But big strong men thank Trump with tears in their eyes. Panties on too tight? /s
Hillary got it wrong. It’s a basket of deranged deplorables.
“I cried because my wife’s panties were too tight, until I met a man who didn’t even have a wife to steal panties from…”
OK that’s not even toxic masculinity, that’s… f^#% me if I know what that is. Truly we have someone who has completely absorbed the Word Salad Random Rant system of talking and thinking.
Well, yeah. Melania is his Gold digger. And has a son with Trump (we assume). She’s hoping for a big pay out in the end. That’s all. She may be surprised when all the people that Donald stiffed come back looking for their just rewards. It’s gonna be in court forever.
Melania may be collecting every thin dime she can pick up from Trump. Grifting, it’s a family affair.
“I heard your dad went into a restaurant and ate everything in the restaurant and they had to close the restaurant!”
I would bet Melania has been quietly stashing away large sums in an account or three that Trump doesn’t know about. I would if I were her.
Wednesday Addams : “Never bring a knife to a sword fight. Unless it’s hidden.”
The article also says 25% of Republicans would never vote for Trump, a surprisingly low number. 37% are strong supporters and they tend to be somewhat more blue collar and with fewer years of college. But there have not really been any other Republicans candidates who have seriously challenged him. So why settle for Trump Light just because of some legal issues? And Biden was the best the Democrats could do? Yeesh.
Age brings wisdom, until it doesn’t. But McConnell and Feinstein too? One hesitates to impose limits, but maybe eighty is enough… The job requires being Presidential. Or residential. Procidentia? Paracetamol? Paradental?
The chance any other candidate will beat Trump remains small. The chance of Trump beating Biden is not, perhaps more than one in three.
It doesn’t appear that any of the many changes against trump are going to hinder his reelection campaign, whether they stick or not. he could even run from prison, if it comes to that.
But wait, what about the insurrection and election interference charges and the 14th Amendment, section 3? Surely that will act as a firewall against allowing this treasonous criminal to run, win and serve a second term, right? Here it is:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So, from the last sentence, I’m reading that even if trump were to be convicted of charges related to the Jan. 6 insurrection or the Georgia election interference, it would still take a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate to bar trump from a second term, which is not likely to happen.
So it seems that nothing in his current tangle of charges are going to stop him, and may even boost his chances with his rabid core. Am I interpreting that depressing scenario corrrectly? The only thing that may hurt him in relation to the charges is the practical matter that big-ticket donors may hesitate to contribute, knowing that much of their money is going to his legal bills.
Here’s an up-to-date list of the current charges against him, just for the record:
As far as I am aware, that is correct. Some speculate this is a deliberate decision by Smith and other prosecutors, to avoid contributing to any (mistaken) impression that the charges are politically motivated — by not (yet, anyway) charging Trump with the one charge that, if convicted, would automatically bar him from becoming an elected official.
I don’t buy the automatic bar angle, as much as I would like to. This prhase
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
MIGHT apply IF convicted of engaging in insurrection. But- is that what Jack Smith going to charge hime with? I haven’t heart that yet. The charges speculated so far don’t include engaging in insurrection. And if so, who determines if that conviction disqualifies him? And given that you’ve got two crooks, an alcoholic sexual predator, and a theocrat on a Supreme Court led by the worst Chief Justice in decades what are the chances that this disqualification would be upheld if challenged?
As I mentioned, It seems like this last line in section 3 of the 14th Amendment is an impossibly high bar to disqualify him. Unlikely there’d be a 2/3 vote against trump in both houses, so no need for the Supreme Court to get involved.
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
But who says when this disqualification applies? I fear that unless and until he is convicted of leading an armed rebellion it will not.
If this country is dumb enough to elect a serial criminal to a second term who relentlessly rips them off and ruins everything he touches after all we already know about how dangerous he is, nothing Jack Smith does or doesn’t do will make any difference. We will deserve whatever we get.
Agree with @BobLibDem that the only result would be a bad ruling from this ghastly SCOTUS, setting a terrible precedent. (Not that they feel constrained by that anymore, anyway.)
Jack Smith should charge what he believes he can soundly prove, no more and no less. It’s not what Trump is charged with or even convicted of that should make a difference. It should be the citizens of this nation who vote in a way that says, “Go serve your prison term and get lost, Donald.”
Good question. It’s what I’m wondering. I think it may be a murky legal area, but I am certainly no legal scholar.
It appears to me that the evidence that trump fomented the Jan. 6 insurrection, and clearly interfered with the Georgia election process, is more than sufficient to convict. But will Smith and / or the Georgia prosecutors actually convict on those charges? And even if they do, would both houses of Congress vote to remove or bar trump from elected office? If not, could there be an actual scenario in which a person convicted of insurrection or treason against the U.S. holds the office of President?
I think what happens is that Republicans will say “what if it doesn’t apply?” and vote for him anyway. What’s to stop him from running? A theory that he might not be eligible?
Wait, what? To me that reads that the convicted person is disbarred from office unless 2/3 of the House and Senate vote to say never mind, you can take office. Not the other way around.
Well, that’s why I’m asking. I certainly hope your interpretation is correct!
So, is this true? Say, if trump is convicted of charges in the Jan.6 insurrection, and / or the Georgia charges (which I believe would be considered “rebellion against the same” (the Constitution), would that automatically bar trump from office, unless a 2/3 majority of the House and Senate vote to give him a pass?
That’s certainly the way that reads to me. The debarring language is mandatory: “No person shall be”, while the loophole language is “But Congress may” so it reads to me that the 2/3 vote is the high bar to being able to take office. Assuming, of course, that the provisions about rebellion and so forth are also met.