Or just the dufus being the dufus?

While he was hollering about a rigged election the dufus was trying his own rigging.

Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting AG - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

And for those like me without a NYTimes subscription

There was almost a Trump coup at DOJ, part of scheme to overthrow election | Boing Boing

Quote:

---

The Justice Department's top leaders listened in stunned silence this month: One of their peers, they were told, had devised a plan with President Donald J. Trump to oust Jeffrey A. Rosen as acting attorney general and wield the department's power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results.
The unassuming lawyer who worked on the plan, Jeffrey Clark, had been devising ways to cast doubt on the election results and to bolster Mr. Trump's continuing legal battles and the pressure on Georgia politicians. Because Mr. Rosen had refused the president's entreaties to carry out those plans, Mr. Trump was about to decide whether to fire Mr. Rosen and replace him with Mr. Clark.

The department officials, convened on a conference call, then asked each other: What will you do if Mr. Rosen is dismissed?
The answer was unanimous. They would resign.

---

Is this evidence enough to show how low the dufus will go to keep his power, prestige and influence as the most powerful man in the world? Imagine what a second term would be like under the dufus before we woke up and booted him from the White House!

WHEW!

On the Rachel Maddow Show tonight, she mentioned that Georgia switching gears was their first effort. If they succeeded in moving those electoral votes to Trump, they probably hoped there would be a domino effect with other states caving in.

The AG serves at the pleasure of the President . There was no need to 'plot ' to remove him . He could've fired him ,

Quid fired the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel, Peter Robb ;who is confirmed by the Senate for a 4 year term that traditionally crosses over administration to administration . Trump refrained from ousting the emperor's pick Richard Griffin Jr. until after his term expired .

No comment on the subject of more dufus antics at DOJ to keep his job illegally? Robb serves at the pleasure of the president too. Was his firing unprecedented? Maybe, but no different than the moves the dufus made during his tenure which the right cheered on and defended.

Does the firing change the illegal desperate schemes and lies of the dufus to keep his job? I don't think so!

Quote:

---

Does the firing change the illegal desperate schemes and lies of the dufus to keep his job? I don't think so!

---

no just another payback to the big unions that funded his stay at home campaign . More proof that his calls for unity and civil discourse are empty rhetoric .

Quote:

---

More proof that his calls for unity and civil discourse are empty rhetoric .

---

It certainly seems to be true.

Biden's call for unity doesn't mean the GOP will co operate, negotiate, or do anything different than they have done which amounts to kissing the a$$ of a lying cheating bully. May be a while before they crawl out of his arse and stand on their own feet. More than likely they will obstruct whatever Joe puts forth until the next election like they did Obama, but I think Joe knows that and is fully prepared to deal with who repubs were before the dufus and after the dufus got here.

John Mitchell said of the Nixon administration 'watch what we do ,not what we say ' . I think unity is meant for his soon to be divided party .

Think the dufus will start his own party? That can't be good for repub unity.

Trump is finished. Without the bully pulpit and twitter, the guy has nothing. No platform, no political philosophy, no issues he genuinely cares about - NADA.

He'll go back to grabbing p**** until he's sent up the river without a paddle. (I like mixed metaphors).

Trump plots revenge on Republicans who betrayed him as Senate trial looms (msn.com)

Quote:

---

Stewing over election defeat by Joe Biden, four days after leaving the White House, Trump continued to drop hints of creating a new party, a threat some see as a gambit to keep wavering senators in line ahead of the opening of his trial, in the week after 8 February.

---

He's desperate and repubs are scared.

I addressed the idea of Trump forming a 3rd party here

Trump impeachment? - Page 8 (askmehelpdesk.com)

It would not turn out well .

Trump may or may not be desperate but not as much as the Dems are desperate to keep him relevant and in the news . Why else would they be bringing back the idea of a Senate trial ? It can't be to convict him ;that won't happen . The Dems don't have the votes . Nor do they have a Chief Justice to preside . (Art 1 Sec 3 Clause 6)

Quote:

---

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

---

So why continue to pursue this over Quid's legislative agenda ? Because the only thing that unites the Dems is their hatred of Trump

Your comment about the dems hatred of Trump is exactly correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I addressed the idea of Trump forming a 3rd party here

Trump impeachment? - Page 8 (askmehelpdesk.com)

It would not turn out well .

Trump may or may not be desperate but not as much as the Dems are desperate to keep him relevant and in the news . Why else would they be bringing back the idea of a Senate trial ? It can't be to convict him ;that won't happen . The Dems don't have the votes . Nor do they have a Chief Justice to preside . (Art 1 Sec 3 Clause 6)


So why continue to pursue this over Quid's legislative agenda ? Because the only thing that unites the Dems is their hatred of Trump

---

The dufus screwed up and isn't above the law plain and simple. Repubs can overlook him all they want as they have been doing no matter what he does or says. Keep the lips puckered repub buttercups.

What law was broken ? None . The charges against him are political and only the most cynical Democrat could make that charge knowing how often their own side supported riots that continue to this day . Again, the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision set the incitement bar at knowing his words would result in the Capitol Hill riot. The Brandenburg decision implies intent . The intent by his own words were to peacefully demonstrate . Also Believers v Wayne County says that punishable incitement must include specific instructions to do an unlawful act AND to enlist the crowd to perform an illegal act .
Heckler's veto is a legal concept that says that protected speech does not transfer into incitement if a crowd becomes hostile . Words like fight and strength are not words of incitement . Half the Dems could be charged with incitement if that was the case .

Let me ask you ; did Bernie Sanders incite James T. Hodgkinson to shoot up a baseball game of Republican lawmakers ? Why not ? Under the standards you set he would be guilty .

Hatred and political ambition do not recognize legal standards.

Intent was established by the LIE of voter fraud (Repubs have hollered that for decades). Intent was established by numerous court cases without presenting credible evidence. Intent was clearly established with republican help after failing to establish a legal foundation for his claims allegations and lies he turned to more direct tactics to pressure lawmakers to change their state results which fortunately were recorded. I expect repubs to turn a blind eye to such public antics, but you would be out of your mind to think the dems would go along with them.

If you think a dem was as wrong as the dufus then do something about it. Yeah it's all politics, and that's the way it's been played in America. Don't blame the dems because the dufus has a sizable base they fear because they depend on their votes, that can be riled up and lied to with ease. Come on Tom, he hasn't stopped his outrageous behavior since the LAST impeachment trial. He has escalated with utter impunity his bad behavior like no other in history. Yeah he certainly learned his lesson and as a political matter the impeachment of the dufus for a second time is as much an indictment on repubs as it is on the dufus.

You brung him to the dance now own him.

Again with the word lie . Incite to insurrection only is established if he directed the mob to storm the Capitol and riot . Even then insurrection is a violent uprising against the government . What weapons were carried into the Capitol for that endeavor ? The mob was armed with cellphones with their GPS active ;and for most of them the most violent act performed was taking selfies . Turns out even the plastic cuffs were already in the Capitol ;abandoned by the Capitol Police .


The challenges to the ballots were all completely legitimate and constitutional . He lost mostly because either he did not present sufficient evidence ;or judges did not want to hear the case .

The real cause of this was not Trump complaining about the election being stolen. The cause was that Governors and State Courts took advantage of the covid pandemic to unconstitutionally usurp the proper authority of the State legislatures to decide how the vote is conducted . (Art 2 Sec 1 Clause 2 .... Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: )

Quote:

---

The cause was that Governors and State Courts took advantage of the covid pandemic to unconstitutionally usurp the proper authority of the State legislatures to decide how the vote is conducted . (Art 2 Sec 1 Clause 2 .... Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: )

---

Exactly correct. I would add that the idea of mail-out ballots being sent to household addresses with very little in the way of ballot security left the voting process, in those states, open to charges of irregularities whether they actually occurred or not. It certainly makes it appear that dems are trying to win elections by any and all means available, ethical or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I would add that the idea of mail-out ballots being sent to household addresses with very little in the way of ballot security left the voting process, in those states, open to charges of irregularities whether they actually occurred or not. It certainly makes it appear that dems are trying to win elections by any and all means available, ethical or otherwise.

---

And many of those by-mail voters voted Republican....

Quote:

---

And many of those by-mail voters voted Republican....

---

You have completely missed the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Again with the word lie . Incite to insurrection only is established if he directed the mob to storm the Capitol and riot . Even then insurrection is a violent uprising against the government . What weapons were carried into the Capitol for that endeavor ? The mob was armed with cellphones with their GPS active ;and for most of them the most violent act performed was taking selfies . Turns out even the plastic cuffs were already in the Capitol ;abandoned by the Capitol Police .


The challenges to the ballots were all completely legitimate and constitutional . He lost mostly because either he did not present sufficient evidence ;or judges did not want to hear the case .

The real cause of this was not Trump complaining about the election being stolen. The cause was that Governors and State Courts took advantage of the covid pandemic to unconstitutionally usurp the proper authority of the State legislatures to decide how the vote is conducted . (Art 2 Sec 1 Clause 2 .... Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: )

---

Imagine that. A court refusing to take a case for lack of evidence. Even a repub appointed conservative judge. That tell you a lot right there. Or you can stick with the conspiracy against repubs which might have merit if the whole party issue didn't actively and obviously pursue voter suppression against SELECTED voters which has been patently held as unfair, illegal, or unconstitutional. We're trying to kill Jim Crow and it's descendants while repubs want to keep perpetrating voter suppression. Unfortunately for your arguments a number of recounts don't bear out the fraud or undermine the security of the votes, even while the tired old meme of voter fraud is being adhered to without a scintilla of EVIDENCE! It is however clear evidence of intent by repubs to reduce the dems/minority vote and courts have ruled it so.

Can't blame you since that's the only hope you have to win the national vote. I doubt that stops repubs from more suppression antics though, or silences the hollering about fraud either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Exactly correct. I would add that the idea of mail-out ballots being sent to household addresses with very little in the way of ballot security left the voting process, in those states, open to charges of irregularities whether they actually occurred or not. It certainly makes it appear that dems are trying to win elections by any and all means available, ethical or otherwise.

---

That has proved to be a big LIE as have the charges and allegations of irregularities. We have evidence of that because even repubs investigated and found the last election to be fair and accurate and thusly certified the results. Repub efforts to obstruct and delay and change the vote count FAILED.

And any reasonable person can see that empowering loonies is a disaster, yet that's exactly what the dufus did.

“Fight for Trump”: Video Evidence of Incitement at the Capitol (justsecurity.org)

Lying, cheating to STEAL the election. 5 DEAD!

Quote:

---

imagine that. A court refusing to take a case for lack of evidence.

---

That was true of some of the court challenges . The significant ones were not thrown out because of lack of evidence as much as the court ruling "lack of standing " .

If there is no redress in the courts then where does he go to address grievances when it is clear by the reading of the Constitution that state legislatures make the laws governing how a state conducts an election ;and just as clearly it was the Governors and the courts themselves that usurped the power from the legislatures ? If the President of the US has no standing according to the courts in an issue involving the election of the President then when does he have standing in the imperial courts ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

That was true of some of the court challenges . The significant ones were not thrown out because of lack of evidence as much as the court ruling "lack of standing " .

it was the Governors and the courts themselves that usurped the power from the legislatures ? If the President of the US has no standing according to the courts in an issue involving the election of the President then when does he have standing in the imperial courts ?

---

Fair question, Tom. But first you must answer how 82+ courts, 2 SC decisions, and 3 state recounts all resulted in zero wins for Trump. Are you saying these judges and recounters are ALL involved in a huge conspiracy to deprive Trump of his rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

Fair question, Tom. But first you must answer how 82+ courts, 2 SC decisions, and 3 state recounts all resulted in zero wins for Trump. Are you saying these judges and recounters are ALL involved in a huge conspiracy to deprive Trump of his rights?

---

I think he does see a conspiracy against the dufus or doesn't understand standing or evidence. You can allege anything but judges require and the dufus lawyers didn't dare lie and say there was evidence or even probable cause to sustain a case even if you are the president.

Trump: If the President Doesn’t Have Standing to Pursue Wild, Unsubstantiated Claims of Election Fraud, Who Does? – Reason.com

And

Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election by the numbers (usatoday.com)

Many reasons .. Some were bad representation by Trump's lawyers . Most of the challenges ended at the district level and state court level and did not make it all the way to SCOTUS where the larger constitutional issue could be considered .

When cases made it to SCOTUS ; instead of considering the constitutional point about legislatures making the voting rules for the states and not governors and courts; the court generally and Roberts specifically was inclined to give deference to lower court rulings . Roberts is sensitive to the charge that SCOTUS is a political actor and goes out of his way to avoid the charge. So he was determined to make sure that SCOTUS had no significant role in determining the outcome of the election. And Barrett being the new kid on the block was certainly not going to be the deciding justice.

I guess that's why conservative put such high stock in packing SCOTUS, to get a favorable conservative outcome and fits the narrative of liberal activist judges not following the law. All those conservative judges aren't following the law either if I get your point correctly.

To me it is not conservative /liberal in the court .It is originalist /textualists opposed to activists believers in a 'living breathing ' Constitution ie the words of the text don't matter .

John Roberts has been a major disappointment . He avoids taking on the hard issues . This giving deference to lower courts and unconstitutional laws makes me ill .Imagine if the Warren Court in 1954 gave deference to the Fuller Court when deciding Brown v Board of Education .

How long did it take for SCOTUS to hear the Brown case which overturned Plessy?

A year and a half from arguments to decision . Why do you ask ? If you are asking between decisions it was 58 years where Plessy was precedence . Had the Warren court gave deference to that precedence then the decision never would have been reversed .

It took numerous lower court victories spanning decades Tom before Plessy could be overturned so expecting the dufus, Rudy, or practically anyone else to even get a hearing without lower favorable results is pretty pie n the sky.

Lower courts defeats and failure doesn't help things much. Matter of fact it hurts a lot when you cannot make a compelling case in district courts.

More details on the history can be found here.

Brown v. Board of Education: Summary & Ruling - HISTORY

you generally can't get a SCOTUS hearing until you get a negative call from a lower court and repeal .Favorable rulings end at the lower court unless the other side appeals .

Bottom line . There is a theory called the 'independent state legislature doctrine' that says that the Constitution empowers state legislatures with authority to set voting procedures. On this view, any action by other parts of state government; state courts, executive officials, or election administrators that depart from the legislature’s wishes are null and void. This is a view that Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch agree with ;and probably Barrett even though she recused herself as the new justice on the block .
The problem is Roberts who goes along to get along. He can't sacrifice his place in the DC cocktail circuit . Roberts cover is that not one case could've overturned the election result by itself .

But the larger issues remains . Do the state legislatures have the power granted in the Constitution to them to make the election rules or not ?

For Trump in this election cycle it is too late. But one of his contributions before he left is to appoint hundreds of justices that believe in the textual application of the rule of law .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Bottom line ---- But the larger issues remains . Do the state legislatures have the power granted in the Constitution to them to make the election rules or not ?

---

Of course they do, but not in the way the right-wing interprets the theory. The Repub/right unlawfully removes the ability of state courts to review the actions of legislatures. The was never the intention of the US Constitution. In the states in question, they have Republican legislatures which obviously makes it a simple thing to invalidate whatever they want so their Repub candidate wins an election. Hardly the intent of the framers. Your "originalists" or "textualists" rely on an interpretation that isn't there.

A good example of why "originalism" is a strange concept. It assumes the world has never changed from the late 18th century. Tomder, you need to find a new website for your legal cut-and-pastes - one a bit more legally mainstream.

Quote:

---

For Trump in this election cycle it is too late. But one of his contributions before he left is to appoint hundreds of justices that believe in the textual application of the rule of law .

---

Trump's appointments were ideological appointees - he should have appointed those who rely first on the LAW. I agree both sides do this, and there may possibly be a different method of appointing judges to avoid jurists who apply the law through an ideological filter.

If your saying the states did something ILLEGAL, or UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that's why the dufus lost then that ship has sailed. Even repub legislatures had the time before the election to address their issues and state courts made a decision so crying about them still is just sour grapes. The problem with all the crying is people believe they got robbed. They believe the Giuliani's and the dufus's and the Hawley's. The truth is there was no fraud and the highest turnout we have ever had went decidedly against the dufus.

I think you should learn from that like we learned from the the previous elections. The whole notion of overturning the election results is insane without a clear compelling argument, and strong EVIDENCE. Allegations don't count without proof to back it up.

Call me sick but I enjoy watching your heads explode.

ok I give up I agree that an absence of court approved proof of election fraud is proof it did not happen (did they even let the cases get that far ? Does dismissing a case for standing even qualify as considering the evidence ? ) .Absence of evidence is evidence of absence or something like that . Judges are perfectly rational, infallible, and sworn to be unbiased and apolitical in their decision making , The oligarchs in black robes never make a flawed ruling .

Software systems and voting machines are unhackable, and full election transparency already exists. What was I thinking ? All the experts agree that it was the most secure and transparent election ever because all the new voting methods worked flawlessly on the first try ;something typical for all large changes to complex systems .I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I believed it was the most secure election in history

---

Just like the 2016 election was....

Quote:

---

.I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.

---

If Biden had not won, they'd be crying like little girls. The ends justify the means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If Biden had not won, they'd be crying like little girls. The ends justify the means.

---

And since Trump was losing and then lost, what did the repubs do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

ok I give up I agree that an absence of court approved proof of election fraud is proof it did not happen (did they even let the cases get that far ? Does dismissing a case for standing even qualify as considering the evidence ? ) .Absence of evidence is evidence of absence or something like that . Judges are perfectly rational, infallible, and sworn to be unbiased and apolitical in their decision making , The oligarchs in black robes never make a flawed ruling .

Software systems and voting machines are unhackable, and full election transparency already exists. What was I thinking ? All the experts agree that it was the most secure and transparent election ever because all the new voting methods worked flawlessly on the first try ;something typical for all large changes to complex systems .I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.

---

Tomder, I don't think you meant it, but your sarcastic screed was inadvertently close to the truth in all respects. At least you know the argument against your position - a good sign.

Yes transparent you could see right through it