It is over. The "big lie"propagated by Dems since the 2020 election, which is that Trump committed or attempted insurrection, has been unanimously debunked by the most authoritative court in the United States. From this point onward, if social media does not label/censor as misinformation any further claims to the contrary, then it'll prove the glaring hypocrisy of the oligarchs who rule us.
Supreme Court (9-0) declares Trump eligible to run for president
Posts
Total:
45
Great. Then he can finally stop all the wars which occured under Biden.
I think each Judge got a floor in the Moscow Trump Tower.
-->
@Swagnarok
Wait...hold up... just because 9 SCOTUS judges said so won't make me stop thinking Trump is an insurrectionist!
It's not a big lie if it spreads wings and flies!
-->
@Swagnarok
Trump is an elite silver spoon oligarch of New York. You think just because he isn't DC elite he's some saviour? You are delusional! He is as corrupt as they come, why don't people get that?
Based on the EJC precedent it's now defamation to say DJT is an insurrectionist.
If I were Biden, I would be shitting on my pants thinking about the elections. Lol.
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait...hold up... just because 9 SCOTUS judges said so won't make me stop thinking Trump is an insurrectionist!
the court didn't say he wasn't an insurrectionist. They said it's up to congress to make rules around how that is determined.
He absolutely tried to overthrow the government. I can't believe that is even in question.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Courts said "we don't care" about all the election fraud cases and that was reported as "courts say there was no fraud". Fair is fair.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Courts said "we don't care" about all the election fraud cases and that was reported as "courts say there was no fraud". Fair is fair.
no court said "we don't care" about election fraud. They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud. In a court of law you need to bring proof of what you alleged happened. Trump has nothing. He had nothing then, he still has nothing now. It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud. Trump's own investigators at the time told him there was no evidence of fraud. Trump was lying because he couldn't stand being what he is, a loser. And so he tried to overthrow democracy to protect his fragile ego.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Courts said "we don't care" about all the election fraud cases and that was reported as "courts say there was no fraud". Fair is fair.no court said "we don't care" about election fraud.
Close enough.
They said trump had 0 evidence of fraud.
Very few even addressed evidence. The others created strawman evidentiary standards.
In a court of law you need to bring proof of what you alleged happened.
Like EJC did. "I said so" = proof
It's been 4 years and there is still no evidence of fraud.
There was and is plenty, and even more that the election was illegitimate due to violating laws meant to prevent undetected fraud.
-->
@HistoryBuff
He absolutely tried to overthrow the government. I can't believe that is even in question.
Trump did no such thing.
You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used.
Why are people like you so dense about this truth? This reality?
There were clearly ill-intended idiots in the group attending the J6 rally/protest who created the problem egged on by people like Ray Epps and the Capital Police. We've all seen the released video the Democrats tried to keep under the proverbial rug showing protesters being welcomed into the Capital through other doors where there was no violence (there is more than one door to the building) and escorted throughout the building.
No one has been criminally indicted, charged, and convicted of insurrection. No one. And there is an obvious reason why...there was no insurrection. Period. It was a small riot. Nothing more, nothing less.
And a handful of people trying to get into one door by breaking in and another handful of people being let in and escorted by Capital Police simply does NOT equal an "overthrow of the government." CHAZ comes closer to an overthrow of a government than J6.
I hope Trump gives himself another tax break and raises the age to get Social Security to 80.
-->
@FLRW
I hope Trump finally returns your call after years of low-effort trolling.
-->
@Swagnarok
It is over. The "big lie"propagated by Dems since the 2020 election, which is that Trump committed or attempted insurrection, has been unanimously debunked by the most authoritative court in the United States
This is satire, right?
-->
@Amber
You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used.
None of those examples are analogous. To understand someone's message you have to put their words in context, when you do that you find a glaring difference between what Trump did vs what any other democratic official did, which is why it's no surprise that Trump's mob stormed the Capitol in Trump's name while no one stormed anything in the name of Kamals Harris or Maxine Waters.
To put Trump's words in context consider the following:
- Trump spent months telling his followers that the election (and by extension their voices) had been stolen from them.
- He then called on them to come to DC on January 6th saying it "will be wild"
- He then gave a speech telling them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"
- He then pointed them towards the very building where he alleged their voices were being stolen
- He then watched as the entire riot played out from 1:24 till 4:03 until finally getting off of his ass to tell the mob to go home. During this time not a single call was placed by Trump to anyone in the government authorizing any action that could have helped.
Q1: if the election was actually being stolen through the legal system, what remedy is left other than violence?
Q2: How do you make your voice heard by people who are in the middle of stealing it, and why would anyone listen to that message?
Q3: How exactly is a peaceful protest "wild"?
Q4: If Trump's intention was not to incite violence, why did it take 3 hours before he decided to tell the crowd to leave the Capitol?
-->
@Double_R
This is satire, right?
Nope. Just the facts, ma'am.
-->
@Swagnarok
Nope. Just the facts
The supreme court did not "debunk" the claim that Trump committed insurrection, they didn't even address it.
Do you understand that?
-->
@Double_R
Obviously I was being a bit hyperbolic in the OP. It was something of a cathartic moment for me after many months of reading the headlines of articles describing aggressive legal attacks on Trump. So I went kind of overboard in writing what I did.
However, this much is true: not one of the 9 SCOTUS members ruled that Trump did commit insurrection and had to be removed from the ballot. Sure, that's not the precise question they were being asked to answer, but they have in the past issued landmark rulings from narrower questions offered up to them, such as in Dobbs v. Jackson.
The insurrection clause is an unambiguous constitutional question, which is within the uncontested purview of the Supreme Court, but none of them claimed for the SCOTUS the authority to bar Trump from office based on the facts. By handing it over to Congress they were in essence saying "Hey look, you guys try to impeach each other and whatnot for partisan reasons all the time. This is one such instance and it has nothing to do with us." Which, the way I see it, is a damning indictment of the supposedly slam-dunk case for Trump committing insurrection if I've ever seen one.
Again, while the liberal justices did partly dissent, none of them claimed Trump's 2024 candidacy should've died in their courtroom. 1 Biden and 2 Obama appointees sided with Thomas and Kavanaugh in clearing the way for Trump to run in Colorado and other states.
Woo hoo, Trump gets to lose again.
-->
@Sidewalker
Given the unceasing avalanche of institutional opposition he faces, there is no dishonor to be had in losing provided that his showing is decent enough. But if he wins, it will be the greatest political comeback story in 200+ years of American history.
-->
@Swagnarok
not one of the 9 SCOTUS members ruled that Trump did commit insurrection and had to be removed from the ballot.
Because they never even bothered to adjudicate it. Section 3 has been adjudicated in multiple legal levels in multiple states and many have in fact ruled that Trump committed insurrection and is therefore barred from holding public office, not one legal arbiter yet has sided with Trump on the basis that he did not commit insurrection.
By handing it over to Congress they were in essence saying "Hey look, you guys try to impeach each other and whatnot for partisan reasons all the time. This is one such instance and it has nothing to do with us." Which, the way I see it, is a damning indictment of the supposedly slam-dunk case for Trump committing insurrection if I've ever seen one.
It's not an indictment in any sense of the word. The supreme court's decision was essentially that this is Congress's decision, yet when this very question was put before Congress and their final answer was that it's the court's decision.
The fact that no one wants to make this decision as opposed to just saying "he did not commit insurrection" is amazing. As the saying goes, the silence is deafening.
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<Amber>>>You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used.None of those examples are analogous.
If that were true, attorneys of the opposite would have objected and the judge would have excluded them.
You are wrong. They are perfectly analogous. Perfectly.
To understand someone's message you have to put their words in context,
Thank you for telling me something I didn't already know. Was that innocent or purposeful pomposity on your part?
The videos played were played in their full context. They were 100% analogous to Trumps speech before J6 events. Deal with it.
which is why it's no surprise that Trump's mob stormed the Capitol in Trump's name while no one stormed anything in the name of Kamals Harris or Maxine Waters.
Storming anything is irrelevant. It's the sum of the subsequent actions that matter. And many were emboldened to continue their criminality, shoplifting, rioting, fighting, so on and so forth post said speeches. You cannot deny this. It is a matter of criminological record, as well as video evidence recorded by the news and witnesses who have posted on social media.
To put Trump's words in context consider the following:
- Trump spent months telling his followers that the election (and by extension their voices) had been stolen from them.
And?
It was up to anyone and everyone listening to make their own decision whether or not, in their own mind, they felt like something was amiss.
- He then called on them to come to DC on January 6th saying it "will be wild"
And?
So what!?! It is the Peoples' right to assemble, protest and give their grievances to the government.
- He then gave a speech telling them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"
And?
Once again, more than half the videos shown at his trial expose dozens upon dozens of democrats using the exact same "fight like hell or..." speech. It's hyperbole.
- He then pointed them towards the very building where he alleged their voices were being stolen
And?
As if anyone needed a map to find their way. This is utterly irrelevant and pure nonsense.
- He then watched as the entire riot played out from 1:24 till 4:03 until finally getting off of his ass to tell the mob to go home. During this time not a single call was placed by Trump to anyone in the government authorizing any action that could have helped.
Lies. Trump told them several times to stop and peacefully disperse. People do not have to listen to anyone but themselves. He is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not the People of the United States.
It was Capital Polices' job to disperse them, order them to go home...but they did not. They opened the doors and escorted them through the Capital. We all have seen the videos. So do not give us anymore of your leftist garbage on the matter. It's been proved false.
Q1: if the election was actually being stolen through the legal system, what remedy is left other than violence?
The same thing between Bush and Gore, the Court.
Q2: How do you make your voice heard by people who are in the middle of stealing it, and why would anyone listen to that message?
That's the inherent problem of a corrupt media and federal agencies directing them what to say and not say. This tactic goes back decades with the CIA, and the CIA have spoken about it. There are documentaries that can be watched online about it for fucks sake. Grow a brain cell, man. If you are one, Idnk.
Q3: How exactly is a peaceful protest "wild"?
In numbers. DUh!
Q4: If Trump's intention was not to incite violence, why did it take 3 hours before he decided to tell the crowd to leave the Capitol?
People act of their own volition. His intent was clearly to have the government hear the protests of the People.
-->
@Double_R
->@Swagnaroknot one of the 9 SCOTUS members ruled that Trump did commit insurrection and had to be removed from the ballot.Because they never even bothered to adjudicate it.
OMG!! I do not have a law degree or any experience in Constitutional Law, but for fucks sake, even I know the Supreme Court of the United States does not "adjudicate" anything. They address questions of Constitutionality if and when there is a conflict with the alleged law in question and the Constitution in and of itself.
Section 3 has been adjudicated in multiple legal levels in multiple states and many have in fact ruled that Trump committed insurrection and is therefore barred from holding public office,
Lower courts do not have the authority to do this. Only the people do via grand jury indictment. Then it has to go to trial and the trier of fact gets to decide. Not an appellate court or some dumbass witch playing traffic court judge.
not one legal arbiter yet has sided with Trump on the basis that he did not commit insurrection.
They do not have to. As some say silence is violence, well, silence on the matter is affirmation that he did not commit insurrection. He (and no one else for that matter) has been indicted, charged and/or convicted of criminal insurrection.
The supreme court's decision was essentially that this is Congress's decision,
Yeah, because that is exactly what Section 5 of the 14th explicitly states. The 10th forbids the states from this power since it is expressly given to the federal government. Not the states.
yet when this very question was put before Congress and their final answer was that it's the court's decision.
No. It was not their final decision. They moved forward with impeachment and exonerated the man. Deal with it.
Also, criminal charges in court is appropriately handled by the courts, not Congress. They chose not to legislate to enforce Section 3 on Congressional grounds, leaving it for a criminal court to decide. Two different things.
The fact that no one wants to make this decision as opposed to just saying "he did not commit insurrection" is amazing. As the saying goes, the silence is deafening.
Do you even hear yourself speak when you regurgitate such gross nonsense?
-->
@Double_R
Section 3 has been adjudicated in multiple legal levels in multiple states and many have in fact ruled that Trump committed insurrection and is therefore barred from holding public office, not one legal arbiter yet has sided with Trump on the basis that he did not commit insurrection.
Don't you think this had something to do with the political lean of the courts in which these cases were heard, as the people suing to take Trump off the ballot were smart enough to go jurisdiction shopping?
The supreme court's decision was essentially that this is Congress's decision, yet when this very question was put before Congress and their final answer was that it's the court's decision.
Congressional Dems know they don't have the numbers to disqualify Trump, so they haven't seriously tried. If they did then their efforts would fall short, because in practice anything impeachment-related hinges on how the public voted in the last election cycle. If it's up to Congress, then the fact that the public voted to give the GOP as many seats as they did in 2022 is a public decision to not disqualify Trump from the ballot in 2024, because it's nearly impossible without a national consensus.
Which is why judicial activists have tried for an easy shortcut by appealing to left-leaning courts. And now the Supreme Court has shut them down.
The fact that no one wants to make this decision as opposed to just saying "he did not commit insurrection" is amazing.
For what it's worth, the majority opinion did state that:
"Last September, about six months before the March 5, 2024, Colorado primary election, four Republican and two unaffiliated Colorado voters filed a petition against former President Trump and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in Colorado state court. These voters—whom we refer to as the respondents—contend that after former President Trump’s defeat in the 2020 Presidential election, he disrupted the peaceful transfer of power by intentionally organizing and inciting the crowd that breached the Capitol as Congress met to certify the election results on January 6, 2021."
This seems to assert that the allegation of insurrection by Trump has not been proven. The narrative that the Court was like "Well gosh darn, Trump did it but there's a legal technicality so we the courts can't try him" is bogus.
-->
@Amber
Q1: if the election was actually being stolen through the legal system, what remedy is left other than violence?The same thing between Bush and Gore, the Court.
That's part of the legal system.
Fundamentally: If you can't elect a president you trust then what do you care of the opinion of a supreme court (who was appointed by illegitimate pretenders)?
The supreme court refused to hear any election cases, unlike Bush v Gore; but even if they had the only correct answer from any court is "fix the problem, do it over again." They disqualify appointees for the appearance of impropriety. If anything in this system should not tolerate even the appearance of impropriety it is election procedures.
Bush v Gore was not correctly settled. Florida courts said "stop the counting", and the federal supreme court upheld that and left it as it was. Florida got a little more serious about their election procedures, but it should have been a much much clearer message: Anybody who makes light of election integrity is going to waste a colossal amount of time and resources because courts will force you to do it right.
There are people to this day who believe that if the ballots had been correctly totaled Gore would have been seen to be the winner. That is unacceptable. It was a small crack then because people had trust in the system. Now it's a huge crack.
This is more important than anyone's opinion on the character or actions of Donald Trump. Don't pretend people would have accepted the supreme court ruling against election integrity. They would not have and they should not.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Am I missing the forest for the trees here and remembering history wrong when Trump had an impeachment trial over insurrection and the evidence wasn't sufficient to warrant a conviction in the Senate? That people in America are by default innocent (even of insurrection) until proven guilty?
Where in the hell is this left-tribe talking point coming from???
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well Sir (assuming u are one), it was just as fucked up then as it is fucked up now.
But the SCOTUS decision is in line with the Constitution, which is what it is suppose to do/be.
-->
@Greyparrot
Magic. Oh uh I mean "context".Where in the hell is this left-tribe talking point coming from???
I love that Donald Trump hasn’t been charged with statutory insurrection even when a DC jury is likely to be 99.8% anti-Trump. Ironically, they have to resort to left wing activist officials to declare unilaterally that Trump committed insurrection