Donald Trump and USA Issues

Watch his approval rating go up today as a result of that decision in Colorado, last night they were saying that Biden's approval rating is the lowest that its ever been, as you say its going to be interesting.

"In December, the House select committee investigating Jan. 6 recommended that the Justice Department charge Mr. Trump with several federal crimes, including inciting insurrection — a count that would have directly placed the blame for the attack on Mr. Trump’s shoulders"

"In one scene described in the indictment, a senior adviser to Mr. Trump warned the lawyer John Eastman just days before the Capitol was attacked that his plan to have Mr. Trump strong-arm Mr. Pence was “going to cause riots in the streets.”

According to the indictment, Mr. Eastman “responded that there had previously been points in the nation’s history where violence was necessary to protect the republic.”

If looks like fascism, smells like fascism, then it probably is.

The only saving grace for Trump is that he, like the majority of his supporters, is to stupid to be a real fascist.

He cannot have been found "not guilty" because the courts have not tried him yet on that charge. In fact Jack Smith has yet to formally lodge charges on that count. You are referring to the Impeachment brought against the bloke which of course is subject partisan politics, rather than a trial by an independent judiciary.

As for your wave of the hand at an even where five people lost their lives and 1,200 have been charged...well that says a lot about your political instincts, clearly you are very comfortable with a breakdown of law and order when spurred on by a pretend fascist like Trump.

We sued to keep Trump off the Colorado ballot. Here’s what our critics get wrong.
As the public record proves without a doubt, this was a carefully considered and thoroughly supported constitutional decision.The Constitution bars Donald Trump from serving as president again. Our organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has been confident of that fact since Jan. 6. And the brave plaintiffs on whose behalf we brought the Colorado lawsuit agree. But with Tuesday’s ruling, we now have strong legal precedent confirming that belief.

The Colorado Supreme Court just confirmed that Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment. Colorado’s highest court did not come to this decision on a whim.

Colorado’s highest court did not come to this decision on a whim.

This week's conclusion followed a trial court proceeding that included days of testimony and mountains of evidence. Hundreds of years of federal and state law was analyzed. Thousands of pages of evidence and hours of video were sifted through. Both the plaintiffs and the former president were ably represented, and the relevant legal principles were briefed and argued in great detail.


America will hear, and in fact is already starting to hear, right-wing pundits and politicians argue this was a politically biased proceeding. In fact, as the public record proves without a doubt, this was a carefully considered and thoroughly supported constitutional decision.

It was, despite what critics are now claiming, also the right decision. Alan Dershowitz argued on Newsmax on Wednesday that this ruling is "anti-democratic." Republican presidential candidates like Nikki Haley and Chris Christie are opining that the people should be allowed to vote for their chosen candidates, rather than have judges determine who is qualified.

But without a clear decision on this constitutional issue, millions of Americans could see their votes wasted on a candidate who is not constitutionally allowed to serve. More to the point, with the 2020 election, the people did, in fact, have the chance to decide whether they wanted Donald Trump to be president, and they chose not to elect him. He refused to accept that result and incited an insurrection. Assuming today that voting alone will somehow prevent a recurrence of those events, or something worse, is foolhardy. Luckily, the Constitution built in safeguards for just such a scenario.



The Constitution sets out the rules for our democracy, and few would argue that people should be allowed to vote for a 23-year-old for president, even if that person was their chosen candidate.


This particular rule, the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause, is even more important to democracy because it was put in place specifically to secure our republican form of government from those who threaten it. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, adopted in the wake of the Civil War, makes it clear that anyone who swears an oath to support the Constitution and then engages in insurrection against that same Constitution is disqualified from state or federal office. It was meant to ensure that those who attacked our democracy not then be put back in charge of it. Courts in the 1860s applied it to officials who aided the Confederacy, and a court in New Mexico last year, in a case brought by plaintiffs represented by CREW, removed a county commissioner using that same provision because of his role recruiting for and inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

If we don’t enforce the rule, this crucial protection for our democracy — and our system of constitutional democracy itself — will start to fade away. And in many ways, popular leaders, especially popular presidential candidates, offer a vital test of the disqualification clause's efficacy. An unpopular candidate or someone in a minor office is unlikely to be able to do significant damage to the republic, whereas an insurrectionist with a realistic shot of election to the presidency is a true threat.

This is not the partisan political work of the Democratic Party, “a left-wing group’s scheme to interfere in an election on behalf of Crooked Joe Biden,” as Donald Trump’s campaign spokesperson alleged. In September, six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters filed suit in Denver to keep Trump off the state’s ballot. They included Norma Anderson, the former Republican majority leader of the Colorado Senate and House; Krista Kafer, a conservative columnist for The Denver Post; and Claudine Schneider, a former Republican U.S. representative. They were represented by a team of powerhouse bipartisan Colorado lawyers.

The judgement was passed on a 4-3 split vote. That doesn't appear to be a clear legal decision does it !

It was a decision of the court.A court adjudicating within the constitution and applying the constitution.
The picture here is clear if you open your eyes. First the press and media is attacked, then the democratic process is attacked and then the judiciary is attacked. Fascists almost always take this route. Sunak's new best mate in Italy is trying the same thing and is now trying to alter the Italian constitution itself.
All in an attempt to gain or hold on to power.

Only the blind or those that have sympathy for what is going on refuse to acknowledge this.

Only the blind refuse to acknowledge these charges are purely political, and in fact those that support these charges are only helping Trump get re-elected.

You are such a nice man.

Will that make you eligible for a proxy vote for DT ? 🤭🌲🌲