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

[+Razman]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

I don’t understand why he wasn’t simply tried and convicted of election interference. .that case would be a slam dunk, and sufficient grounds to bar him from holding any office or position in government.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trumps-trial-on-election-interference-cant-wait-until-2026-federal-judge-says-17d5bad2

 …sorry, looks like that link is wonky!  

Yea , like i was saying in the other thread , he did all kinds of stuff with fake electors scheme , coercing election officials , amongst other things .The whole jan 6th thing was set off right from the start with his outright false election lies, thereby instigating the whole thing, but still no real action taken about it in any meaningful way.

[lightly]

13 hours ago, Razman said:

Yea , like i was saying in the other thread , he did all kinds of stuff with fake electors scheme , coercing election officials , amongst other things .The whole jan 6th thing was set off right from the start with his outright false election lies, thereby instigating the whole thing, but still no real action taken about it in any meaningful way.

I hope and think that at least one of the pending charges will rectify that.   Some of his criminal behaviors were so obvious as to be impossible to ignore.       And before someone says..  oh yeah!? What did he do? https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-charged-us-special-counsel-probe-efforts-overturn-2020-election-2023-08-01/

Edited February 12, 2024 by lightly

[+DieChecker]

On 2/11/2024 at 1:19 PM, lightly said:

I don’t understand why he wasn’t simply tried and convicted of election interference. .that case would be a slam dunk, and sufficient grounds to bar him from holding any office or position in government.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trumps-trial-on-election-interference-cant-wait-until-2026-federal-judge-says-17d5bad2

 …sorry, looks like that link is wonky!  

He should have been tried for insurrection. If he'd been found guilty, there'd be zero reason to go the the SCOTUS. 

[+DieChecker]

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2024/02/05/trump-is-on-maine-ballots-now-available-ahead-of-march-5-presidential-primary

Quote

With one month to go before Super Tuesday, Mainers can begin voting in the presidential primary, either at home on an absentee ballot or at their local town or city office.

Quote

In recent days, the Maine Republican Party has emphasized that Trump’s name will appear on Maine ballots and is urging party members to get out and vote as soon as possible.

Quote

But Bellows stayed her decision and Trump appealed. Maine courts declined to weigh-in, leaving it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is set to hear oral arguments in a Colorado case with a similar finding on Thursday.

So he's already probably won this primary. The new question will be I'd he can run as a party candidate, and not just as a primary candidate.

Edited February 18, 2024 by DieChecker

[Tom1200]

24 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

He should have been tried for insurrection. If he'd been found guilty, there'd be zero reason to go the the SCOTUS. 

That's what millions (from both sides) have been screaming for years.  If insurrection is really bad and a crime - charge him and try him.

The fact that this has not happened (and never will) suggests to me:

• There is no clearly defined crime of insurrection; or
• Insurrection is a clearly defined crime, but no authority is foolish enough to take up this charge, knowing Trump will beat it.

And why should they try, when even supposedly educated people claim that no trial is needed - the allegation alone being sufficient grounds for disqualification.  Trial and conviction by media.  And if SCOTUS rules in Trump's favour - they're just dumb partisan MAGA hicks, innit?  here  Some folks are getting their arguments ready ahead of SCOTUS's decision...

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

That's what millions (from both sides) have been screaming for years.  If insurrection is really bad and a crime - charge him and try him.

The fact that this has not happened (and never will) suggests to me:

• There is no clearly defined crime of insurrection; or
• Insurrection is a clearly defined crime, but no authority is foolish enough to take up this charge, knowing Trump will beat it.

And why should they try, when even supposedly educated people claim that no trial is needed - the allegation alone being sufficient grounds for disqualification.  Trial and conviction by media.  And if SCOTUS rules in Trump's favour - they're just dumb partisan MAGA hicks, innit?  here  Some folks are getting their arguments ready ahead of SCOTUS's decision...

Because if there was a trial, and an impartial judge got the case, it would very likely find in Trumps favor. Reading and listening to what he said in the speech, it isn't 100% clear he means for them to riot and kill the VP, or whatever, before the count finishes.

Leaving that open allows for "discretion" by anyone and everyone to claim insurrection by opinion alone.

I do think there's enough evidence it would be a good chance of conviction by a left leaning bias judge. And an even better chance at conviction of sedition... incitement to insurrection/revolt. He did seem to want to incite the crowd. But to what end, and with what action, is the question.

Just the possibility he'd beat it means they won't bring a charge.

[Joe01]

Constitution be damned... This is why the democrats have been out trying to stack the courts including the SCOUS, since 2000... to get favorable rulings on lame decisions like this

[+Razman]

1 hour ago, Joe01 said:

Constitution be damned... This is why the democrats have been out trying to stack the courts including the SCOUS, since 2000... to get favorable rulings on lame decisions like this

Well: 

The appointment of federal judges in the United States has been a significant process, with both Republicans and Democrats actively participating. Let’s delve into the numbers:

1. Overall Split:

   • The federal judiciary is almost evenly split between the two parties.
   • 51% of active judges were appointed by Democrats, while 49% were appointed by Republicans¹.

2. Circuit Court Judges:

   • Circuit court judges play a crucial role as the final arbiters of most case law.
   • Among these judges, Republicans have appointed 55%, whereas Democrats have appointed 45%¹.

3. Supreme Court:

   • At the highest level, 67% of Supreme Court judges are Republican-appointed.
   • This balance will shift further once Trump’s replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg is confirmed¹.

4. Historical Context:

   • Over the past 70 years, the Supreme Court has predominantly leaned conservative since the Nixon era.
   • Replacing Ginsburg with a conservative justice will reinforce this conservative trend¹.