Destroying the Rule of Law to Get Trump

[The Duke]

He’s the joint chief. There isn’t anymore chain of command.

If there was no command to attack China then there was nothing to subvert.

There IS the Commander In Chief. Dumbass.

 

[Fiero425]

Only ONE whom died was a female protestor murdered by D.C. cop!

They should have blown her fk'n head off! What kind of animal breaks into Congress and tries to jump thru a secured door w/ guns pulled by agents? The b!tch deserved it and more!

 

[Stryder50]

Ummmmmmmmmm...............NO.

General Milley was a US government official.
NOT a candidate for.................ANYTHING.

Any promotion above O6 = Colonel usually requires approval from Congress. Hence there is a "political" component to promotions from there onto General.

https://www.army.mil/ranks/

 

[Stryder50]

So many lies in just that one excerpt, one does not know where to begin.

Please give it a try then.
We're up to about 200+ post going both~many ways so might as well insert you "opinion" to the fray.

Curious how the "lies" in the OP measure up against the lies you want to present.

 

[Stryder50]

His job is to protect the country. That’s what he was doing.

He was protecting his career and retirement benefits.

 

[Stryder50]

If Trump was going to order an attack on China in the waning days of his presidency, you're damn right he should subvert the chain of command.

That's how you protect the country.

Why and how would Trump order such an attack and whom in key positions of tjhe military below him do you think would have obeyed such an order ??? !!!

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Stryder50]

He’s the joint chief. There isn’t anymore chain of command.

If there was no command to attack China then there was nothing to subvert.

POTUS is top of the chain of command = Commander in Chief

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Bullshit!
I've taught classes in the US Constitution.
It's clear you do not understand the Amendments V and VI.

There are no crimes that Trump is guilty of and the Deep State and DOJ, etc. are violating the court process laid out in the Constitution.

Your sock puppets serving foreign interests such as Obama and Biden are the ones whom need to be brought on charges and tried.

Quit lying. Just stop, Stryder50. No one believes you would be my best at 8 to 1.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Stryder50 is a latter-day John Birch Society organizer.

 

[Winco]

Butthead!

I've known and worked with politicians. They are not a genetic version of humans, rather they tend to be persons wanting to work within the political system to get results. Admittedly, some have Left leaning agendas, others, lean Right.

Point is they are part of the process of getting things done versus dipshits like you whom do nothing other than bitch and complain, but remain useless douches.

You know nothing about me except the fact that I recognize trump for the POS he really is.

 

[Dragonlady]

No, you go through your chain of command. You do not unilaterally go to a foreign country, subverting the chain of command, and for that alone, he should have been drummed out of the service. Is there a credible source that TRUMP! was all set to order an attack on China? If not, you're just inventing excuses for his behavior.

I think the concern was that Trump had become mentally unstable and dangerous after he lost the election, and staffers didn't know what he'd do next.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Such as the promises of "fundamental change" and "hype" regards the USA Constitution, our economic system, and making more Guv'mint (taxpayers) hand-outs to those whom vote for the Democrat "Manchurian Candidate" = Obama.

"fundamental change" happens on both sides

"Hope, not hate" "Make America Great Again", they're the SAME MESSAGE. "I'll change things for the better" "What's "for the the better"? We don't know, just some vague nonsense that it will change.

Handouts happen on both sides too.

 

[Kilroy2]

You can tell how scholarly the article is by it position that the democrats are the devil.

Yet Trump wounds are self inflicted.

Rule of law is man's law. You can't escape it by putting it on cloud 9 with idealism.

That why you have 9 supreme court justices who rarely agree when hearing the same case.

The rule of government. The government of law for people and determined by people.

It just an idea that will never live up to its hype.

yeah and justice is blind

 

[OKTexas]

Now you are reacting emotionally. Not discussing the merits of the cases. And like most RW types you start throwing smoke to obscure the issues.

The details always matter. And while the FBI can make any statement they want, in the end the Courts are what defines and applies laws. It is how we have always done it.

The Miranda warning was defined and mandated by the Courts as one example. Applying the laws and the rights under the Constitution to everyday life.

So in the case of Colorado. The laws of Colorado not only permit, but require the Secretary of State to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot. That’s the law.

So a trial was held. Trumps lawyers were there. And the trial court found that there was an insurrection. And Trump participated. But the trial court claimed they couldn’t apply the 14th because the office of President was not listed. The Appeals Court was asked to overturn the findings. The Appeals court agreed with the district Court. And the Colorado Supreme Court was brought in

The Colorado Supreme Court carefully explained their reasoning.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

The Cato Org said it was well written and considered judicial decision. And Cato has never spoken ill of a Republican.

Delve into the details of the decision. It’s hard to argue they did it politically.

Alright, if a felon were to run for president and CO had a law that says felons can't run for office, could they ban them from the ballot just because a citizen/s? Yes on no? Why?

.

 

[OKTexas]

No matter how many times you repeat it, history tells us they fixed what Republicans fk'd up! Clinton actually created a Surplus w/ the Nat'l Debt going down! Obama passed Nat'l Healthcare & brought the deficits down! Biden's record is still in progress, but unemployment is still under 4%, gas prices down, no recession or inflation spikes, & recovering from Trump's incompetent handling of Covid-19 P@ndemic! Either find a new song to sing or give it up! You're embarrassing yourself, but if a Trump supporter, you probably don't GAF! Lying is like a day at the beach for your type!

What’s the national debt by president?

Key points The national debt, which has surpassed $30 trillion, shows how much the federal government owes. All but two presidents since 1900 have contributed to the national debt, some more than others. More significant contributions have been a result of government spending to finance wa

www.usatoday.com

.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Fiero's "unemployment is still under 4%, gas prices down, no recession or inflation spikes, & recovering from Trump's incompetent handling of Covid-19 P@ndemic!" and OKTexas cannot rebut it with fact or logic.

 

[SeaMajor7]

You can tell how scholarly the article is by it position that the democrats are the devil.

Yet Trump wounds are self inflicted.

Rule of law is man's law. You can't escape it by putting it on cloud 9 with idealism.

That why you have 9 supreme court justices who rarely agree when hearing the same case.

The rule of government. The government of law for people and determined by people.

It just an idea that will never live up to its hype.

yeah and justice is blind

BULLSHIT!!!!

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Would depend on what was discussed and if that candidate was wanting to accommodate them

Like Trump.

or looking to see if there is a mid-ground for compromise solutions.

Compromise solutions?
Solutions from a person who isn't anyone yet?
It would be the same as Dennis Rodman negotiating a trade deal with N.Korea....................
Or Steven Seagal negotiating an arms reduction deal with Russia.................

Substance of contact over not dialogue at all.

Sure......................

 

[SavannahMann]

Alright, if a felon were to run for president and CO had a law that says felons can't run for office, could they ban them from the ballot just because a citizen/s? Yes on no? Why?

.

The precedent case for Colorado, the only case that tested this set of laws and the courts made a decision on, applies.

Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App'x 947, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The fellow in question was not qualified according to the Constitution. He was not a Natural Born Citizen. Colorado ruled he was ineligible in a similar court case. Hassan appealed and argued that his eligibility came into question later, it shouldn’t prevent him from being on the ballot.


But, as the magistrate judge's opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state's legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. See generally Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193-95 (1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145(1972).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant's motion for publication is denied.

Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

So as Justice Gorsuch wrote, it is in the legitimate interest of a State to protect the integrity of the Political Process. It wasn’t decided on who could win. The Court didn’t say that Hassan couldn’t win, or that the question should be decided by the voters. The Court ruled that candidates should be excluded if they are ineligible to serve.

Michigan state laws do not permit them to remove a candidate. So if Hassan was on the ballot there, people could vote for him. But Colorado has a section of laws that allow, or even require the Secretary of State to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot. Ineligible according to the Constitution of the United States.

If or when the Supremes consider this issue from Colorado, they’re going to decide partially based upon a decision written by Gorsuch when he was an appeals court judge.

This is a minefield for Trump. Because there are three questions that must be answered in the decision from the Supreme Court. 1) Was the effort to overturn the election an Insurrection? The Colorado Courts decided that at every level. And here the Supreme Court is supposed to decide it based upon the evidence presented in the trial. The Supremes are free to decide it any way they want. But if they say yes to that first question it raises the next.

2) Was Donald Trump a part of the Insurrection? The 14th does not say people convicted of Insurrection. It merely says those who violated the oath to support the Constitution by participating in or providing aide and comfort to participants of an insurrection. If the court rules that yes Trump was involved in violation of the oath, well Trump’s ability to be President now hinges on the third question.

3) Does the Fourteenth apply to the office of the President? The office is not specifically mentioned. But the Executive Branch is mentioned, and the President is the head of the Executive Branch.

A yes answer to that third question means that Trump is ineligible to be President unless the Congress votes by a 2/3 majority to remove the disability.