Sure, which means that much less money to fund actual Republican campaigns - it’s a Win-Win for everybody!
1 Like
I hope this civil case quickly becomes the least of trump’s worries. He and Rudy need to ask Roger Stone how it feels when the FBI shows up at 4:00 in the morning.
3 Likes
Is this a Civil or Criminal action?
If it is Civil, that allows “Collusion” as a charge (if Criminal, it does not allow it) and that is MUCH easier to prove in Civil Court than, for example: Conspiracy (which is the charge in Criminal Court.)
2 Likes
Trump certainly won’t be complaining. He would never even consider that it might hamper the efforts of the larger Party since he doesn’t really seem to think other people exist in a consequential way. His NPD precludes him from being able to empathize with their predicament.
ETA: They have to keep feeding the beast, lest it consume them instead…
3 Likes
I just got suspended from facebook for this comment “If the KKK act is how it’s described in the filing, then it is a pretty good bet he’ll win. The insurrection fits it to a T”.
I wonder if there is any discussion of the lawsuit on FB now? Are they suspending even if you just mention KKK?
2 Likes
The fact that the lawsuit is being filed by a Black democratic congressman from Mississippi against Trump, Giuliani the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers using the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 is karmic.
9 Likes
I assume by baseless you mean: filed by unbelievers not within the Trumpian base…
1 Like
A member of the House—who was participating in the certification—most assuredly should have standing in this case.
7 Likes
Standing to sue those who entered the capitol building to prevent the counting of the votes, yes. Standing to sue the president and his minions, has yet to be determined. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the supreme court doesn’t take the rest of Twin Peaches’ life to make that determination.
2 Likes
SCOTUS can’t be involved unless it rises to their level in the federal court system.
1 Like
The quotes are there to imply that it’s a (fictitious) fundraising blast, not my personal words and beliefs.
An openly corrupt conspiracy to defraud donors using false pretenses? Yep…
I read yesterday that at least one large-cap donor who donated millions to the ‘expose the fraud’ effort wants their money back. I think things are going to get ugly for all those grifters, and in fairly short order.
3 Likes
“The Defendants acted in concert to incite and then carry out a riot at the Capitol by promoting an assembly of persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat of it that created grave danger of harm to the Plaintiff and to other Members of Congress”
Why would you think a member of Congress who was terrorized for and while trying to carry out his duties according to the Constitution would not have standing?
3 Likes
Indeed. Sue the MFs with every law we can find to make them have to frantically find lawyers who will lower themselves to defend them, and spend their money trying to stay out of jail.
4 Likes
Wow.
Would be interesting to see the NAACP Owner/Co-Owner of Mar-a-Lago from a court ordered forfeiture..
Under the terms of a Federal court verdict last March, the woman, Beulah Mae Donald of Mobile, was given the property deed this week to a 7,200-square-foot brick and corrugated metal building and 6.5 acres of wooded land near Tuscaloosa, Ala. Until a few weeks ago the building was the national headquarters of the United Klans of America.
4 Likes
Standing to sue the president. You can’t just sue the president because something bad happened to you.
Are you by chance thinking of sovereign immunity? That’s not about standing per se, but I can’t right now think of any other basis for exempting a former president from civil lawsuits
…and that never happens with this particular defendant. Lots of unsettled law here, and morBotus will be playing with other people’s money. Every reason to drag this out, and this SC has shown themselves very complaisant with that strategy.
1 Like
No, just that you have to give the court reason to think you have a chance of success. Standing might not be the right term for that. For instance, you park near the white house during one of their thinly disguised campaign events, and a NPS truck working the event backs into your car, you can’t sue the president for damages.
Ah, ok. You think the courts might not grant cert on the basis that it’s unlikely to succeed. I actually thought that about the Detroiters who sued Trump and his campaign and was surprised when the case was accepted and assigned. Guess we’ll see if this one also makes it in
2 Likes