Societal collapse

[Guest]

You hear Arizona wants to play too, with a fifth indictment? So far, I hear the DA is looking at Trump, Giuliani and some fake electors.

Guess you just had to prove CB correct on something. The evidence provided by others is rather overwhelming though.

That's pretty funny.

Good to see your back, CB.

Stay frosty.

[jdcpapa]

You would provide aid and comfort to the insurrectionists? You are against the Constitution?

The following criminal referrals, naming Trump, were forwarded to the DOJ by the January 6 Select Committee:

1. Obstruction of an official proceeding
2. Conspiracy to defraud the US
3. Conspiracy to make a false statement
4. Conspiracy to "Incite", " Assist", or "Aid and comfort" an insurrection
5. Other conspiracy statutes

The following charges were filed by Jack Smith specific to January 6:

1. Felony violations of National Security Laws:

a. Conspiracy to defraud the US by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function
b. Conspiracy to obstruct and impede the January 6 Congressional proceeding
c. Conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote count

2. Conspiracy to obstruct justice

Jack Smith has not levied an insurrection charge against Trump.

[Bob Butler]

You would provide aid and comfort to the insurrectionists? You are against the Constitution?

The following criminal referrals, naming Trump, were forwarded to the DOJ by the January 6 Select Committee:

1. Obstruction of an official proceeding
2. Conspiracy to defraud the US
3. Conspiracy to make a false statement
4. Conspiracy to "Incite", " Assist", or "Aid and comfort" an insurrection
5. Other conspiracy statutes

The following charges were filed by Jack Smith specific to January 6:

1. Felony violations of National Security Laws:

a. Conspiracy to defraud the US by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function
b. Conspiracy to obstruct and impede the January 6 Congressional proceeding
c. Conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote count

2. Conspiracy to obstruct justice

Jack Smith has not levied an insurrection charge against Trump.

Yes. I would have felt better if they had included a seditious conspiracy charge. Still, Georgia's case is built around a RICO conspiracy to commit an insurrection. If a conviction were required, that would do it.

Still, is there any doubt Jan 6 was an insurrection for the benefit of Trump? The 14th Amendment section 3 for a time disqualified a lot of Confederates, few if any of which stood a formal trial. Still, there is no doubt they participated in an insurrection, and were disqualified for a time by 14 Amendment, Section 3. There is no need for a legal action to prove whether or not a candidate is a US born citizen or over age 35. Not having participated in an insurrection is a third such qualification. No legal procedure is required for any of the three.

What Professor Tribe and most scholars think will happen is that the attorney generals of various states will just include Trump's name on the primary ballot or not. One side or the other will not like it, and launch a lawsuit. The loser at each level will appeal until the cases are consolidated and reach the Supreme Court. It is sort of backwards. Your approach has the legal stamp being put on with conviction. Professor Tribe expects a lawsuit against the attorney generals to reach the Supreme Court. Either would do? If somebody included a seditious conspiracy charge or you get a guilty result in Georgia your approach happens. New Hampshire's AG and a Florida attorney have triggered the second approach, and are likely to be joined by other state AGs. Either way...

[jdcpapa]

Yes. I would have felt better if they had included a seditious conspiracy charge. Still, Georgia's case is built around a RICO conspiracy to commit an insurrection.

"Georgia's Rico Act, adopted in 1980, makes it a crime to participate in, and maintain or control an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, or conspire to do so." "At the state level, racketeering includes crimes such as murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matters, and drug crimes." Fani Willis did not levy a charge of conspiracy to commit an insurrection against Trump at the state level.

No person shall be .........President, if having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the United States, later engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.~14th Amendment Section 3 (paraphrased).

Trump has not been charged with insurrection or a rebellion at either the state or federal level. He stands innocent of insurrection until proven guilty in a court of law. Jack Smith chose not to charge Trump with insurrection at the federal level, contrary to the referral by the democrat controlled congress.

[Bob Butler]

Yes. I would have felt better if they had included a seditious conspiracy charge. Still, Georgia's case is built around a RICO conspiracy to commit an insurrection.

"Georgia's Rico Act, adopted in 1980, makes it a crime to participate in, and maintain or control an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, or conspire to do so." "At the state level, racketeering includes crimes such as murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matters, and drug crimes." Fani Willis did not levy a charge of conspiracy to commit an insurrection against Trump at the state level.

No person shall be .........President, if having previously taken an oath to support the constitution of the United States, later engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.~14th Amendment Section 3 (paraphrased).

Trump has not been charged with insurrection or a rebellion at either the state or federal level. He stands innocent of insurrection until proven guilty in a court of law. Jack Smith chose not to charge Trump with insurrection at the federal level, contrary to the referral by the democrat controlled congress.

In Georgia, the RICO statue can be used to cover any conspiracy to achieve any illegal end. This includes insurrection, as in the current case. One limit is that they have to prove two illegal acts which might be committed by any defendant. At that point, any defendant that can be shown to have furthered the conspiracy eats the RICO charge. I hope one of these two chosen is the insurrection proper, and Trump and the White House crooked lawyers get specifically addressed, but the insurrection RICO could sting without insurrection being one of the two actions featured. Hit a fake elector and someone who illegally accessed voting machines and you have a RICO. Anyone that can be shown to have worked towards the conspiracy's objective can then be hit.

Jack Smith has a different objective. He is looking for a speedy conviction, well before the Republican Convention. Do the Republicans really want to give aid and comfort to an insurrectionist? He thus didn't choose charges that can include an exclusion from office. This is forgivable. Willis seems to be covering the lack.

[jdcpapa]

Do the Republicans really want to give aid and comfort to an insurrectionist?

"The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, began on February 9, 2021, and concluded with his acquittal on February 13. Donald Trump had been impeached for the second time by the House of Representatives on January 13, 2021. The House adopted one article of impeachment against Trump: incitement of insurrection."

[Bob Butler]

Do the Republicans really want to give aid and comfort to an insurrectionist?

"The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, began on February 9, 2021, and concluded with his acquittal on February 13. Donald Trump had been impeached for the second time by the House of Representatives on January 13, 2021. The House adopted one article of impeachment against Trump: incitement of insurrection."

So? There are three requirements to be US President, be 35 or older, a natural born citizen, and has never participated in an insurrection. None of the three require a conviction or other legal procedure. Many Confederates were disqualified without trials. A New Mexico judge disqualified Griffin and found Jan 6 to be an insurrection. The Georgia case could result in a conviction. No matter whether the various AGs include do or do not place Trump on the ballot, the loser will appeal, the cases will get consolidated, and eventually the Supreme Court will rule.

The question is whether you actually believe Trump attempted to stay in power through illegal acts?

You fail to address the two paths which are taken seriously by constitutional scholars which would establish Trump as disqualified. Admittedly, these have not been completed. There is more to be done. No matter how many scenarios have already failed, are you really going to ignore the ones that haven't?

[jdcpapa]

So? There are three requirements to be US President, be 35 or older, a natural born citizen, and has never participated in an insurrection. None of the three require a conviction or other legal procedure.

You fail to address the two paths which are taken seriously by constitutional scholars which would establish Trump as disqualified.

Constitutional scholars Dershowitz and Turley, respectively:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/14/opin ... ershowitz/

https://dailycaller.com/2023/08/22/jona ... eory-ever/

[Guest]

The left won't be happy until Trump and the American tax base are all dead and their wealth confiscated as reparations for 'slavery'.

Too bad for the leftists that the electricity and water will cut out permanently while this is going on.

[Bob Butler]

Constitutional scholars Dershowitz and Turley, respectively...

I guess there had to be a red response. Too much steam had been gathered by the serious scholars. So far, though, the Daily Collar is a conservative propaganda publication, not a peer reviewed journal. If the arguments raised were serious, they would have gone with an established law review. Obviously, none would touch the articles presented.

The 14th Amendment Section 3 established one could not serve in the government or military if one had participated in an insurrection. It clearly worked during the Reconstruction, when the authors of the amendment were alive and still serving. Dershowitz’s false telling of history, imagining an Amendment didn’t and couldn’t work, is obviously false. It did function.

Turley argued not that it didn’t or couldn’t work, but that it was dangerous. He tried to invoke red violence. Not a worry. Since the DoJ started convicting and imprisoning insurrectionists, even the most intense MAGA people have ceased violence, excepting only the spree killers, most of whom are suicidal. Trump called for protests walking the edge of calling for renewed violence at his first few arrests. No such violence occurred. The pro and anti Trump people were both outnumbered by the press. Trump ceased even trying. The ammendment authors assumed insurrectionists are more dangerous if allowed near the military or the government. I would argue this is the case.