ChiGoose

You have yet to cite my actual positions. You’re just assuming I believe things that are convenient for you.

You're so close to understanding it. So close! It must be hard to be this close to understanding a basic concept but having it just out of your grasp.

See? You're still doing it. You're making up a fictional version of me based on your own laziness and lack of ability to back your claims. Just make up a stereotypical liberal as viewed from the right and accuse everyone you disagree with as believing everything that this figment of your imagination believes. Because backing your own claims, rebutting the actual claims of others, and having consistent factual arguments is too hard for you.

LOL. You said I was wrong about something. Then you fail to provide any citation or evidence or anything I've said. Then you make up stuff about me and say I was wrong for the things I didn't say that you had made up. And then you accuse *me* of playing a part. I think someone doth protest too much. You're just projecting, buddy.

The thing you're doing here is making up a fictional version of me based on what you think that I think instead of actually reading what I've said about these things. It's just a strawman but it's easy for you because you're lazy and not interested in anything that requires a modicum of thought or evidence. It's just sad, man.

I doubt it, because you haven't even started. Just making stuff up because it's easy and you're lazy.

Ah, so you have nothing. You're just talking in generalities because it doesn't require you to provide any evidence to back your claim. Got it.

What did I say about them that was wrong? Could you quote the post(s) you're referencing?

If you could kindly point to an example where I was wrong, that would be helpful. I'm not perfect, I've been wrong before. But I'm curious as to what specifically you are referencing.

The mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone else in Trump's position would have already agreed to a plea.

The 14th Amendment thing is different from being prosecuted for committing crimes. I also think it's a bit dubious and I'm skeptical that it'll actually succeed. Claiming that Trump is being prosecuted to keep off the ballot and then citing something that isn't a prosecution is hardly convincing. Also, you really gotta love the self-own about the polling. If a Dem candidate got indicted in the middle of a campaign, that'd be the end of their campaign. Somehow, it's a point of pride on the Right that they like someone even more when they are credibly accused of crimes.

This only makes sense if a conviction would keep him off the ballot. But it won’t. He’s almost certainly going to win the GOP nomination and he’s going to be on the ballot regardless of how the many, many, many, many, many crimes he’s been charged with play out. Even if he’s convicted before the election, he’ll be on the ballot. Even if he’s in jail before the election, he’ll be on the ballot. He wouldn’t even be the first person to run from president from jail. The idea that he’s not going to be on the ballot is a talking point for Occupy Dems looking for “one weird trick” to beat him, and GOPers who are in denial about his culpability.

Enforcing the law. That’s what’s happening. And the idea that this is some orchestrated plot by the Dems across multiple jurisdictions and states is laughable to anyone who has seen how dysfunctional the Dems are.

Chesebro seems like the only one with a smart legal strategy that isn’t just “delay and hope Trump can pardon”

Everything Trump Touches Dies. Was coined by one of the Lincoln Project grifters but despite that, it remains mostly true.

I don't understand how people still buy the Barr memo when Mueller said it wasn't accurate. He even provided executive summaries in the report so Barr wouldn't have to do a memo but they didn't have the spin Barr wanted. It's like if a someone was giving a book report and the author of the book was in the room saying the kid misinterpreted the book and has the facts wrong but everybody agreed with the kid instead of the author.

Fairly significant downward departure from the guidelines and what the government was seeking. Guy is very lucky.

Most Dems would probably prefer somebody else run. But because we have a two-party first-past-the-post system, nobody is going to want to challenge an incumbent in the primaries. So Biden is the only realistic option. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Nah. Check the polling. He isn't super popular. People just generally prefer him to the alternative.

It wasn’t that long ago that the usual posters here were gleefully posting polling showing that most Dems didn’t want Biden to run. Now it’s a cult where they have blind obedience to Biden? Doesn’t make much sense to me.

That's what happens when you have a first-past-the-post election system. It just devolves into a two-party mess where you're voting more against the other team than for your own team.

This is probably right. Though I'll note that the 14th Amendment plan has some actual legal basis, even if it isn't overwhelmingly convincing.

It's generally accepted that double jeopardy does not attach in an impeachment. Here's an DoJ memo on it from 2000: Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate "The Constitution permits a former President to be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate. Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General We have been asked to consider whether a former President may be indicted and tried for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.1 In 1973, in a district court filing addressing a related question in the criminal tax evasion investigation of Vice President Agnew, the Department took the position that acquittal by the Senate creates no bar to criminal prosecution. A 1973 Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) memorandum discussing the same question adopted the same position. As far as we are aware, no court has ever ruled on this precise issue. During the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings in the late 1980s, though, a district court and both the House and Senate passed on the related question whether an acquittal in a criminal prosecution should bar an impeachment trial for the same offenses. Each of those bodies concluded that the Constitution permits an official to be tried by the Senate for offenses of which he has been acquitted in the courts. Although we recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the opposing view, on balance, and largely for some of the same structural reasons identified in the United States’s filing in the Agnew case and the 1973 OLC memorandum, we think the better view is that a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate. Our conclusion concerning the constitutional permissibility of indictment and trial following a Senate acquittal is of course distinct from the question whether an indictment should be brought in any particular case."

The Constitution is an imperfect document. It was written over 200 years ago in a very different world. It didn't anticipate the modern world and it certainly didn't anticipate Donald Trump (though the Founders were quite worried about someone like him arising). So things like the 14th Amendment's disbarment clause are not super clear and lead to differing opinions. Is it self-executing? Does it require a finding of insurrection? If so, by whom and how? You can test it, have some body with standing move to disbar Trump. But that could have been done two years ago. Nothing relevant has changed in that time. So it feels a bit HashtagResistance-y and the latest in a line of "one weird tricks." Organize. Donate (especially monthly recurring donations). Volunteer. Vote. GOTV. That's the only way.

This... is not how that works. The reason Trump's lawyers haven't raised this is probably because they want to keep their licenses.