Donald Trump news and discussions

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[wjfox]

Excellent discussion and interview with Dr. Bandy Lee, a forensic psychiatrist, regarding Trump's severe mental illness.

Not just Trump, but his followers, who are suffering from what she calls "shared psychosis".

[weatheriscool]

Really who gives a flying f*ck who she chooses to f*ck in her personal life. Maybe if it was a member of the defense but this is dumb.

[weatheriscool]

Judge postpones start of Trump's federal election interference trial

Source: ABC News

February 2, 2024, 3:58 PM

The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's federal election interference trial has postponed the March 4 trial date until a new trial schedule can be set.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan says she will set a new schedule for the case after the U.S. Circuit Court resolves the question of Trump's presidential immunity.

Trump in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors," using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations," trying to enlist the vice president to "alter the election results," and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.

The former president has denied all wrongdoing.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-postpon ... =106909854

[wjfox]

[firestar464]

I'm not disputing her assertion, but I wonder what she thinks of Joe's mental health?

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

7 Former State Supreme Court Justices Urge SCOTUS To Affirm Trump Disqualification
https://www.politicususa.com/2024/01/31 ... brief.html

amicus brief

Seven Former state supreme court justices, including several elected or appointed by Republicans, filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to affirm Trump’s Colorado disqualification.

Why Are Former State Supreme Court Justices Supporting Trump’s Disqualification?

The seven former justices wrote in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court:

The Supremacy Clause requires state courts to enforce federal constitutional provisions where they apply to state-law causes of action. And state courts have continuously enforced Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment—including the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses—since Reconstruction. In this respect, Section 3, like the presidential qualifications established in Article II, operates like Section 1: state courts do not require congressional permission to enforce it.

…

Under the Electors Clause, states’ plenary power to appoint presidential electors allows states to condition appointment on their voting only for constitutionally eligible candidates. This necessarily includes power to decide whether candidates are eligible. Neither the Twelfth nor the Twentieth Amendment, nor any other constitutional provision, commits this determination exclusively to Congress or strips states of their power.
…

State courts have a particular interest in vindicating Section 3’s purpose: protecting the republic from insurrectionists returning to power. Trump exemplifies this risk by repeatedly threatening judges, judicial employees, and others involved in the court system. Declining to apply Section 3 for fear of Trump-incited mob violence would not prevent that violence; it would simply shift its burden to thousands of justices, judges, and court staff, and would invite more chaos, violence, and insurrection.

[weatheriscool]

Appeals court denies Trump immunity in DC election case

Published Tue, Feb 6 202410:05 AM ESTUpdated 4 Min Ago

Former President Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity from prosecution on criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Trump is expected to quickly ask the Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court decision.

The legal battle over Trump’s immunity claim stems from the criminal election interference case being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Trump is charged in that case with four counts of crimes including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. He has pleaded not guilty.

(snip)

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/06/trump-e ... unity.html

[weatheriscool]

The D.C. Circuit's rejection of Trump's immunity claim leaves nothing for the Supreme Court to resolve
The answer to whether absolute immunity exists for presidents is clear.

By Norman Eisen, former impeachment counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, Joshua Kolb, former law clerk on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Samara Angel, senior research and communications assistant at the Brookings Institution


(MSNBC) On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit decisively rejected former President Donald Trump’s absolute presidential immunity claim. The ruling deals a likely fatal blow to his best defense to the federal (and state) prosecutions of his alleged election interference. It affirms a core principle of American constitutionalism: no one is above the law. And when Trump inevitably petitions the Supreme Court for review, it should simply reject any reconsideration.

This issue first arose when Trump asked D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to dismiss the prosecution and grant him absolute criminal immunity for official presidential acts. He primarily staked his request on two shoddy constitutional grounds: The first is that criminal prosecution, even after a president has left office, would impermissibly interfere with the president’s ability to execute his or her constitutionally mandated duties. The second is that the impeachment judgment clause prohibits a president’s prosecution unless the person has first been impeached and convicted for that conduct.

....(snip)....

The opinion cataloged the dangerous consequences of granting such sweeping impunity to the most powerful official in the country. “At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches,” the court wrote. “Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”

....(snip)....

The D.C. Circuit opinion hammered home this point, explaining how Trump’s impeachment argument defeats his absolute immunity claim. The court noted, “Former President Trump also implicitly concedes that there is no absolute bar to prosecuting assertedly ‘official’ actions” — and went on to decisively rule that the civil absolute immunity standard does not apply to former presidents in the criminal context. The ruling thus leaves no controversy for the Supreme Court to resolve. For that reason alone, it should rebuff the case. ..........(more)

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... rcna134600

[weatheriscool]

[Time_Traveller]

Trump 2024 ballot case faces uncertainty after Supreme Court oral arguments: Latest updates

3 minutes ago

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday morning as it considers whether Donald Trump should be allowed to remain on 2024 ballot papers.

Colorado and Maine have moved to have Mr Trump removed citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which argues that anyone found to have “engaged in insurrection” after swearing a loyalty oath should not be allowed to return to public office.

The highest court in the land, which has a conservative majority, will now rule if that applies to Mr Trump concerning the Capitol riot of 6 January 2021, when his supporters stormed Congress in an attempt to stop the formal certification of the 2020 election results, erroneously believing the vote had been “rigged” in Joe Biden’s favour, as the then-president claimed.

The justices appeared highly sceptical of the arguments put forward by Colorado.

Also on Thursday, Mr Trump is expected to win the Nevada Republican caucus, a formality in which principal rival Nikki Haley will not take part, which will hand him a further 26 delegates as he attempts to sew up his party’s nomination to challenge Mr Biden again in November.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 92741.html

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[firestar464]

clerk?

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]

[weatheriscool]