USA Midterms....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Bazzer

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
Potentially a windfall Trump was expecting might not happen.
Shares in his Truth Social platform were due to go public this month, via a special purpose acquisition company. - A company which has previously had problems and has had imposed a large fine. It was thought Trump was planning to sell a large tranche of his shares, in order to fund payment of the defamation and fraud judgements. But in doing so, he would dump on other investors a drop in share price. Unsurprisingly, it appears he also wanted to shaft his minority shareholding co founders.
Now it looks like Trump could face yet another law suit
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafag...claiming-company-tried-to-dilute-their-stake/
 
A

albion

Guest
Some rogue allies in the electoral register offices. Dodgy stuff.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/03/us/politics/trump-voter-rolls.html
 
Beebo

Beebo

Guru
Interesting that the Supreme Court voted 9-0 on the issue of key Trump’s name on the ballot paper.
So even the democratic leaning Justices thought it was wrong to keep his name off the ballot.
 
Bazzer

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
Beebo said:
Interesting that the Supreme Court voted 9-0 on the issue of key Trump’s name on the ballot paper.
So even the democratic leaning Justices thought it was wrong to keep his name off the ballot.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem to be a surprise.
From the questioning during the hearing, there seemed to be no appetite for Trump's disqualification. The areas people like former Judge Michael Luttig considered were relevant, were barely referenced in the hearing.
 
Last edited:
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Veteran
Bazzer said:
It doesn't seem to be a surprise.
From the questioning during the hearing, there seemed to be no appetite for Trump's disqualification. The areas people like former Judge Michael Luttig considered were relevant, were barely referenced in the hearing.
Click to expand...
Don't think banning Trump would have solved anything he would have just entered by proxy, if they want to defeat Trump they need to find and answer to it, which is quite hard if youre so divided as the Democratic party. (not that the republicans are so much better but they have Trump, if Mccain would still be alive i think he would have made a good chance of winning against Trump in running for the republicans)
 
D

Deleted member 159

Guest
Biden flew in 320,000 illegals to reduce the numbers coming across the border.

Do they get immediate voting rights?
 
C R

C R

Über Member
CXRAndy said:
Biden flew in 320,000 illegals to reduce the numbers coming across the border.

Do they get immediate voting rights?
Click to expand...

Of course not, only ignorant trump supporters should be allowed to vote.
 
Bazzer

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
One of Trump's former lawyers in the White House looks to have dug himself into more holes.
Having accepted a plea deal in Georgia under which he was supposed to have told and tell the truth, Ken Cheseboro, one of the architects of the voter election fraud scheme, was given permission by Judge McAfee who is over seeing the election fraud proceedings in Georgia, to speak to other State prosecutors. He has been spoken to by prosecutors in Michigan and Nevada and he looks to be now facing perjury charges.
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/05/le...a-new-perjury-problem-his-goose-looks-cooked/
MAGA - Make Attorneys Get Attorneys.
 
  • Laugh
Reactions: C R
E

ebikeerwidnes

Senior Member
The concept of trump being banned from the ballot based on allegation of anything is rather worrying

If he had been convicted then it would be different

but with just an allegation - however much evidence there may be - it is a problem

where do you stop??
do you ban anyone who has been accused of insurrection??
and if so how do you prevent a group accusing any Democrat using dodgy evidence - but doing it a few weeks before the ballot entry date so there is no time to investigate

I do which he had been banned -and I believe that he was guilty of insurrection - but the concept of doing it without a conviction is a problem
 
Bazzer

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
ebikeerwidnes said:
The concept of trump being banned from the ballot based on allegation of anything is rather worrying

If he had been convicted then it would be different

but with just an allegation - however much evidence there may be - it is a problem

where do you stop??
do you ban anyone who has been accused of insurrection??
and if so how do you prevent a group accusing any Democrat using dodgy evidence - but doing it a few weeks before the ballot entry date so there is no time to investigate

I do which he had been banned -and I believe that he was guilty of insurrection - but the concept of doing it without a conviction is a problem
Click to expand...
The term used in the 14th amendment to the constitution is " ..... shall have engaged in insurrection......"
There is no requirement for a conviction of guilt of insurrection in the constitution. Neither does the override rule of two thirds of each House removing the disqualification disability, require a conviction of guilt of insurrection.
Edited to include 14th amendment.
 
Last edited:
A

AuroraSaab

Squire
You can surely see how it could be used to prevent someone from running by making false allegations though? Aside from Trump's situation, it could be used against anybody given that things take so long to come to court. You could have an official pressing then dropping charges simply to prevent opponents from standing.
 
Bazzer

Bazzer

Well-Known Member
There are other exclusions to running for president in place which do not require the verdict of a court.
If an official falsely pressed charges to prevent opponents from standing, that could be challenged. There are numerous opportunities within the US judicial system for challenges.
Whilst the insurrection may seem a long time ago, Trump's disqualification from the ballot, is a relatively recent legal issue. Coming to a head when his qualification or otherwise on the Colorado ballot came to be considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom