Fogbow

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 12:06 pm Just my 2 chf-cents worth: this case will be dropped as untimely. The Republicans have not yet chosen their candidate. After the result of the RNC nomination convention will be the correct time for action.

There are jurisdictional concerns, such as whether a rando can sue to enforce (probably not), and whether there has been any injury yet (has he sought to be on the Florida primary ballot yet?).

The birther wars will provide some guidance.

As bob sez, the futile birther courtly crapshoots suggest how (un)likely anything of this sort is to get substantive treatment in a courtroom. But it will still be amusing to see Republicans squirming and shrieking "He is the Messiah! He's not a very naughty boy!"

Based on my complete ignorance of the law, it seems the most probable route to a court hearing is if/when a state governor or other appropriate authority hangs up the "Иo Traytors. An Иo Insherrurrectioners." sign and bars Trump. We can have the audacity of hope.

I'm against the approach anyway. He didn't lead the insurrection. He didn't participate.

He played it cute, and the worst I can legitimately say is, he inspired the insurrection. And then he turned to go watch on the Tee Vee.

Which is weak sauce, and doomed to ultimate failure.

And it will give him an excuse to whine even more.

Let's stomp the shit out of him at the ballot box instead.

Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:29 pm I'm against the approach anyway. He didn't lead the insurrection. He didn't participate.

Only because the Secret service wouldn't drive him, and the guy cant walk a city block without a golf cart.

But he actively participated in all the ballot box and elector shenanigans. And no Mafia don ever kills people either.

In that case, let's convict him of actual insurrection in a criminal case, and then I'll go with the 14th Amendment. I have plenty of time.

Note that the indictment in the DC case "stopped short of charging him with actually encouraging or inciting the mob that stormed the building".

Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:32 pm

Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:29 pm I'm against the approach anyway. He didn't lead the insurrection. He didn't participate.

Only because the Secret service wouldn't drive him ...

Well, we can't really convict him of wishing he could have participated. The Secret Service did him a big favor.

Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:42 pm Well, we can't really convict him of wishing he could have participated. The Secret Service did him a big favor.

Agreed, and he is probably still mad about it.

Yeah, so add that to the other weaknesses, like who has standing and who has enforcement power, and you're talking about litigation that will take many, many years to be resolved.

Meanwhile, the first Republican caucuses in Iowa are less than 6 months away.

This is something I've described, the law can't keep up with current events anymore.

It's a stupid idea at the moment, let's just kick his ass in the voting.

Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:29 pm I'm against the approach anyway. He didn't lead the insurrection. He didn't participate.

He played it cute, and the worst I can legitimately say is, he inspired the insurrection. And then he turned to go watch on the Tee Vee.

Which is weak sauce, and doomed to ultimate failure.

And it will give him an excuse to whine even more.

Let's stomp the shit out of him at the ballot box instead.

POTUS is the chief law enforcement officer in the US, and Zee Orange Furher did nothing to stop it, it think that qualifies under "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"

What I think we know...

tfg wanted driven to Congress. Secret Service denied him.

So he went back to the White House then sat in his private dining room off the oval office for more than two hours watching Fox News coverage unfold. And did nothing.

GUILTY.

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 2:07 pm ... that qualifies under "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"

Read the whole sentence, the "enemies thereof" means "enemies of the Constitution". But the people who stormed the Capitol were not enemies of the Constitution, not really.

Most of them have never read the Constitution and couldn't understand it if they did.

They honestly (stupidly) thought they were protecting the Constitution from Joe Biden.

Ask any J6 defendant: Are you an enemy of the Constitution of the United States of America?

And all he really did was go to the White House and watch the Tee Vee. How is that giving them aid or comfort?

Then you have the problem, Jack Smith didn't charge him with insurrection.

I think it's a lot of lawyers chasing their own tails, and the election will be long over before the litigation.

IANAL, but I thought ignorance of the law is not a defense.

By being his usual lazy ass, cheap, all hat no cattle, lying shittiness ..... a lawyer can state he never ACTUALLY gave support to the insurrectionists.

Sure, he SAID he would pay for their defense, he SAID he would pardon them, he SAID he would stand by then and his idiot followers still think he did and will.

But he hasn't and never will, so there is incendiary speech, amorphous BS verbally and written but his innate cheap lying and self serving means trying to charge him with the J6 insurrection has a vanishingly small probability of success..... Not due to him being smart and cunning and all 5 dimension chess, just a lazy, self centred, grifting cheapskate asswipe following his sociopathic standard MO..... In this case luckily served him.

Now the post election shenanigans.... Lots and lots of proof all with his teeny tiny, ketchup drained little grubby fingerprints over them.

Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 1:29 pm I'm against the approach anyway. He didn't lead the insurrection. He didn't participate.

He played it cute, and the worst I can legitimately say is, he inspired the insurrection. And then he turned to go watch on the Tee Vee.

Which is weak sauce, and doomed to ultimate failure.

And it will give him an excuse to whine even more.

Let's stomp the shit out of him at the ballot box instead.

It costs him money, legal talent and peace of mind, all things he's short of and needs to preserve. I am therefore a big supporter even if it's doomed to fail. Some things are worth the effort.

Y'know, I was feeling terribly superior there for a whole actual one minute. I was thinking "Whoa, Mr brolin agrees with me! You know that doesn't happen every day, or maybe even every month!"

But Gregg has a definite point in opposition, which actually does make a lot of sense. If'n the OSG has a number of these filed against him, he has to worry that one might take root, or that he can't afford to defend them all.

I gotta think some moar. Where's my covfefe?

Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:47 am But Gregg has a definite point in opposition, which actually does make a lot of sense. If'n the OSG has a number of these filed against him, he has to worry that one might take root, or that he can't afford to defend them all.

The difference between being attacked by a single horse-sized duck or many duck-sized horses.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:05 pm IANAL, but I thought ignorance of the law is not a defense.

There are ways around that.

Many crimes require a specific intent. And some crimes have an intent so specific that, essentially, it would be impossible to commit the crime of you didn't know of the law's existence.

And there will an attempt to argue advice of counsel, which basically says I did what attorney told me to do, and my attorney would never knowingly advise me to commit a crime.

bob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 10:58 am

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:05 pm IANAL, but I thought ignorance of the law is not a defense.

There are ways around that.

Many crimes require a specific intent. And some crimes have an intent so specific that, essentially, it would be impossible to commit the crime of you didn't know of the law's existence.

And there will an attempt to argue advice of counsel, which basically says I did what attorney told me to do, and my attorney would never knowingly advise me to commit a crime.

Except I hired him/her/them because they would advise me to commit the crime I wanted to.

Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:47 am Y'know, I was feeling terribly superior there for a whole actual one minute. I was thinking "Whoa, Mr brolin agrees with me! You know that doesn't happen every day, or maybe even every month!"

But Gregg has a definite point in opposition, which actually does make a lot of sense. If'n the OSG has a number of these filed against him, he has to worry that one might take root, or that he can't afford to defend them all.

I gotta think some moar. Where's my covfefe?

Then it becomes an exercise in abusive lawfare for the sake of point scoring and harassment.... now who do we know does this sort of behaviour..? Birfoons......Q-diots .... election deniers .... Tiny hands ......

True dat. Gregg may be a little over aggressive, but his heart is in the right place. I hope it is, his stomach isn't in the right place anymore!

Mr brolin and I (and bob and we might start a movement) will stand athwart the tide of 14th Amendment litigation.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 11:19 amExcept I hired him/her/them because they would advise me to commit the crime I wanted to.

Exactly; hiring a criminal attorney just means you entered into a criminal conspiracy with your attorney. (You should have hired a criminal-defense attorney, who would have advised you not to break the law.)

Which is among the reasons why the quadfectee wants to go last: If one of the attorneys-turned-co-defendant can win (or at least get a mistrial), that's good for the quadfectee. But if one is convicted (or worse, flips), that's superbad for him.

* * *

Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:09 pmMr brolin and I (and bob and we might start a movement) will stand athwart the tide of 14th Amendment litigation.

For the most part, I think the disqualification litigation will be birther-esque.

But, unlike the birthers, there are some non-frivolous arguments that could be made by non-frivolous people. And some them will be represented by non-frivolous attorneys. So I'll take the over on the eventuality of a serious disqualification lawsuit, one that won't be procedurally barred because it was just a grift. (But I expect several lawsuits-that-are-really-just-grifts too also.)

One of the procedural issues I believe that would really be necessary to hurdle would be....

If not one of the J6'ers has been convicted of sedition or of an offence that is at least tangentially linkable to the acts identified therein of the 14th Amendment then just dog piling it onto Trump is simply not going to fly.

Linking it to his POST J6 activities ...... Now there lies potentially far more fertile ground.

He was actively attempting to usurp the will of the people, performing acts actions and activities deliberately calculated to violate laws and Consitutional safeguards ..... All at a time off significant peril to the nation on the health, wealth and security of the American people...... Ergo comfort to etc etc etc.

Still IANACL...... So what do I know..

You know more than I, and for you American types, that's not a typographical error. In the UK, that's how you spell the word offence, as much as it looks wrong to you, as much as it is jarring to see the British spelling. But when I think about it, we oughta convert ourselves.

Just think, compared to offence, our word offense is flabby and weak-minded.

What were we talking about?