Trump News
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Here’s What You Should Know About the Four Justices Who Deemed Trump Ineligible to Run for President
"The four Democratic-appointed justices who ruled to nix Trump from the primary ballot included three Ivy League graduates, showing a stark divide between the legal mindsets of those who were educated at elite institutions compared to the three justices who said they would not remove the Republican front-runner from the state's ballot," reports the Washington Examiner. "Three justices who said they wouldn't bar Trump from the ballot, Carlos Samour, Maria Berkenkotter, and Chief Justice Brian Boatright, all attended Sturm College of Law in Denver."
As for the justices who voted to boot Trump from the ballot, Justice Monica Marquez not only got her law degree from Yale, but is the first Latina and openly LGBT justice to serve on the court. "She also worked as an assistant solicitor general and as assistant attorney general in both the Public Officials Unit and Criminal Appellate Section before she was appointed to the state's high court in 2010," explains the Washington Examiner. "The justice is also a member of the Bench Dream Team, which is a group of judges in the Colorado judicial system that promotes diversity and inclusion."
Let's keep going, shall we?
Justice Richard Gabriel holds a bachelor's degree in American studies from Yale University and a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania. His legal career, primarily in commercial and intellectual property law, led to his appointment to the state Supreme Court in June 2015.
Justice Melissa Hart pursued her undergraduate studies at Harvard-Radcliffe and later returned to Harvard for her law degree. Appointed to the high court in December 2017, she also works as an adjunct professor at the University of Colorado Law School and the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law.
Signs From the Far Left That the Colorado Supremes Stepped in It
In the first 24 hours or so after the ruling, reaction predictably broke along party lines. The rabid, Trump-hating Left was ecstatic, of course. Even Republicans who aren't Trump fans thought that the court had severely exceeded its authority. Everyone immediately became a legal expert and opinions were flying like Frisbees at the beach.
There were a couple of interesting developments in the skeptic camp yesterday, and they didn't come from where one might expect.
Rick wrote something yesterday about New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait wandering away from the hive mind to question the Colorado court's ruling. First, Rick explains the crux of the matter:
I've said since January 6, 2021, that anyone who calls what happened that day an insurrection is an unhinged liar. Trump couldn't have participated in an insurrection because there was no insurrection.
Rick quotes Chait as saying that the "weak point in this argument" has to do with this insurrection angle.
For those unfamiliar with Chait, he's a leftist's leftist. The fact that he's writing a takedown of the Colorado ruling in the thoroughly liberal New York Magazine is a real red flag indicating just how awful it is.
There was an even more delicious defection on Thursday.
My friend and colleague John Sexton writes over at HotAir that The Washington Post editorial board has joined the naysayers:
WaPo is home to some of the most vitriolic, unbalanced Trump screeds on Earth, and has been since 2016. I read its Opinion section every day and can assure you that the editorial board not at all mentally balanced when comes to anything having to do with him.
Federal Judge Rejects Lawsuit to Remove Trump From Ballot in Another State
A federal judge in West Virginia rejected a bid Thursday to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's ballot, rebuffing a bid from a little-known presidential candidate to remove the former president.
District Judge Irene Berger ruled that John Anthony Castro, the candidate who filed a lawsuit against President Trump, lacked the standing to sue. She sided with attorneys for President Trump, Secretary of State Mac Warner, and the West Virginia GOP to dismiss Mr. Castro's suit.
U.S. District Judge Irene Berger wrote that the evidence that Mr. Castro had submitted removes “any doubt that Mr. Castro’s purported ‘campaign’ exists as a vehicle for pursuing litigation, not votes," adding that he could not prove any political activity in the state aside from the lawsuit that he filed.
Mr. Castro, who is based in Texas, has filed at least two dozen lawsuits against the former president to remove him from respective states' ballots in recent weeks. Earlier this month, a judge in Arizona dismissed a similar lawsuit.
His lawsuit had argued that President Trump should be disbarred from appearing on the state's ballot because Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that anyone who engaged in an insurrection against the United States cannot be a presidential candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court declined in October to hear the appeal of a similar case that Mr. Castro brought in Florida.
A court in Colorado recently ruled that the former president—under the judges' reading of the provision—cannot appear on the state's ballots, although the case is likely going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Colorado case, however, was not brought by Mr. Castro but by a left-wing activist group, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and headed by a board member who currently serves on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's advisory council.
But as Mr. Castro had "alleged that he is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President and anticipates being on the ballot in West Virginia," his lawsuit "contains few specific factual allegations related to his candidacy,” Judge Berger wrote.
Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Ballot Disqualification Case ‘With Prejudice’
A plaintiff attempted to argue that they suffered “emotional injury” as a result of the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, while watching the events unfold on television, on the radio, and in various publications. They then argued that the incident caused them “severe emotional distress” and then filed a lawsuit to keep the former president off California’s ballot.
However, the judge wrote that because the events occurred “more than two years before the plaintiff” filed suit, it was outside of the two-year statute of limitations.
The decision by Judge Carter, a Clinton-appointed jurist who has ruled against President Trump in a separate case, was posted online by former Republican National Committee for California Chair Harmeet Dhillon.
“The remnants of the last California case to keep President Trump off the ballot here were dismissed today by Judge David O. Carter!!” she wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Jan. 3.
A former attorney, Mr. Newcomb wrote that his complaint “grounds the two facts required by the 14th Amendment to disqualify traitors from ever again holding office,” referring to the former president and the GOP senator. He also asked the state court to ”reserve judgment until the meaningful opportunity to be heard allows [me] to demonstrate relevance and admissibility of adjudicative facts,” which cited more than 250 news articles about the former president.
Some of the articles he referenced appeared to contain claims that President Trump had colluded with the Russian government. A 2019 Department of Justice investigation headed by former special counsel Robert Mueller later found there was no evidence that the former president had colluded with the Kremlin.
According to the Cowboy State Daily, when reached for comment last month, Mr. Newcomb pointed to footnotes in a recent court filing, including a Wikipedia article that links to “stochastic terrorism,” a CNN report about threats allegedly made to the Colorado Supreme Court, and a YouTube video including an interviewer who questioned about reported threats to public officials.
It came as Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, a Republican, filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Newcomb’s lawsuit, describing it as “repugnant.”
“The attempt to remove Donald Trump and Cynthia Lummis from the ballot is outrageously wrong and repugnant to our electoral process,” Mr. Gray said in a statement. “Today, we filed a motion to dismiss this blatant, radical attempt to interfere with Wyoming’s elections. The weaponization of the Fourteenth Amendment to remove political opponents from the ballot undermines the sanctity of the Constitution. We are committed to protecting the integrity of our elections and ensuring that the people of Wyoming can choose who to elect for themselves.”
www.theepochtimes.com
Some of the articles he referenced appeared to contain claims that President Trump had colluded with the Russian government. A 2019 Department of Justice investigation headed by former special counsel Robert Mueller later found there was no evidence that the former president had colluded with the Kremlin.
According to the Cowboy State Daily, when reached for comment last month, Mr. Newcomb pointed to footnotes in a recent court filing, including a Wikipedia article that links to “stochastic terrorism,” a CNN report about threats allegedly made to the Colorado Supreme Court, and a YouTube video including an interviewer who questioned about reported threats to public officials.
It came as Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, a Republican, filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Newcomb’s lawsuit, describing it as “repugnant.”
“The attempt to remove Donald Trump and Cynthia Lummis from the ballot is outrageously wrong and repugnant to our electoral process,” Mr. Gray said in a statement. “Today, we filed a motion to dismiss this blatant, radical attempt to interfere with Wyoming’s elections. The weaponization of the Fourteenth Amendment to remove political opponents from the ballot undermines the sanctity of the Constitution. We are committed to protecting the integrity of our elections and ensuring that the people of Wyoming can choose who to elect for themselves.”
Judge Shuts Down New Attempt to Remove Trump From Ballot
Another 14th Amendment case was rejected by a federal judge this week.
The extortion of Donald Trump
Let’s follow the trail back to its origins, like a trail left by a dog that has a bladder problem. Governor Hochul of New York signs into law the Adult Survivors Act, a law that allows survivors of sexual assault to sue their abusers regardless of when the abuse occurred. At face value, it sounds like a good and righteous law. One of the first to file was E. Jean Carroll. She had no evidence except what she said and what she told a few friends, which was eerily similar to an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. She also had a photograph of her and Trump in a crowd together. President Trump claims to this day he never met her. (Do you remember everyone who was in a crowd when you were in the picture?) Nevertheless, the evidence, which was virtually nonexistent, was irrelevant. President Trump could never get a fair trial in NYC. He was found liable for sexual abuse and ordered to pay $5 million.
Of course, President Trump fumed about this. Wouldn’t you fume about a law that was specifically designed as a political attack against you and allowed no possibility of defending yourself and required no evidence?
Now another NYC jury has found Trump guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay $83.3 million. They intended to send a message, but the message they sent has the exact opposite meaning of what they intended. The whole process has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the justice system now exists to oppress Trump, oppress his family, oppress his closest associates, and oppress his supporters.
The message sent has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the justice system is vastly more powerful than the vote. You and I and our power to be heard through the vote is now powerless against the oppressor justice system and another omnipotent institution: the MVM (Martha’s Vineyard Media). Virtually all of the information we get is from MVM elites, who hate Trump because he dared to speak for the people.
The message being sent here is clear: anyone who dares to defy the permanent elites will be fleeced, extorted, charged, and indicted.
The American people are expected to be subservient to MVM oppressor justice, and we are to go through life with our tails between our legs because our say has no influence, even though the press says the exact opposite. Fake news.
Only President Trump has had the guts to stand against powerful elites and the MVM, and now they are trying to stick it to him by any means necessary. When they stick it to Trump, they stick it to you...and they know it, and they revel in it.
AP Admits It: No Other Case in NY History Like Crusading Prosecutor Letitia James' Pursuit of Trump
The Associated Press, an outlet formed in the 1840s by five daily NYC newspapers to share the cost of covering news of the Mexican–American War, is called “lean left” by the bias rating organization “All Sides.”
It was a big surprise then to see this headline:
Dissolving Trump’s empire would stand apart in the history of New York fraud law
Wait, did they just admit the Democrats are shredding normalcy and weaponizing lawfare against the former president? They didn’t use those exact words, but their article certainly supports that conclusion.
Here’s some of their recent “journalism”:
AP Fact Checker Forgot to Check Her Facts When Blaming Trump for George Floyd Riots
AP Pens All-Time 'Conservatives Pounce' Story About Claudine Gay, Hilariously Redefines 'Scalping'
AP Stylebook Suggests Hamas Not Be Called ‘Terrorists,’ Though Term Is Fine for Republicans
It appears they got around to telling you the truth in this article, however. No other case in New York City history has been like state Attorney General Letitia James’ rabid pursuit of Trump for a “crime” that had no victims and caused no damage. James famously campaigned for her job by saying that she would go after the president for anything she could nail him on. "I will never be afraid to challenge this illegitimate President,” James said during her campaign.
Her action is unprecedented, the AP found:
Trump is accused of inflating the values of his properties to get better deals on financing. But who's the victim in this crime? Not the banks, none of which complained.
Ex-IRS Contractor Who Leaked Trump’s Tax Returns Sentenced to 5 Years in Prison
“It cannot be open season on our elected officials,” Judge Reyes said before adding that judges had a duty to make that clear. She later noted that Mr. Littlejohn purposefully sought his job at least in part to leak tax information.
Judge Reyes began the hearing in Washington by lending her “sympathy” for Mr. Littlejohn while accusing him of perpetrating an “attack” on the nation’s constitutional democracy.
“He targeted the sitting president of the United States of America and that is exceptional by any measure,” she told Mr. Littlejohn’s attorney. She added that in targeting President Trump, Mr. Littlejohn targeted the office of president.
Judge Reyes said she would go beyond sentencing guidelines, adding that his offense covered the personal information and tax information of a substantial number of individuals, as well as risking nonmonetary harm. She also scrutinized the plea deal, stating she had “no words” for the fact that he only faced one count.
Megyn Kelly Thinks E. Jean Carroll May Have Just Handed the Election to Trump
E. Jean Carroll’s recent and gross appearance on the Rachel Maddow show where she fantasized about spending Trump’s money was an instructive moment.
It showed just how depraved the anti-Trump left can be as Carroll seemed to be celebrating with Maddow and guests joining in.
Megyn Kelly thinks it plays right into Trump’s hands.
Ankush Khardori reports:
The group’s host is Norman Eisen, a senior Obama administration official, longtime Trump critic, and CNN legal analyst. Politico reports that he was also a key member of the team of lawyers assembled by House Democrats to handle Trump’s first impeachment.
There's probably a lot of Toobining ground around as they discuss the lawfare against Trump.
On the upside, CNBC ran a story yesterday headlined, “DJT: Why Trump Media shares closed more than 12% higher.” Of course, after reading the article we discover they don’t know why. The “why” headline is corporate media’s clickbait version of “one weird trick.”
The article referred to the initial public offering of Trump Media, which was the nearly miraculous billion-dollar save the Trump team pulled out of thin air last month to pay for the appeal bond on his other ridiculous, victimless case about criminally overvalued real estate.
“We’re selling this so cheap it should be a crime!” Guess what? It is!
Buy, sell, buy again. Baffled, perplexed, and confused, CNBC noted Trump’s stock shot up despite “any significant news about the company’s bottom line improving.” But it later quoted a University of Florida business professor that called DJT a “meme stock.”
“Meme stock” is a derogatory finance slur, implying that a stock’s market value is disconnected from its underlying business performance or future business prospects. Which in DJT’s case happens to be true. It’s a pure political play.
Buying DJT is buying a slice of history and putting a thumb into Letitia James’ beady little eye.
There was even more good DJT news. Last week, Trump earned bonus shares in the new stock worth about an extra +$1.15 billion, triggered after the share price stayed (well) over a $17.50 minimum for 30 days.
CNBC sort of admitted that Trump haters have been trying to tank the stock. It reported how Trump Media officers fought back last week against short sellers who were manipulating the stock’s price down. Last Monday, the company issued a press release giving stock owners instructions about how to frustrate the short sellers. Trump Media officials also complained about the short sellers to Congressional Republicans and Nasdaq’s CEO.
They are fighting President Trump for every single inch, on every front. And still, somehow, they keep losing.
☕️ GROWING AND SHRINKING ☙ Tuesday, April 30, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Trump stock ‘unexpectedly’ jumps; Trump trial miracle is deranged star witness; NYT admits trial is about nothing; shrinking Ukraine aid narrative; China pushing back on Biden; WHO treaty shrinkage.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Trump Banned from UK, Canada, Other Countries After Guilty Verdict
Last week, a 12-person jury in Manhattan found the former president guilty on 34 counts for falsifying records to pay off porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. The former president will likely appeal his conviction, which may or may not be overturned before the November election. Should the former president win the election before the conviction could be overturned, certain countries would have to make an exception if he were to visit on official business. Per The Independent:
Various other nations, such as Israel and Australia, have laws on the books regarding felons who visit the country, which may be subject to interpretation should the former president win the election this November.
The big question now will be whether or not the conviction will be enough to shift momentum away from former President Trump in Biden’s favor going into the November 5 election. While it will take at least a week to get accurate polling on the matter, establishment Republican Karl Rove, who has been critical of Trump in the past, said on Fox News last week that a guilty verdict could potentially cost Trump key swing voters in crucial states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
No one is reporting on it as it is nothing but BS. Bernie Thompson introduced it back in April, referred to the Judiciary Committee and nothing (good thing Paul Ryan isn't in the House any longer as I see where he would probably be for it).