The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[AM64]

So you're suggesting that prosecutors are "nitpicking" Trump's efforts to dupe the American people and steal the '20 election. Uh, not quite. He planned all along to cry fraud. He was also told many times by many people in the White House and elsewhere that he'd lost and that there was no fraud. He was told by the attorney general that there was no fraud. He wasn't doing anything but trying to steal the election. We're talking about a gangster who has no respect for the law or for America's democratic institutions. He's a dangerous lowlife.

Duh. Dems used a "crisis" to subvert the voting rules. Niftier that what they've done over the years with "found" boxes of votes. And it worked to perfection. Completely sidestepped the voter ID problem - didn't even need to play "Weekend at Bernie's" with the dead.

 

[lawgator1]

Duh. Dems used a "crisis" to subvert the voting rules. Niftier that what they've done over the years with "found" boxes of votes. And it worked to perfection. Completely sidestepped the voter ID problem - didn't even need to play "Weekend at Bernie's" with the dead.

True. Just look at all the proof in those 60 court cases.


Oh. Wait.

 

[AM64]

True. Just look at all the proof in those 60 court cases.


Oh. Wait.

What did those 60 courts actually look at? BTW how do you investigate evidence to prove a fact when you aren't entitled to physically hold and evaluate the evidence? For the record, how many times do DAs go to court with foolproof cases where they've had state funded investigators, analysts, labs, and all access to all evidence they can legally acquire ... and lose?

 

[lawgator1]

What did those 60 courts actually look at? BTW how do you investigate evidence to prove a fact when you aren't entitled to physically hold and evaluate the evidence? For the record, how many times do DAs go to court with foolproof cases where they've had state funded investigators, analysts, labs, and all access to all evidence they can legally acquire ... and lose?

Good point. That's why they were reversed on appeal. You are on fire tonight.


Oh. Wait.

 

[Orangeslice13]

True. Just look at all the proof in those 60 court cases.


Oh. Wait.

Dude,
Pennsylvania ignored their own constitution. The governor decided that mail in ballots were allowed because of Covid by executive order. Their constitution was clear that the governor didn’t have that authority.
SCOTUS refused to hear the case

 

[lawgator1]

Dude,
Pennsylvania ignored their own constitution. The governor decided that mail in ballots were allowed because of Covid by executive order. Their constitution was clear that the governor didn’t have that authority.
SCOTUS refused to hear the case

So the Trumpsters lost.

Again.

And again and again and again and again, ad infinitum...

 

[volfanhill]

So the Trumpsters lost.

Again.

And again and again and again and again, ad infinitum...

I would think, as someone who graduated law school, that this particular case would bother you. But alas, you are always a partisan hack

 

[Orangeslice13]

So the Trumpsters lost.

Again.

And again and again and again and again, ad infinitum...

We all lost.
The rule of law was discredited because of it.

Didn’t hear the case

If the rules of law no longer apply then you can’t be upset when people feel disenfranchised and riot.



Not hearing the case could have resulted it a major problem. We’re really lucky it didn’t.

 

[Jxn Vol]

So the Trumpsters lost.

Again.

And again and again and again and again, ad infinitum...

And since biden was installed the citizens of this country lost again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again…

But Ukraine is doing pretty good. And the Taliban did well.

 

[RockyTop85]

Case 1

“In October 2019, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted Act 77 of 2019, which, inter alia, created for the first time in Pennsylvania the opportunity for all qualified electors to vote by mail, without requiring the electors to demonstrate their absence from the voting district on Election Day,”

Case 2

“Before the Court now is a question of whether the General Assembly overstepped the bounds of this power and violated our Constitution when it enacted legislation that allows for universal mail-in voting. For the reasons that follow, we find no constitutional violation”

 

[volfanhill]

Case 1

“In October 2019, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted Act 77 of 2019, which, inter alia, created for the first time in Pennsylvania the opportunity for all qualified electors to vote by mail, without requiring the electors to demonstrate their absence from the voting district on Election Day,”

Case 2

“Before the Court now is a question of whether the General Assembly overstepped the bounds of this power and violated our Constitution when it enacted legislation that allows for universal mail-in voting. For the reasons that follow, we find no constitutional violation”

Thank you. I will give the links a read tomorrow

 

[benholt06]

Clinton continued to pal around and travel with Epstein even after his proclivities became known.

Not here to defend Clinton. Trump is already lower than pond scum so even if there was concrete proof it wouldn’t affect my opinion of him all that much. Some of the tales from the Miss Teen USA are pretty creepy so I wouldn’t be a mite surprised.

Just pointing out how Trump’s name is conveniently left out of Epstein discussions, especially by these schizophrenics who think he is an undercover savior for trafficking/assault victims.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

I would think, as someone who graduated law school, that this particular case would bother you. But alas, you are always a partisan hack

FACT!!!

 

[AM64]

So the Trumpsters lost.

Again.

And again and again and again and again, ad infinitum...

One would think that you of all people might want the courts to be open to any investigation of wrongdoing, but apparently not. This isn't about taking sides; this is about doing the things this nation was founded to correct. I've made no bones that the US judicial system is the closest thing we have to totalitarianism largely because of three issues. One: at the final level, there is no appeal to what a group of increasingly biased judges decide. Two: courts can choose not to hear a case. Three: courts can make law through precedent; stripping that function from the legislative branch - an elected rather than an appointed body with finite terms of office.

 

[hog88]

Not here to defend Clinton. Trump is already lower than pond scum so even if there was concrete proof it wouldn’t affect my opinion of him all that much. Some of the tales from the Miss Teen USA are pretty creepy so I wouldn’t be a mite surprised.

Just pointing out how Trump’s name is conveniently left out of Epstein discussions, especially by these schizophrenics who think he is an undercover savior for trafficking/assault victims.

Thats fair

 

[Orangeslice13]

Case 1

“In October 2019, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted Act 77 of 2019, which, inter alia, created for the first time in Pennsylvania the opportunity for all qualified electors to vote by mail, without requiring the electors to demonstrate their absence from the voting district on Election Day,”

Case 2

“Before the Court now is a question of whether the General Assembly overstepped the bounds of this power and violated our Constitution when it enacted legislation that allows for universal mail-in voting. For the reasons that follow, we find no constitutional violation”

Many disagree with the decisions so something this important should be heard at SCOTUS. If you want validation that is.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Pennsylvania Election Case on Mailed Ballots (Published 2021)

In dissent, three justices said the court should have used the case to provide guidance in future elections.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Orangeslice13]

Who knows how that would rule but it absolutely should have been heard.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Not here to defend Clinton. Trump is already lower than pond scum so even if there was concrete proof it wouldn’t affect my opinion of him all that much. Some of the tales from the Miss Teen USA are pretty creepy so I wouldn’t be a mite surprised.

Just pointing out how Trump’s name is conveniently left out of Epstein discussions, especially by these schizophrenics who think he is an undercover savior for trafficking/assault victims.

Ya,
Nobody cares about slavery/ trafficking up there.
Either disbelief or complicit, it’s flat out being ignored.

 

[RockyTop85]

Many disagree with the decisions so something this important should be heard at SCOTUS. If you want validation that is.

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Pennsylvania Election Case on Mailed Ballots (Published 2021)

In dissent, three justices said the court should have used the case to provide guidance in future elections.

www.nytimes.com

Empirical SCOTUS: The importance of state court cases before the Supreme Court - SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court review is often thought of as mainly monitoring the federal courts and circuit splits. The reasons for this are obvious. Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court broad authority to review questions of federal law, but the court’s power to supervise state courts has been

www.scotusblog.com

“Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court broad authority to review questions of federal law, but the court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law.”

 

[Orangeslice13]

Empirical SCOTUS: The importance of state court cases before the Supreme Court - SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court review is often thought of as mainly monitoring the federal courts and circuit splits. The reasons for this are obvious. Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court broad authority to review questions of federal law, but the court’s power to supervise state courts has been

www.scotusblog.com

“Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court broad authority to review questions of federal law, but the court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law.”

Read the article.
It wasn’t a question of state law. It was a question of who can choose to ignore the law.
SCOTUS judges believed they had the authority to hear the case and chose not too. They have the authority to determine if a state can choose to ignore their constitution.

It should have been heard.

 

[Orangeslice13]

So a governor it Alabama signs an executive order that says no polling stations in poor black communities in violation of their constitution. The State court says it’s all good, and SCOTUS has nothing to say on this?


Got it. Makes perfect sense that the governor has full authority over what happens in the state.

 

[RockyTop85]

Read the article.
It wasn’t a question of state law. It was a question of who can choose to ignore the law.
SCOTUS judges believed they had the authority to hear the case and chose not too. They have the authority to determine if a state can choose to ignore their constitution.

It should have been heard.

The article is about a completely different case and a different issue (ballot-receipt deadlines), not whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution. Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.

You’re confused.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The article is about a completely different case and a different issue (ballot-receipt deadlines), not whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution. Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.

You’re confused.

Both Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are on record that it should have been heard. I’m going to assume they know more than you do

 

[RockyTop85]

Should have been heard

This would be more persuasive if you hadn’t been completely wrong about whether universal mail-in voting was enacted by law, who made the law, whether the law was unconstitutional, when/why the law was passed, and whether that law was eligible for Supreme Court review; or if you hadn’t tried to cite a totally different case about a different issue that didn’t even involve enough votes to change the outcome.

Edit: and then there’s the hyperventilating, catastrophizing, absurd analogies that actually do trigger federal issues.

IIRC, in the case mentioned in your article, the one where there weren’t enough votes involved to change the outcome of the election, the plaintiffs were relying on the independent state legislature theory, which was rejected by the Court last term.

 

[RockyTop85]

Both Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch are on record that it should have been heard. I’m going to assume they know more than you do

And six justices are on record saying it shouldn’t have been heard.

But they’re on record about a completely different case and a different issue (ballot-receipt deadlines), not whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.