ChiGoose

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.

He should be prosecuted in accordance with the law. But there is a tendency to look for someone to "save us" from Trump that seems to try to downplay the reality that the only sure thing that can prevent him from winning is voters. Mueller was lionized as the guy who was going to get Trump even though it was known he wouldn't recommend prosecution no matter what because it would be against DOJ policy. So instead of doing things like investigating emoluments issues, money laundering and other Trump crimes, the Dems in Congress just sat back and assumed Mueller would take care of it. When he instead gave them an impeachment roadmap, they just shrugged and ignored it Remember freaking Avenatti? The scumbag lawyer that people thought was a hero when he was just a grifter? The second impeachment was rushed because the Dems wanted to act immediately, which lead to a lot of evidence not being included. Though I suppose that doesn't matter because there wouldn't be enough GOP senators to convict if Trump had murdered Mitch McConnell on the senate floor With the indictments, people hope he'll be convicted before the election. He may be. He might not be. It's not something that should be counted on and he can run from prison if he wants to anyway. Even if there is merit to the 14th Amendment claim (and there might be), it's not going to happen. It's just not. And it wouldn't be accepted by about half the country if it did The only thing that's going to stop Trump is the voters. Or maybe a Filet O'Fish sandwich

I remain skeptical of "one weird trick" ploys to beat Trump. Gotta do it at the ballot box. Can't count on stuff like this.

Maybe you should try reading primary sources and, in areas that aren’t in your wheelhouse, listening to experts.

I guess your arse is fraud then. Not sure what else you would call having people sign documents falsely claiming to be officials in order to subvert an election.

This isn’t a bid. It isn’t a contract. It isn’t an allegation of fraud in a bidding. This is a conspiracy to commit fraud after the fact. Maybe talk to someone who actually knows anything about this before calling someone else clueless because you’re completely off base here.

None of this is relevant to this case. He is not being indicted for complaining. He is being indicted for fraud.

Shhh... The adults are talking.

This is a gross misstatement of the facts. Where in the world are you getting your information? But in any case, did Hillary Clinton conspire to have people act as fraudulent electors to change the election outcome in any state? Did she pressure state officials to change the voting tallies? Was she told time and time again that she lost but despite this, act to overturn the outcome of the election? This isn't even in the same ballpark as the Steele Dossier. Why are you all so obsessed with it?