Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 5089
    MEMBERS
  • 133233
    MESSAGES
  • 40
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Trump 2024 thread   The Newsy You: News of Today

Started 2/24/23 by WALTER784; 76821 views.
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-4

Chaffetz doesn’t say how Biden will leave office or who might replace him.

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-4

Showtalk said...

Most people have had enough of Biden’s lousy economy and high prices.

Yep, and so do you think they're going to vote Biden in 2024?

FWIW

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-4

Maybe he knows something we don't.

FWIW

In reply toRe: msg 800
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-5

Jack Smith’s indictments of President Trump are ill-founded and unconstitutional, judicial clerk explains why

08/28/2023

A law clerk recently wrote an article in the American Mind, the official publication of the think tank Claremont Institute, explaining why Special Counsel Jack Smith's indictments of former President Donald Trump are unconstitutional and unsubstantiated.
 
According to Paul Ingrassia, a judicial clerk at the McBride Law Firm, a graduate of Cornell Law School, and one of the Board of Advisors of the New York Young Republicans Club, Smith's claims are ill-founded to the extent they have no merit at all. The two-time Claremont Fellow cited Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Therefore, he said, Trump had this power that provides certain privileges and executive immunities.
 
"Among these privileges are those expressly delineated in the Constitution itself. The impeachment process, for example, as stated in Article II, Sec. 4, requires that for all 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' the president 'shall be removed from Office,'" he said, highlighting that the highest law of the land lays out a process by which presidents are to be prosecuted by impeachment only and not traditional prosecution and attendant punishments like incarceration.
 
He added that this is because the POTUS exposes himself to outsized publicity, controversy, and risk as a result of his office. Therefore, the punitive measures that uniquely attach to the executive officeholder are consonant with the duties and powers of the office itself. There is a special constitutional prerogative, he added, in safeguarding the integrity of the presidential office, no matter the character and fitness of its occupant.
 
"That would mean not imprisoning the officeholder or former occupants of the office based on alleged criminality done within the officeholder's official capacities as president," he elaborated and cited the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) confirmation: "to wound the President by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs."
 
He also noted the Impeachment Judgment Clause of the Constitution via Article I, Sec. 3, saying that a person convicted upon an impeachment, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment.
 
Meaning, the clause allows for the subsequent indictment after a person is convicted and convicted only. This is in agreement with the longstanding judicial canon of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," or "the expression of one is the exclusion of others." This provides that because the text excludes the term "acquittal" from the relevant clause, the framers' intent was that only convicted officeholders would be open to additional prosecution, and not officeholders who were already acquitted based on the constitutional procedure for their alleged crimes, he further elaborated.
 
Double jeopardy clause prohibits punishing twice
 
The Supreme Court has affirmed that "the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense." Because the president has already been prosecuted twice for the asserted crimes underlying both of Smith's indictments, the legal remedy has already been applied. There is simply no other form of legal redress that is tolerable under the Constitution.
 
An unsealed court filing made public Tuesday evening revealed that Twitter did produce the requested records
 
Special Counsel Jack Smith. (Photo credits: AP)
 
He also said that Biden's DOJ has already prosecuted Trump to the fullest extent the Constitution allows, and on each count, he has already been acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing.
 
The factual grounds on which the former president allegedly committed crimes within his official duties as president have already been twice considered by the House of Representatives, for which the president, in conformance with Article II, Sec. 4, was acquitted both times by the Senate. Therefore, to continue to bring charges against the former president for the asserted crimes on which he has already been prosecuted is by definition an abuse of the judicial power and an express violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb," the law expert explained.
 
Trump, the first current or former president in U.S. history to face criminal
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 801
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-7

Background on the lunatic Judge they've appointed to oversee the Jan 6 indictments... She has already ruled Trump guilty even before any trial!

Report: Judge Chutkan Compares January 6 to 9/11 Attacks, Boston Marathon Bombing

JOEL B. POLLAK
29 Aug 2023

U.S. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan reportedly compared the January 6 Capitol riot to the 9/11 attacks and the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday when she questioned the need for a long delay before former President Donald Trump’s trial in Washington, D.C.
 
Chutkan’s remarks were reported by Julie Kelly, who has covered the trials of defendants accused of participating in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol via her Substack publication, “Declassified with Julie Kelly.”
 
Trump faces charges in D.C. of conspiring unlawfully to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, through challenges and claims of election fraud that Special Counsel Jack Smith has linked to the January 6 riot.
 
Chutkan reportedly made her remarks in deciding to set the trial date at March 4, 2024 — one day before Super Tuesday, the most important day of the 2024 presidential election, in which Trump is the leading Republican candidate.
 
In dismissing the request of Trump’s attorneys for a later trial date that would push the case past the 2024 election and allow them more time to review millions of documents of possible evidence, Chutkan reportedly said (according to the proceeding transcript, obtained by Kelly):
 
The trial will start thee years, one month, and 27 days after the events of January 6, 2021.
 
The trial involving the Boston Marathon bombing began less than two years after the events. The trial involving Zacarias Moussaoui for his role in the September 11 attacks was set to begin one year after the attacks; but due to continuances, appeals, and voluminous discovery, it began roughly four years later.
 
Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama and donated to his presidential campaigns, has been criticized as politically biased. She has also suggested, in a previous case, that Trump ought to be in prison.

Report: Judge Chutkan Compares January 6 to 9/11 Attacks, Boston Marathon Bombing (breitbart.com)

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-7

They have all decided he’s guilty until proven innocent but they won’t allow an innocent verdict.

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-10

Trump speaks in South Dakota, receives endorsement from Gov. Kristi Noem | LiveNOW from FOX

FWIW

In reply toRe: msg 804
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-14

Donald Trump files motion to DISQUALIFY Judge Tanya Chutkan from federal January 6 case

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan was previously labelled as the 'toughest punisher' of January rioters

READ MORE: Trump's legal team weighs calling lawmakers who objected to electoral votes on January 6 as witnesses

By GEOFF EARLE and ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED: 22:11 BST, 11 September 2023 | UPDATED: 01:22 BST, 12 September 2023

Donald Trump filed a motion on Monday seeking to disqualify U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan from presiding over the federal criminal case charging him with trying to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss.
 
The former president said last month he planned to seek Chutkan's recusal as well as a change of venue for the case, which is currently being held in Washington, D.C.
 
Trump argued in a court filing that Chutkan's prior statements appearing to refer to Trump's role in influencing the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters raise questions about her impartiality in the case.
 
The court filing cites a remark Chutkan made at a 2022 sentencing hearing for a Capitol riot defendant in which she suggested that the rioter was motivated by 'blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.'
 
Trump's lawyers argued that the comment indicated the judge's belief that Trump 'should be prosecuted and imprisoned.' 
 
Former U.S. President Donald Trump filed a motion on Monday seeking to disqualify U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan from presiding over the criminal case charging him with trying to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss
 
Chutkan, who was picked to oversee Trump's criminal case, was declared 'the toughest punisher' of rioters charged with offenses relating to the 2021 riot.
 
In a profile by the Associated Press, written last year, it said: 'Chutkan has handed out tougher sentences than the [Justice Department] was seeking in seven cases, matched its requests in four others and sent all 11 riot defendants who have come before her behind bars.'
 
The article, titled 'In Jan. 6 cases, 1 judge stands out as the toughest punisher', continues: 'In the four cases in which prosecutors did not seek jail time, Chutkan gave terms ranging from 14 days to 45 days.'
 
The AP article continued that Chutkan jailed, despite prosecutors not asking for it, 'an Ohio couple who climbed through a broken window of the U.S. Capitol.'
 
The 61-year-old was nominated by former President Barack Obama, was born in Jamaica and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's law school.
 
Trump has slammed Chutkan on his Truth Social platform since she was appointed to his case. 
 
He called her 'highly partisan Judge Tanya Chutkan,' and referenced her sentencing of a January 6 rioter. 
 
'She obviously wants me behind bars. VERY BIASED & UNFAIR!.' 
 
His comments came just days after she warned him against making statements that might intimidate witnesses or impact the 'integrity' of the trial. 
 
The former president is facing a maximum of 55 years in prison on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and obstruct the electoral count for trying to overturn the 2020 election. 
 
The 45-page indictment says he was 'determined to remain in power' despite 'having lost.' 
 
The trial has been set for March 4, 2024 - the day before 'Super Tuesday.' 
 
DailyMail.com learned over the weekend that Trump's legal team is considering a brash move that would put Republican members of Congress on the stand in his defense by questioning them about their own January 6 objections.
 
'They were essential to the recognition of objections, because you had to have a representative from the Senate and from the House [to trigger a floor debate].
 
'So the senators' objections were obviously important, very important,' a source familiar with Trump’s legal team’s thinking told DailyMail.com.
 
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
In reply toRe: msg 805
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-14

There Is No Insurrection Case against Trump

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
September 5, 2023 11:27 AM

If there were, the Justice Department would already have brought charges against him.
 
You know insurrection is a crime, right?
 
Just to recap, under Section 2383 of the federal criminal code, a person is guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment, if he incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.
 
And why do we need a refresher on this? Because the Department of Justice has been investigating Donald Trump and the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot for nearly three years, yet no insurrection charges have ever been brought against Trump or anyone else.
 
White House Sending Letter to News Outlets Urging Them to ‘Ramp Up’ Scrutiny of GOP over Impeachment Inquiry
 
That should be in the front of our minds as anti-Trump obsessives, of the left and the right, proceed with their incendiary plot to disqualify Trump from seeking the presidency by inducing sympathetic state officials to brand him an insurrectionist under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
 
The Justice Department — the arm of the United States government vested with responsibility to enforce the insurrection law — has not charged Trump with insurrection because it can’t prove Trump committed insurrection. Not with anything we would recognize as due process of law.
 
It’s not that Biden-DOJ-appointed special counsel Jack Smith hasn’t been trying. And it is obviously not that Smith is unwilling to stretch federal criminal laws to the breaking point to make a January 6 case against Trump. The insuperable hurdle is that the evidence does not support a charge of insurrection.
 
The Biden Justice Department, the most unabashedly political Justice Department in American history, has prosecuted about 1,100 people in connection with the riot, while blinking at the more lengthy and lethal rioting of the radical left. It has been moving heaven and earth to make criminal cases against the former Republican president, indicting him twice, even as it turns a blind eye to the Biden family influence-peddling scandal and willfully allows the statute-of-limitations on the crimes of the sitting Democratic president and his family to expire rather than filing indictments.
 
This Trump Indictment Shouldn’t Stand
 
After years of investigating, Smith and the Biden Justice Department brought a January 6 indictment against Trump in the District of Columbia, which has the most Trump-hostile jury pool in the country. They then hit the jackpot by drawing an anti-Trump judge out of central casting — Obama appointee Tanya Chutkan, who, in a courthouse where the bench teems with Democratic appointees who’ve meted out harsh sentences to January 6 defendants, manages to stand out as the scourge of the Capitol riot. It is safe to say that Judge Chutkan has swallowed whole the Democratic Party hyperbole that our democracy stood on the precipice of doom due to a mere three hours of unrest — in which no security personnel were killed, which had not the remotest chance of reversing Biden’s victory, and which was so ineffectual that Congress was able to reconvene in the Capitol just a few hours later.
 
Nevertheless, gifted with this greatest home-field advantage of all time, Smith and his team haven’t charged Trump with insurrection. That’s because they don’t have a case. They desperately want to bring one, but they know that nothing would explode the Democrats’ January 6 myth-making like an acquittal of Donald Trump. And even with Judge Chutkan presiding and a Washington, D.C., jury, that’s what they’d get.
 
Trump has never been charged with a crime of violence arising out of the riot. Even Smith’s stretch-and-strain indictment did not cross that line. In the Justice Department’s 1,100-odd January 6 cases, not only was Trump never charged; he was not even named as an unindicted coconspirator as defendants were convicted of assaulting police officers and forcibly obstructing a congressional proceeding.
 
It is not enough to say that Trump was not charged or named as an unindicted coconspirator in the Justice Department’s seditious-conspiracy cases. Those cases themselves do not charge sedition — the wellspring of insurrection.
 
In the relevant statute (Section 2384), the word seditious appears only in the title, not in the charging language. That language prescribes five distinct conspiracy object
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Sep-14

If he can’t be charged for insurrection, how can they use an insurrection clause to prevent him from running?

TOP