post-truth mhaze,

You really are losing it now.

You claim: "The courts you refer to were in DC and the jurors were those 96%."

The courts we have been talking about are in Colorado, both the District Court and the Supreme Court.

But I have gone and looked at the decisions of a few of the other courts which have looked at the ballot question. So far none of the judgements I have seen claimed an insurrection didn't happen nor that Trump had no involvement.

Many, like Minnesota, have handed it back to Congress to decide. It Supreme Court's Chief Justice Natalie Hudson ruled “There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,”.

http://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75

And this drivel from you: "SR, as he always does, has decided that he'll just believe whatever they tell him to believe. They tell him they looked at all the evidence and that's good enough for him - why would they lie asks the clueless SR?"

Again, for the slow witted, the Trump team did not present countering evidence to the question of whether an insurrection occurred nor his role in it. The evidence which was presented convinced the District Court Judge and the 7 member Supreme Court. So yes, they looked at all the evidence presented.

Get over it.

" So yes, they looked at all the evidence presented."

Well they say they did.

Congress spent 9 months and tens of millions of dollars looking at it and didn't come to a conclusion. DC prosecutors had access to all that data and a whole lot more but didn't see enough to even charge Trump let alone enough to convict. (And remember these people aren't really interested in the facts, only how they can cause Trump problems eg the NY fraud case).

People have been jailed over the so-called insurrection even while exculpatory evidence was suppressed and withheld. eg the so-called Sharman.

There was no insurrection and if there were there is no evidence Trump was responsible. Yet Colorado spent a few days to look at it and decided to overturn democracy on the basis of that cursory, partisan look.

In the 1930's, there were any number of show trials in the USSR which sought to give a veneer of legality to the decisions to execute people Stalin saw a rivals. Apologists in the West always claimed these were legitimate trials, with the (by then dead) defendant given every opportunity to offer evidence. That was untrue but nonetheless sincerely believed by the apologists. You won't see the parallels.

post-truth mhaze,

You waffle on with: "There was no insurrection and if there were there is no evidence Trump was responsible."

FINAL REPORT
Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol

IV. “Incite,” “Assist” or “Aid and Comfort” an Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383) Section 2383 of Title 18 of the United States Code applies to anyone who “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrectionagainst the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid orcomfort thereto.” 632 The Committee recognizes that section 2383 does not require evidence of an “agreement” between President Trump and the violent rioters to establish a violation of that provision; instead, the President need only have incited, assisted, or aided and comforted those engaged in violence or other lawless activity in an effort to prevent the peaceful transition of the Presidency under our Constitution. A Federal court has already concluded that President Trump’s statements during his Ellipse speech were “plausibly words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment.” 633 Moreover, President Trump was impeached for “Incitement of Insurrection,” and a majority of the Senate voted to convict, with many more suggesting they might have voted to convict had President Trump still been in office at the time.
End quote.

http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You ask :

« Can Donald Trump still run for US President ? »
.

I guess it’s up to the US Supreme Court to decide that.

There are 9 justices on the US Supreme Court at present : 6 nominated by Bush and Trump (3 each), and 3 nominated by Clinton, Obama, and Biden (one each).

So, it looks like the answer to your question is « Yes ».

But as Trump claims he won both the 2016 and the 2020 presidential elections (the latter having been stolen from him), if that were true, he would be ineligible to run for a third term in 2024.

He claims it’s true but also claims he is eligible for a third term – which he wouldn’t be if it were true.
.

Next question :

« Can Donald Trump be re-elected as President ? »

Answer : « Yes » - provided the US Supreme Court considers that his claim to have won the 2020 presidential election is a « Big Lie », and that it is because he lost that election that he is eligible to present his candidacy once more in 2024.
.

Last question :

« Will Donald Trump be re-elected as President ? »

Answer : « No ».

He lost the 2016 presidential popular vote to Hilary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes and he lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden by more than 7 million votes. His popularity with voters on election day is obviously on a downward curve.

He is a very talented showman. That’s for sure.

We’ll see how many votes that’s worth.

.

Hi Banjo,

Interesting times ahead.

I guess we shall have to wait and see what develops
with Trump. He certainly has his supporters - whether
the rule of law will be determined against him - time
will tell. I suspect that few Americans would want to
set the precedent of indicting a President. And of course
whatever the outcome - whoever gets elected could pardon
Trump. Including if he gets re-elected.

Interesting situation.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Nice line however I think 'assuming office' means being certified into it which did not happen in Trump's case.

Actually the Twenty Second Amendment reads:

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Also it appears you numbers might be a bit awry. mhaze insists "If Trump is allowed to run, I still expect him to lose. Like 2020, he'll receive the majority of votes cast, but not the majority counted."

It is unfortunate that Trump was so bad and so obviously acting out of naked self interest and nepotism that when he did speak truth to power the changes to the system that could have been wrought are unlikely to be realised.

Perhaps we are fortunate here that the excesses of Morrison and the LNP with Robodebt, corruption, secret ministries, cosy arrangements with the likes of PwC have all been tackled by the incoming government.

Morrison's defenders, who were so thick on the ground, now have dissipated until the diehard followers of Trump who have excused an insurrection.