Is Trump Eligible to Run Again?

[Methais]

The people trying to remove Trump from the ballot are Republicans. That was the case in both Colorado and Maine. If Democrats wanted to keep Trump off the ballot, they would file well financed lawsuits in every state. Instead, individual Republican candidates and voters are bringing suits. Several unsuccessful suits have been brought by a single longshot Republican presidential candidate, John Castro, who has not pursued the suits vigorously, probably because of lack of funds. After the successes by individual voters in Colorado and Maine, you can expect better organized and better financed groups to bring suits in other states, or perhaps somebody will give Mr. Castro enough money to do it right.

Having Trump removed from the ballot by the courts would be an absolute disaster for Democrats. It would both energize Republican voters and guarantee that Republicans select a stronger opponent for Biden in the general election.

It would be a personal legal disaster for Trump too, because he would lose the ability to pardon himself. That might be why Heley promised yesterday to pardon Trump if she is elected. But Haley cannot pardon Trump for a criminal conviction in Georgia. If Trump were President, Georgia would not be able to prosecute him or put him in jail while he was in the White House. People, including me, who originally dismissed Fani Willis in Georgia are having to second guess themselves. Closer inspection shows that she is quietly formidable. The risk of a Georgia conviction is growing. If Haley pardons Trump and he is convicted in Georgia, he won't get to serve the sentence in a federal prison after Haley's pardon.

Shut the fuck up retard.

[Parkbandit]

We haven't had the Democrats this upset about the presumptive nominee since Abraham Lincoln.

[Seran]

The people trying to remove Trump from the ballot are Republicans. That was the case in both Colorado and Maine. If Democrats wanted to keep Trump off the ballot, they would file well financed lawsuits in every state. Instead, individual Republican candidates and voters are bringing suits. Several unsuccessful suits have been brought by a single longshot Republican presidential candidate, John Castro, who has not pursued the suits vigorously, probably because of lack of funds. After the successes by individual voters in Colorado and Maine, you can expect better organized and better financed groups to bring suits in other states, or perhaps somebody will give Mr. Castro enough money to do it right.

Having Trump removed from the ballot by the courts would be an absolute disaster for Democrats. It would both energize Republican voters and guarantee that Republicans select a stronger opponent for Biden in the general election.

It would be a personal legal disaster for Trump too, because he would lose the ability to pardon himself. That might be why Heley promised yesterday to pardon Trump if she is elected. But Haley cannot pardon Trump for a criminal conviction in Georgia. If Trump were President, Georgia would not be able to prosecute him or put him in jail while he was in the White House. People, including me, who originally dismissed Fani Willis in Georgia are having to second guess themselves. Closer inspection shows that she is quietly formidable. The risk of a Georgia conviction is growing. If Haley pardons Trump and he is convicted in Georgia, he won't get to serve the sentence in a federal prison after Haley's pardon.

Whoa whoa whoa, you're supposed to be distracted by the conspiracy theory and fail to notice the gross incompetence and dozens of felonies committed by the candidate.

[Methais]

The people trying to remove Trump from the ballot are Republicans. That was the case in both Colorado and Maine.

https://gazette.com/news/wex/maine-r...62baaaebd.html


Are these the same republicans you claim are trying to remove Trump from the ballot? If not, then who are these specific republicans you speak of?

Emphasis on "specific."

[Alfster]

You really think that isn't the case?

If Trump is such a weak candidate, then dems should be jumping for joy to crush him in 2024 and then throw it in everyone's face for the next 4 years instead of trying to prevent him from being on the ballot with all this weak bullshit they're doing.

I think you guys sure like to pretend the Constitution says whatever your interpretation of it is.

If it's within the Constitution then it's within the Constitution to legally challenge and it's playing out in the same way countless other legal precedents have.

It's not election interference....

Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk

[Methais]

I think you guys sure like to pretend the Constitution says whatever your interpretation of it is.

If you could point out to me when Trump was convicted of, or even charged with "insurrection" that'd be great.

[ClydeR]

Are these the same republicans you claim are trying to remove Trump from the ballot? If not, then who are these specific republicans you speak of?

Emphasis on "specific."

Of course! I'll do it immediately. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself trying to Google it.

From the Colorado opinion..

More than three months ago, a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters ("the Electors")—filed a lengthy petition in the District Court for the City and County of Denver ("Denver District Court" or "the district court"), asking the court to rule that former President Donald J. Trump ("President Trump") may not appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot.

From the Maine Secretary of State ruling..

In the first challenge, *******, a registered voter of Winterport, alleged that Mr. Trump violated his oath of office because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or has given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. While ******* did not explicitly identify Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis of her challenge, it clearly underpins the disqualification argument she set forth.

In the second challenge, Attorney *******, a registered voter of Portland, argued that because Mr. Trump has expressly stated that he won the 2020 election, he is barred from office under the Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sets a two-term limit on Presidents.

In the third challenge, *******, a registered voter of Bucksport and former Republican State Senator; *******, a registered voter of Wilton and former Republican State Senator; and *******, a registered voter of Portland and former Democratic State Senator, collectively contended that Mr. Trump is barred from office because he engaged in insurrection as defined by Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On Monday, December 11, 2023, I issued a Notice of Hearing to all parties, indicating that a consolidated hearing would be held at 10:00 am on December 15, 2023, in Augusta.

This was an entertaining exercise, because I had overlooked the subject of the second challenge -- the 22nd Amendment's rule that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...." The Secretary of State rejected that argument.

[Methais]

Of course! I'll do it immediately. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself trying to Google it.

From the Colorado opinion..


From the Maine Secretary of State ruling..


This was an entertaining exercise, because I had overlooked the subject of the second challenge -- the 22nd Amendment's rule that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...." The Secretary of State rejected that argument.

Ah yes...

both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters

Sounds super solid.

Almost as solid as this:

In the first challenge, *******, a registered voter of Winterport, alleged that Mr. Trump violated his oath of office because he engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or has given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. While ******* did not explicitly identify Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis of her challenge, it clearly underpins the disqualification argument she set forth.

Since I'm sure Alfster won't be doing it, if you could show me where Trump was convicted of, or even charged with "insurrection," that'd be great. If not, feel free to explain how some random voter's opinion means jack shit other than being some random voter's opinion and how that disqualifies Trump without any due process.

As stupid as that ^ is though, this doozy is 9947289470x more hilarious:

n the second challenge, Attorney *******, a registered voter of Portland, argued that because Mr. Trump has expressly stated that he won the 2020 election, he is barred from office under the Twenty-Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which sets a two-term limit on Presidents.

You don't strike me as a stupid person, so why are you acting stupid 24/7?

[Neveragain]

Of course! I'll do it immediately. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself trying to Google it.

From the Colorado opinion..


From the Maine Secretary of State ruling..


This was an entertaining exercise, because I had overlooked the subject of the second challenge -- the 22nd Amendment's rule that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...." The Secretary of State rejected that argument.

This is how criminal convictions work?

California just rejected removing Trump from the ballot, so, Trump is not guilty of insurrection.

[Parkbandit]

I think you guys sure like to pretend the Constitution says whatever your interpretation of it is.

Irony, considering you are cheering that Trump is taken off the ballots in 2 states so far and has not ever been convicted of "Insurrection"... let alone ever being charged.

I mean I get it.. you have had an extreme case of TDS since 2016 and you will be overjoyed anytime he is denied his constitutional rights...

"Fuck the Constitution, I hate him so much! He makes me so upset I can't think!" -Alfster

If it's within the Constitution then it's within the Constitution to legally challenge and it's playing out in the same way countless other legal precedents have.

It's not election interference....

It's not in the Constitution to claim someone is an insurrectionist and therefore can be pulled off the ballot by any court or any Sec of State without actually charging him with insurrection.

It's literally election interference.. something you read about happening in Cuba or Haiti or Columbia.. not in the United States.