President Biden Accountability Thread

[Garmel]

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.

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.

 

[Run Pincher]

The problem is the average Joe/Jane Blow have been so brainwashed by the MSM/Pravda they believe it.

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Garmel]

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.

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.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

This isn't just bad but it's hilariously bad.

Since when does "hilariously bad" matter to the Marxists in pursuit of their objective?

 

[Garmel]

Since when does "hilariously bad" matter to the Marxists in pursuit of their objective?

Never it seems.

 

[Horn6721]

This is a huge WTF?
"As the border crisis continues to spiral out of control, the Biden Administration is reportedly considering putting ankle monitors on illegal migrants to keep them from leaving Texas. At the same time, they are screened for asylum eligibility."
Biden Admin Mulls Ankle Monitors for Illegal Migrants to Keep Them From Leaving Texas

 

[Garmel]

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

One thing I didn't consider is that if they have the time the appellate courts in DC will deliberately delay as long as they can.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

This is a huge WTF?
"As the border crisis continues to spiral out of control, the Biden Administration is reportedly considering putting ankle monitors on illegal migrants to keep them from leaving Texas. At the same time, they are screened for asylum eligibility."
Biden Admin Mulls Ankle Monitors for Illegal Migrants to Keep Them From Leaving Texas

Meh. Cut the monitors off as they step on the bus to DC.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

the Biden Administration is reportedly considering putting ankle monitors on illegal migrants to keep them from leaving Texas.

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.)

 

[Monahorns]

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.)

Yeah. But that wouldn't punish conservatives.

 

[nashhorn]

But that wouldn't punish conservatives.

By bringing in millions of voters.

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

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.

 

[Garmel]

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.

 

[Run Pincher]

By bringing in millions of voters.

That's what it's all about. Turn Texas blue.

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

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.

 

[Garmel]

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.

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.

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

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.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
I did not realize you wanted to impeach Trump
Why?

 

[Garmel]

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.

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.

 

[guy4321]

This is a huge WTF?
"As the border crisis continues to spiral out of control, the Biden Administration is reportedly considering putting ankle monitors on illegal migrants to keep them from leaving Texas. At the same time, they are screened for asylum eligibility."
Biden Admin Mulls Ankle Monitors for Illegal Migrants to Keep Them From Leaving Texas

Guess I feel kinda stupid. Why doesn't NY bus migrants away if it wants them gone?

 

[Horn6721]

guy LOL
YOU are expecting logic and common sense from Demx?
Bless your heart

 

[mchammer]

Guess I feel kinda stupid. Why doesn't NY bus migrants away if it wants them gone?

They can’t by NY law. They are compelled to take them in and spend money.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

They can’t by NY law. They are compelled to take them in and spend money.

Well, they did declare themselves to be a sanctuary - brought it on themselves.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

That's what it's all about. Turn Texas blue.

And drain our resources in the process.

That's what Eric adams meant when he said this issue would destroy NYC as they knew it

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

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.

 

[bystander]

That's what it's all about. Turn Texas blue.

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.

 

[ViperHorn]

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.

 

[Mr. Deez]

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.

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.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

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.

If you saw the clip of Biden babbling in vietnam this weekend, he won't be beating anyone (without cheating on a massive scale)