Trump 2024 ???

[indyblue]

Trump Indictments Are Unconstitutional Due to Double Jeopardy, Have No Merit

In any case, the factual grounds upon which President Trump is alleged to have committed a crime or crimes while performing his official duties as president have already been twice considered by the House of Representatives, for which the president—in accordance with Article II, Sec. 4—was acquitted both times by the Senate. This is relevant for the purposes of what is relevant in Jack Smith’s two indictments. All available legal remedies have been used up as a result of the Senate’s decision not to convict President Trump of the alleged crimes he committed. Therefore, continuing to bring charges against the president for the alleged crimes for which he has already been tried is by definition an abuse of judicial power and a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against double jeopardy: “…nor shall any person be subject to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence.”

Notably, Article I, Section 3’s Impeachment Judgment Clause states that “a person convicted upon an Impeachment, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.” A straightforward interpretation of the phrase permits the indictment only after a person has been found guilty. This is in accordance with the long-standing judicial construction principle known as expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which states that because the relevant clause does not include the word “acquittal,” the framers intended that only officeholders who had already been found guilty of their alleged crimes would be subject to further investigation. As a result, officeholders who had already been exonerated based on constitutional procedure were not subject to further investigation. Wells Fargo Bank v. United States, 485 U.S. 351, 357 (1988).

According to the Supreme Court, “the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Mitchell v. Helvering, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). There is simply no alternative kind of legal redress that is allowable under the Constitution because the president has already been prosecuted—twice—for the alleged crimes supporting both of Jack Smith’s charges.

To sum up, Jack Smith’s allegations are unfounded; to the degree they have any merit at all, they have already been investigated to the utmost extent permitted by the Constitution, and on each count, President Trump has already been cleared of all criminal wrongdoing.

 

[BugI02]

This is where Trumpers turn off so many. You either support Trump or you obviously only care about yourself more than you love the country. If he wins the nomination, then they shouldn't be hating on Trump. Until then, he's just as fair game as anyone else running.

Uhhh, maybe read that again, this time for comprehension

It's talking about Republicans aiding and abetting Democrats, like in Trump's first term when they sand-bagged a sitting president from their own party

Do you think Romney's behavior is anything but self-serving? How about McConnell failing to back his party's senate candidates in 2022 because HE didn't like them, never mind the fact that they were the people's choice. It wasn't like they were behind by a large margin, either

And I don't really give a dry **** if my support for Trump turns you (or anybody else) off

 

[KLB]

Uhhh, maybe read that again, this time for comprehension

It's talking about Republicans aiding and abetting Democrats, like in Trump's first term when they sand-bagged a sitting president from their own party

Do you think Romney's behavior is anything but self-serving? How about McConnell failing to back his party's senate candidates in 2022 because HE didn't like them, never mind the fact that they were the people's choice. It wasn't like they were behind by a large margin, either

And I don't really give a dry **** if my support for Trump turns you (or anybody else) off

Maybe you should be clearer about what you think you are saying. It's clear what you think of those that don't hold Trump is as high esteem as you and your fellow Trumpers. Of course, you'd rather be an ass than have civil conversations. It's what you do when it comes to anything Trump related that is speaking glowingly of him.

 

[KG1]

Trump Indictments Are Unconstitutional Due to Double Jeopardy, Have No Merit

This is interesting. If this argument would be a successful ground for dismissal, it would be a real kicker in that if the democrat House's rush to impeach Trump ordered by Pelosi for J6 conduct and subsequent acquittal in the Senate got him off the hook for the J6 indictments. That would be hilarious. Talk about a backfire.

Another thing of note relating to the disqualification under the 14th amendment sec 3 that is being pushed today in which some are saying that you don't even need an insurrection conviction to disqualify Trump. Apparently, the House democrats saw it differently with their impeachment efforts to get him convicted in the Senate which failed. The whole point in them doing so was to get him disqualified from holding a future office under the 14th amendment. That was their main goal. They certainly felt that they needed a conviction.

 

[Super Bee]

 

[KG1]

Here we go. Looks like the first test case.

 

[Expat]

This needs to be fast tracked to SCOTUS.

 

[KG1]

I think the issue at hand here with this disqualification attempt based on insurrection is that there is not even a consensus that what happened on J6 was an "insurrection" like some have claimed it to be while others make the claim it was a protest that got out of hand and ended up in riotous behavior by a minority. No one has even been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Jack Smith didn't even indict Trump with a charge of inciting an insurrection because he knew it would complicate his indictment.

Congress couldn't even agree on that question when the House democrats tried to get Trump convicted and disqualified by an impeachment based on "insurrection" which ended up in an acquittal in the Senate.

 

[LeftyGunner]

I think the issue at hand here with this disqualification attempt based on insurrection is that there is not even a consensus that what happened on J6 was an "insurrection" like some have claimed it to be while others make the claim it was a protest that got out of hand and ended up in riotous behavior by a minority. No one has even been charged let alone convicted of insurrection.

Congress couldn't even agree on that question when the House democrats tried to get Trump convicted and disqualified by an impeachment based on "insurrection" which ended up in an acquittal in the Senate.

Jan6 wasn’t just the riot at the capitol, it was also the fraudulent electors scheme.

In 2021 Trump and his co-conspirators took action to keep the legitimate president-elect from taking office...it was not a populist rebellion or a para-military uprising, but it was a factual coup attempt.

Trump still publicly refuses to accept the results of his last election. I think that fact alone should disqualify him from participating in any future election. There is simply no sincere argument to be made that he is participating in good faith…if Trump is allowed on the ballot in 2024 he will claim he won regardless of the actual vote count.

Impeachment is a political procedure, the results are based on the strength of political alliances…not the strength of evidence.

 

[KG1]

Jan6 wasn’t just the riot at the capitol, it was also the fraudulent electors scheme.

In 2021 Trump and his co-conspirators took action to keep the legitimate president-elect from taking office...it was not a populist rebellion or a para-military uprising, but it was a factual coup attempt.

Trump still publicly refuses to accept the results of his last election. I think that fact alone should disqualify him from participating in any future election. There is simply no sincere argument to be made that he is participating in good faith…if Trump is allowed on the ballot in 2024 he will claim he won regardless of the actual vote count.

Impeachment is a political procedure, the results are based on the strength of political alliances…not the strength of evidence.

Could it not also be said that the allegation of calling it an "insurrection" is equally predominantly based on the strength of political alliances for political purposes?

 

[KLB]

Trump still publicly refuses to accept the results of his last election. I think that fact alone should disqualify him from participating in any future election. There is simply no sincere argument to be made that he is participating in good faith…if Trump is allowed on the ballot in 2024 he will claim he won regardless of the actual vote count.

You think that anyone that refuses to accept the results of a previous election should be disqualified from being able to run for office?

 

[KG1]

You think that anyone that refuses to accept the results of a previous election should be disqualified from being able to run for office?

Why just Trump and not HRC, her cabal and others who actively and knowingly engaged in fraudulently trying to delegitimize and undermine a duly elected president's administration or Stacy Abrhams who refused to accept the results of her election? The difference is It's because they are democrats.

 

[Route 45]

You think that anyone that refuses to accept the results of a previous election should be disqualified from being able to run for office?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

View attachment 295585

 

[LeftyGunner]

You think that anyone that refuses to accept the results of a previous election should be disqualified from being able to run for office?

Yep.

Adhere to the rules and abide by the results or GTFO.

(And yes, that includes Hillary for her 2016 antics as well)

 

[KG1]

Yeah, well get your democrat PTB to agree that what HRC and her cabal did was an insurrection in which she or any of them should be disqualified from running for any future office or even indicted for their antics, which they haven't and won't and maybe there could be a discussion about what they accused Trump of doing.

That's what I'm talking about being a lack of consensus. Who's to determine what is and what isn't? Democrats, Republicans, You, Me according to our opinions which remain diametrically opposed on this issue. Who argument should be given more weight?

 

[BugI02]

Maybe you should be clearer about what you think you are saying. It's clear what you think of those that don't hold Trump is as high esteem as you and your fellow Trumpers. Of course, you'd rather be an ass than have civil conversations. It's what you do when it comes to anything Trump related that is speaking glowingly of him.

So, as I suspected, it IS all about you - but I'm the one not exhibiting fealty to the dialectic

Perhaps if you wish to be taken more seriously, don't open with a diatribe against all Trumpers as if they exhibit no differentiation within the classification

If you have a problem with me, fine, go ahead and say so - but I'm not an exemplar of a 'Trumper', I am a unique individual with unique beliefs. I cannot be controlled, even slightly, by the granting or withholding of 'respect' if I find it to be of little consequence or value

I don't generally have a problem with you but homey don't play that

 

[jamil]

Jan6 wasn’t just the riot at the capitol, it was also the fraudulent electors scheme.

In 2021 Trump and his co-conspirators took action to keep the legitimate president-elect from taking office...it was not a populist rebellion or a para-military uprising, but it was a factual coup attempt.

Trump still publicly refuses to accept the results of his last election. I think that fact alone should disqualify him from participating in any future election. There is simply no sincere argument to be made that he is participating in good faith…if Trump is allowed on the ballot in 2024 he will claim he won regardless of the actual vote count.

Impeachment is a political procedure, the results are based on the strength of political alliances…not the strength of evidence.

Alleged fraudulent electors scheme. There’s a lot more to it than, he’s guilty because it’s Trump. I don’t believe the legal theory holds water that Trump’s lawyer were pushing. That doesn’t make it fraud. They’ll need to prove that Trump knew he had lost legitimately, and then did this to try to stay in office.

 

[BugI02]

Case should be dismissed for lack of standing

 

[jamil]

Yep.

Adhere to the rules and abide by the results or GTFO.

(And yes, that includes Hillary for her 2016 antics as well)

So Hillary should be charged for saying the 2016 election was stolen? I kinda think that falls within protected free speech.