Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial

[NickW + 2,714]

Any more news on this Jake Angeli geezer? 

I have seen reports that he was a radical climate activist (I assume that means direct interventions rather than through the political process). If so I find it hard to believe he would be leading an insurrection to support DT.

Or perhaps he is really the lead singer of Jamiroquai......

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

6 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I am saying that SCOTUS decided to award that power to themselves, and it has been accepted as convention. 

That specific power is not explicit in the text of our Constitution.

A serious question if I may, your high school yrs. We're they during the 70's/80's/90's? Did you by chance attend a university? 

Those questions are not spefic to you, but more to a timeline. Perhaps Google was a reference?

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

6 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A serious question if I may, your high school yrs. We're they during the 70's/80's/90's? Did you by chance attend a university? 

Those questions are not spefic to you, but more to a timeline. Perhaps Google was a reference?

The U.S. Supreme Court was established by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution granted the Supreme Court ultimate jurisdiction over all laws, especially those in which their constitutionality was at issue. The high court was also designated to oversee cases concerning treaties of the United States, foreign diplomats, admiralty practice and maritime jurisdiction. On February 1, 1790, the first session of the U.S. Supreme Court was held in New York City’s Royal Exchange Building.

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/9/2021 at 3:37 PM, Symmetry said:

Seriously look up who started most of these things.

War on drugs (actually a war on blacks).  --> used to allow civil asset forfeiture. 

War on terror (actually war on freedoms). --> used to remove loads of freedoms (privacy, allowed torture or "enhanced interrogation", etc.).

 

 

Totally agree that these are things RINOs have been doing in conjunction with Dems. That is why @Ward is saying the problem is the "UniParty". I call them the party of government. 

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

Good quote by Voltaire at the trial: 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Excerpt from the WSJ Editorial (by the very conservative Editorial Page staff):

Instead of bowing to dozens of court defeats, Mr. Trump escalated. He falsely claimed that Vice President Mike Pence, if only he had the courage, could reject electoral votes and stop Democrats from hijacking democracy.He called his supporters to attend a rally on Jan. 6, when Congress would do the counting. “Be there, will be wild!” Mr. Trump tweeted. His speech that day was timed to coincide with the action in the Capitol, and then he directed the crowd down Pennsylvania Avenue. . . .

There’s no defense for Mr. Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6 and before. Mitch McConnell is reportedly telling his GOP colleagues that the decision to convict or acquit is a vote of conscience, and that’s appropriate. After the Electoral College voted on Dec. 14, Mr. Trump could have conceded defeat and touted his accomplishments.

Now his legacy will be forever stained by this violence, and by his betrayal of his supporters in refusing to tell them the truth. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Jeffrey Brown

[Symmetry + 109]

 

Watch this presentation and compare the quality to pillow guy's joke.

Even Trumps joke of a lawyer was convinced calling it "well done."

The senators are realizing that their lives were at stake due to Trump and don't like it much.

 

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

4 hours ago, Jeffrey Brown said:

But that revisionist history conflicts with the timeline of events on the day of the Capitol riot, as well as accounts of multiple people in contact with the president that day, who have said Trump was initially pleased to see a halt in the counting of the electoral college votes. Some former White House officials have acknowledged that he only belatedly and reluctantly issued calls for peace, after first ignoring public and private entreaties to do so. . . .

 

I would discount any statements by white house staff, as they were spending the last two months of Trump's presidency telling him to concede and trying to isolate him from his advisers and allies. They obviously had nothing to do with Trump at that point, and definitely stand against him now. They have all been bought off with lucrative job offers in DC Swamp law and lobbying firms. 

Not understanding that the common unifying element of RINOs and Establishment Dems is their being the "corrupt establishment"  is damaging your ability to understand the marionette show the media is presenting.. 

Chenney and Sasse are not Trump republicans neither is Graham, though he had provided some support.  

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

Chenney and Sasse are not Trump republicans neither is Graham, though he had provided some support.

True, Senator Sasse has acknowledged that he does not indulge in the "Weird worship of one dude," while being one of the most conservative members of Congress.   Ditto for Congresswoman Cheney.  Graham points in whichever way the wind is blowing. 

In any case, House Manager Neguse says that instead of rebuking the rioters, Trump says “we love you. you are very special. What more do we need to know about President Trump’s state of mind?”

And you will recall that the "Very special people" that Trump expressed his love for were directly responsible for the deaths of five people and injuries to 140 police officers, with 15 requiring hospitalization--all while de facto assassination squads were searching for the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. 

House Manager Ted Lieu:  "President Donald J. Trump ran out of non-violent options to maintain power."

Edited February 11, 2021 by Jeffrey Brown

[turbguy + 1,554]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

The U.S. Supreme Court was established by Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution granted the Supreme Court ultimate jurisdiction over all laws, especially those in which their constitutionality was at issue. The high court was also designated to oversee cases concerning treaties of the United States, foreign diplomats, admiralty practice and maritime jurisdiction. On February 1, 1790, the first session of the U.S. Supreme Court was held in New York City’s Royal Exchange Building.

Section 2.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects".

 

Where does this text explicitly permit the Court, so established, to OVERTURN constitutionally established laws?

If Congress constitutionally passes a process whereby the Commander In Chief can have some control over the "purse strings" of the Treasury, does that not violate the Constitution?

If  Congress constitutionally passes a process whereby the Commander-In-Chief can initiate or pursue military actions against other entities, foreign or domestic, does that not violate the Constitution?

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

16 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

 

Where does this text explicitly permit the Court, so established, to OVERTURN lawfully extablished laws?

Ohh i see, well maybe. Article 3 section 1 does come to mind, now having a debate on such matters without knowing your level of education is beyond my skill set. Having a foundation to begin with is a fundamental ...such as commonality. 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS935US935&ei=RaYlYNfaOaTq9AP0gqv4BA&q=article+3+section+1&oq=Article+3+sec&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgBMgUIABCRAjICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoHCAAQRxCwAzoGCAAQFhAeOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6BwgAELEDEEM6BAguEEM6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCULEWWIJsYOF3aAJwAngAgAGDAYgB5hmSAQQ0NC4zmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABAMgBCMABAQ&sclient=psy-ab

[turbguy + 1,554]

4 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Ohh i see, well maybe. Article 3 section 1 does come to mind, now having a debate on such matters without knowing your level of education is beyond my skill set. Having a foundation to begin with is a fundamental ...such as commonality. 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS935US935&ei=RaYlYNfaOaTq9AP0gqv4BA&q=article+3+section+1&oq=Article+3+sec&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgBMgUIABCRAjICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoHCAAQRxCwAzoGCAAQFhAeOgQIABBDOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6BwgAELEDEEM6BAguEEM6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCULEWWIJsYOF3aAJwAngAgAGDAYgB5hmSAQQ0NC4zmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABAMgBCMABAQ&sclient=psy-ab

Waiting for the text, not the interpretation...

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Waiting for the text, not the interpretation...

Ahh it would seem you are quite accomplished not only is speed reading but comprehension as well. 

Hmm finding commonality....So we have lower courts and higher courts...we have appellate courts and appeals courts. We do have alot courts do we not. let us start here it may perhaps give you some insights as to court systems...and they are complex.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure#:~:text=The appellate court's task is,correctly in the trial court.&text=A court of appeals hears,decisions of federal administrative agencies.

Courts of Appeals

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals.  The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Learn more about the courts of appeals. 

At the same time i ask you for a reference as to what would lead you to any type of conclusion that does not allow the supreme ct to rule on constitutionality of any law enacted or rules upon in the US.

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Section 2.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects".

 

Where does this text explicitly permit the Court, so established, to OVERTURN constitutionally established laws?

If Congress constitutionally passes a process whereby the Commander In Chief can have some control over the "purse strings" of the Treasury, does that not violate the Constitution?

If  Congress constitutionally passes a process whereby the Commander-In-Chief can initiate or pursue military actions against other entities, foreign or domestic, does that not violate the Constitution?

Not going to do your homework for you, you'll have to try to pass 9th Grade civics all on your own. Here's a good primer, it's a dot gov address so none of your window dressing. 

Quote

Judicial Review

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

Before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (1869), the provisions of the Bill of Rights were only applicable to the federal government. After the Amendment's passage, the Supreme Court began ruling that most of its provisions were applicable to the states as well. Therefore, the Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated.

This is what's known as getting your ass handed to you. Keep strutting around with the other socks pretending you've gotten one over on me, what with your room temperature IQ. You haven't, you're wrong and that's that. By all means keep posting, nothing more amusing to the adults in the room than seeing you flail. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

At the same time i ask you for a reference as to what would lead you to any type of conclusion that does not allow the supreme ct to rule on constitutionality of any law enacted or rules upon in the US.

First, I have no desire and I shall not allow myself to get dragged in on a dispute over he court system and its reach.  

The Federal Judiciary  (Article III Courts) are "courts of limited jurisdiction."  The Courts of primary jurisdiction are the various State Courts.  Contrary to popular opinion, you cannot just go running into some Federal Court with your Complaint.  It has to meet the limited jurisdiction requirements and it has to also meet Venue requirements. For all the rest, you are sent to the State Courts. 

The Supreme Court cannot rule on "the constitutionality of any law enacted."  First, there has to be 'aggrievement," a person aggrieved by the enforcement of a State law.  If there is no aggrievement, then there is no foundation to invoke the court's judicial machinery  -any court.  Even if aggrieved, it has to be demonstrated, or at least pled beyond the level of mere speculation, that there is a plausible basis for filing before a Court.  Thus: if a State passes a law that grants condominium associations the power to sue a unit owner in foreclosure if he does not pay his Assessments  ("dues"), then even if the Association maliciously, through its birdbrain Board of Directors and its boneheaded, brain-dead Manager, decide to abuse you and withhold services it provides to other unit owners  (for example, if the Manager dumps the community garbage on your doorstep just to annoy you, or has the snowplow guy push all the street snow up in front of your garage just o keep you from using your garage), you cannot sue them in Federal Court arguing that your 4th Amendment rights to due process are being violated.  And that State Law is not going to get touched by any Federal Court. 

The vast majority of State Laws are beyond review capability of any Federal Court.  People do not understand that, or find it abhorrent.  But that is the way it is.  The ONLY time some State Law ends up subject to review is if there is an inherent aspect of discrimination in it, or if it is violative of Federal Statute.  Thus:  if a State passes legislation that a black person cannot marry a white person  (these did exist, and were called "anti-miscegenation laws") then an aggrieved couple could sue the State in the Federal Courts to obtain injunctive relief (and possibly money damages) on the basis of disparate treatment, a violation of equal protection under the laws. Those cases tend to be much rarer than you might think. 

[turbguy + 1,554]

27 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Not going to do your homework for you, you'll have to try to pass 9th Grade civics all on your own. Here's a good primer, it's a dot gov address so none of your window dressing. 

This is what's known as getting your ass handed to you. Keep strutting around with the other socks pretending you've gotten one over on me, what with your room temperature IQ. You haven't, you're wrong and that's that. By all means keep posting, nothing more amusing to the adults in the room than seeing you flail. 

My bottom feels fine.  Note that it took an act of Congress to permit this, as I have properly noted it is not within the Constitution itself.  AND, SCOTUS decided this themselves!

The "Checks and Balances" between the three branches EVOLVED.  They were not created by the Constitution.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

57 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

First, I have no desire and I shall not allow myself to get dragged in on a dispute over he court system and its reach.  

The Federal Judiciary  (Article III Courts) are "courts of limited jurisdiction."  The Courts of primary jurisdiction are the various State Courts.  Contrary to popular opinion, you cannot just go running into some Federal Court with your Complaint.  It has to meet the limited jurisdiction requirements and it has to also meet Venue requirements. For all the rest, you are sent to the State Courts. 

The Supreme Court cannot rule on "the constitutionality of any law enacted."  First, there has to be 'aggrievement," a person aggrieved by the enforcement of a State law.  If there is no aggrievement, then there is no foundation to invoke the court's judicial machinery  -any court.  Even if aggrieved, it has to be demonstrated, or at least pled beyond the level of mere speculation, that there is a plausible basis for filing before a Court.  Thus: if a State passes a law that grants condominium associations the power to sue a unit owner in foreclosure if he does not pay his Assessments  ("dues"), then even if the Association maliciously, through its birdbrain Board of Directors and its boneheaded, brain-dead Manager, decide to abuse you and withhold services it provides to other unit owners  (for example, if the Manager dumps the community garbage on your doorstep just to annoy you, or has the snowplow guy push all the street snow up in front of your garage just o keep you from using your garage), you cannot sue them in Federal Court arguing that your 4th Amendment rights to due process are being violated.  And that State Law is not going to get touched by any Federal Court. 

The vast majority of State Laws are beyond review capability of any Federal Court.  People do not understand that, or find it abhorrent.  But that is the way it is.  The ONLY time some State Law ends up subject to review is if there is an inherent aspect of discrimination in it, or if it is violative of Federal Statute.  Thus:  if a State passes legislation that a black person cannot marry a white person  (these did exist, and were called "anti-miscegenation laws") then an aggrieved couple could sue the State in the Federal Courts to obtain injunctive relief (and possibly money damages) on the basis of disparate treatment, a violation of equal protection under the laws. Those cases tend to be much rarer than you might think. 

As always your commentary is appreciated, it seems quite apparent you have dabbled in law or better said perhaps practiced constitutional law. Getting caught up in the system can be quite overwhelming speaking for myself and is why i tried to begin appeals process, not to mention the finances needed to get to that part of the process...stunning comes to mind.

 

[El Gato + 254]

On 2/9/2021 at 10:25 PM, Symmetry said:

 

"Uphold the impeachment" means the impeachment has already happened.

 

 

No. It is like an indictment in a criminal case. Afterward, it goes to trial. Same deal here. Quit trying to make it something it isn't.

[Symmetry + 109]

43 minutes ago, El Gato said:

No. It is like an indictment in a criminal case. Afterward, it goes to trial. Same deal here. Quit trying to make it something it isn't.

Feel free to look this up yourself.  The impeachment is done in the house - fact.

I'm not making it out to be anything than what it is, the actual procedure.   You are the one making it out be something else.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Symmetry

[Symmetry + 109]

52 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

As always your commentary is appreciated, it seems quite apparent you have dabbled in law or better said perhaps practiced constitutional law. Getting caught up in the system can be quite overwhelming speaking for myself and is why i tried to begin appeals process, not to mention the finances needed to get to that part of the process...stunning comes to mind.

 

You must know Jan is silver-spoon ivy league by now?

Rich parents, rubbing elbows with the Bush family, etc. Old money, deep connections.

Knows a ton about law and history, much less about science.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Symmetry

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

My bottom feels fine.  Note that it took an act of Congress to permit this, as I have properly noted it is not within the Constitution itself.  AND, SCOTUS decided this themselves!

The "Checks and Balances" between the three branches EVOLVED.  They were not created by the Constitution.

In other news, there are no longer 13 colonies. Congrats Captain Obvious

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

Feel free to look this up yourself.  The impeachment is done in the house - fact.

I'm not making it out to be anything than what it is, the actual procedure.   You are the one making it out be something else.

@El Gato is precisely correct. EXACTLY like an indictment, the "aggrieved" has none of the rights afforded to the average citizen during the impeachment process. That is why, in peachmint one, the Demoncrats only allowed testimony and evidence that bolstered their case. No witnesses were called for Trump, the FBLie didn't get brought out to deliver the supporting evidence they had been sitting on for nearly a year with the Hunter Biden laptop, which would have totally exonerated Trump and totally incriminated Biden. Because at the end of the day, that is what this is all about. Trump stood up to the swamp, called them out for being the swamp and they, like you, went ballistic. I fully understand their position, they are absolute criminals operating a kleptocracy. You? What's your angle? You're not even an American. Chinese agent masquerading as a CANADIAN's sock puppet? Well play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

 

[Symmetry + 109]

12 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

@El Gato is precisely correct.

Trump is impeached, again.

Biden won the election and is POTUS. 

Claiming otherwise makes no difference.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Symmetry

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

42 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

You must know Jan is silver-spoon ivy league by now?

Rich parents, rubbing elbows with the Bush family, etc. Old money, deep connections.

Knows a ton about law and history, much less about science.

Once again your so far off the beaten path...OK look closely at the commentary and exchange, i badly misstated the supreme courts role in deciding matters of constitutionally correct...well i let you call it out.

At the same time i ask you for a reference as to what would lead you to any type of conclusion that does not allow the supreme ct to rule on constitutionality of any law enacted or rules upon in the US.

I am not offended nor subservient in the slightest, frankly quite the opposite enlightened and for free..

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Eyes Wide Open

[Jeffrey Brown + 208]

Chris Hayes noted that the GOP warned us about violence at Trump rallies in 2016.  Senator Marco Rubio (2016):  "There’s only one presidential candidate who has violence at their events."

GOP Rivals Accuse Donald Trump of Encouraging Violence at Rallies (March 11, 2016)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gop-rivals-accuse-donald-trump-encouraging-violence-rallies-n537101

Excerpt:

"I think a campaign bears responsibility for creating an environment," Texas Senator Ted Cruz told reporters in Illinois Friday night, as networks beamed in live footage of the protests. "When a candidate urges supporters to engage in physical violence, to punch people in the face, the predictable consequence of that is that it escalates, and today is unlikely to be the last such instance."

Earlier in the day, Florida Senator Marco Rubio strongly condemned Trump, saying there were "consequences" to his words.

"I would point out there isn’t violence at my events, there isn’t violence at Ted’s events, there isn’t violence at a Kasich event, there isn’t violence at a Sanders event, there isn't violence at a Clinton event," he told reporters. "There’s only one presidential candidate who has violence at their events.”

 

Marco Rubio, Nearing Reckoning in Florida Primary, Likens Donald Trump to ‘Third-WorldStrongmen’ (March 12, 2016)
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/12/marco-rubio-nearing-reckoning-in-florida-primary-likens-donald-trump-to-third-world-strong-men/

Excerpt:

LARGO, Fla. – Senator Marco Rubio, in his strongest and most emotional condemnation yet of Donald J. Trump’s incendiary brand of politics, likened Mr. Trump to a third-world dictator who was leading the country dangerously close to a boiling point. And for the first time Mr. Rubio questioned whether he could support Mr. Trump as the Republican nominee.

“Most countries around the world that are failures are because they deposit their hopes in a person, a strong leader who comes forward and says ‘Put me in power. And I will make the country better,’” Mr. Rubio said in an interview Saturday with The New York Times.

“That’s exactly what he’s doing,” Mr. Rubio continued. “The rhetoric reminds me of third-world strongmen.”

As he campaigned in Central Florida three days before the primary that will most likely decide his fate as a presidential candidate, Mr. Rubio sounded at times as if he was in a state of disbelief about the turn the presidential race has taken.

“There’s going to be a reckoning no matter how this election turns out,” he said. “And I just don’t know if that’ll happen in time. I hope it does.”

“But you mark my words,” he added, his voice growing sharper. “There will be prominent people in American politics who will spend years explaining to people how they fell into this.”

[turbguy + 1,554]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

In other news, there are no longer 13 colonies. Congrats Captain Obvious

Some have asked me about Civics instruction.  The "balance of powers" theory was pounded into our heads at the time, with no historical perspective.

Breaking news:  There just be more states in our future.

Edited February 12, 2021 by turbguy