Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Rod - the long link made the quote button inoperative, but I am replying to the post above.  Yes, like I said twice (I think), reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Trump participated in an insurrection under the 14th.  Interesting that you would bring up Jefferson Davis.  Do you agree that the nature of Jefferson Davis's active participation in the 1860's era insurrection is different in many qualitative aspects than Trump's activities following the election up to Jan 6?  I hope you do.   

This illustrates the point - no reasonable person could say that Davis did not engage in insurrection.  W/N Trump's rhetoric was an insurrection is certainly a debatable point.  As is now clear based upon a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, a CO judge's opinion is no more dispositive than yours or mine.  

Also, a minor final point I keep forgetting to make.   The 14th Amendment requires, "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."   Congress's second impeachment was for "Inciting Insurrection."  Congress did not impeach for "Engaging in Insurrection"  We can speculate why not.  In my opinion, Trump's rhetoric is far more reasonably characterized as "Inciting Insurrection" than "Engaging in Insurrection." 

Last but not least, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says in it's entirety, "Section 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."  

I remain embarrassed that the Colorado Courts thought they could just grasp authority to strike Trump from the ballot under the 14th.  The 9-0 Supreme Court rebuke was the most predictable holding of all time.  Luttig and others like him can whine about it, but what the hell, how can any lawyer think he or she can ignore the Constitution just for political expediency?  Shame on the litigants and shame on the Colorado Courts.

"As is now clear based upon a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, a CO judge's opinion is no more dispositive than yours or mine. "

SCOTUS, of course, did not decide this case based upon a judge deciding Trump engaged in insurrection. It decided it based upon the finding that the states do not have the right to determine which candidates shall appear on their ballots, specific to the challenge in this case and, rather, concluded that responsibility is to be determined by congress. 
The Colorado appeals court overturned the opinion of the judge in question, not because she had found that Trump had engaged in insurrection but because she had found that he was not an officer as defined in the constitution. 
It's unfortunate, and that's putting mildly, that SCOTUS did not determine the question of insurrection in this case but that's the poop we find ourselves in...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I know you said "reasonable people," but believe it or not, there are people today, some on this forum, that would argue Jefferson Davis was not an insurrectionist. I can hear it now, "They were fighting for State's rights and rebelling against federal overreach!"

Well, there a lot of people who fly their confederate flags alongside their Trump flags who would agree...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

As in the impeachment hearings, evidence was shown that every single Leftist Democrat politician has said "get out there and fight like hell, we don't give up, we've had enough of Republicans, we're not going to take this lying down, we will fight 'till the end, etc..., etc..."


I guess you missed those impeachment hearings where the Trump attys showed a long video of virtually every prominent Leftist Dem. who holds high political office, saying the exact same things that Trump said, whereby Trump is charged with inciting an "insurrection", while every Dem is given a pass.

When Maxine Waters got out on her soapbox screeching that ".....you need to follow them anywhere you see them, at a gas station, at a grocery story, and you need to get in their face........"

But then the double standard is always in place now isn't it when it comes to Democrats. It is the same old, same old with you Marxist clowns. 

Now then I asked you to define an insurrection.  Care to define it?

All you've offered so far is your usual hysterics. 

Did they tell 'em to take the metal detectors away from the capitol too?
 Donald Trump on January 6th:

“I don’t f-in’ care that they have weapons.”

“They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f-in’mags away. Let my people in"

"Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig on Monday called the Supreme Court decision allowing former President Trump to remain on the presidential ballot “stunning in its overreach.”

“Not for its decision of the exceedingly narrow question presented by the case, though that issue is important, but rather for its decision to reach and decide a myriad of the other constitutional issues surrounding disqualification under [the] 14th Amendment,”

"But even more importantly, as the concurrence said, effectively, the court today decided that no person in the future will ever be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, regardless [of] whether he or she has engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States,”

"Luttig — who filed an amicus brief in January calling on the Supreme Court to uphold the Colorado decision barring Trump from appearing on the ballot — defended the liberal justices against Barrett’s warning not to “amplify disagreement with stridency.”

“Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who did not join the other five in the overreaching decisions that it made, accuse the three concurrences of stridency in their opinions,” Luttig said. “For your listeners and your viewers: There was not one word of stridency in the concurring opinion by Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor, [Elena] Kagan, and [Ketanji Brown] Jackson. Not one single word of stridency.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4507849-judge-luttig-reacts-to-supreme-court-colorado-decision/

"In our opinion, a Republican sweep is the scenario that would cause the biggest increase in the deficit and Treasury’s financing need after 2025. We expect easier fiscal policy under a Trump administration, especially if Republicans gain control of Congress."
" We expect this scenario to have the largest impact on Treasury term premium and the yield curve (e.g. 5s/30s). As we noted previously, the curve probably will steepen if Trump wins big over the next few weeks and a Republican sweep becomes increasingly likely."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-today-us-stocks-fall-as-tech-rate-cut-doubts-creep-in-143119762.html

Yup, those conservative fiscal policies back at you again...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/03/05/ukraine-rationing-ammo-russia-advance-npw-pkg-ebof-vpx.cnn

Happy now, Rich?...

Originally Posted by James Brown

I have no idea, but the process you and Tribe are describing is normal, complicated, and extremely thorough!

Well if it goes the way Tribe describes it, and if Trump wins re-election, it "effectively" means justice EVADED...

SCOTUS had been set to hear the Trump immunity case on April 23rd but Jack Smith did request it be expedited, so, for good measure, they delayed it until April 25th.

Given how the question before the court has been worded, which is how the Trump lawyers have framed it, there's a good chance it may be decided in Trump's favor:

"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

"The court has formulated an overly broad question to be answered in the appeal, rather than the straightforward one: whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the crimes alleged in the indictment obtained by special counsel Jack Smith."

"Smith did not frame the issue as involving official acts in his Supreme Court filings, but rather asked the court to decide “whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.”

"Trump’s lawyers have sought to define his conduct as official acts undertaken while president. The Supreme Court’s order now also incorporates that qualifier."

"Given that, the Supreme Court could answer what Tribe described as a “sweeping” and “abstract” question with a more convoluted answer: There can be immunity in some circumstances for official acts, but not for others. This sort of answer would allow the court to sidestep its responsibility to decide the practical issue of whether Trump must stand trial in this specific instance. As Tribe warned, the court could instead “decide this broad legal question and send the case back to the D.C. Circuit.”

"In that scenario, the court would return the appeal to a lower court to apply its ruling to the facts of the indictment against Trump. That delay would be the final, fatal blow to the government’s effort in D.C. to hold Trump accountable in a jury trial before November’s election."


https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-wrong-question-trump-immunity-case-rcna141509

Gee, I wonder how the court is going to rule...

Representative Ken Buck of COLORADO is retiring from congress rather than having to lie on behalf of Donald Trump and the GOP:
“But really we’re at a time in American politics, that I am not going to lie on behalf of my presidential candidate, on behalf of my party. And I’m very sad that others in my party have taken the position that, as long as we get the White House, it doesn’t really matter what we say,” he added."

"Buck has criticized some members of his party for promoting false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Trump. Buck, who voted to certify the 2020 election results, withheld support from Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) when he was running for the Speakership last fall over concerns he had with Jordan’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4504931-ken-buck-says-hes-not-going-to-lie-on-behalf-of-gop/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBut%20really%20we're%20at,we%20say%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20added.

“I’d be afraid about giving him stuff,” the former official said. “I mean, who knows what kind of riff he would do.”

"Trump once spilled details of a highly classified Israel intelligence operation to senior Russian officials in the Oval Office. In another case, he tweeted a picture taken by a classified spy satellite."

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/07/biden-intel-briefings-trump-00145651#:~:text=U.S.%20intelligence%20officials%20are%20planning,his%20handling%20of%20classified%20information.

Here we go again...