The ones I truly distrust on this court are the ones you failed to mention, nothing but trash is what they are!
Supreme Court Live Updates: Conservative Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
He's not the only one that disagrees with you. Only a moron or a dumbass would call Judge Luttig a moron. You have no credibility here.
Let's not be too hasty, I mean the guy does go by the name "your_master" so there could be some validity to his superior intellect, based on name alone.
Please explain how a coup is an official act? Because that's what the court is entertaining. They seem to be leaning in the direction of limiting any trials related to January 6.
I agree. All those other presidents who actively fomented insurrection should have been tried, convicted and punished for it.
Oh wait....
There are numerous crimes beyond insurrection,.. and by the way, Trump hasn't been charged with insurrection.
It's a jaded argument the court seems to be buying. Trump's lawyer immediately conceded that personal crimes cant be charged. Which conveniently leaves out any crimes done as President. Including coups. It gives the court an easy out to limit what Trump can and can't be charged with.
But he has been charged with election interference. And it looks like the court will agree with him that pressuring Georgia officials to overturn the election is an official act.
Luttig is patently wrong when he repeatedly claims there's no role for the President in elections.
If necessary, the President can and should order the DoJ and even the National Guard to investigate and protect elections when they are under assault by states or other bad actors.
That's happened. And usually with good justification, as during the recent era when America finally started to take civil rights seriously.
Needless to say, Trump was not acting in this commendable presidential capacity when he tried to get states to change counts, or when he backed fake electors, or when he encouraged his supporters to block the rightful transfer of power. But that doesn't mean a President cannot act in proper ways to protect the electoral process. It just means that Trump can't hide behind those defenses - because he was not acting in proper ways, nor was he acting to correct wrongdoing.
He demanded Georgia officials manufacture votes. It's insane to argue that this was in anyway an official act. I feel like I'm in lala land with this court.
I think that Georgia question will turn more along the line of was he attempting to overturn an election or was he attempting to confirm that election results were valid...
So what? That's just the DoJ being timid. They could have, but it would have make the case harder. I'm inclined to agree with them not going all the way for that reason - but it's not because Trump isn't guilty.
The absence of an insurrection charge is no reason why sensible people shouldn't believe their own eyes and call it what it clearly was.
What's your opinion?
I agree that it may be hard to prove - and therefore Trump may get off - but I have no doubt what he was trying to do.
It's hard for me to imagine how anyone cannot see his actions for what they were: an effort to illegitimately change the outcome of the GA election.
You are absolutely correct. I'm just responding to the apparent claim by Luttig that there cannot be a legitimate role for the President in the election process. Trump's effort was not legitimate, but that's because of what he was trying to get away with, not because Presidents can't involve themselves in elections for proper reasons.
Strictly my opinion,.. I seriously doubt that even Donald Trump could be stupid enough to try to manufacture votes via a telephone conversation that included multiple federal and state governmental officials,.. I think he was looking for confirmation that all votes were properly accounted for,.. And even if I'm wrong, it will be impossible to prove otherwise.
I could not disagree with you more regarding the intent of the call.
Anyone 5 year old can say that. But what's your argument? I gave you part of mine.
There was a big post about his position. Which, iirc, rested entirely on the lack of specific assignment of presidential authority over elections. But presidents oversee lots of things they have no specific, enumerated authority to do. Executing federal laws is a broad catch-all for much of what presidents do. And protecting elections is something we have both constitution and laws about that every president is obligated to respect and act upon if violated.
I hate it when otherwise reasonable liberals buy bad arguments just because, at the moment, they work against Trump. We used to be smarter and more principled than that. In fact, that's what often separated us from the bad guys.
We have the tape where he asks for the votes he lacks to be "found." How do you explain away that?
Trump isn't dumb enough to explicitly ask an official to commit election fraud, but he knows how to ask without blatantly saying the incriminating words - yet making his intent perfectly clear.
This is absolutely the same genre of verbal behavior as when a thug intimidates a witness by saying "you have a very nice family." No actual threat, but implicit. Just as here, Trump didn't come right out and say "falsify the count" but his intent was obvious.
As for proving it, jurors will understand the intent. It will be almost impossible to get a jury without at least 1 person who would exonerate Trump for anything, guilty or not - so he'll probably get off. But a fair jury should have no trouble seeing what Trump was up to, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
My take,.. Trump was looking for confirmation that all votes had been counted and counted correctly,.. At the point of this phone conversation, a mistake of any kind could have turned the results...
It is a FACT.
And it is relating to acts BEFORE he was President, AFTER he was President and AFTER he lost an election as a lame-duck President. Anything he did to influence Electors is ILLEGAL, per the Constitution. That is not debatable, at all. Because NONE of it is any "official act", since he has NO ROLE Constitutionally, in that process.
That would be my argument, too, if I were defending Trump. But I wouldn't believe it. How can you?
Last edited:
it's just a constant torrent of disingenuous bullshit from all of them
Mostly because I don't accept the "orange man evil" diatribe,.. I see Trump as an overly cocky New York guy with average intelligence and reasonably good intentions...
I agree with you on this one. You have to be careful not to rule in a way that can be abused going forward. Not that the cons on this court have shown much respect for that principle with rulings like Dobbs and others. But it's still a good principle.
It's also a principle they could have respected and still rendered a decision months ago, if they weren't interested in pushing off the trial in a way that benefits Trump.
How can you look at how he treats people and say he’s someone with good intentions?
Good people don’t constantly throw allies and associates the way he has.
I cringe at the name-calling and labeling language of my fellow-libs. To me it's a sign that their echo chambers have become as harmful as those on the right.
So I empathize with most of your comment - except at the end where you credit Trump with good intentions. I don't know how you can think that.
and when someone calls an election official pressuring him into finding a specific number of votes (the exact number needed to win)...you think that's just confirming all the votes were properly accounted for?
SCOTUS judges (the conservative side) are absolutely considering his "unofficial" acts, BECAUSE THAT IS EVERYTHING HE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH.
I thought I indicated that the guy was from New York,..He's an asshole, and I think he earned a majority of his very rough edges honestly...
Wow, your judge of character radar absolutely sucks.
Saying trump is an asshole is insulting to assholes.
They're completely full of shit. It's all projection. They're still going to be shouting "lock her/him up" when it comes to Democrats.
Forget the legality of anything, he tried to overthrow a free and fair election. But he has "good intentions".
I wasn’t aware he was being charged for official acts. Is conspiring to put together a fake group of electors an “”official act” that falls under the presidential powers?
Once re-elected President Trump must dismantle the DOJ and the FBI! Both Agencies need to be replaced with a tamper proof replacement.
Similar threads
