Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Maine's top election official rules Trump ineligible for 2024 primary ballot


WVK

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

This is not a surprise, and they knew this would be the decision, and they knew that it would go to appeal automatically, to Maine Supreme Court. I read about this the other day in one of the Colorado decision articles online. It's very likely to get overturned.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/trump-disqualified-from-maine-s-primary-ballot

So he doesn't need to go to the SCOTUS on this one just yet.

EDIT: However looks like probably 5 of the 8 justices at that level are recent appointees by the Dem governor. :whistle:

Isn't this an administrative decision by the Maine Executive?

While the GOP can switch to a caucus system, injunctive relief is not the last resort for finding a remedy.

It's possible Trump may have to sue on his own.  But, he didn't sue after the election when he was thr only one with standing.  He doesn't seem to like risking a loss.

If the GOP go down with the pure caucus system, Trump gets another 10 months of victimhood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Isn't this an administrative decision by the Maine Executive?

It is. I don't believe I Saud she was wrong in her decision, only that it will likely be overturned in court.

Quote

While the GOP can switch to a caucus system, injunctive relief is not the last resort for finding a remedy.

It's possible Trump may have to sue on his own.  But, he didn't sue after the election when he was thr only one with standing.  He doesn't seem to like risking a loss.

If the GOP go down with the pure caucus system, Trump gets another 10 months of victimhood.

In 2020 Maine switched from a Caucus system to a regular Primary system. 

https://www.fosters.com/story/news/politics/elections/local/2020/02/27/analysis-why-maines-switch-from-caucuses-to-primary-was-inevitable/1626400007/

Quote

The caucus day chaos quickly produced legislative proposals for a presidential primary, which were adopted by lawmakers in 2017 and 2019.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

When it comes to Trump, these cases prove he is just too polarising. Or is it just coincidence that Maine and Colorado are both extremely liberal with the decisions ultimately being made by Democrats (all 7 judges in Colorado, and Ms Bellows)? I've had discussions with members right here on UM who have already gone on record to say that they will reject the Supreme Court's ruling if it goes against Colorado State because of the conservative bias present there (I can quote members if you disbelieve that, but I think you've seen it and wouldn't be surprised even if you haven't seen it). Maine still has appeals to go through before it gets to SCOTUS, my expectation is that it will be overturned immediately, but if not we're left at exactly the same point as Colorado.

Not a coincidence I think.   Voters and public pressure in the state are bound to influence the state officers. They can be honest and try to be impartial, but  its hard to scrub it all out.

However, I do have a lot more confidence in the judicial, many are appointed for life, don't need to seek reelection, and may be a lot more cognizant of their office and how important it is.

For the most part, I think judges try to be as fair as they can.  Every person has some bias based on their beliefs, if not on party affiliation. But I think they try hard to bring justice.

I have confidence in the Supreme Court as well.  They have their issues and some unseemly brushes with corruption  All of the justices are well aware of that and know that each affects the reputation of the entire court and even the  entire judicial  system for years to come.  Their personal legacies will be at stake.  How much is that worth?.I will guarantee that for Clarence Thomas who rose up against all odds to become a Supreme Court Justice, it means a lot.

They will play it straight and try to give the best opinion they can; it will be above board and will not be challenged by irregularities.  I don't know what they will decide, but I will accept it.

I do have confidence in them based on my reading of their initial decision not to hear Jack Smith's immunity argument immediately, and Donald Trump's response.  The appeals court acted quickly and will present their opinion in rocket time. The Supreme Court is aware of the time crunch, but can wait for the appeals court decision, which may strengthen their own.  They can still act quickly.   They need the appeals court backup if they can get it.  There was no dissent recorded for this delay.  If the three liberal SC justices thought the six conservatives were going to throw the case for Trump, they would have filed a dissent. I think all nine know how serious this is and how important it is to cling exactly to the Constitution.  I trust that they can do that.

The Supreme Court could make a lot of Donald Trump's legal troubles and financial costs go away with one decision. if they rule in his favor. Donald Trump filed his own brief.  If he and his lawyers fully believed in his immunity, they would have said lets go right away and settle this.  Instead, they said, lets not rush it, haste makes waste.  Lets delay for a while.   Delay will cost Trump big bucks in lawyer's fees and his name will not be entirely cleared  of wrongdoing in the next few months. That doesn't reek of confidence.  Trump's lawyers are not willing to take the odds on a favorable decision at the Supreme Court.. Delay is their only defense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

It is. I don't believe I Saud she was wrong in her decision, only that it will likely be overturned in court.

In 2020 Maine switched from a Caucus system to a regular Primary system. 

https://www.fosters.com/story/news/politics/elections/local/2020/02/27/analysis-why-maines-switch-from-caucuses-to-primary-was-inevitable/1626400007/

 

I didn't say anything about any belief you may hold.

Colorado GOP said they would switch to a caucus system.  It appears Maine asks parties to announce there is a contest.

What is missing here?  Maine Law mandates Ranked Choice Voting, but the GOP will ignore it?

Finally, does Trump have those primaries to be the GOP nominee?

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I didn't say anything about any belief you may hold.

Colorado GOP said they would switch to a caucus system.  It appears Maine asks parties to announce there is a contest.

What is missing here?  Maine Law mandates Ranked Choice Voting, but the GOP will ignore it?

Finally, does Trump have those primaries to be the GOP nominee?

What’s missing? A single person should not get to decide, with zero legal basis mind you, that someone shouldn’t be able to run. Especially when that someone would win in a landslide right now. 
 

And you folks have the nerve to talk about threats to democracy. Smh

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

BTW, remember when Trump tried to keep Obama off the ballot because he said he was born in Kenya? 

Geez , i only remember a little of that , had forgotten. So we're saying Trump tried to do the very thing he is complaining about now , to someone else and call it a witchunt or interference or whatever ? And maybe divide the country some more over him?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

What’s missing? A single person should not get to decide, with zero legal basis mind you, that someone shouldn’t be able to run. Especially when that someone would win in a landslide right now. 
 

And you folks have the nerve to talk about threats to democracy. Smh

Where is the flaw in legal basis of Bellows' decision?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, razman said:

And we know this , how? 

He so far ahead of the others in the primary, I didn’t think this was a question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Where is the flaw in legal basis of Bellows' decision?

Well we could start out with some due process. Then, I don’t know, maybe some evidence? 
 

He has been convicted of nothing. A single person doesn’t get to decide for an entire state who can and can’t run, with zero legal ground to do so. 
 

Why is the left so terrified of democracy? If the American people want them to stay in power then they will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Well we could start out with some due process. Then, I don’t know, maybe some evidence? 
 

He has been convicted of nothing. A single person doesn’t get to decide for an entire state who can and can’t run, with zero legal ground to do so. 
 

Why is the left so terrified of democracy? If the American people want them to stay in power then they will. 

Would you like evidence of Trump calling local election officials telling them to not certify the county vote and that he will pay for their legal fee?

Evidence of fake electors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and Wisconsin? Evidence that they tried to get those fake elector documents to Mike Pence?

Evidence that Trump and team had this planned way before election day?

We actually have all that evidence if you want links.

As for legal charges, that's not a requirement of the 14th amendment but even so Trump is being charged in Georgia and elsewhere.

His entire legal strategy is delay delay delay, until he hopes he becomes president and then pardons himself.

If he was innocent his entire legal strategy probably wouldn't be to delay.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Would you like evidence of Trump calling local election officials telling them to not certify the county vote and that he will pay for their legal fee?

Evidence of fake electors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and Wisconsin? Evidence that they tried to get those fake elector documents to Mike Pence?

Evidence that Trump and team had this planned way before election day?

We actually have all that evidence if you want links.

As for legal charges, that's not a requirement of the 14th amendment but even so Trump is being charged in Georgia and elsewhere.

His entire legal strategy is delay delay delay, until he hopes he becomes president and then pardons himself.

If he was innocent his entire legal strategy probably wouldn't be to delay.

He was trying to stop massive fraud. And because of said fraud, our dollar is doomed, hence our standing in the world is as well. We are in more danger of WW3 then any other time. 
 

Why wouldn’t he try to delay? He isn’t going to get any justice in these kangaroo courts. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

He was trying to stop massive fraud. And because of said fraud, our dollar is doomed, hence our standing in the world is as well. We are in more danger of WW3 then any other time. 
 

Why wouldn’t he try to delay? He isn’t going to get any justice in these kangaroo courts. 

"He tried to stop massive fraud".

Yeah? That's why after 70 something court cases, multiple audits, and investigations by both parties that massive fraud came up void?

Do you honestly believe that taking mine and millions of people's votes away is democratic? Because that's what a fake elector scheme is. 

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Well we could start out with some due process. Then, I don’t know, maybe some evidence? 
 

He has been convicted of nothing. A single person doesn’t get to decide for an entire state who can and can’t run, with zero legal ground to do so. 
 

Why is the left so terrified of democracy? If the American people want them to stay in power then they will. 

But there was a process.  Trump provided a number of briefs in his defence.  In fact, the hearing was "conducted in accordance with 21-A M.R.S. Ș 337 and the Maine Administrative Procedure Act ("APA")."

This is an administrative decision, and the decision maker was satisfied by a preponderance of evidence.  This is not a criminal case and conviction is not required.  Remember OJ Simpson was, in your words, "convicted of nothing."

Under 21A MRS, the Maine SOS is required to rule on challenges to a petition of nomination.

Where did you get your information?  It appears as though it's unreliable.

So what was wrong with Bellows' ruling?

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So what was wrong with Bellows' ruling?

I believe that the ruling was based, in large part, on the Colorado judges ruling. Which is up to appeal and currently on Hold. So, will Bellows change the decision if the appeal goes Trump's way? 

Should not this decision then also not be on Hold?

Colorado is likely to be overturned. Not because Trump didn't stir up insurrection, but because he's not been convicted of anything yet.

Convict Trump and the excuses are gone.

As far as I know, there is no trial set for insurrection.

Should we allow states to ban people from the election process without any conviction, and just the opinions of a judge? Because get ready to have some states ban Biden.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Would you like evidence of Trump calling local election officials telling them to not certify the county vote and that he will pay for their legal fee?

Evidence of fake electors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and Wisconsin? Evidence that they tried to get those fake elector documents to Mike Pence?

Evidence that Trump and team had this planned way before election day?

We actually have all that evidence if you want links.

None of that is insurrection. 

And is evidence now equal to guilty?

Biden did take Chinese money... Because GOP says so?

Quote

As for legal charges, that's not a requirement of the 14th amendment but even so Trump is being charged in Georgia and elsewhere.

The 14th says those who've engaged in insurrection or rebellion. I'd argue that it would require either of those be proven, and the best way to do that is a trial.

Simply being a felon, as has been noted everywhere online, does not prevent anyone running for office.

Edit: Colorado did in fact hold a hearing on the issue of insurrection, and I have to pled guilty that I've not read up on that, or seen a transcript.  But, I imagine Trump lawyers were there and made the same stupid arguments. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/20/colorado-supreme-court-ballot-decision-helped-trump/

Quote

If you’re going to throw a presidential candidate off the ballot for engaging in an insurrection through his personal actions, shouldn’t he first be convicted of engaging in an insurrection?

Quote

Fomenting an insurrection is against the law. It’s right there in the federal criminal code, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 — Rebellion or insurrection: “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

Like it says here... If Trump did participate in an insurrection, then why was no Federal charge filed. Lots of other charges filed. 

But not insurrection...

I suspect the SCOTUS will overturn all arguments based on the 14th unless there is a guilty conviction in Federal court.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

So have we gotten to the point that people only trust a judge of their own party?

Will a murderer be able to get a mistrial because he is a Democrat and the judge is a Republican?  How far will it go? 

In Maine, the Secretary of State, no matter which party they belong to gets to decide who is qualified to be on the ballot for both parties.  

This Secretary of State is citing a SPECIFIC clause of the United States Constitution, NOT ORANGE MAN BAD.  As such, it should be easy for a court to adjudicate. He is not being kept off the ballot for tax fraud,  incompetence, possible incestuous behavior, or because people don't like his politics. It should be a fairly quick and easy case to decide based on the US Constitution.   

Now if you can find a Constitutional reason to keep Biden off the ballot, go ahead.  No doubt that will meet with the same success.

As long as we have activist judges trying to legislate from the bench on behalf of party affiliation then yes.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

He was trying to stop massive fraud.

Bill Barr told POS POTUS there was no massive fraud. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, razman said:

Yep , so if he can get re elected , then he can pardon himself. 

He can only pardon federal charges. Not all the state charges he's facing.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Would you like evidence of Trump calling local election officials telling them to not certify the county vote and that he will pay for their legal fee?

Evidence of fake electors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia, and Wisconsin? Evidence that they tried to get those fake elector documents to Mike Pence?

Evidence that Trump and team had this planned way before election day?

We actually have all that evidence if you want links.

As for legal charges, that's not a requirement of the 14th amendment but even so Trump is being charged in Georgia and elsewhere.

His entire legal strategy is delay delay delay, until he hopes he becomes president and then pardons himself.

If he was innocent his entire legal strategy probably wouldn't be to delay.

Thats why with all this stuff going on , i'm surprised there hasn't been a conviction yet. I get it that if there is not a conviction , it would be hard for any of these recent rulings to stick , and not really sure if they even should. But to me it would be a huge injustice and a slap in the face to the American people if Trump team delayed and he got elected and was able to pardon himself. Though like @susieice said , i don't think he can pardon himself from the state charges , and those are some pretty big ones.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

He was trying to stop massive fraud. And because of said fraud, our dollar is doomed, hence our standing in the world is as well. We are in more danger of WW3 then any other time. 
 

Why wouldn’t he try to delay? He isn’t going to get any justice in these kangaroo courts. 

Actually, our dollar is quite valuable in Argentina right now with the actions their new president is trying to do to curb hyper-inflation.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Dean: ‘Trump’s in trouble’ after Maine ruling

Former President Nixon’s White House attorney John Dean said Thursday he believes the Maine decision to removeformer President Trump from the ballot will be difficult to overturn, calling it “very solid.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) determined late Thursday that Trump should be kept off the state’s primary ballot because his conduct surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riots violated the 14th Amendment.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4381399-john-dean-trump-main-ruling-in-trouble/

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.