Apply Now!

The Trump Card...

RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Minority Leader McConnell is now in the process of gutting ex-President Trump like a fish on live TV ...

I think the process of taking the party back has officially begun.

:tearsofjoy:
 
muttly

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
Minority Leader McConnell is now in the process of gutting ex-President Trump like a fish on live TV ...

I think the process of taking the party back has officially begun.

:tearsofjoy:
Click to expand...
A turtle gutting a fish. I don't think that is possible.
 
skyraider

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
:saywhat:Will I'll be, some little law firm in Florida wupped Miss Nancys boys,,,,,so Mr. T is a walking and a talking,,,,how did that happened?? Now its on with the show........................good day.
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
It is worth considering however, if one closes off the political path to hold former officials accountable, then the criminal justice path becomes the one easiest one to traverse.
Click to expand...
And coincidentally, that's the one path enumerated in the Constitution for former officials.
 
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
skyraider said:
:saywhat:Will I'll be, some little law firm in Florida wupped Miss Nancys boys,,,,,so Mr. T is a walking and a talking,,,,how did that happened?? Now its on with the show........................good day.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... his Philly attorney was SO GOOD he couldn't even convince a simple majority to vote not guilty.

:tearsofjoy:
 
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
Under what conditions/specific terms of deployment ?
Click to expand...
It's not "whatever the president says, goes" if that's what you're thinking. It's the same terms and conditions that are always in place when the National Guard is deployed domestically, namely, in support of local law enforcement and protection of national interests and infrastructure, subject to certain legal restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. A declaration of Martial Law can, in certain circumstances, widen the scope of military deployment, but management of the military forces in response to civil unrest is still under the control of the DoD instruction manual titled "Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies." A few extreme exceptions exist, but they are also codified in the regulations.

If Trump's offer of troops had been accepted, the storming of the Capitol building would almost certainly not have occurred, as in that case the National Guard would have been under regulation to protect the Capitol infrastructure and the high level officials contained within. Standard defensive Rules of Force (as opposed to enemy Rules of Engagement) would be in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyraider and muttly
Turtle

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
RLENT said:
No - actually there's another - Article 3 of the 14th Amendment:

Time to Reconsider the 14th Amendment for Trump’s Role in the Insurrection
Click to expand...
That's not for former officials who have been impeached, that's for people who fought for the South during the Civil War. I realize how desperate Democrats are to punish Trump by any means necessary, in order to get that feel-good, schadenfreude dopamine hit, but you would first need a conviction in a real court before the Senate could constitutionally just up and declare a private citizen of being guilty of a crime without due process and then pronounce sentence.
RLENT said:
And, on reflection, that might be the easiest path of all.
Click to expand...
Well, the way Democrats have shown with great aplomb their ability to fold, spindle and mutilate the Constitution to suit their own desires, you may be right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: muttly
RLENT

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Turtle said:
That's not for former officials who have been impeached, that's for people who fought for the South during the Civil War.
Click to expand...

Well, that's quite probably why it was originally passed of course, fortunately those doing the amending at the time didn't see fit to constrain it further with any words limiting its applicability to a single conflict.

There is certainly nothing in the text constraining it solely to that ... and if one subscribes to the textualism school of Constitutional Interpretation - which I am given to understand many conservatives do - it's applicability should be rather broad no ?

IOW, having once lived through the circumstances which made it necessary, perhaps they considered might be necessary to employ such a tool again in the future - to preserve and protect the Republic against base, unprincipled men - and allowed for just such a possibility.

How wise they were ... particularly in light of recent events !

Turtle said:
I realize how desperate Democrats are to punish Trump by any means necessary, in order to get that feel-good, schadenfreude dopamine hit, but you would first need a conviction in a real court before the Senate could constitutionally just up and declare a private citizen of guilty of a crime without due process and then pronounce sentence.
Click to expand...

Well, Congress is not dealing with some mere "private citizen" here ... no matter how much some like to ride that hobby-horse.

He a former public official.

But here's a question to consider:

Were the folks that it was originally applied to all convicted in "real courts" ?

Turtle said:
Well, the way Democrats have shown with great aplomb their ability to fold, spindle and mutilate the Constitution to suit their own desires, you may be right.
Click to expand...

Republicans is spelled wrong in that sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dalscott
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top