Trump Investigations Thread
- Thread starter Rocinante
- Start date
"Being feared and not hated go well together, and the prince can always do this if he does not touch the property or the women of his citizens and subjects."
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Two reasons I can think of, that seem most probable. Might be a combination of both.
1) They genuinely think that he can't win. They want him to be the candidate, because they are betting it'll be a repeat of the midterms, rather than a repeat of 2016. The assumption is that moderates just hate Trump too much, and that even if the lawsuits create sympathy, enough people will be repelled by the notion of a "Criminal-in-Chief", so that they'll vote Democrat.
2) They genuinely are suffienciently out of touch that they believe that the lawsuits are making most people dislike Trump, and that this is a good way to smear him further. They kept doing this with the impeachments and the collusion hoax, so it fits their earlier pattern of operation. Also, note that Hillary figured that calling working Americans "a basket of deplorables" was a good move, demonstrating that, yes, the Democrats really are out of touch.
As things currently look, their positions are misguided, and their efforts are actually helping along Trump's campaign. They turned him from "reasonably disgraced in the eyes of many" to "an obvious victim of persecution". Public sympathy tending towards the underdog, they could have rendered him no greater service.
There appears to be a dawning awareness of it, too, but they're committed now. If they drop the persecution, he can claim that as proof that they had nothing substantial, which also improves his electability. So it seems that they final strategy is going to be an attempt to use various convictions to block him from running. Specifically, they want to convict him of "engaging in insurrection or rebellion" (Jan 6th), and then use section 3 of the 14th amendment to disqualify him from holding office.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
Wondering what Trump's 2nd term would look like ?
DarthOne
☦️
Assuming they don’t fortify the election or Kennedy him?
Depends on just how much the GOP is willing to work with him and not be the designated losers. Which if they have any sense they will work with him.
The base has had major issues with the GOP leadership for awhile now and their in the process of being purged until their inline with the new populist bent, turning on trump just means more of them get purged until the next populist figure/grachi brother gets his turn with more actual support.
In the long run the current establishment both left and right are fucked its just a matter of how much damage they do before they go down.
DarthOne
☦️
Or how much damage they do before the American people decide they’ve had enough and thing get exceptionally messy.
I'd rather avoid the Messines but that's probably unlikely
DarthOne
☦️
As would I- but it’s abundantly clear that the establishment won’t let themselves be replaced easily and that if they aren’t replaced they’ll continue selling out their people and making everyone’s lives hell.
So, they're trying to have Trump removed from the ballots in various States.
This reeks of fear and desperation. They're terrified he's going to run and win 2024, so they're basically doing anything and everything they can to stop him running.
This reeks of fear and desperation. They're terrified he's going to run and win 2024, so they're basically doing anything and everything they can to stop him running.
This is an untested and untried legal theory as well IIRC since it only applies to civil war era politicians and commanders and it wasn't really even tested then.
bintananth
behind a desk
The 14th Amendment Section 3 text doesn't limit its scope to just those who participated on the Confederate side of the Civil War.
As you said: it's untested and untried. It'll have to be litigated.
Yup. Desperation with a capital D.
Doomsought
Well-known member
The problem is they haven't convicted him of rebellion or treason, and the amendment does not provide an exception to due process.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I believe the argument goes that the ban on office-holding would still work even if rebellion wasn't a crime at all, let alone a crime you were convicted of. So in the argument the election officials can make a determination that he is constitutionally barred from office without relying on whether a previous conviction exists. Due process applies (the decision can be appealed etc.) but this is perhaps comparable to impeachment which also runs parallel to the usual justice system.
To me it seems logically valid as a hypothesis, but legally questionable, and deeply unwise to have the test case be a fucking POTUS candidate for many reasons.
As a note, I could be wrong but I doubt all those ex-Confederates were actually tried and convicted of anything before having the ban slapped on them.
Last edited:
bintananth
behind a desk
They weren't prosecuted wholesale. The sheer number of former Confederates made doing so impractical. Then, in 1872, Congress passed The Amnesty Act -- which lifted the ban for former Confederates.
There hasn't been anything since where the ban could be argued to apply to a large group as opposed to an individual or small group.
Typhonis
Well-known member
Reeks of Election Interference as well.
It doesn't reek of election interference. Removing the leading opponent from a ballot is outright, blatant election interference.
Last edited:
Typhonis
Well-known member
What is the penalty for election interference?