Self-aggrandizing remarks: "My White House, My Generals, My Documents, My Governors, My Government, My Judges, My Money, My Airforce. My Air Force One, My police, I am the Chosen One, My Wealth, My Post Office". and so much more. The only thing is NONE of the previously mentioned belong to him. The money belongs to the banks and to those he never paid(Where is the MayorGioulliani?
What does not belong to those I mentioned belongs to those who paid for it: The American People. Nothing in the White House, not even the toilet paper he kept forgetting to get off his ass. It belongs to us but this man is so selfish, not a giver but a taker. He can not be the leader of anything and not believe that everything and everyone belongs to him when it does not. the sooner the Americans send him the message the sooner the American people (64% of them) slap him to reality and everything his little hand touches will stop being destroyed..
 |
| picture by Vanity Fair |
The Court’s judges seemed to indicate Thursday they would overturn the Colorado ruling. But he might not get so lucky with his “immunity” claims.
If you told someone roughly three years ago that Donald Trump would run for president again in 2024, you’d likely receive this response: “Are you f--king shitting me?” And then, after explaining that you were not, in fact, shitting them, face follow-up questions such as: “The same Donald Trump who just incited a deadly insurrection?” and “Is this a sick joke?” and “How is that freaking possible?”
Of course, there are multiple reasons why, three years later, a man who tried to overthrow the government can run for president again, not the least of which is the fact that Senate Republicans had the chance to ensure he would never be able to seek higher office again but chose not to take it, even though many of them publicly admitted he was a danger to society. Another one? Despite attempts by various states to keep Trump off the ballot, the Supreme Court appears poised to give him a pass.
During more than two hours of arguments on Thursday, the Court seemed to signal that it would overturn a Colorado court’s ruling that the ex-president is ineligible to hold office because he violated the 14th Amendment by engaging in insurrection. Brett Kavanaugh suggested that keeping Trump off the ballot would disenfranchise voters “to a significant degree.” John Roberts claimed that if Trump were to be removed from the ballot in Colorado, other states would kick candidates out of future elections, a prospect he said would lead to “just a handful of states that are going to decide the presidential election.” (Roberts did not acknowledge that those other candidates would have to engage in an insurrection themselves.) Clarence Thomas, who got the first question of the day, wanted to know if the 14th Amendment could be applied without action from Congress.
Thomas was never likely to agree to kick Trump off the ballot, which may or may not have to do with his conflict of interest: His wife, Ginni Thomas, tried extremely hard to help the ex-president overturn the 2020 election. Because of that, many Democrats have called for him to recuse himself from the case, including Senator Dick Durbin, who said Thursday, “It’s a shame he’s allowing any question of bias to exist, given his family’s reported involvement on January 6th.” Representative Bill Pascrell Jr. commented on Thomas’s participation in the case, “It’s no wonder public trust in the court is terrible,” and said Thomas should resign. Representative Jasmine Crockett suggested that Thomas would not be “able to accept the facts as determined by the lower courts that Trump did engage in an insurrection.”
Unfortunately, it does not appear that Thomas, or the Court’s conservative wing, are the only ones poised to overturn the Colorado ruling. Per CNN:
Another sign that the Court was leaning toward Trump’s position: Even some of the liberal justices posed difficult questions to the lawyers representing his challengers. Notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden nominee, said that the 14th Amendment provision did not include the word president, even though it specifically listed other officials who would be covered, such as members of Congress. That is a central argument Trump’s attorneys have raised in the case. “They were listing people that were barred and president is not there,” Jackson said. “I guess that just makes me worry that maybe they weren’t focused on the president.”
Justice Elena Kagan questioned the implications of a single state banning a candidate in a presidential election. “Why should a single state have the ability to make this determination not only for their own citizens but for the rest of the nation?” Kagan asked.
Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, told The Washington Post he expects a “lopsided ruling reversing Colorado,” with eight and possibly all nine justices ruling to overturn the Colorado decision. But he added that Trump might not get so lucky in another important case that the Court will soon decide:
Hasen…said that looking ahead, the justices “need to be thinking about the immunity petition coming their way on Monday,” referring to former president Donald Trump’s argument in a separate case that he is immune from prosecution for his actions around the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. This week, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that Trump is not immune from charges for his acts as president.
While the two cases are “legally unconnected,” Hasen noted that they might be related in the justices’ minds because they “could make a grand compromise where Trump is put back on the ballot, but he goes to trial on election subversion.”
Comments