Maybe it was just now made public?
American Impeachment/25th Amendment Watch 2021 - If, at first, you don't convict, try, try again
- Thread starter Glad I couldn't help
- Start date
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
Who cares when it was made? It's just going to be pushed through so Trump can die broke and miserable and left with no way to defend himself from the smears to come. And they're going to come. Like how MAGA people are going to be hounded for gulags or worse.
They put up what they do immediately though.
It'll be pushed, but I don't think it will go through.
Because I'm sick of fake news lying about shit to make it look more dramatic.
Also it isn't even a bill, that's a lie, too. It's a House Resolution, which isn't even binding law.
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
Then just have Biden sign an Executive Order. Put it in enough flowery language and it's as good as signed. And the Democrats will party in the streets knowing that Orange Man will only be demonized to Hell and back in the future.
I could see that happening.
Because some "thought-leader" told the drones what this week's two minutes' hate is going to be about.
Meanwhile, for people who actually enjoy the hobby, this lawsuit is the buzz.. (thread) In my opinion, everyone should give it a gander. The argument here is basically that Trump and Giuliani should be seen as intricately linked to the actions of Jan 6th, and prosecuted under violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Specifically, it cites 42 U.S. Code § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights (1). Please read these more than just going KKK ACT = RACISMS
Because the way this suit has been reported on has been misleading, too - the suggestion is that the suit is alleging Trump & Giuliani wanted to subvert black votes. From a search of the document, I don't see black, color, race/i, any of that. It tethers them with the proud boys and the oath keepers, but doesn't expressly call them racist organizations. The lawsuit does meander a little and it is lacking citations, meaning its version of events has to be taken mostly at face value. It's also not really clear whether Trump or Giuliani's behavior meets the standard for 'conspire' as exists in the statute, although I expect the defense will argue that Trump knowingly wanted the disruption which would prevent people from taking office, and he could have reasonably assumed that the parties involved at his rally would do such, and that his hesitance to immediately tell them to stop and to deploy the national guard can be interpreted as a form of approval.
So I don't think this is really a strong case, per se, but I also think it could go somewhere. Unlike the impeachment laughing stock, if this one gets to arguments, you might actually see a serious tussle. Don't assume that the NAACP is full of legal retards just because it would make you feel better at night. Also, you retards who still have extreme trouble understanding 'standing' should take a look at page 4, paragraphs 9 & 10 of the suit. Notice how they explicitly identify the legal bits which explain their standing and venue? Maybe your 'expert lawyers' should have considered finding some of those to make their argument with. Who am I kidding; you didn't read their arguments.
It almost certainly doesn't, unless there are a whole mountain of facts I haven't seen. Conspiracy is difficult even to plead much less to prove. I'm also failing to see his standing.
Here's the docket. People will probably keep it updated:
As you can see even on the docket everyone involved is already fucking up left and right. For some reason someone at Judicial Watch (formerly Larry Klayman's organization) is getting Cc:ed on all this. That's this guy: https://www.rnla.org/6934
I don't see this going very far without overcoming standing issues. If it does, there are serious First Amendment issues as well at least with regard to the politician defendants. I don't know whether the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers are at more risk here, because they were actually on the ground in the crowd, in a much better position actually to influence members of the mob and some people there did, in fact, openly encourage specifically lawless action which then, in fact, actually occurred. Neither Trump nor Giuliani did that.
It's a somewhat tenuous argument, but there's some trace of possible merit to the idea that, having set off this riot, whether inadvertently or not, Trump had an obligation to do what he could to end it. But Brandenburg requires actual intent, not merely omission.
They name Trump "solely in his personal capacity" which raises the question of whether a candidate contesting an election, who is a sitting President, is actually acting in his official capacity when giving a speech. Because if he were he'd be protected by sovereign immunity. At least since Nixon v. Fitzgerald the President has absolute immunity for actions committed in his official capacity. So they also have to show that he was actually acting in a personal capacity.
I don't see the current Supreme Court as being one that will do much to curb executive power. Even though Gorsuch might, he's canceled out by Kavanaugh who is strongly in support of executive authority. I don't see Nixon going anywhere soon.
It seems to be a chicken and egg situation, which is definitely one of the issues that could slip it up out the door. It almost hinges on him already having proven his case - that an attempt was made to stop him from taking office by the unlawful disruption of the ceremony, and that Trump is culpable for the actions of the people who actively disrupted it. 'As someone being seated to Congress, Trump told other people to prevent my being seated' seems to be the avenue by which he wants to hit Trump & Guliani at least.
This is where I think the arguing takes a turn, and the specific charge is interesting. He's not necessarily saying that Trump advocated for his supporters to riot or storm the capitol building, but rather that Trump urged his followers to disrupt the process. It's pretty impossible to say that Trump encouraged his followers to charge into the building, but Trump clearly felt that the ceremony shouldn't proceed.
His words probably don't even in this sense count as him directly encouraging his supporters to disrupt the event, and there's first amendment concerns in the "stop the steal" phraseology. It quite obviously suggests wanting to prevent the process, but is that the same as actively advocating people do so? That's part of what interests me, if this gets to arguments. Can a president legally tell his followers that an election was completely illegitimate and encourage them to disrupt the normal transfer of power so long as he just doesn't say anything too too specific?
That's another rock that it could probably crash into and sink from if it does get to arguments, but it's also something that I think would be interesting to clarify. I don't particularly care if the orange man is convicted in this trial, but I hope it does go to arguments so as to get us a bit more clarification on certain unusual circumstances which have hitherto never needed to be addressed.
The bill I posted about I just found out about, but this is the first time I've really looked into the KKK bill.
How long do you think the lawsuits will be sent for?
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
For however long it takes for Trump to ave his ass nailed to the wall.
Unless they go full crazy and just decide to arrest him without trial, they'll never pin anything on him for anything to stick, At best, it's a death of a thousand cuts and they try to go after his money.
Trump should arrange for his burial to be in a solid gold casket in a platinum sheathed tomb like an Egyptian pharaoh rofl. That's better than Arlington.
There's no real incentive for the court system to work any faster than it normally does, so I'd expect this to be sitting around for months if it's not initially rejected on the standing concerns. I guess it could move faster if the system really feels like it and people stop making easy and obvious mistakes.
There are ways of "disrupting the process" that are legal, though. If they just stood around outside yelling a lot, that would be completely legal. Even if some people infiltrated the chambers where the certification were going on and loudly disrupted the proceedings until security removed them, that might be a disorderly persons offense of some kind, but a Klan Act violation? Every time anyone makes a scene?
They really have to argue he specifically intended them to do something actually illegal. They need to prove more than irresponsible rhetoric. Same for Giuliani. As for "conspiracy," yeah, good luck with that. Maybe with some of the online people dumb enough to coordinate openly and literally say they were going to do illegal shit. I don't know how much the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers organizations can be held responsible for the actions of individual members, though, without a lot more than this complaint is bringing.
The NAACP is very good at arguing standing issues because they're often related to the issues they litigate.
Last edited:
Random Internet Person
kiwifarms.net
Which is what they’re planning to do.
Maybe they can try for RICO next time.
My guess would be that they try to argue that, within context, the only reasonable interpretation for what he was saying would be as a call for illegal and violent activity. That circles back to the problem of trying to prove he incited a riot, but I think the fact that they're trying to couch that behind a charge of "the only reasonable interpretation for his call to action is to violate this law" gives it a very, very narrow chance of slipping through in a perfect storm.
I imagine they'll try to establish that the narrative itself can only be interpreted as leading up to / advocating for overtly illegal behavior, and suggest then that the conspiracy would be Trump/Giuliani coordinating on their narrative. Which is another way of saying this will almost certainly never happen, but stupider shit has happened.
I just want to hear the arguments and get some clarity on shit regarding presidential behavior post-election, given this is a pretty rare situation to be in.
At this point, just expect 4 years of continuous trials of Trump for various bullshit. They want to distract everyone from whatever Biden and Harris are doing or failing to do. Plus the media ratings will tank without a perpetual cycle of ORANGE MAN BAD so they will try to keep it going.
The Arlington thing is particularly stupid because only 2 Presidents are buried there--Kennedy who was a martyr and war vet, and Taft, who was President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Every other President since Hoover is buried at their Presidential Library, Museum, or historic home, Everyone knows Trump will just build a massive fuck off Library at Mar-A-Lago or someplace else in Florida so it's performative masturbation by the House.
The Arlington thing is particularly stupid because only 2 Presidents are buried there--Kennedy who was a martyr and war vet, and Taft, who was President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Every other President since Hoover is buried at their Presidential Library, Museum, or historic home, Everyone knows Trump will just build a massive fuck off Library at Mar-A-Lago or someplace else in Florida so it's performative masturbation by the House.