trump (convicted felon, defamer, insurrectionist, contemnor, and rapist - $537M)

[Ben-Prime]

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

I would fully expect an otherwise disqualified candidate to argue that law is unconstitutional with respect to the presidency and vice presidency. As it essentially would be an extraconstitutional eligibility requirement.

Would that logic also apply to the law forbidding anyone who took part in an insurrection/seditious conduct from holding future office? Or would the nature of that crime be considered so serious (in that the potential president had previously tried to overthrow the government) that it would hold? IIRC, isn't it part of an amendment? Would that make it more likely to be seen as constitutional?

IANAL, but I was under the impression the insurrection bar was from a Constitutional Amendment. So, yes, Constitutional, indeed, at least by assumption, no?

[Gregg]

I'll say it again. Best dead. The damage that's been done will probably take decades to fix (if it happens). But still...

No disagreement there, though if he does die, it needs to obviously be of natural causes Yes, some - if not most - of his cult followers will insist he was assassinated no matter WHAT any forensic specialist finds, but if it's clear enough that it was natural and not any kind of foul play, there should be fewer still-sane people jumping off the ledge over that. It may be the best we can hope for.

NADT

If he lives to be 99 years old and dies of a fall on Fox News, there will be "Trump killed by Illuminati" websites up before he's laid to rest in his piss proof tomb.

[RTH10260]

Trump’s incendiary Texas speech may have deepened his legal troubles, experts say
Promising pardons for insurrectionists and calling for protests if indicted could help make a case for obstruction of justice

Peter Stone in Washington
Mon 7 Feb 2022 07.00 GMT

Donald Trump’s incendiary call at a Texas rally for his backers to ready massive protests against “radical, vicious, racist prosecutors” could constitute obstruction of justice or other crimes and backfire legally on Trump, say former federal prosecutors.

Trump’s barbed attack was seen as carping against separate federal and state investigations into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his real estate empire.

Trump’s rant that his followers should launch the “biggest protests” ever in three cities should prosecutors “do anything wrong or illegal” by criminally charging him for his efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory, or for business tax fraud, came at a 30 January rally in Texas where he repeated falsehoods that the election was rigged.

Legal experts were astonished at Trump’s strong hints that if he runs and wins a second term in 2024, he would pardon many of those charged for attacking the Capitol on 6 January last year in hopes of thwarting Biden’s certification by Congress.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... es-experts

[Mr brolin]

I'll say it again. Best dead. The damage that's been done will probably take decades to fix (if it happens). But still...

No disagreement there, though if he does die, it needs to obviously be of natural causes Yes, some - if not most - of his cult followers will insist he was assassinated no matter WHAT any forensic specialist finds, but if it's clear enough that it was natural and not any kind of foul play, there should be fewer still-sane people jumping off the ledge over that. It may be the best we can hope for.

NADT

If he lives to be 99 years old and dies of a fall on Fox News, there will be "Trump killed by Illuminati" websites up before he's laid to rest in his piss proof tomb.

Welllllll, call one a cynic however I was always certain he is in the end stages of tertiary Syphilis..... Classic dementia, partial hair loss, loss of Impulse control, problems with controlling muscle movements, slurred speech, altered behaviour...... Couldn't happen to a more deserving individual

[AndyinPA]

The only alternative to death I prefer is the stroke one.

[bob]

The power to impeach ends when a president leaves office. The second impeachment took place while TFG was still president, but the trial took place after he had left office. Congress probably had power after a conviction in the second trial to impose the penalty of future disqualification, although that was disputed, and in any case TFG was not convicted

"People have said" impeachment is possible after leaving office as a method to bar the person from holding a future federal office.

I don't believe Congress is going to impeach any past president, so I don't ponder this much.

* * *

IANAL, but I was under the impression the insurrection bar was from a Constitutional Amendment. So, yes, Constitutional, indeed, at least by assumption, no?

Yes, but there are two distinct bars being discussed: the one in the 14th Amendment and the one under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2071).

I don't think section 2071's bar could be applied to anyone in a federal office referenced in the U.S. Constitution. Nor do I think the 14th Amendment's bar somehow transforms section 2071's bar to include the constitutionally referenced federal office holders.

But, more basically, I don't believe anyone is going to be barred from any office.

[Ben-Prime]

The power to impeach ends when a president leaves office. The second impeachment took place while TFG was still president, but the trial took place after he had left office. Congress probably had power after a conviction in the second trial to impose the penalty of future disqualification, although that was disputed, and in any case TFG was not convicted

"People have said" impeachment is possible after leaving office as a method to bar the person from holding a future federal office.

I don't believe Congress is going to impeach any past president, so I don't ponder this much.

* * *

IANAL, but I was under the impression the insurrection bar was from a Constitutional Amendment. So, yes, Constitutional, indeed, at least by assumption, no?

Yes, but there are two distinct bars being discussed: the one in the 14th Amendment and the one under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2071).

I don't think section 2071's bar could be applied to anyone in a federal office referenced in the U.S. Constitution. Nor do I think the 14th Amendment's bar somehow transforms section 2071's bar to include the constitutionally referenced federal office holders.

But, more basically, I don't believe anyone is going to be barred from any office.

Good lord, I hope I didn't imply that I thought that insurrection included the crime of mutilating documents. If I did, I am heartily sorry. I think my intent was really more about the difference between a statue and a Constitutional Amendment with respect to one potentially being arguable as unconstitutional and the other less so if at all. Or am I making this more opaque than it needed to be? It's been a busy day.

[bob]

I think my intent was really more about the difference between a statue and a Constitutional Amendment with respect to one potentially being arguable as unconstitutional and the other less so if at all.

When it comes to things like term limits or the line-item veto, the courts have taken the position that, if it is a topic mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, a mere law can't change that. An amendment is required. So a mere law can't add an additional disability to serving.

Whereas an amendment may add new terms, conditions, etc.

Not that anyone is going to be barred from serving over any of this.

[Dave from down under]

National Archives had to retrieve White House records 'improperly' removed by Donald Trump

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-08/ ... /100812394

The US National Archives says it has retrieved 15 boxes of records that were improperly removed from the White House and taken to Donald Trump's southern Florida home.

Key points:
By law, all administration records should be turned over to the Archives at the end of a presidency
The deadline for returning all documents relating to the Trump presidency was one year ago
Last month, Mr Trump tried to prevent the Archives releasing White House documents to the team investigating the Capitol riot
The documents should by law have been turned over at the end of Mr Trump's presidency but instead ended up at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach.

The documents and mementos recovered included "love letters" from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and correspondence from ex-US president Barack Obama.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursues any records it learns have been "improperly removed or have not been appropriately transferred to official accounts," Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero said.

[Dr. Ken]

He even took the sharpied weather map he drew on

[Slim Cognito]

I'd love to have been a fly buzzing around maralago when whomevers came in to take the docs, especially if the OSG was there. Knowing what a coward he is, he probably took off for the links.

And if I'm reading the Times article correctly, some of the torn up docs were still in pieces when the Archives got them. Maybe too much damage to easily tape back together?

[Phoenix520]

Ive been reading at TPM’s The Hive, the members-only discussion group. One thread, which seems to be at least 4 years old, concerns growing up with narcissistic parents. The OSG’s election apparently triggered a bunch of folks.

The consensus among the suffering children is that OSG will try to burn it all down - everything, including what he’s built in his lifetime - over the narcissistic injury of electoral defeat. He can’t help himself. The defeat has displaced all else in his warped and shriveled psyche. He will have his revenge. He won’t fade away into the sunset. He’ll keep howling and spitting his narcissistic rage even as his last supporter turns off OANN in disgust and leaves the room.

That feels like what’s happening now. He’s almost quiet for a few days then lets rip another stinking missive pulled from his ample behind. There’s nothing new. Only the obsessive rehashing of the greatest (and least) slights against him.

What I worry about is how he is planning to take us all down with him at the climax of his final scene.

[Volkonski]

Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
·
6m
New statement from Donald Trump: “Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party, and does not represent the views of the vast majority of its voters. He did nothing to fight for his constituents and stop the most fraudulent election in American history”

[filly]

Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
·
6m
New statement from Donald Trump: “Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party, and does not represent the views of the vast majority of its voters. He did nothing to fight for his constituents and stop the most fraudulent election in American history”

"Mitch McConnell could have had his minions vote guilty on the strongest impeachment case ever brought against a fascist and I would have been barred from ever holding a federal office again. Instead, Mitch miscalculated and played his political games and I continue to pose a major threat to the lives of all Americans."

[Suranis]

Scott MacFarlane
@MacFarlaneNews
·
6m
New statement from Donald Trump: “Mitch McConnell does not speak for the Republican Party, and does not represent the views of the vast majority of its voters. He did nothing to fight for his constituents and stop the most fraudulent election in American history”

The reason is this

https://twitter.com/Angry_Staffer/statu ... 1887671296

Angry Staffer
@Angry_Staffer
For everyone asking why now?

Self-preservation. They see what’s coming, and they want no part of it.

I would expect to see a public breakup with Trump and Fox soon, too — they’re entering midterm recovery mode.

Sahil Kapur
@sahilkapur

Mitch McConnell breaks with RNC on Jan. 6: "We all were here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election, from one administration to the next. That's what it was."

[bill_g]

Compare and contrast -

[Dr. Ken]

National Archives referred this to main justice

[raison de arizona]

I'm SURE the DOJ will hop right on that.

[p0rtia]

Tip of the hat to the patriot who has been calling the shots at the National Archives this past month. More of that that, please, in our elected officials and the "don't want to divide America" simps at DOJ.

[tek]

Hey, I don't care if TFG ends up in jail for tearing up his crayon doodlings, as long as he ends up in jail.

[Volkonski]

Like so many of Trump's previous business endeavors, Truth Social is turning out to be a dud.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reido ... d_ms_tw_ma

The firm partnering with former President Donald Trump’s fledgling (and floundering) social media company saw its stock plummet Monday due to Team Trump’s inability to launch the app on schedule, CNBC reported.

If you were waiting with bated breath for the horrendously named Truth Social, it looks like you’ll have to find somewhere else to complain about women discussing sports or the number of Black people in lead film roles.

The site, billed as a conservative-friendly alternative to Twitter, was scheduled to launch on Feb. 21. But last week, Devin Nunes — the former congressman and current CEO of Trump Media and Technology Group — said the app won't be ready until the end of March.

It’s the second major, costly delay for Trump's social media platform. The company missed its self-imposed November deadline for launching an invitation-only version of the platform. That beta launch was seen as an opportunity to demonstrate the company’s ability to deliver returns to investors, and much like Trump himself, the platform hasn’t lived up to its lofty promises.

[Gregg]

Doesn't matter, he got paid already and if the stock is dogshit in a month, who cares?

[Jim]

Doesn't matter, he got paid already and if the stock is dogshit in a month, who cares?

Well, if it breaks Trump supporters' wallets to invest in this losing business, I happily care!

[Frater I*I]

Doesn't matter, he got paid already and if the stock is dogshit in a month, who cares?

Is it wrong of me to be overjoyed knowing Tinfoil-Greed is gonna lose 5 figures in that worthless stock...

[Kriselda Gray]

Doesn't matter, he got paid already and if the stock is dogshit in a month, who cares?

Pretty much...

I'm not surprised that it's flailing. I've never been able to see Trump successfully launching, well, much of anything, really, but especially not a tech platform expecting millions of users. He "succeeds" best when he can cheat and defraud, but as has been repeatedly shown, while it's not hard to cheat in the tech market initially - gaining growth based mainly on buzz - it's generally just a matter of time before it collapses under it's own weight. (See Theranos, WeWork, OZY, etc., for examples.)