America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Now it looks like Trump will skip the first GOP debate. Guess he will be too busy getting booked….

No thanks.

Bannon prolly has some cash left over from his Build da Wall scam...

The Fulton County jail sounds like another GULAG run by lefties.

Trump has been indicted more times than all of the people on Epstein's client list, combined.

THAT is a damn shame. That list needs to be made public. How did Maxwell get convicted of trafficking if she had noone to traffick the children TO? Spoiler: She did... and they're politicians... R's and D's... and hollyweirdo's.

In todays episode of False Equivalencies or fearless hero points to the bad guy while simultaneously covering the words “MEDIA MANIPULATION”

Donate NOW!

forget Epstein.
They partied. He weakly bleated that he didn't really like him, but the video says lie.

Plus every leader he (and oddly all right wingers) seems to be jealous of are Leaders for Life. He dreams of how much can get done without interference or legitimate elections...top of his list are such stars as Putin, Fatty Fat (love letter) Boy, and assorted odds and ends like Hungary's Orban (now in year 15 I think) et al. Add in the Tucker Carlson types who claim to hate him but basically work for him.

I say all right wingers but can only account for the well known ones who have sided with Putin in his "border skirmish".

Wanna love him? Wanna hate him but like his policies? That's how it works in our system. It's all good.

But don't for a minute think he doesn't believe he deserves everything he can wrangle, cuz his daddy taught him to treat everyone else in the world like suckers.

Yup. If he can make it happen, by ANY means possible (suspend the Constitution!!!) he absolutely will. He hasn't stopped trying either.

This is about Donald Trump and others involved in the alleged conspiracy that meets all Rico requirements. If guilty he deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Look up the definition of megalomaniac. His actions and personality fit. Whine about President Biden as much as you want to. His alleged actions do not even slightly compare in severity to Mr. Trump's. Could President Biden be indicted in the future? Certainly, he could be. Will he be? It is highly unlikely he will be as Mr. Trump is the only former president to be indicted.

He will in all likelihood be the republican nominee. President Biden will in all likelihood be the Democratic nominee. Mr. Trump will receive less votes than he did in 2020. This is simple math really; a number of older voters will have passed away who voted for him in 2020. A number of younger voters will vote for President Biden who were too young to vote in 2020. Also, a significant number of professional women and professional men who voted for him in 2020 will vote against him in 2024. Mr. Trump and other republicans took away a woman's right to be in control of her own body by stacking and politicizing SCOTUS. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito should be removed from SCOTUS due to gift improprieties. Billionaires bought them in my opinion.

A lie is a lie is a lie, no matter how many times anyone says it is the truth. With the refusal to move Mark Meadows case to federal court Mr. Trump will be convicted because Mark Meadows will flip on him for a very sweet deal in my opinion. I am no fan of the Democratic party, but the republican party panders to the lunatic fringe which is as un-American as anything I have ever seen from my point of view.

" Life without liberty is like a body without spirit. " Kalil Gibran.

" For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
" Nelson Mandela

" The only real prison is fear, and the only real freedom is freedom from fear. " Aung San Suu Kyi


" A well lived life is a life lived through love. " Anonymous

So, looking at his mug shot….well, it looks like he had a turd in his rectum.


Yep, I think he had a turtle head poking out.

I'm SHOCKED Frankie!
You've got rambling original thoughts, and your spelling and grammar were a little off. Were you drunk?
Anyway...is this a tirade against right-wingers or something?

Ooooh, looks like the trial will be televised.

“Must see tv”

Things Democrats don’t say for $500, Alex.

The political perils of using the 14th Amendment on Trump


WAPO
The legal case to disqualify Donald Trump from holding office under the 14th Amendment might have some merit.

The political case for going down that road leaves plenty to be desired.

Efforts to disqualify Trump for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which bars from office anyone who has “engaged in insurrection” or “given aid or comfort” to the United States’ enemies — have suddenly picked up. The idea is that Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election, particularly with regard to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, meet that standard.

The impetus appears to have been a law review article from two prominent conservative legal minds who made the case, after a year of study, that Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment. Since Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal judge, and Laurence Tribe, an emeritus professor of constitutional law at Harvard, wrote in support of the forthcoming article’s argument last month in the Atlantic, efforts have sprung up in states like Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin — though the Democratic Party appears to be keeping the effort at arm’s length.

To the extent that Democratic secretaries of state and others in the party have entertained the idea of disqualification, it’s been to say that the Supreme Court should decide the issue. (A prominent and Trump-critical Republican secretary of state, Georgia’s Brad Raffensperger, wrote an op-ed last week arguing against the idea.)

There appears to be reason for the caution. It’s dicey territory, historically speaking. But it’s also dicey territory from a raw political standpoint.

Disqualifying Trump from office under the 14th Amendment doesn’t require him to have been criminally convicted of engaging in insurrection or providing aid or comfort. But it’s worth emphasizing that Trump currently faces 91 criminal charges, and inciting the riot and seditious conspiracy aren’t among them. The House Jan. 6 committee cited in its criminal referrals of Trump 18 U.S.C. Section 2383, which closely mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment. But special counsel Jack Smith’s charges against Trump don’t include it.

About the closest thing to being involved in the insurrection Trump is charged with is obstruction of an official proceeding — a charge many Jan. 6 defendants have faced.

There is precedent for conviction even on a lesser offense serving to disqualify a politician under the 14th Amendment — albeit limited precedent. In New Mexico last year, Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin became the first officeholder in 150 years to be disqualified. But although he wasn’t convicted of a more serious felony (his charge was trespassing), he was actually present at the insurrection on Jan. 6. That fact separated his disqualification from failed efforts to invoke the 14th Amendment against the likes of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), then-Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) and others.

Trump’s proximity to Jan. 6 is certainly more pronounced than either Greene’s or Cawthorn’s. But given that he is facing criminal charges over his efforts to overturn the election, it would seem beneficial for our body politic to have a verdict or at least proceedings that more directly address the specific offenses involved in the 14th Amendment.

The House after Jan. 6 did impeach Trump for allegedly inciting the insurrection, but the Senate acquitted him — albeit with a historically bipartisan majority to convict.

Which begins to get at the potential perception problems involved in such an effort.

Polls show a majority of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong in his various indictments, and about half generally believe he broke the law. Depending on how the question is asked, we’ve even seen majorities saying Trump should be disqualified from serving as president again. After Jan. 6, 56 percent of Americans in a Washington Post-ABC News poll said Trump should have been removed from office and disqualified.

But whether they would support his disqualification under these circumstances could be another matter.

There is no question that Jan. 6 amounted to an insurrection, as we’ve made clear. (An insurrection is generally defined as rising up against the government, usually using violence.) But a Monmouth University poll last year showed that only 52 percent of Americans subscribed to that view. Imagine Trump being disqualified for his alleged role in an insurrection that half of Americans aren’t convinced was even an insurrection in the first place.

Beyond that, there’s how the process of applying the 14th Amendment would come to be. Despite Trump’s overwrought attacks on the judicial system and the fact that some prosecutions are being brought by elected Democrats (in Manhattan and Fulton County, Ga.), his criminal trials will at least be decided by juries of his peers. Even impeachment and disqualification are decided by representatives directly elected by Americans across the country, requiring a two-thirds majority of the Senate for conviction.

In the case of the 14th Amendment, we’re talking about activists or a potentially bold (Democratic) secretary of state getting the ball rolling, and the issue being decided by a handful of judges. Judges often decide issues of serious import like this, but they would be deciding something that both the legislative branch and prosecutors effectively declined.

The effort is far from certain to succeed, particularly if the conservative Supreme Court ultimately decides the issue in time. Proponents of this approach should probably ask themselves what the prospects for success even are, and whether they are worth the potential blowback.

But let’s just say for a moment that it does succeed. Imagine it succeeds in a crucial state or two, and Trump is somehow kept off the ballot. (It’s not clear he would be, as the 14th Amendment addresses only whether one can serve, not run.) Now imagine that state or those states wind up being decisive in a Trump loss. We might never know whether Trump would have won if the American people decided the issue on their own, and however likely, it raises the prospect of the courts having effectively decided the election.

It’s at this point that supporters of this idea will point out that virtually nothing will stop Trump from trying to delegitimize any election he loses — or many or most of his supporters from believing it was stolen from him. And that is undoubtedly true. He did it with the Iowa caucuses in 2016. He did it in 2020. He even sought to delegitimize an election he won, in 2016, because he wanted to explain away his popular-vote loss.

But the actual way in which the election is conducted still matters when it comes to views of its legitimacy. In a recent CNN poll, 4 in 10 people said the 2020 election was illegitimate; the danger is that that number will grow and those people will have something firmer to grab hold of. The poll shows that half of those election-truthers admit there is no “solid evidence” for their belief and that they’re going on “suspicion only.”

So there are degrees of belief here, just as there are degrees to the lengths people might go to to fight back against a system they believe has wronged them and their candidate.

None of this focuses on the merits of applying the 14th Amendment. And those merits matter. Just as failing to prosecute Trump raises the risk of emboldening others who might flout the law, failing to apply this constitutional standard to him — if it’s warranted — will have an impact.

It’s not as if our legal system has shied away from consequential questions in recent months, though. They will get a hearing — many dozens of them. If that weren’t happening, and if there was a consensus that Trump’s conduct violated the 14th Amendment, it would be an easier call. But it’s not, and it’s getting late in the 2024 process to suddenly go down such a pitfall-laden road.

Opinion : Mark Meadows’s failed removal spells trouble for Trump’s defense



WAPO/Jennifer Rubin
U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones, in a mild surprise, rejected a bid from former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his Georgia state criminal case to federal court.

Meadows, claiming he was acting in his official capacity at the time of the actions that led to his indictment, had asked a judge to move his case to federal court. When Jones, who was hearing the removal petition, asked Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis and Meadows’s counsel whether removal should be allowed if some of Meadows’s conduct was within his duties as a federal official, some legal observers feared Meadows could shoehorn his case into federal court simply because some stray “overt acts” spelled out in the indictment fell within his chief-of-staff duties.

However, in a tightly reasoned 49-page opinion, Jones not only denied Meadows’s removal request, dealing a blow to him and others seeking refuge in federal court, but also underlined a serious problem for former president Donald Trump’s immunity defense to state charges.

Jones found that the relevant inquiry concerned whether Meadows’s alleged actions “go the heart of Meadows’s participation in the alleged criminal enterprise and whether those activities relate to the scope of his federal office.” Jones wrote:


The Court concludes that Meadows has not met even the “quite low” threshold for removal. Again, what the Court must decide for purposes of federal officer removal is whether the actions Meadows took as a participant in the alleged enterprise (the charged conduct) were related to his federal role as White House Chief of Staff. The evidence adduced at the hearing establishes that the actions at the heart of the State’s charges against Meadows were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign with an ultimate goal of affecting state election activities and procedures. Meadows himself testified that working for the Trump campaign would be outside the scope of a White House Chief of Staff.

Jones said that because the Hatch Act explicitly prohibits federal officials from engaging in political or campaign-related activities, Meadows’s actions in Georgia to assist the Trump campaign could not be within the scope of his federal duties. (“The Court finds that the color of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff did not include working with or working for the Trump campaign, except for simply coordinating the President’s schedule, traveling with the President to his campaign events, and redirecting communications to the campaign,” Jones held. “Thus, consistent with his testimony and the federal statutes and regulations, engaging in political activities … exceeds the outer limits of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff.”)

Jones cleverly pointed out: “Assuming jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution would frustrate the purpose of federal officer removal when the state charges allege — not state interference with constitutionally protected federal activities, but — federal interference with constitutionally protected state actions.” That’s a bitter pill for Republicans infatuated with states’ rights.[/i]


Among the Georgia defendants, Meadows probably had the strongest case for removal, given his official job as the president’s gatekeeper, former prosecutor Joyce White Vance told me. Nevertheless, “trying to steal an election is not within the job description of the president’s Chief of Staff,” she said. As for the other defendants, many were not federal employees at all (e.g., John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, the phony electors). And given that they were all engaged in activities outside the executive’s role, their efforts to remove should also be rebuffed.

But Jones’s opinion carries graver implications for Trump.

Trump’s defense rests on the notion that he was engaged in his presidential duties and, therefore, is immune from prosecution. Jones explicitly rejected this: “As a constitutional matter, executive power does not extend to overseeing states’ elections. ... Here, there is clear constitutional authority delegating the procedures of elections to the States.” He concluded that “the executive branch cannot claim power to involve itself in States’ election procedures when the Constitution clearly grants the States the power to manage elections under the Elections Clause.”

In other words, Trump had no legal role as chief executive in post-election vote determination. When Jones pointed out that Meadows’s actions — such as meeting with Michigan electors, taking part in a phone call in which Trump asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” more votes and setting up a call between Trump and the Georgia secretary of state’s chief investigator — fall outside the executive branch role, he effectively cut off Trump’s claim that these activities were within the outer perimeter of presidential power. If Jones’s view holds, Trump lacks an immunity defense.

“The central question in the removal and in the prosecution itself — indeed the core of trying to understand the attempted coup — is whether there’s any possible legal justification for what was done,” Trump indictment guru Norm Eisen told me. “Judge Jones is the latest to make clear there was not, and that is very bad news indeed for Meadows, Trump and the other 17 co-defendants.” In Eisen’s view, “this opinion has much broader importance than just resolving one defendant’s removal, and it has undoubtedly sent a chill down the spine of all 19 of those named in the indictment.”

Meadows, who already filed notice of appeal, and other defendants will try to chew up more time asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court to reverse Jones’s decision. However, constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe told me, “This is a carefully reasoned opinion that I believe should be quickly upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals even in this conservative circuit. I think the Supreme Court would almost certainly deny cert.” As for Trump, Tribe said he thinks that “the handwriting on the wall should be clear even to the former president: trying to overturn a free and fair election to stay in power even after losing the electoral vote isn’t part of the job description for the federal chief executive.”

And let’s remember: The phony-elector scheme at issue in Georgia is also central in the federal prosecution in D.C. If U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan lines up with Jones, Trump is on a glide path to trial on federal charges on March 4 with no constitutional cover. Simply put, Trump finally might face the judgment of his peers, sitting as jurors, precisely as the rule of law requires.

I’m his mugshot he was in a bad fix. Gotta be damn hard giving birth to Nancy, Maxine and Abrams simultaneously. Grunttater right there.

You're only saying that because you have not read my comments on the Hunter Biden thread; I say bad boy, hang 'em high. Bring the evidence, charge the president if you have it - no one should be the law.

Now, about that donation to Trump (to "save America"). Are you going for the statue 1/10 of your income?
Think of it as tithe....

.
Agree 100% on this.

Thanks Mr. Fenst.

Did D just say I was moronic for agreeing that HB should be prosecuted?

wait - why would the be surprising?
never mind...

Because you're stunning example of Dunning Kruger effect?

We’re seeing signs of a notable shift in how some U.S. mainstream media outlets operate. Surprisingly, some have started reporting certain news stories fairly and accurately. Recently, the Washington Post published an article urging Joe Biden not to run in 2024 and CNN spent an entire segment blathering on about what a liar Joe Biden is.

https://tinyurl.com/2p9bcr7f

Now, most likely, CNN and the Washington Post have gotten their marching orders from higher-ups who’ve decided Joe needs to go. But there’s a lot more to this story.

What’s even more notable and can’t be so easily explained away is a recent ABC News story on Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis and President Trump. It’s quite something that ABC News didn’t mince words, describing Fani’s actions against Trump as a desperate move, like “throwing stuff against the wall.” This level of honesty is quite a departure from what we would have seen just a few months ago.

Here’s what Trending Politics co-founder Collin Rugg shared on X:

NEW: ABC News producer John Santucci is appalled at how “bad” Fani Willis’ case against Trump is, admits she is just “throwing things against the wall.”

You know it’s bad when even the main stream media is admitting it.

Santucci also mentioned how Trump scored a big win after the judge denied Willis’ motion to try all 19 co-defendants at once,

“Bad. I mean, Fani Willis wasn’t there… she’s throwing things against the wall based on this hearing.”

“A great win for Donald Trump and others that did not want to be part of this speedy trial case.”

“I can tell you, sitting here with you, just texting with some of the attorneys involved in the other defendants celebrating. Yay victory!”

Watch: https://tinyurl.com/mr3b9r5p

So, what’s behind this shift? It could be a mix of things. Perhaps they’re finally sensing the growing anger from the American people, who are turning away from state-run media propaganda. Maybe they’ve realized that their biased “news” approach isn’t working – it’s actually backfiring and making Trump more popular. Or, it could be that they’re worried about the possibility of President Trump’s re-election in 2024 and the potential for a four-year “revenge tour.” It might even be a combination of these and other elements. Regardless, it’s intriguing because our shameless media doesn’t undergo such transformations because of moral considerations, right? There’s always more to the story.

Whatever strange scheme might be unfolding behind the scenes, one thing is certain: the light is now shining bright on this intricate web of lies, and the American people are beginning to grasp the true, evil intentions of our deceitful media and government.

https://revolver.news/2023/09/somethings-happening-abc-news-just-flattened-fani-willis-and-her-desperatetrump-vendetta/



Let's see....Stop me if you've been fooled by....Schiff $hitshow, Russia Russia Russia, Stormy Stormy Stormy, Impeachment 1, Impeachment 2, all these (pardon the pun) trumped up charges of...NOTHING and my personal favorite dragging in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and now this gotta hurry rush rush state trial with a Grand Jury that really did indict a ham sandwich (see Lindsey Graham!) and 39 other people that are rabid gun toting, bible thumping, hood wearing, tobacco spitting, tattooed up MAGA Republicans! When will the rest of you people actually see this for what it is? This makes Watergate seem like a preschool nappy time! A political party using the might of the presstitutes and the Free Press, every single alphabet lettered agency willing to recreate the crucification of Christ to suit their whims because.



The wheels are falling off already and we haven't brought in a first witness!!!!

Far-left Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis was hoping to cause election interference in the politically motivated witch hunt against Donald Trump.

In a major victory for Trump, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee refused to allow Willis’ office to have Trump in court in October. Instead, the judge severed Trump’s case from two co-defendants who wanted a speedy trial.

Trump waived his speedy trial rights. Trump’s legal team has also filed several motions to dismiss charges altogether.

This is considered a major blow to prosecutors who wanted Trump in the court room. Willis is undoubtedly infuriate over McAfee’s ruling.

“The judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case has severed the case, ordering that 17 defendants — including former President Donald Trump — will not be tried alongside speedy trial defendants Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell on Oct. 23,” the report found.

These charges are related to Trump’s alleged actions challenging the state’s 2020 election results.

In their legal motions, Trump’s legal team employed an argument similar to one made by attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who played a role in Trump’s strategy to delay the certification of Georgia’s electoral votes.

Attorneys called Willis’ indictment “a conspiratorial bouillabaisse consisting of purported criminal acts, daily activities, and constitutionally protected speech.”

Chesebro’s legal representatives sought to dismiss his case by citing the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, which prevents states from intervening in areas solely under federal authority and are “entirely within the ambit of federal authority.”

According to the Supremacy Clause it “establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.”

The clause also “prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.”

Trump’s attorneys filed a motion similar to one submitted by Rudy Giuliani’s legal team. Giuliani contended that the charges against him unjustly associated his First Amendment actions with a wide-ranging criminal endeavor.

Judge Scott McAfee is overseeing these cases. “His experience as a tough prosecutor equips him to search out fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption, and bring those to justice who break the law.” Kemp said about the judge.

Willis is advocating for an October trial date for all 19 individuals indicted in the case.

https://www.analyzingamerica.org/2023/09/698425/

Only the rabid see this for what it really is. A sad, desperate attempt to remove a political candidate. This is what the CIA does in Banana Republics and gets away with it, because its "over there". Now, the machinations are close to home with all the Blue cities with Soros ties dragging the former President and frontrunner for the GOP in 2024. Everyone see it.