January 6 Retribution Begins

#51
#51
lawgator1 said:
I am sure that there will be many motions filed to prevent it.

And like I say it doesn't matter because the anti-Trump crowd has concluded Trump was willing to let Pence get some kind of comeuppance from the mob and the pro-Trump crowd is fine with that even if Trump promoted it in some way.
Click to expand...

I doubt this case even gets to that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#52
#52
Franklin Pierce said:
Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell calling him 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack,' claiming he is 'destroying' GOP, is compromised on China by Wife Elaine Chao and tells senators to FIRE him - after GOP leader blamed him for MAGA riot

President Donald Trump denounced Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday as an 'unsmiling political hack' – days after the Republican party's most senior elected official voted to acquit Trump of inciting the Capitol riot but then blasted his conduct in an excoriating speech.

He called the Republicans' most senior elected figure 'dour, sullen' and urged the party's senators to end his leadership in a lengthy, racially-loaded and vitriolic statement issued from Mar-a-Lago.

Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell as 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack' | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Other than his comment on Mitch’s wife Trumps not wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#53
#53
Franklin Pierce said:
Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell calling him 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack,' claiming he is 'destroying' GOP, is compromised on China by Wife Elaine Chao and tells senators to FIRE him - after GOP leader blamed him for MAGA riot

President Donald Trump denounced Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday as an 'unsmiling political hack' – days after the Republican party's most senior elected official voted to acquit Trump of inciting the Capitol riot but then blasted his conduct in an excoriating speech.

He called the Republicans' most senior elected figure 'dour, sullen' and urged the party's senators to end his leadership in a lengthy, racially-loaded and vitriolic statement issued from Mar-a-Lago.

Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell as 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack' | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

Should have be a stand alone thread. Loved the kill shot right from the get go.

The Republican Party can never again be respected or strong with political 'leaders' like Sen. Mitch McConnell at its helm
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Rasputin_Vol
#54
#54
#55
#55
Vol Main said:
“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.” U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell
Click to expand...

But yet it seems that former first lady’s are
 
#56
#56
Franklin Pierce said:
Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell calling him 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack,' claiming he is 'destroying' GOP, is compromised on China by Wife Elaine Chao and tells senators to FIRE him - after GOP leader blamed him for MAGA riot

President Donald Trump denounced Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday as an 'unsmiling political hack' – days after the Republican party's most senior elected official voted to acquit Trump of inciting the Capitol riot but then blasted his conduct in an excoriating speech.

He called the Republicans' most senior elected figure 'dour, sullen' and urged the party's senators to end his leadership in a lengthy, racially-loaded and vitriolic statement issued from Mar-a-Lago.

Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell as 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack' | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
He is quite possibly correct
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#58
#58
Vol Main said:
Oh wait what, some more radical Republican BS?
Click to expand...
Here is the uber right wing NPR:
IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups

"In a legal settlement that still awaits a federal judge's approval, the IRS "expresses its sincere apology" for mistreating a conservative organization called Linchpins of Liberty — along with 40 other conservative groups — in their applications for tax-exempt status"

Or Reuters: Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

Maybe you should actually look at some of that research you refuse to share before dying on a hill already settled in federal court.

Again, no idea why so many people literally cant admit that politicians they like arent 100% perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, MemphisVol77, AM64 and 3 others
#59
#59
Franklin Pierce said:
Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell calling him 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack,' claiming he is 'destroying' GOP, is compromised on China by Wife Elaine Chao and tells senators to FIRE him - after GOP leader blamed him for MAGA riot

President Donald Trump denounced Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Tuesday as an 'unsmiling political hack' – days after the Republican party's most senior elected official voted to acquit Trump of inciting the Capitol riot but then blasted his conduct in an excoriating speech.

He called the Republicans' most senior elected figure 'dour, sullen' and urged the party's senators to end his leadership in a lengthy, racially-loaded and vitriolic statement issued from Mar-a-Lago.

Donald Trump trashes Mitch McConnell as 'a dour, sullen and unsmiling political hack' | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
The Republican party is actively destroying itself and it's beautiful.

l0HlP28k8noOBrPLq.gif
 
#61
#61
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
My recollection is that s. 1985 requires a race-based underlying claim. While I agree that pretty much all trumpstsrs at that even wrre racist, I don t necessarily agree that all racists showed up to join the riot. Therefore, cant automatically conclude that a race based clam exists.
Click to expand...

He filed under subsection 1, which does not appear to have a race-based component. As i read it, it deals with conspiring to interfere with government officials performing their duties.
It was passed in 1871 as one of the Enforcement Acts which (I think) were in response to Klan attempts to intimidate candidates/government officials.
 
#64
#64
BigOrangeTrain said:
Yet another pathetic attempt to rectify hurt feelings. I mean it’s laughable at this point. It’s becoming apparent that people in DC are afraid that Trump will run and win again.
Click to expand...
He got beat by Biden. That's like losing to a crash test dummy. No one is worried about Trump running again. I mean unless you want POTUS Harris or Biden to have a second term. You can't lose to Biden and think you can win against anyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#65
#65
clarksvol00 said:
He filed under subsection 1, which does not appear to have a race-based component. As i read it, it deals with conspiring to interfere with government officials performing their duties.
It was passed in 1871 as one of the Enforcement Acts which (I think) were in response to Klan attempts to intimidate candidates/government officials.
Click to expand...

so anyone in the country has standing if they make this claim?

BTW, the "he" in this discussion didn't file. Some organization (NAACP) filed on his behalf. Not sure what his role is other than to have a token Congressional member in the suit since the riot involved Congress.

It's a huge stretch.

Someone actually injured in the event would have a better chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and AM64
#67
#67
volinbham said:
so anyone in the country has standing if they make this claim?

BTW, the "he" in this discussion didn't file. Some organization (NAACP) filed on his behalf. Not sure what his role is other than to have a token Congressional member in the suit since the riot involved Congress.

It's a huge stretch.

Someone actually injured in the event would have a better chance.
Click to expand...

Thompson is the named plaintiff. He may be claiming he's a congressman and the defendants interfered with his ability to perform his Congressional duties, such as count the Electoral votes. Not sure where you came up with the allegation that I'm asserting "anyone has standing if they make this claim."
 
#68
#68
clarksvol00 said:
Thompson is the named plaintiff. He may be claiming he's a congressman and the defendants interfered with his ability to perform his Congressional duties, such as count the Electoral votes. Not sure where you came up with the allegation that I'm asserting "anyone has standing if they make this claim."
Click to expand...

I'm saying it because the filing is on his behalf in his personal capacity (eg. as a citizen). See the original article for reference. Therefore any citizen could claim standing if your interpretation of the statute is correct.

"the civil lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Thompson in his personal capacity by the NAACP and civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages."
 
#69
#69
volinbham said:
I'm saying it because the filing is on his behalf in his personal capacity (eg. as a citizen). See the original article for reference. Therefore any citizen could claim standing if your interpretation of the statute is correct.

"the civil lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Thompson in his personal capacity by the NAACP and civil rights law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages."
Click to expand...

The way I read the statute, he is entitled to file in his personal capacity because he is a party who was injured or deprived. The statute allows "the party so injured or deprived" to sue.

Thompson is the named plaintiff in the actual lawsuit: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-ab60-d713-a777-efe6040d0000
 
#70
#70
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#72
#72
clarksvol00 said:
The statute doesn't draw a distinction. You backing down on the NAACP being the plaintiff?
Click to expand...

I never said they were the plaintiff - I said they filed on his behalf.

The statute may not draw a distinction but if his injury was he was prevented from exercising his professional duty then I would suspect the filing would be in his professional capacity. As a citizen he was not injured. As a Congressional member he possibly can make the claim since he's alleging his professional position was affected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and AM64
#74
#74
volinbham said:
I never said they were the plaintiff - I said they filed on his behalf.

The statute may not draw a distinction but if his injury was he was prevented from exercising his professional duty then I would suspect the filing would be in his professional capacity. As a citizen he was not injured. As a Congressional member he possibly can make the claim since he's alleging his professional position was affected.
Click to expand...
Why do you think its a big deal regarding standing if they "filed on his behalf?" He's the plaintiff, his position for standing is what matters.
You may be right about professional versus personal capacity, but until I see something from the statute or courts saying otherwise I'm going to disagree. I'm not saying he'll win a lawsuit, but based on the statute he sued under I don't see where he is out of line.
 
#75
#75
clarksvol00 said:
Why do you think its a big deal regarding standing if they "filed on his behalf?" He's the plaintiff, his position for standing is what matters.
You may be right about professional versus personal capacity, but until I see something from the statute or courts saying otherwise I'm going to disagree. I'm not saying he'll win a lawsuit, but based on the statute he sued under I don't see where he is out of line.
Click to expand...

the standing part isn't because of the "on his behalf part" - it's the personal capacity part.

on his behalf means he didn't bring the suit himself - my guess is the NAACP (or whoever it was) wanted to bring the suit and needed a Congressional member to get standing. the "personal capacity" though appears by definition to detach the "injury" since it excludes the Congressional member's official duties which according to your link make up the claim that he was prevented from executing his "official duty".

my prediction is this thing is DOA unless the judge really wants to stick it to Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top