Trump and the Jan 6 investigation

[Ralin]

Also, the marines - or whatever branch of the military you name - does not swear loyalty to the president, they swear it to the constitution. Despite Trump's and Trumpists' wet dreams, the US military is not a private army. Again, the marines will not prevent the lawful arrest of a government official.

Yeah, but it's questionable at best whether the president can be arrested by state law enforcement. And while the question of what to do if someone who is already in state prison or sentenced to be there is subsequently elected president is completely uncharted waters (because that would be really fucking stupid), call me crazy but I have to figure that's a situation the people responsible for protecting the president would object to.

[LadyTevar]

Also, the marines - or whatever branch of the military you name - does not swear loyalty to the president, they swear it to the constitution. Despite Trump's and Trumpists' wet dreams, the US military is not a private army. Again, the marines will not prevent the lawful arrest of a government official.

Yeah, but it's questionable at best whether the president can be arrested by state law enforcement. And while the question of what to do if someone who is already in state prison or sentenced to be there is subsequently elected president is completely uncharted waters (because that would be really fucking stupid), call me crazy but I have to figure that's a situation the people responsible for protecting the president would object to.

He already was arrested on the other indictments. They were just POLITE about it, let him turn himself in, did the booking quietly without mugshots and fingerprinting, and let him leave in his limo and go home on his plane.

As long as the State Police do not seek to HARM Trump, the SS will let him get arrested. If he was trying to avoid it, they might just cuff him themselves to save everyone the effort.

[LadyTevar]

Also, the marines - or whatever branch of the military you name - does not swear loyalty to the president, they swear it to the constitution. Despite Trump's and Trumpists' wet dreams, the US military is not a private army. Again, the marines will not prevent the lawful arrest of a government official.

Yeah, but it's questionable at best whether the president can be arrested by state law enforcement. And while the question of what to do if someone who is already in state prison or sentenced to be there is subsequently elected president is completely uncharted waters (because that would be really fucking stupid), call me crazy but I have to figure that's a situation the people responsible for protecting the president would object to.

I, and several other people I have talked to, think that if Trump is sentenced, THEN the "sane" part of the GOP will drop him like a hot potato. As the article I posted on the last page shows, there's a lot of Young Republicans who want rid of him, who think he doesn't deserve the nomination because he's toxic. As the trials go on, more and more of the Young Republicans and 'sane' GOP will do their best to distance the whole party from him.

By then it'll be too late to save the GOP as the true believers split it apart, and Biden easily wins another term.

[Zaune]

Correct.

Even as a lowly Census worker and thus very temporary Federal employee I was required to swear to uphold and defend the US constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. This applies to the military as well as the Secret Service. And "former president convicted of election fraud in an attempt to subvert the peaceful transfer of power" is, arguably, a domestic enemy of that constitution. The SS would still have to protect Trump from physical harm but that is all that is required of them, or even permitted to them. They will see that he is protected from harm during the arrest process and if he is imprisoned, but they will not (and should not) interfere with the legal system or any punishment handed down by that system.

No wonder he was trying to keep his own private security contractors around. If the coup attempt had escalated rather than fizzling out then I suspect his Secret Service detail would've turned on him rather than let him have Biden shot.

[Broomstick]

Don't forget that presidential candidates ALSO receive SS protection during the campaign season. Indeed, during Trump's first run at one point the SS grabbed Trump and hustled him away due to a perception of a threat from the audience. In your hypothetical the SS would equally be protecting Biden.

[Broomstick]

Also, the marines - or whatever branch of the military you name - does not swear loyalty to the president, they swear it to the constitution. Despite Trump's and Trumpists' wet dreams, the US military is not a private army. Again, the marines will not prevent the lawful arrest of a government official.

Yeah, but it's questionable at best whether the president can be arrested by state law enforcement.

According to...whom? The Trumpists? Sure. But it's a founding principle of the US that no one is above the law. NO ONE. Granted, this hasn't always been perfect in practice, but I have never seen or heard of anything that prevent a Federal employee from being arrested, tried, and if convicted incarcerated for committing a State level crime.

And while the question of what to do if someone who is already in state prison or sentenced to be there is subsequently elected president is completely uncharted waters (because that would be really fucking stupid), call me crazy but I have to figure that's a situation the people responsible for protecting the president would object to.

I think the founders of the US did not anticipate anyone electing a convicted felon. An oversight, yes.

[Crazedwraith]

His Secret Service detail did basically turn on him during the coup iirc or rather put his safety over his desires and didn't let him go the capitol with the rioters.

[Zaune]

Don't forget that presidential candidates ALSO receive SS protection during the campaign season. Indeed, during Trump's first run at one point the SS grabbed Trump and hustled him away due to a perception of a threat from the audience. In your hypothetical the SS would equally be protecting Biden.

I think it speaks moderately well of the US government as an institution that it's taken this long for, "What is the Secret Service's contingency plan for one Presidential candidate actively inciting his supporters to commit violence against another candidate?" to come up.

[Rogue 9]

I think the founders of the US did not anticipate anyone electing a convicted felon. An oversight, yes.

The Founders anticipated the Electors refusing to elect a populist or criminal straight out; it's why the system exists rather than direct popular election. Of course, as 2016 demonstrated (and we all knew) that idea has long since been subverted. See Federalist 68. "The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union..." Well, we see how that worked out, Mr. Hamilton.

[Gandalf]

Well, we see how that worked out, Mr. Hamilton.

Yeah, they really weren't great at nation building. Turns out there's more to it than using violence to ensure cheap land and free labour, and legitimising it with nice prose.

What controls realistically exist to stop a more competent version of the "fake elector" scheme?

[Dalton]

Oh look, it's the internet tough guy!

"I don't like what this person said, so I'm going to call them a meme."

He's calling a spade a spade, and you, once again, ARE acting the Internet Tough Guy, as you have in other threads on this Site.

Something you have been repeatedly been reported for, and IIRC Dalton has warned you about.
Do we need to have a discussion, or will you stop here?

Five in the past 13 years. Two from me. So yes, let's stop doing this because the next warning will be...terminal.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well, Trump's already infamous mugshot is less than a day old and is going to be monetised and memed to death

[bilateralrope]

Judge schedules Trump codefendant Ken Chesebro for October trial in racketeering case

The expedited trial date does not apply — at least for now — to Donald Trump or any other defendants in the Georgia case.

By KYLE CHENEY

08/24/2023 01:11 PM EDT

Updated: 08/24/2023 04:44 PM EDT

A Georgia state judge has scheduled an Oct. 23 racketeering trial for Kenneth Chesebro, one of 18 codefendants charged by local prosecutors alongside Donald Trump in a plot to subvert the 2020 election.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis asked the judge, Scott McAfee, Thursday to schedule the trial for all 19 defendants on that date, an unexpectedly rapid timeline that Willis proposed in response to Chesebro’s formal demand for a speedy trial. But McAfee indicated that “at this time” he would only expedite the trial date for Chesebro.

The demand from Chesebro, an attorney who is accused of orchestrating a scheme to send false electors to Congress, requires a quick trial that comes within, or shortly after, the term of the grand jury that issued the indictment against Trump and his allies. On Thursday morning, Chesebro also asked for an “expedited” arraignment to facilitate his speedy trial effort.

Willis responded to Chesebro’s initial motion Thursday by, essentially, agreeing.

“Without waiving any objection as to the sufficiency of Defendant Kenneth John Chesebro’s filing, the State requests that this Court specially set the trial in this case to commence on October 23, 2023, which falls within the term of the ‘next succeeding regular court term,’” Willis wrote.

McAfee’s schedule for the Chesebro trial includes an arraignment on Sept. 6, all evidence sharing to be completed by Sept. 20, pretrial motions by Sept. 27 and final preliminary matters to be undertaken on Sept. 29.

A trial for all 19 defendants just two months from now seems implausible given the torrent of anticipated pretrial motions and complex legal issues likely to be litigated before a jury can be seated. Three of the defendants — Mark Meadows, Jeff Clark and David Shafer — are seeking to transfer the case to federal court, which would sideline the proceedings in Fulton County. Trump has yet to weigh in on that effort but is expected to make his own bid to scuttle the charges against him before trial.

Trump’s attorney, Steve Sadow, quickly signaled his objection to Willis’ proposed trial date on Thursday and indicated he would file a motion to sever his case from Chesebro’s, which would untether him from the expedited proceedings.

This should be preview of how well this case will go for Trump.

[bobalot]

It's been pretty amazing watching all these indictments coming in.

The first one flood gates.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

And this is ensuring the media spotlight will be focused squarely on him, meaning the other Republicans don't get so much as a look-in for the primary.

First trial date isn't until March, which is no surprise.

[bilateralrope]

I'm putting this here because of its link to Jan 6:


Watchdog group sues to remove ‘insurrectionist’ Trump from 2024 ballot

Crew represents six Colorado voters – Republican or unaffiliated – seeking to remove Trump from ballot over Capitol attack

Mary Yang
Wed 6 Sep 2023 18.58 BST

A watchdog group is suing to remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot, saying he violated the constitution and is disqualified from holding future office.

The lawsuit is so far one of the strongest challenges to Trump’s eligibility to seek re-election.

According to the lawsuit filed on Wednesday, the former president violated section 3 of the 14th amendment, also known as the Disqualification Clause, with his involvement in the January 6 US Capitol attack. The section bars any federal or state official that has “previously taken an oath” from holding office after they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.

Two prominent conservative legal scholars recently authored a lengthy law review article arguing that Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th amendment.

“The bottom line is that Donald Trump ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in section 3 of the 14th amendment,” William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St Thomas wrote in their 126-page article, which traces the history and original understanding of the amendment. “If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close.”

Trump has dismissed attempts to remove him from the ballot as “election interference”, his umbrella cry against the long list of felony charges he faces in Georgia and in federal court for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.

“Almost all legal scholars have voiced opinions that the 14th Amendment has no legal basis or standing relative to the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election,” Trump claimed in a post to his social media platform Truth Social on Monday, calling arguments based on the amendment a “trick” being used by leftists to “steal” an election.

The DC-based group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), is representing six Colorado voters – who are either Republican or unaffiliated with a political party – seeking to remove Trump from their state’s ballot in next year’s general election.

In addition to Colorado, other states are bracing for similar lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility including Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire.

It’s unclear what the exact procedure will be for challenging Trump’s eligibility, and it could vary by state. Either way, the US supreme court is expected to weigh in soon on whether Trump is eligible.

“If the very fabric of our democracy is to hold, we must ensure that the Constitution is enforced and the same people who attacked our democratic system not be put in charge of it,” said Crew’s president, Noah Bookbinder, in a statement on Wednesday.

Last year, Crew represented New Mexico residents who successfully sued to remove their county commissioner, Couy Griffin, who participated in the January 6 riot. A federal judge ruled that the attack was indeed an insurrection, and that Griffin’s participation disqualified him from holding office.

I predict that SCOTUS will delay any ruling for as long as they can. Probably until after he's convicted and had exhausted his appeals. After that, it will depend on how much they want Trump replaced with someone else.

[Eternal_Freedom]

"Trump has dismissed attempts to remove him from the ballot as “election interference”, his umbrella cry against the long list of felony charges he faces in Georgia and in federal court for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election."

So...his defence agaisnt accusations and charges that he interfered with an election...is to claim it's interference with an election. My gods this man is dumb.

[Ralin]

"Trump has dismissed attempts to remove him from the ballot as “election interference”, his umbrella cry against the long list of felony charges he faces in Georgia and in federal court for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election."

So...his defence agaisnt accusations and charges that he interfered with an election...is to claim it's interference with an election. My gods this man is dumb.

He is, but realistically brazening it out and taking the White House back is probably his best chance, so

[Ralin]

I predict that SCOTUS will delay any ruling for as long as they can. Probably until after he's convicted and had exhausted his appeals. After that, it will depend on how much they want Trump replaced with someone else.

I expect they'll kick it to Congress or something. No way in hell they want the political hot potato of barring a man at least a quarter of the country wants to be president from the ballot, even without considering their personal biases.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio jailed for 22 years for US Capitol riot

Former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio has been jailed for 22 years for plotting the 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

The sentence is by far the longest one given to anyone linked with the attack on January 6 2021.

Tarrio ultimately failed in his bid to stop the transfer of presidential power after Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.

He was the final Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy in the attack to be sentenced.

Three other Proud Boys have been found guilty of sedition charges and were sentenced last week to prison terms ranging from 15 to 18 years.

The US Justice Department described Tarrio as the ringleader of a plot to overturn the election victory by Joe Biden despite not being in Washington on January 6.

He had been arrested two days earlier in a separate case - but prosecutors say he helped put in motion and encourage the violence.

Tarrio, who has been jailed since his arrest in March 2022, appeared in court in an orange jail uniform.

"Tarrio has repeatedly and publicly indicated that he has no regrets about what he helped make happen on January 6," prosecutors wrote in court documents.

Ethan Nordean, who prosecutors said was the Proud Boys' leader on the ground on the day of the attack, was sentenced to 18 years in prison, previously tying the record for the longest sentence in the attack.

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was found guilty of seditious conspiracy in a separate case, was sentenced in May to 18 years in prison.

Prosecutors, who had sought 25 years for Rhodes, are appealing his sentence and the punishments of other members of his anti-government militia group.

Lawyers for the Proud Boys deny that there was any plot to attack the Capitol or stop the transfer of presidential power.

Tarrio's lawyer, Sabino Jauregui, told the judge that his client had no intentions of overthrowing the government, and that the Proud Boys' only plans that day were to protest the election and confront left-wing antifa activists.

Jauregui said: "My client is no terrorist. My client is a misguided patriot."

Police arrested Tarrio in Washington on January 4, 2021, on charges that he defaced a Black Lives Matter banner, during an earlier rally in the nation's capital, but law enforcement officials later said he was arrested in part over concerns about the potential for unrest during Biden's certification.

On January 6, dozens of Proud Boys leaders, members and associates were among the first rioters to breach the Capitol.

The mob's assault overwhelmed police, forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate floors, and disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying the incoming president's victory.

The backbone of the government's case was hundreds of messages exchanged by Proud Boys in the days leading up to the Capital attack.

As Proud Boys swarmed the Capitol, Tarrio cheered them on from afar, writing on social media: "Do what must be done."

In a Proud Boys encrypted group chat later that day someone asked what they should do next. Tarrio responded: "Do it again."

He wrote in an Instagram post: "Make no mistake. We did this."

[bilateralrope]

One thing that article doesn't mention is that Enrique Tarrio wasn't in DC on Jan 6. But that wasn't enough for him to escape justice.

"Trump has dismissed attempts to remove him from the ballot as “election interference”, his umbrella cry against the long list of felony charges he faces in Georgia and in federal court for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election."

So...his defence agaisnt accusations and charges that he interfered with an election...is to claim it's interference with an election. My gods this man is dumb.

Every accusation is a confession.

[Solauren]

The problem with trying to remove Trump from the ballot is this - he hasn't been convicted yet.
He's been ACCUSED, yes. But that's not the same as convicted, or conclusively shown to be linked yet.
(Conclusively linked would be pictures of him, or live footage of him, leading the riot)

Therefore banning him, prior to conviction, may actually be Unconstitutional.

[Ralin]

The problem with trying to remove Trump from the ballot is this - he hasn't been convicted yet.
He's been ACCUSED, yes. But that's not the same as convicted, or conclusively shown to be linked yet.
(Conclusively linked would be pictures of him, or live footage of him, leading the riot)

Therefore banning him, prior to conviction, may actually be Unconstitutional.

Not exactly because the amendment doesn't require conviction. Especially since I'm not even sure if these things are officially defined crimes.

From what I've read elsewhere it's also not completely clear whether the clause in question is 'self-executing' (I think that's the legal term), but from what I understand people have been barred from office for it (in at least one case after being elected to Congress!) under it without being tried and convicted.

[Solauren]

The problem with trying to remove Trump from the ballot is this - he hasn't been convicted yet.
He's been ACCUSED, yes. But that's not the same as convicted, or conclusively shown to be linked yet.
(Conclusively linked would be pictures of him, or live footage of him, leading the riot)

Therefore banning him, prior to conviction, may actually be Unconstitutional.

Not exactly because the amendment doesn't require conviction. Especially since I'm not even sure if these things are officially defined crimes.

From what I've read elsewhere it's also not completely clear whether the clause in question is 'self-executing' (I think that's the legal term), but from what I understand people have been barred from office for it (in at least one case after being elected to Congress!) under it without being tried and convicted.

If that's the case, the states has precedent, so POOR Trump

However, I can see him fighting it on the grounds that it doesn't require a conviction, and therefore, 'as written', violates other aspects of the US Constitution.

Should be interesting to watch, to say the least.

[Ralin]

More to the point, banning a former Confederate governor elected to Congress by one state (eventually did get in) is really different from banning a former president who at least a quarter of the country wants to vote for. Equality before the law isn't exactly an issue here because we're not talking about actual written down laws.

Like I said, the Supreme Court would probably lob the issue over to Congress, and they'd probably be right to do so.