parliamentary houses and the same dynamic as found in other parliaments should work there too with many more parties. Any impediments to the formation of a party in a state should be unconstitutional. If such a party comes into existence it will be likely a schism of the republicans into the lunatic loser party and a conservative center right party supported by the rich, but it will be a fight to the death for control of the GOP before that happens. After Trump is gone the regular party establishment will try to reassert control again and it will be no money for the magats and every dirty trick Karl Rove can think of.

DIY-HP-LED said:

160 years ago in a time of national polarization an American political party died, the Whigs went extinct, and the republicans were born. There is no constitutional reason a third or fourth and even 5th party could not participate in American politics. Only state laws in mostly red states prevent this and put-up unconstitutional roadblocks, the constitution is silent on political parties, they did not exist at the founding. Political parties are private organizations really, like unions and other associations and are not or should not be connected to the government. Congress might be bicameral; but they are still parliamentary houses and the same dynamic as found in other parliaments should work there too with many more parties. Any impediments to the formation of a party in a state should be unconstitutional. If such a party comes into existence it will be likely a schism of the republicans into the lunatic loser party and a conservative center right party supported by the rich, but it will be a fight to the death for control of the GOP before that happens. After Trump is gone the regular party establishment will try to reassert control again and it will be no money for the magats and every dirty trick Karl Rove can think of.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a fine point of terminology, but parliaments exist at hazard of a motion of no confidence. I am unaware of a comparable mechanism applicable to US Congress.

cannabineer said:

Perhaps a fine point of terminology, but parliaments exist at hazard of a motion of no confidence. I am unaware of a comparable mechanism applicable to US Congress.

Click to expand...

They have a timetable and too frequent elections for the house so a non-confidence vote might change the party in charge of the house, the speaker, as the republicans are trying to do with McCarthy most of the time, but with multiple parties the process could be more interesting with less grid lock.

DIY-HP-LED said:

They have a timetable and too frequent elections for the house so a non-confidence vote might change the party in charge of the house, the speaker, as the republicans are trying to do with McCarthy most of the time, but with multiple parties the process could be more interesting with less grid lock.

Click to expand...

we have none such

cannabineer said:

we have none such

Click to expand...

Only for speaker or senate majority leader, but with multiple active parties the dynamics would be different. Power is concentrated in the cabinet and PM in a parliamentary system with a unicameral house, whereas in America it is divided bicamerally and between the different branches, house, senate and with a separate administration. In both systems the courts are adversarial, independent with jury trials and are based on English common law. One cannot "bring down the government", just change the house or senate leadership.

DIY-HP-LED said:

Only for speaker or senate majority leader, but with multiple active parties the dynamics would be different. Power is concentrated in the cabinet and PM in a parliamentary system with a unicameral house, whereas in America it is divided bicamerally and between the different branches, house, senate and with a separate administration. In both systems the courts are adversarial, independent with jury trials and are based on English common law. One cannot "bring down the government", just change the house or senate leadership.

Click to expand...

A key difference is that we have neither a mechanism for nor a tradition of coalition politics.

Afaik the only way to change leadership in our legislative houses is via the 2/6 year elections.

cannabineer said:

A key difference is that we have neither a mechanism for nor a tradition of coalition politics.

Afaik the only way to change leadership in our legislative houses is via the 2/6 year elections.

Click to expand...

Still a separate administration but closer...

cannabineer said:

A key difference is that we have neither a mechanism for nor a tradition of coalition politics.

Afaik the only way to change leadership in our legislative houses is via the 2/6 year elections.

Click to expand...

There are many ways to do liberal democracy, just good will is required for the most part, without it, no system can survive, but some are easily grid locked by lack of it.

DIY-HP-LED said:

There are many ways to do liberal democracy, just good will is required for the most part, without it, no system can survive, but some are easily grid locked by lack of it.

Click to expand...

In our case, precedent features bigly.

cannabineer said:

Imo at this point we would benefit from a new party that represents the center right. No Labels ain’t it.

Click to expand...

That is what I am hoping for. The GOP youth are about a climate agenda, mostly anti prohibition, and a bit more tolerant and inclusive then the old guard. If we can just get that transition to accelerate it would be a good start

VaSmile said:

That is what I am hoping for. The GOP youth are about a climate agenda, mostly anti prohibition, and a bit more tolerant and inclusive then the old guard. If we can just get that transition to accelerate it would be a good start

Click to expand...

Imo that requires a separation from the dark money presently or currently sustaining the Republicans.

DIY-HP-LED said:

160 years ago in a time of national polarization an American political party died, the Whigs went extinct, and the republicans were born. There is no constitutional reason a third or fourth and even 5th party could not participate in American politics. Only state laws in mostly red states prevent this and put-up unconstitutional roadblocks, the constitution is silent on political parties, they did not exist at the founding. Political parties are private organizations really, like unions and other associations and are not or should not be connected to the government. Congress might be bicameral; but they are still parliamentary houses and the same dynamic as found in other parliaments should work there too with many more parties. Any impediments to the formation of a party in a state should be unconstitutional. If such a party comes into existence it will be likely a schism of the republicans into the lunatic loser party and a conservative center right party supported by the rich, but it will be a fight to the death for control of the GOP before that happens. After Trump is gone the regular party establishment will try to reassert control again and it will be no money for the magats and every dirty trick Karl Rove can think of.

Click to expand...

In a sense, coalitions are formed outside of government rather that inside as seen in your system. Between election cycles is when third parties do their work to affect polices within the major parties. The Republican Party nearly completely dominated national elections in the latter half of the 1900's and the Democratic Party would not have survived the 70's 80's and 90's if it had not formed a broad coalition that opposed the nearly monolithic front presented by conservative Republicans and conservative independents of those years. It's the only way for a smaller group to participate in our winner takes all system of elections.

There is no constitutional reason why multiple parties don't exist in the US other than our winner takes all format for running elections and allocation of power in government. The winner takes all format nearly guarantees that the US will remain a two party system so long as we hold democratic free and fair elections.

VaSmile said:

That is what I am hoping for. The GOP youth are about a climate agenda, mostly anti prohibition, and a bit more tolerant and inclusive then the old guard. If we can just get that transition to accelerate it would be a good start

Click to expand...

After reading this article, I don't see how GOP youth today differ all that much from Reagan conservatives.


What younger republicans said:

":As a young, white male himself, he says he was concerned that affirmative action might hurt his chances of getting into the best colleges.
HOLLYHAND: I am a white, straight male. I'm bottom of the totem pole. And I really am.
MCCAMMON: So Hollyhand was pleased with the Supreme Court's recent decision rejecting race-conscious admissions. His co-chair on the RNC Youth Advisory Council, C.J. Pearson from Georgia, says he agrees."

That is racist grievance politics and about as fascist a thing to say as any MAGA elder could say.

CJ PEARSON: As a Black man in America, I do not want anything that I achieve to be thought about as, oh, well, sure, I know he's smart. He's pretty articulate. He's pretty well-spoken. And, you know, he's a good resume. But at the same time, though, like, did he really earn that, or did he earn it because he's Black?

Well, good for him. I wish most Black people grew up as sheltered from systemic racism as he did.

"for 24-year-old Alyssa Rinelli of Milwaukee, the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade is moving the country in the right direction. Rinelli says it will promote what she describes as greater personal responsibility when it comes to sex."

I don't see how that differs whatsoever from the mainstream Republican religious conservatives. It's simply not how most younger women and men view the abortion issue.

"Rinelli also thinks her party needs to do a better job making its case to younger voters. She recently started a local Milwaukee County Young Republicans chapter."

Doesn't that sound like a authoritarian in the making? She doesn't consider that woman's rights are at issue here. She's saying "they don't understand and we need to "reach out" more.

This person says what I see in their statements:

DECKMAN: The Republican Party right now is not exactly embracing the sorts of issues that those voters care about.

That said, I will be happy to see a return of the Republican Party to Reagan conservatism. I miss the days when Republicans believed that terrorism and overthrowing elections through force are bad things.

According to Trump, being indicted is part of the "job description"

I can't believe that fucker was the president

Trump demands recusal of Judge Chutkan in federal 2020 election interference case
Former President Trump on Monday formally demanded the recusal of the federal judge overseeing his 2020 election subversion case in Washington, D.C.

Trump’s attorneys cited statements U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan made while sentencing two previous Jan. 6 defendants that appeared to reference Trump, arguing the comments create a perception that Chutkan prejudged Trump’s guilt before he was charged.

“Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in court filings.

“Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying,” they continued. “Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial — and may believe that she can do so — her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome.”

The Hill left a message with Chutkan’s chambers requesting comment on the former president’s recusal motion.

Trump faces four criminal counts in the case stemming from his alleged efforts to remain in power following the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty last month.

It isn’t the first time Trump has attacked the judges overseeing his criminal cases. He previously unsuccessfully sought the recusal of the judge overseeing his hush money criminal case in New York, and Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Chutkan and other judges on Truth Social. He and his team previously indicated they would seek Chutkan’s recusal in this case.

Trump’s motion Monday took aim at two statements Chutkan made while sentencing Jan. 6 defendants.

In October 2022, Chutkan chided Ohio Jan. 6 defendant Christine Priola during her sentencing that she and other rioters offered “blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day,” according to a hearing transcript.

Months earlier, Trump’s lawyers said Chutkan suggested that Trump was responsible for the Capitol attack and should be prosecuted when sentencing Florida Jan. 6 rioter Robert Palmer to what was, at the time, the longest sentence handed down in connection with the riot.

“And it is true, Mr. Palmer — you have made a very good point, one that has been made before — that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged,” Chutkan said, according to the hearing transcript.

She went on to note that it was not her role to decide who is charged.

Trump has publicly criticized Chutkan before, claiming she “obviously wants me behind bars,” and is “very biased and unfair.” He has also speculated that there is “no way” he will receive a fair trial under the federal judge and previewed he would file the recusal motion.

Chutkan was randomly assigned to Trump’s case after he was indicted on four criminal charges. An Obama appointee, she has given out tough sentences to Jan. 6 defendants, either matching or exceeding the sentences for which prosecutors asked.

“Public statements of this sort create a perception of prejudgment incompatible with our justice system,” Trump’s attorneys wrote. “In a case this widely watched, of such monumental significance, the public must have the utmost confidence that the Court will administer justice neutrally and dispassionately. Judge Chutkan’s pre-case statements undermine that confidence and, therefore, require disqualification.”

See. It is official. From a man that should know.

Putin knocks prosecution of Trump, says US system is ‘rotten’
Russian President Vladimir Putin knocked the criminal cases against former President Trump on Tuesday, calling them a demonstration of the “rottenness” of the American political system.

“As for the prosecution of Trump, for us what is happening in today’s conditions, in my opinion, is good because it shows the rottenness of the American political system, which cannot pretend to teach others democracy,” Putin said during a speech at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia.

He argued that “everything that is happening with Trump is the persecution of a political rival for political reasons.”

“That’s what it is,” the Putin continued. “And this is being done in front of the public of the United States and the whole world.”

Trump currently faces dozens of criminal charges across four different cases in Georgia, Florida, New York and Washington, D.C. The former president and some of his supporters have argued that these charges are politically motivated as Trump continues to lead the GOP by a wide margin in the 2024 presidential race.

Both during and after his four-year term in the White House, Trump pointed to his seemingly friendly relationship with Putin. In recent months, he has also repeatedly claimed he would be able to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours.

In an interview on Fox Business last month, the former president claimed Putin “would have never gone into Ukraine” if he were still in the White House, adding he was the “apple of his [Putin’s] eye.”

“We hear that Mr. Trump says that he will solve pressing problems in a few days, including the Ukrainian crisis. Well, this cannot but bring happiness,” Putin said Tuesday.

He added that he does not expect Russia’s tense relations with the U.S. to significantly change no matter who becomes president in 2024.

“What to expect from the future, no matter who the president is, it’s hard for us to say, but it’s unlikely that anything will change radically,” Putin said.

The Russian president then knocked President Biden, arguing he has instilled a strong bias against Russia and “it will be very difficult for them to somehow turn this whole ship” in the other direction.

Despite his various legal challenges, Trump continues to maintain a strong lead over his 2024 Republican rivals. Recent polling from Morning Consult shows the former president with 57 percent support, compared to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — anticipated to be Trump’s biggest competitor — who pulled in 14 percent support.

"Something as shameful as this would never happen in Russia."

Second 14th Amendment challenge to Trump candidacy filed in Minnesota
A second lawsuit has been filed to keep former President Trump off the ballot in 2024, this time by a liberal group seeking to do so in Minnesota by citing the 14th Amendment.
The suit, filed by Free Speech For People in Minnesota’s Supreme Court, echoes similar arguments made by some legal scholars and lawmakers who maintain that Trump should be disqualified from the ballot under the 14th Amendment for his actions in connection to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol.

Section 3 of the amendment, which is cited in the lawsuit, states that no person shall hold elected office who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Trump’s actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol in an effort to stop Congress’s official Electoral College count of the 2020 election affirming President Biden’s victory, was referred to the Justice Department by a select House panel late last year. The committee’s investigation spanned months and included witness testimony from dozens of Trump White House officials at the time.
Trump was later indicted by the Justice Department and in Georgia for efforts by him and his allies to overturn the 2020 election results and remain in power.

In its letter to Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon (D), the group asked Simon to exclude Trump from the ballot.

Simon said in a statement earlier this month that his office had gotten hundreds of calls, emails and letters regarding “a legal argument that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution calls into question the eligibility of former President Donald Trump to run for office again,” and made note that his office has no authority to investigate a candidate’s eligibility. He added, however, that eligibility could be challenged in court.
Laying out several allegations about Trump’s actions leading up to, during and after the riot, the suit points out that the former president, who is a leading 2024 contender, “remains unrepentant and would do it again.”

“To this day, Trump has never expressed regret that his supporters violently attacked the U.S. Capitol, threatened to assassinate the Vice President and other key leaders, and obstructed congressional certification of the electoral votes. Nor has he condemned any of them for these actions,” the suit reads.

A Washington-based watchdog group filed a similar suit to block Trump from the 2024 ballot in Colorado.
Earlier Tuesday, a group of New Hampshire lawmakers pressed the Granite State’s secretary of state to reject any ongoing attempts to keep Trump off the ballot, calling the argument an “absurd conspiracy theory.”

Section 3 of the amendment has rarely been used since the period immediately following the Civil War.

Jack Smith BARRAGE of Motions is TOO MUCH for Trump to Handle

167,603 views Sep 12, 2023
The second Mar a Lago indictment of Trump had “Yucil Tavares, IT worker flipped” written all over it. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains why it’s a big deal for Trump that Tavares’ former Trump-financed attorney admitted it in court.

Federal judge sidesteps Trump request to view classified info at Mar-a-Lago in protective order
A federal judge issued a protective order on Wednesday in the Mar-a-Lago case, clearing the sharing of classified evidence as the Justice Department prosecutes former President Trump for mishandling government secrets.

The order from Judge Aileen Cannon does not acknowledge a request from Trump to review those documents by re-designating a space in his home as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

It instead leaves it to a chief information security officer (CISO), a neutral party designated to manage the classified evidence in the case, to make arrangements for Trump and his legal team to review the evidence.

The order largely includes standard language included in protective orders in classified cases, noting in a line echoing the subject of the case itself that “any unauthorized disclosure or mishandling of classified information may constitute violations of federal criminal law.”

It also bars Trump from making public comments about classified evidence in the case, noting that even classified information that “appears in the public domain” is not fair game to discuss unless it has been released as part of an official government statement.

The order comes more than three months after the Justice Department indicted Trump for violation of the Espionage Act on 33 counts as well as obstruction of justice and other charges related to his failure to return the classified documents at numerous junctions.
But the delay in nailing down a proactive order – first requested in mid-July – means the Justice Department can only just begin sharing the most crucial evidence in a case relying heavily on classified materials.

The effort to set ground rules for handling the information spurred an effort by Trump to reestablish a SCIF in homes where he once reviewed classified information as president.

“Re-establishing the same secure area that existed during President Trump’s term as President of the United States is a secure, efficient, and cost-effective way for these conversations to take place in a fully secure environment,” his attorneys wrote in the August filing.

“President Trump requests that the Court approve the renewed use of the previously approved and appropriately secure location so that he is then able to discuss the relevant classified information with his counsel without the need to mobilize his security detail and state and local law enforcement every time he has a conversation regarding his defense as it relates to purportedly classified information.”

Prosecutors dismissed the pitch as “extraordinary” given that it is the very location where Trump is charged with improperly handling some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets.