President Biden Accountability Thread

Mr. Deez said:
Possibly but far from certain, and would they do it before the '24 election? Also, he could be convicted in GA. I think that's less likely than in the DC case (even though the DC case is weaker), but it's not out of the question, and there's no guarantee of federal jurisdiction to overturn that.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to hard to believe our appellate courts and SCOTUS have gotten this bad to allow nonsense like this to prevail. If it has our country is in serious trouble.

I think there's time for it to be appealed before the 2024 election. The documents case will be the long one but Trump should win that easily in a conservative area that will produce a fair jury.
 
Garmel said:
I find it hard to hard to believe our appellate courts and SCOTUS have gotten this bad to allow nonsense like this to prevail. If it has our country is in serious trouble.
Click to expand...

It depends on grounds for appeal. If there was a clear error of law, then I think SCOTUS will intervene. However, if it's just a matter of disagreement with the verdict, I don't think they will. Thomas and Alito will vote to overturn. Gorsuch might. Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett likely won't. Obviously, the 3 liberal justices are partisan hacks who would happily adorn affirm a summary death sentence of Trump.

Garmel said:
I think there's time for it to be appealed before the 2024 election. The documents case will be the long one but Trump should win that easily in a conservative area that will produce a fair jury.
Click to expand...

It's not the trial that concerns me. It's the appeal. They'd have to really fast track it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
It depends on grounds for appeal. If there was a clear error of law, then I think SCOTUS will intervene. However, if it's just a matter of disagreement with the verdict, I don't think they will. Thomas and Alito will vote to overturn. Gorsuch might. Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett likely won't. Obviously, the 3 liberal justices are partisan hacks who would happily adorn affirm a summary death sentence of Trump.

It's not the trial that concerns me. It's the appeal. They'd have to really fast track it.
Click to expand...

Let's look at these 4 indictments from DC.
  • Charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States, which includes plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election
  • Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, including plotting to prevent the 2020 election certification
  • Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which includes actually blocking the certification of the 2020 election results
  • Conspiracy against rights, which includes a plan to deprive someone of a constitutional right (in this case, that is the ability to vote)
Plotting to overturn the result of an election.
You have the legal right to challenge an election. Trump's lawyer Eastman has shown several legal scholars' opinions that what Trump did was 100% legal. The law was definitely ambiguous in this spot and it was changed last year where the VP is now just a figurehead.

Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, including plotting to prevent the 2020 election certification

Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which includes actually blocking the certification of the 2020 election results

The Enron Law. DC has been using this "Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding" to go after J6ers as well. The problem is that it was not meant to go after protestors but people trying to influence/intimidate a jury. In fact, this is already at the SCOTUS due to a J6 appeal and will be knocked down.

Conspiracy against rights, which includes a plan to deprive someone of a constitutional right (in this case, that is the ability to vote)

Wut? Using an old KKK law to go after Trump. This is such a stretch.

How can any conservative in their right mind who's on the bench think any of this is legit? This isn't just bad but it's hilariously bad.
 
Horn6721 said:
the Biden Administration is reportedly considering putting ankle monitors on illegal migrants to keep them from leaving Texas.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Biden Administration should consider enforcing the existing immigration laws to keep them from entering the U.S. That would save a lot of money on ankle monitors (not to mention medical care, education, food stamps, etc.)
 
HornHuskerDad said:
Maybe the Biden Administration should consider enforcing the existing immigration laws to keep them from entering the U.S. That would save a lot of money on ankle monitors (not to mention medical care, education, food stamps, etc.)
Click to expand...

Yeah. But that wouldn't punish conservatives.
 
Garmel said:
Let's look at these 4 indictments from DC.
  • Charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States, which includes plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election
  • Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, including plotting to prevent the 2020 election certification
  • Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which includes actually blocking the certification of the 2020 election results
  • Conspiracy against rights, which includes a plan to deprive someone of a constitutional right (in this case, that is the ability to vote)
Plotting to overturn the result of an election.
You have the legal right to challenge an election. Trump's lawyer Eastman has shown several legal scholars' opinions that what Trump did was 100% legal. The law was definitely ambiguous in this spot and it was changed last year where the VP is now just a figurehead.

Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, including plotting to prevent the 2020 election certification

Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which includes actually blocking the certification of the 2020 election results

The Enron Law. DC has been using this "Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding" to go after J6ers as well. The problem is that it was not meant to go after protestors but people trying to influence/intimidate a jury. In fact, this is already at the SCOTUS due to a J6 appeal and will be knocked down.

Conspiracy against rights, which includes a plan to deprive someone of a constitutional right (in this case, that is the ability to vote)

Wut? Using an old KKK law to go after Trump. This is such a stretch.

How can any conservative in their right mind who's on the bench think any of this is legit? This isn't just bad but it's hilariously bad.
Click to expand...

You don't need to convince me. I think the DC case is weak but not because I think the statutes couldn't apply to something like this. Many of them are written intentionally broad (regardless of what originally justified them) to cover a lot. However, it's not criminal to contest an election. It's not even criminal to ask the VP to reject electors, even if it's ridiculous. Hell, you can ask almost anything you want without it being criminal.

For me (who supported impeaching Trump) to support a criminal conviction of Trump, you'd have to tie him to those who actually broke the law at the Capitol. At least so far, I see no credible evidence tying him to that.

The problem is that they will undoubtedly come up with some kind of rationale that a DC jury will buy, which won't be hard. Not only will it be a liberal jury (even moreso than in NY and Atlanta), it will be a blatantly political and partisan jury. Maybe they'll get a Proud Boys operative to testify that Trump told them on the side to go kick Pence's *** if he doesn't go along. Who knows? Couple that with Trump not actively trying to stop things for awhile, and that will be enough for a jury of partisan Democrats to convict him. That's going to leave Trump's team having to look for errors of law. Maybe they'll find something in the trial. Maybe SCOTUS will say the statutes are being applied too broadly. Maybe they won't. Hard to say.

You also have the classified documents case. It'll be in a more conservative venue, so you won't get a jury dominated by liberal hacks. However, this is also the case with the most legal merit and the easiest to sell to a jury that's committed to following the charge of the court. If the jury does convict, it'll likely stand. That doesn't mean there's no injustice here, but the injustice comes from the fact that DoJ is throwing the book at Trump after letting Hillary slide for something similar and probably more dangerous. But none of that is admissible or proper to even mention in court. I still think he'll likely win, but it's not a slam dunk.

Finally, we also have to consider the NY and GA cases. Those are in state court, so the courts of last resort on the interpretation of the substantive law will be the Court of Appeals of NY and the GA Supreme Court. As dumb as the NY case is, it'll have a a liberal jury and liberal judges from trial through appeals. Any judge who overturns it will lose his political career. The GA case will also be before a liberal jury, and though the judges who handle the appeals are Republicans, there's no guarantee they'll be Trump-friendly. They are elected in a state that's pretty red but only if the candidate isn't perceived as close to Trump. They'll have little incentive to bail him out if the jury convicts.

My point is that if you're evaluating Trump's chances in the general election, him being a convicted felon by November '24 isn't something to dismiss. It's a real and substantial risk in at least one of these cases.
 
I don't see the documents case going against Trump. Too many legal scholars are saying that Trump was in the right to hold those records. The PRA, Navy vs. Egan and Judicial Watch vs. NARA point to them being correct. The whole agency records thing doesn't seem to hold up. I also think the case could end up being dismissed over Jack Smith's abuse of using grand juries in DC to further his case in Florida in which the judge wasn't happy about.

Trump actually did try to stop what was happening in DC. He tweeted those people to stop. However, Twitter at the time deleted those tweets so nobody could see them. Here they are.


 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
I don't see the documents case going against Trump. Too many legal scholars are saying that Trump was in the right to hold those records. The PRA, Navy vs. Egan and Judicial Watch vs. NARA point to them being correct. The whole agency records thing doesn't seem to hold up. I also think the case could end up being dismissed over Jack Smith's abuse of using grand juries in DC to further his case in Florida in which the judge wasn't happy about.

Trump actually did try to stop what was happening in DC. He tweeted those people to stop. However, Twitter at the time deleted those tweets so nobody could see them. Here they are.


Click to expand...


Like I said in the previous discussion, if any judge will buy that argument, it'll be the judge in the case. She's a Trump appointee and favourable to him. However, that would only defeat one of the cases. Even if that's out of the way, he's still at significant risk of a conviction before Election Day. That contingency has to be accounted for when choosing a nominee.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Like I said in the previous discussion, if any judge will buy that argument, it'll be the judge in the case. She's a Trump appointee and favourable to him. However, that would only defeat one of the cases. Even if that's out of the way, he's still at significant risk of a conviction before Election Day. That contingency has to be accounted for when choosing a nominee.
Click to expand...

It'll be the DC case that gets him but gets overturned when appealed. I'm pretty confident in the documents case because he has a favorable judge, jury (most likely) and I'm pretty sure the law are all on his side.
 
Garmel said:
It'll be the DC case that gets him but gets overturned when appealed. I'm pretty confident in the documents case because he has a favorable judge, jury (most likely) and I'm pretty sure the law are all on his side.
Click to expand...

What's your theory on the state cases?

By the way, I'm slamming beer at the local pub, so there are no wrong answers.

Compress_20230910_183354_4342.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
What's your theory on the state cases?

By the way, I'm slamming beer at the local pub, so there are no wrong answers.

Compress_20230910_183354_4342.jpg
Click to expand...

To be honest I think even blue NY will dismiss that case before it even starts because it's that bad. If not he very well be convicted but the appeals court saves the day.

I think Trump and company will win in Georgia if they end up getting it transferred to the federal court. I think it will be 50/50 if it doesn't. I've been told that it's easier to convict with RICO charges but they are also the easiest ones to get appealed.

Maybe I'm having too much faith in the appellate courts but these cases are terrible. I only think a conviction will happen because they are in blue areas.

Europe is turning you into a lush.:p
 
Garmel said:
To be honest I think even blue NY will dismiss that case before it even starts because it's that bad. If not he very well be convicted but the appeals court saves the day.

I think Trump and company will win in Georgia if they end up getting it transferred to the federal court. I think it will be 50/50 if it doesn't. I've been told that it's easier to convict with RICO charges but they are also the easiest ones to get appealed.

Maybe I'm having too much faith in the appellate courts but these cases are terrible. I only think a conviction will happen because they are in blue areas.

Europe is turning you into a lush.:p
Click to expand...

To the extent that I am a lush, Austin actually did that. Lots of nights hanging out at BB Rovers (close to the Great Hills area, where I lived) and drinking from their massive beer selection.

As for Trump, that's some optimism and a lot of Democratic judges acting in a very nonpartisan way.
 
Run Pincher said:
That's what it's all about. Turn Texas blue.
Click to expand...

I think it's a two-part effort but involves some risk. Illegals can't vote and I don't believe they are voting to a material degree. I have zero proof of that, but there is virtually no proof that they are either. BUT, the census does count illegals if they are not afraid to be counted as they could be rounded up or ID'd as illegals. More population via the census means more electoral college votes to Texas. Here's the risk, if they can't flip the state, then the Republican presidential candidate gets more EC votes. But if they can flip the state, then it's game over.
 
I doubt (hope) that Uncle Joe cannot flip the state. (The hope part is who knows if it is Trump.) RFK, Jr. possibly could because his views appeal to the Independents who are making up a larger portion of the Texas electorate daily. Next governor - in the discussion depending on the Republican candidate.
 
ViperHorn said:
I doubt (hope) that Uncle Joe cannot flip the state. (The hope part is who knows if it is Trump.) RFK, Jr. possibly could because his views appeal to the Independents who are making up a larger portion of the Texas electorate daily. Next governor - in the discussion depending on the Republican candidate.
Click to expand...

Unless Biden rallies in a big way, I don't think he can flip Texas even with Trump as the nominee. I think Trump is less popular in Texas than he was 4 years ago, but Biden is undoubtedly less so as well.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Unless Biden rallies in a big way, I don't think he can flip Texas even with Trump as the nominee. I think Trump is less popular in Texas than he was 4 years ago, but Biden is undoubtedly less so as well.
Click to expand...

If you saw the clip of Biden babbling in vietnam this weekend, he won't be beating anyone (without cheating on a massive scale)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top