I didn't think about the fact this would constitute solicitation. — Relativist

It was pretty clear from the context it didn't. However, we don't really need the link to get the point anyhow.

No one here is talking about Fani Willis.

Trump is like 0-100 in the courts, but he's about to win a doozy. What was supposed to be a pre-election knock out is going the other way.

This is the greatest come back of all time. Ignore that it's not your team getting beaten and just appreciate the mastery.

She hasn't been booted off yet, but the pooch is getting lubed up.

"The former divorce attorney for Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade resumed testimony Tuesday afternoon at a hearing pertaining to the romantic relationship between Wade and District Attorney Fani Willis, and said he couldn't remember when their relationship began."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/nathan-wades-former-divorce-attorney-set-testify-fulton-county-hearing-rcna140659

Fani might skate by this after all.

This NY Times Article indicates Bradley had a falling out with Wade, and subsequently helped Merchant build her case against Willis and Wade - implying that Bradley may have been a bit loose with the facts when helping Merchant.

Merchant would like to judge to infer that his prior statements to her about the start of their relationship are true, and (by implication) he's choosing to be uncooperative on the stand. But this has to be weighed against the possibility Bradley was simply being vindictive when he helped Merchant, and unwilling to stand by his statements to her because he's under oath. IMO, this cancels out any negative effect of Bradley's testimony or communications with Merchant.

In her court filing, Willis wrote: "“Conflict arises when a prosecutor has a personal interest or stake in a defendant’s conviction - a charge that no defendant offers any support for beyond fantastical theories and rank speculation.”

If that is true, then there is no conflict of interest. If she actually hired Wade because of her personal relationship, rather than perceived qualifications, the impact would be a poor prosecution - not a consequence that hurts the defendants in the RICO case.

The Fulton County Board of Ethics is holding a hearing next week to evaluate an ethics complaint against Willis. IMO, there's a better chance she'll be held to account in that venue, than in the disqualification hearing. But that won't get her disqualified.

Well, it was a 9/0 slap-down of the unconstitutional and tyrannical attempts to keep Trump off the ballot. Thankfully the justices can all read the plain language of the Constitution.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/04/states-cant-remove-trump-from-ballot-supreme-court-says-00144673

As expected, your spin veers off from the truth. What they determined is that this is not a matter to be decided at the state level. However:

“Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announced novel rules for how that enforcement must operate,” Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their joint concurrence, referring to the section of the 14th Amendment that contains the insurrection clause. The court’s main opinion, those three justices wrote, “reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”

(bold added)

In their opinion the court's decision went too far.

The decision hints as how the majority might vote on the question of presidential immunity. The court did not weigh in on the question of insurrection, but the concern of the three justices is that even if Congress were to find Trump or any other presidential candidate guilty of insurrection, the decision, in overstepping the limits of the case, forecloses future efforts by Congress to disqualify an insurrectionist candidate.

“The case hints…”. Sorry, but the case is pretty clear.

Per Curium:

We granted former President Trump’s petition for certiorari, which raised a single
question: “Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?” See 601 U. S. ___ (2024). Concluding that it did, we now reverse.

(bold added)

Concurring opinion of the three justices:

States cannot use their control over the ballot to “undermine the National Government.”

To allow Colorado to take a presidential candidate off the ballot under Section 3 would imperil the Framers’ vision of “a Federal Government directly responsible to thepeople.” U. S. Term Limits, 514 U. S., at 821. The Court should have started and ended its opinion with this conclusion.

The anti-constitutional, illegal, anti-democratic attempts to remove Trump from the ballot have been denied by all members of the United States Supreme Court. The spin and cope is all yours.

There are two issues. You ignore the second. Although the petition raised a single
question, that is, the first issue, the court's main opinion did not stop there as it should have and reached a second opinion.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in their joint concurrence, that the court's main opinion:

... reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.

This is not my spin. It is a direct quote from them. It is judicial overreach. It has direct bearing not only on Trump but future insurrectionist attempts.

There is one issue brought before the court and decided by the court. Per Curium. 9-0. And that was whether those who tried to remove Trump from the ballot were wrong in doing so. They were. You ignore it.

There is one issue brought before the court and decided by the court. Per Curium. 9-0. And that was whether those who tried to remove Trump from the ballot were wrong in doing so. They were. You ignore it. — NOS4A2

Right. There was one issue. It was decided unanimously that eligibility is a federal rather than state matter. The court should have stopped there. It didn't.

Let me repeat that since you fail to understand it:

The court should have stopped there. It didn't.

The majority says that Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment. Such procedures, of course, do not exist today. And without them, the majority insists—in just a few paragraphs of sparse reasoning—the insurrection clause cannot be enforced against office seekers.

(https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-disaster.html)

Repeat all you want. Who cares? The majority mentioned the laws already in place to jail and disqualify insurrectionists from office. Maybe try there. They probably should have mentioned that Trump was already acquitted of insurrection, as well. Maybe a third time will work.

The Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State should not have disqualified Trump from the ballot. They engaged in political, undemocratic, and unconstitutional election rigging, and risked sending national elections into chaos and did so on the basis of some hare-brained theory, which, cult-like, authoritarian minds followed along with. They abused their power for corrupt reasons and 9-0 is a stunning rebuke of their judicial malfeasance.

Biden Campaign: 'We Don't Really Care'. They hadn't placed any particular significance on the case in the first place. Good call.

The majority mentioned the laws already in place to jail and disqualify insurrectionists from office. — NOS4A2

The majority said:

Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

Those specific procedures do not exist. Without such procedures Congress could be in 100% agreement that a candidate is guilty of insurrection and still not be able to declare him ineligible.

They probably should have mentioned that Trump was already acquitted of insurrection, as well. — NOS4A2

First, what they said is not limited to Trump. It effects all future candidates. Second, the majority of senators voted to convict Trump — 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But this fell short of the 2-thirds majority required.

... on the basis of some hare-brained theory, — NOS4A2

The court did not determine that it is a hare -brained theory. The issue was whether the states rather than the federal government has the authority to disqualify insurrectionist candidates, not that a candidate guilty of insurrection should be disqualified.

The issue the Supreme Court focussed on was the consequences of States taking it on themselves to decide who can stand on a Presidential Ballot, which, they said, would lead to 'chaos'. They said it would take a Congressional resolution to determine disqualification. But it should be recalled that after the Jan 6th insurrection, McConnell said:

Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.

.

He still voted to acquit, saying:

We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

So he punted it back to the legal system, which has now punted it back to Congress. 'Heads I win, tails you loose'.

But since then, Trump has been found guilty in two significant civil cases and indicted on 91 criminal counts. Of course if Trump had any decency or judgement, laughable though that suggestion is, he would immediately withdraw from the race rather than continue to drag the nation through his quagmire of lies and delusions.

The majority said:

Congress must “prescribe” specific procedures to “ascertain” when an individual is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

You're quoting the concurring opinion. The majority said:

Section 3 works by imposing on certain individuals a preventive and severe penalty—disqualification from holding a wide array of offices—rather than by granting rights to
all. It is therefore necessary, as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized, to “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are embraced’”
by the provision.

...

The Constitution empowers Congress to prescribe how those determinations should be made. The relevant provision is Section 5, which enables Congress, subject of course to judicial review, to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment.

They go on to show that it was, in fact and in practice, Congress who has historically enforced it, including statutes already on the books.

Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35 Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383.

So procedures abound.

First, what they said is not limited to Trump. It affects all future candidates. Second, the majority of senators voted to convict Trump — 57 to 43, including seven Republicans. But this fell short of the 2-thirds majority required.

In the view of the majority, each of the of the reasons, including theirs, was necessary to provide a complete explanation for the judgment the Court unanimously reached.

And yes, Trump was acquitted of insurrection as per the constitution.

The court did not determine that it is a hare -brained theory. The issue was whether the states rather than the federal government has the authority to disqualify insurrectionist candidates, not that a candidate guilty of insurrection should be disqualified.

No one is guilty of insurrection, and Trump was even acquitted of it. Yet the whole thing hinges on the stupid presumption that he did. That’s not the only reason why it is a harebrained theory. Nonetheless, a reading of the plain meaning of the constitution was enough to roundly and unanimously toss it in the dustbin.

The decision did not reverse the various statements of fact regarding what qualifies as an insurrection. It limited the rights of States to act upon such findings.

You're quoting the concurring opinion. — NOS4A2

Yes, I am. I said this several times. They were there and heard and participated in all the arguments. You were't and you didn't. But with your fine legal mind, perhaps you can explain to them why they are wrong.

With regard to the irrelevant issue of insurrection. The fact is, the majority of the senate voted to convict Trump. The fact that he was not convicted has much more to do with politics than with his responsibility for what happened. It is, however, a moot point. For two reasons. First, the court did not address the issue. Their decision has nothing to do with it. Second, even if Congress was in agreement that he is an insurrectionist, procedures are not in place to do anything about it.

You quoted the concurring opinion, yet said “the majority said”. Maybe quote what they actually did say, or properly quote who you were trying to quote.

The fact is, Trump was acquitted of insurrection. Conviction requires the concurrence of two thirds of senate, not a majority. No amount of humdrum “majority” talk applies save to convince pliable minds—or one’s own—of some sort of injustice where there is none.

As for the insurrection, it isn’t moot because that narrative is the sole reason why authoritarians are trying to remove Trump from the ballot. It isn’t premised on anything else except for that relic of deep-state dinner theater and the malign voices that proffer it.

Easy case. Decision as expected. I’m happy to see it.

If the dopey US wants another four disastrous years of Donald Trump, they should have the chance to vote for it.

As usual, in your compulsive attempt to defend Trump you have lost track of the argument. Go back to the beginning.

Thankfully the justices can all read the plain language of the Constitution. — NOS4A2

The objection in the concurrence is that the decision went beyond the plain language of the Constitution regarding the question of whether the state of Colorado has the authority to disqualify Trump.

Great :/

Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images
^{— Marianna Spring · BBC · Mar 4, 2024}
Fake images made to show Trump with Black supporters highlight concerns around AI and elections
^{— Matt Brown, David Klepper · AP · Mar 8, 2024}

CNN reports that Donald Trump is running on the platform of defending January 6th, promising to release those jailed for ransacking the Capital if he is elected.

Are a majority of electors really going to endorse the January 6th assault on the Capital as a legitimate political protest? He's turning the election into a referendum on whether Biden really won. Sure a percentage of Republican voters accept that he didn't, but that percentage in no way comprises a majority of the electorate. Trump only won 60% of the vote in many of the primaries he carried, meaning there's a large percentage of Republican voters who won't vote for him, let alone the swing vote and independents. On top of all that, he's declaring that if he isn't elected, 'it's going to be a bloodbath'. 'IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WANT EVERYONE IS GOING TO SUFFER!!!' How can that amount to a winning strategy?

Trump only won 60% of the vote in many of the primaries he carried, meaning there's a large percentage of Republican voters who won't vote for him — Wayfarer

That's a pretty tenuous premise.

Not simply because extrapolating from protest votes in primaries is pretty shaky ... but I'm pretty sure Republicans will vote for Trump.

'IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WANT EVERYONE IS GOING TO SUFFER!!!' How can that amount to a winning strategy? — Wayfarer

The election is a "lesser of two evils" for the majority of Americans. That Trump has a die-hard base of fanatics, and Biden doesn't, is a big advantage.

If you look at any one of the candidates in isolation they are absolutely terrible; literally competing for the worst candidates in the history of the planet, certainly for head of state and likely all positions of any actual responsibility.

You can list reasons Trump is unqualified all day, and crazy shit he's said all week, but then you look over at Biden and he's talking about his meeting with Miterand, gotten the US into a devastating proxy war (for Ukraine) with Russia that Biden is clearly losing (and no one likes losers, especially in America) in addition to becoming senile and barely able to talk coherently.

Now, there's die-hard liberals that (while not being particular enthusiastic about Biden) will just wish-wash away Biden problems, but the people somewhere in the middle trying to have some sort of objective view is going see Biden as extremely weak and unfit; that he is a senile senior citizen who should be in a home (that is not propaganda, that is just a literally true statement).

Which will be the basic theme in the election. Biden looks weak, the US looks weak, thee's a lot of chaos and uncertainty, and the argument will Trump says a lot of crazy shit but that he's "strong" and the crazy shit he says keeps adversaries on their toes and so on.

Not saying he's going to win, but Trump's basic "strategy" is just appear in the media as much as possible and if you need to say crazy shit then so be it. Most of the crazy shit he says is something that has some little nuance or he can walk back a bit, which then is the subject of controversy and more media coverage. His base and media allies then just fill in the narrative, sometimes spinning on a dime when they spent the morning assuming the narrative was A and then Trumps just comes out and asserts no-A, they'll just fall in line with not-A in the afternoon, and just completely ignore they were trying to justify A all morning.

Why this strategy worked the first time against Hillary is simply because if people are predisposed to not like Hillary either as a person or ideologically or what she's done (like most republicans and a fair amount of independents), then simply "getting your face out there" is a motivating factor: I don't like Hillary ... and well there's this guy. Not simply in terms of a sort of media momentum but also at a more basic level psychologically the more you "know someone" the more you rationalize and relativize their faults.

Trump's power is he has no shame, so "grab em' by the pussy" drops and he just stays in the game, and then people get used to it.

To go one level deeper, the reason this strategy works is that the US establishment is no more reasonable than Trump. The US policy establishment, represented by the likes of Hillary and Biden, have abandoned any authentic rational justification for things a long time ago. Things are not irrational in that they are crazy, they are perfectly rational as a system of graft and corruption and organized crime, but the presentation to the public is an irrational mess in order to prop-up a corrupt system. They don't view themselves that way, they think their propaganda is "clever" that it's just a matter of having a "private" and "public" position (but if you have a private and a public position on things, which one is your actual well thought out position? Obviously the private one, and the public one is just whatever you can get away with).

They also don't view themselves that way because they go around as "serious people" and there's pomp and prestige everywhere. However, the more you associate pomp and prestige with bullshit the less people are impressed by it.

The final pillar of establishment power is the aura of "you can't challenge us, nothing will ever, ever change".

So, in this political environment where things don't anyways make any sense, then Trump's nonsense isn't really a problem because people are already accustomed to nonsense. Not that Trump has any intention to make the system less corrupt and "drain the swamp" (that's just his "public" position because it sounds good to the disaffected population the elites have screwed); however a lot of people support Trump basically as a meme that the elites hate, just to mess with the elites, without much illusion he's going to fix anything.

In some ways Trump, as a category, is the only alternative you can ever get in US politics today. Precisely because he makes no sense most of the time, the US establishment didn't view him as a threat; indeed, they promoted him, told their media allies to give him more coverage, precisely because he doesn't play a "pomp and prestige" game, nor even fundraised all that much money, political elites assumed he had no chance, and then he gets too big and the cats out of the bag. Someone who's actually a threat to the system is a Bernie Sanders kind of category, who makes sense, isn't corrupt but only got so far as he did because he's a relic of a bygone (less corrupt) era where it was still possible (i.e. he's an exception today) to get in the system as a threat to otherwise unaccountable power (nowadays you either can't get in at all if you don't "play ball" or then if you do you're sidelined and no one ever pays attention to you so you can't go very far).

Point is, it doesn't really matter what Trump says or does; he's the alternative to the elites Americans know and hate. The reason he's the alternative is because of his celebrity status and money and branding skills and also precisely because he doesn't make sense he didn't seem a threat to the system until it was too late. A real threat is "taken care of" one way or another very early on.

One consequence of a second Tump presidency is he basically blows up the entire system and then the only people left need to compete on "sense making". A dangerous process but maybe better than continuation of the current system. Another possibility is that he just creates a new class of corrupt political elite. He'll definitely be trying to be doing the second goal, but precisely because he's not a good strategist he may fail at that and accomplish the first.

You're forgetting abortion. Since Dobbs, Democrats have overperformed in every special election. SCOTUS is taking up abortion again this Summer, and no matter what they decide, the mere fact of them sticking their noses in women's wombs will enrage and terrify them. Democrats also have a massive cash advantage. This is going to be a turnout election, and I would much rather be a Democrat candidate than Republican.

↪boethius You're forgetting abortion. Since Dobbs, Democrats have overperformed in every special election. SCOTUS is taking up abortion again this Summer, and no matter what they decide, the mere fact of them sticking their noses in women's wombs will enrage and terrify them. — RogueAI

There's all the usual issues of why partisans usually vote for their party regardless of the candidate.

As I say in my post, I'm not saying Trump will win, just explaining why he can say outrageous things and that doesn't matter.

There's not a strategy of policy articulation, character and sense making but of marketing and branding and not-being the other candidate.

My focus was on Trump because the subject was Trump strategy.

Obviously Biden's strategy will be that he's not Trump, and says crazy things and has no character and so on.

Democrats also have a massive cash advantage. This is going to be a turnout election, and I would much rather be a Democrat candidate than Republican. — RogueAI

I think it's too early to say where the momentum is going to be, and I don't say that just because the election is some ways off but because we haven't seen yet what sort of consolidation, if any, will happen around Trump and now that he's the candidate we'll now see to what extent conservative figures, media and funders rally for Trump.

I think we're right now in a similar situation to 2016 where the the Republican establishment and media machine and usual funders were pretty radically against Trump and couldn't believe what was happening, so when Trump started secure the nomination it would seem he'd have no allies and the incoherent "hot mess" would sort of just fumble towards a blow out loss. However, then republicans started to rally and things became coherent enough and well run enough to build momentum and win the election. Of course a lot of people never "got on board" but enough did that Trump could win.

So I think we're in a similar place where there's still a large part of the republican establishment and media machine that were (while being way more pro-Trump than in 2016) perhaps not hoping for Trump to be taken down with all the lawsuits but maybe were waiting-and-seeing.

Trump won in 2016 while raising half the funds of Hillary, so I'm also just not sure that's a good proxy for odds of success.

Trump won in 2016 while raising half the funds of Hillary, so I'm also just not sure that's a good proxy for odds of success. — boethius

Money is not the end-all-be-all, but it is an important factor, and candidates would rather have it than not.

Money is not the end-all-be-all, but it is an important factor, and candidates would rather have it than not. — RogueAI

Sure, but if Trump already won once raising half the funds of Hillary, then we're not in a "all things being equal" situation. Things are not equal, Trump already demonstrated he can 2x his money in terms of results. Of course, he lost to Biden, but Biden wasn't so visibly senile back then.

And sure, the democrat base doesn't like the anti-abortion rulings of the Supreme Court, but I'm not sure that will be a big election issue considering the justices are now a lot younger than they were (oldest being 75), so it's not a "guaranteed likely" there will be new openings on the bench in the next 4 years.

Democrat base also doesn't like genocide, so the democrats turning themselves into the brutal genocidal war party is an un-motivating factor.

Not to say that will be a big election issue either, just pointing out that simple formulas such as abortion and money may not be big predictive factors at this stage.

So, there is justice in the world after all:

Trump is unable to put his money where is mouth is. He pretends to be famously wealthy , but does not have the money to make bond and says he cannot raise the money:

https://www.axios.com/2024/03/18/trump-new-york-fraud-case-appeal-bond

A new hoax has arisen. This time our credulity implores us to believe Trump threatened the country with a bloodbath should he lose the election. Out of context a clever propagandist could spin it that upon Trump's loss his supporters will break out the ARs and start murdering political opponents. But in context it was blatantly clear that the bloodbath Trump was speaking about was a figurative one, an economic one.

This sort of lying is the sine qua non of the Biden campaign and his gullible followers. These sorts of distortions and misinformations are all they have. Observe the technique used multiple times in his recent X post.