|
Post by Merge on Dec 21, 2023 13:55:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Dec 21, 2023 14:01:59 GMT
They’re not. They were in the final stages of divorce back in March of this year. And thanks for the gift article, I’m definitely going to read it.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Dec 21, 2023 14:05:09 GMT
They’re not. They were in the final stages of divorce back in March of this year. And thanks for the gift article, I’m definitely going to read it. Ohhhh LOL. Clearly I haven't kept up with celebrity marriage news. Enjoy the article!
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 21, 2023 19:53:27 GMT
And now CA is looking to do the same. Will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules on this. It was genius of the Colorado court IMO to cite Gorsuch's prior ruling on states' rights to oversee their own elections. Of course, if it's only blue states who do it, it won't make much difference from an electoral college point of view. Watch a swing state go down this road and then we'll see some fireworks. Get the popcorn! Michigan, Minnesota and NH already tried unsuccessfully. Will be interesting to see what happens in other states.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 21, 2023 21:46:35 GMT
They’re not. They were in the final stages of divorce back in March of this year. And thanks for the gift article, I’m definitely going to read it. Ohhhh LOL. Clearly I haven't kept up with celebrity marriage news. Enjoy the article! Now that he’s single, George Conway is my new nerdy celeb crush. ![:laugh:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ivm7lm0DayrhoRpwvCeH.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 22, 2023 7:14:54 GMT
I have seen several attorneys who said that we would be better off if he ran and lost. I agree with that opinion. Don’t get me wrong-I love this opinion, and also believe that Trump should be disqualified. BUT as a practical matter, this will lead to more cries of “Election interference!” from his base, and they might get violent. If it was the other way around you would say the same exact thing.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 22, 2023 7:22:58 GMT
On what basis would they try to remove Biden from the ballot? People seem to be ignoring the very real reasons why Trump is different than any other candidate we have ever had in this country. Reasons don’t matter to his base. They don’t believe he’s done anything wrong, and want to go along with his ideas of retaliation against anyone on the other side. I mean, what are their reasons for trying to impeach Biden? They can’t give a coherent answer for that, so why would they need a coherent reason to remove him from the ballot. Irony. 👇 There have been many coherent statements of evidence given for an impeachment inquiry. Here's just a few... democrat and independent whistleblowers testimony of stalling and halting investigations documented evidence of halting and stalling investigations Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, which received payments from Communist China, on at least three occasions made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden in 2018 Justice Department officials prevented investigators from following evidence that implicated Joe Biden in 2018 an internal bank money laundering expert raised concerns about the China money that ultimately funded the check to Joe Biden a few different banks have red flagged Biden accounts 170 times, that’s WAY out of the norm bank records show millions of dollars from foreign countries went to Biden family members, including young children bank records show that there are more than 20 shell companies created by Bidens during Joe's time as VP Joe had several aliases that he emailed with foreign officials and cced Hunter on Joe, Hunter and Devin Archer had burner phones Joe lied about Hunter receiving money from China Joe lied about discussing Hunter's business with him Joe lied when he said Hunter did nothing wrong Joe met with Hunter's foreign business partners 20 something times verified emails show "10% for the big guy held by H" business partner confirms "the big guy" is Joe Biden another business partner testified that hunter was selling the biden name the same day a check for $400,000 showed up in one of the shell company accounts, Joe's brother wrote him a check for 10% the White House has changed their words from "doesn't talk to his son about business" to "not IN business with his son" according to Hunter, himself, he has given half his salary to Joe someone blew the whistle on seeming corruption when Obama was still in office so people on the left were questioning a long time ago Hunter's WHATSAPP messages to Chinese Communist Party official and chief executive of Beijing-based firm Harvest Fund Management using his father to demand money using his father who was sitting there with him
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 22, 2023 7:34:19 GMT
Amazing how Congressman Comer’s committee STILL hasn’t been able to come up with anything to charge President Biden with, after all this time. With all that confirmed evidence and all. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 22, 2023 7:42:15 GMT
Amazing how Congressman Comer’s committee STILL hasn’t been able to come up with anything to charge President Biden with, after all this time. With all that confirmed evidence and all. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Yes, that tends to happen when they have people stalling and halting investigations, slow walking documents, ignoring subpoenas and such.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 14:47:50 GMT
Or perhaps when even Peter Doocy admits the House Oversight committee has not provided any concrete evidence of corruption, there’s nothing there. Hunter maybe but there’s currently zero evidence Joe Biden did anything wrong. Not surprisingly, Republicans are lying about Hunter again. www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-texts-impeachment-republicans.html And while it does not rule out the possibility that House Republicans could unearth evidence showing wrongdoing by President Biden, it underscores the flimsy nature of the material they have presented publicly so farwww.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/politics/republican-claims-biden-impeachment-inquiry.htmlBut an examination of some of the highest-profile examples cited by Republicans shows that they have been taken out of context, or that Republicans have omitted key messages in email or text chains that often cast the communications in a more innocuous light
Trump and his children on the other hand held office and profited from their positions. Lots of actual evidence there. The Saudi golf deal for Trump’s properties, the Saudi $2 billion investment in Jared’s firm, the hotel deals in Oman etc www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/us/politics/trump-real-estate-deal-oman.htmlBack to the subject of the thread, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, the fact that a court of law found Trump guilty of insurrection and ineligible for the ballot is unprecedented. No amount of deflecting to Hunter Biden can hide that.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 15:02:46 GMT
Not surprising, Trump is playing victim again after this latest ruling and calling it a witch hunt again. At some point, you might think supporters would get tired of his whining. www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-republicans-colorado.html?The former president has perfected a playbook of victimhood, raising cash off each of his indictments and encouraging Republican officials to defend him, as his rivals did after the Colorado ruling.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 15:07:50 GMT
Here’s an update on the status of the other 16 states challenging Trump’s eligibility After Trump challenged the eligibility of President Obama, Hillary and Ted Cruz, it seems very fitting that a court of law found him ineligible. And I kind of love that he’s going to spend a lot of time and money on lawyers and in courtrooms in 2024. It’s finally starting to feel like there might be some retribution for his actions. www.nytimes.com/2023/12/20/us/politics/trump-colorado-ballot-other-states.html?Four of these lawsuits — in Michigan, Oregon, New Jersey and Wisconsin — have been filed in state courts. Eleven lawsuits — in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New York, New Mexico, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming — have been filed in federal district courts.
Cases in two of these states, Arizona and Michigan, were initially dismissed by a lower court but have been appealed. Another challenge has also been made in Maine.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court’s hold will be temporarily lifted and Mr. Trump will be eligible to be placed on the state’s Republican primary ballot until the nation’s top court reaches a decision, according to the Colorado Department of State.
Such an appeal would also most likely freeze the other lawsuits.
“If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will effectively stay the proceedings in all of the other states,” said J. Michael Luttig, a retired appeals court judge who was a leading supporter of bringing a 14th Amendment challenge.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 21:11:02 GMT
The Maine Secretary of State will decide next week if Trump should remain on the ballot. www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/maine-trump-ballot.htmlShenna Bellows, a Democrat, has said she would decide next week whether Maine will join Colorado in disqualifying former President Donald J. Trump from its primary ballot.
Maine’s secretary of state is poised to issue a decision next week that could bolster a citizen-led movement to keep former President Donald J. Trump off primary ballots around the country — or contradict a landmark court decision in Colorado this week.
In a hearing last week at Maine’s State House in Augusta, Shenna Bellows, the secretary of state, weighed three separate complaints challenging Mr. Trump’s eligibility to appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot. Two are based on the same section of the Constitution that the Colorado Supreme Court cited in its 4-to-3 decision on Tuesday that found Mr. Trump cannot hold office again because his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol amounted to engaging in an insurrection.
Some form of challenge to Mr. Trump’s eligibility has been lodged in more than 30 states, but many of those have already been dismissed. Most are unfolding in the courts, but in Maine — because of a quirk in its Constitution — the secretary of state weighs in first, with voters filing petitions, not lawsuits. Her decision can then be appealed to the state’s Superior Court.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 21:14:30 GMT
He's right that we wouldn't be in this situation if more of the Republican senators had the courage to impeach Trump. Thank you Mitch McConnell. www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/politics/trump-ballot-colorado-supreme-court.htmlThe Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald J. Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for president again pits one fundamental value against another: giving voters in a democracy the right to pick their leaders versus ensuring that no one is above the law.
Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said that even if one thinks that Mr. Trump’s actions rendered him unfit for office in line with the 14th Amendment, there are other — and less alarmingly novel — systems that could have addressed that problem before it reached the courts. These would have freed the Republican Party to have a starkly different primary contest, he said.
“The problem is that we’re just not set up for this — we’ve run through the safety nets,” Mr. Vladeck said. “We’ve been spared from this problem in the few prior episodes where it could have arisen by different sets of constraints. And so now we’re in this position because those backstops have failed.”
Had nine more Republican senators voted to convict Mr. Trump at his Jan. 6 impeachment trial, he would be ineligible to hold future office anyway, said Mr. Vladeck, who wrote a column about the complications of the Colorado court’s ruling titled “The Law and High Politics of Disqualifying President Trump.” And if more Republican voters were repelled by Mr. Trump’s attempt to secure an unelected second term, his political career would be over as a practical matter.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 21:27:23 GMT
And following a predictable pattern with Trump and his supporters, there have been threats against the Colorado justices www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/22/law-enforcement-colorado-justices-threats/Local and federal law enforcement officials say they are investigating a surge in threats that justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court are facing after their decision this week to bar Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary.
After the ruling, law enforcement say they’ve become aware of telephone and social media threats to the justices who ruled to bar Trump from the ballot.
“The FBI is aware of the situation and working with local law enforcement,” Vikki Migoya, a public affairs officer for the FBI’s Denver field office, said in a statement. “We will vigorously pursue investigations of any threat or use of violence committed by someone who uses extremist views to justify their actions regardless of motivation.”
Peter Simi, a Chapman University sociologist who has studied far-right extremism, served as an expert witness in the trial that considered Trump’s ballot eligibility in Colorado this fall. He told The Post that he’s seen an increase in threatening rhetoric from apparent Trump supporters in response to the court’s decision, including “strong accusatory language and calls to have [the judges] arrested.”
“It’s critical we take these very seriously, first, as a public-safety issue and, second, as a threat to democracy,” he added. “I also think we need to look at the most recent threats to the Colorado Supreme Court justices within the context of the much longer pattern of Trump and his supporters promoting political violence.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 22, 2023 22:01:50 GMT
Supposedly up to and including beheadings...
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 23:40:38 GMT
www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221031783/colorado-trump-ruling-violent-online-rhetoricViolent rhetoric is up in some online spaces where supporters of former President Donald Trump are reacting to news that he is ineligible to appear on Colorado's primary ballot.
Personal information, including phone numbers and addresses, of the Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled against Trump are circulating on some far-right platforms. So, too, are calls for his base to take up arms.
"We saw trending the terms 'insurrection' and 'civil war' really within hours of the Colorado decision," said Daniel Jones, president of Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit public interest research group based in Washington, D.C.
And even separate from the concern over violence, there is also growing alarm that the normalization of threats, harassment and vitriolic attacks may be eroding American democracy.
"One of the goals of this type of inciting rhetoric or encouraging or even allowing dangerous speech to flourish is that you can make people feel less comfortable participating in day-to-day democracy," said Shannon Hiller, executive director of the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University. "The proliferation of violent rhetoric like this and the unwillingness of leaders to condemn it can create that chilling effect."
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Dec 23, 2023 1:59:32 GMT
I have seen several attorneys who said that we would be better off if he ran and lost. I agree with that opinion. Don’t get me wrong-I love this opinion, and also believe that Trump should be disqualified. BUT as a practical matter, this will lead to more cries of “Election interference!” from his base, and they might get violent. If it was the other way around you would say the same exact thing. Maybe. But it isn’t the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Dec 23, 2023 2:02:22 GMT
Amazing how Congressman Comer’s committee STILL hasn’t been able to come up with anything to charge President Biden with, after all this time. With all that confirmed evidence and all. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Has Comer come up with anything substantial? Maybe I missed it. 🥴🤔
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 23, 2023 6:31:28 GMT
Amazing how Congressman Comer’s committee STILL hasn’t been able to come up with anything to charge President Biden with, after all this time. With all that confirmed evidence and all. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Has Comer come up with anything substantial? Maybe I missed it. 🥴🤔 No ma’am, not a bit. He is quite a piece of work.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 23, 2023 21:49:43 GMT
Has Comer come up with anything substantial? Maybe I missed it. 🥴🤔 No ma’am, not a bit. He is quite a piece of work. LOADS OF SUBSTANTIAL RED FLAGS
democrat and independent whistleblowers testimony of stalling and halting investigations documented evidence of halting and stalling investigations Hunter Biden’s business entity, Owasco PC, which received payments from Communist China, on at least three occasions made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden in 2018 Justice Department officials prevented investigators from following evidence that implicated Joe Biden in 2018 an internal bank money laundering expert raised concerns about the China money that ultimately funded the check to Joe Biden a few different banks have red flagged Biden accounts 170 times, that’s WAY out of the norm bank records show millions of dollars from foreign countries went to Biden family members, including young children bank records show that there are more than 20 shell companies created by Bidens during Joe's time as VP Joe had several aliases that he emailed with foreign officials and cced Hunter on Joe, Hunter and Devin Archer had burner phones Joe lied about Hunter receiving money from China Joe lied about discussing Hunter's business with him Joe lied when he said Hunter did nothing wrong Joe met with Hunter's foreign business partners 20 something times verified emails show "10% for the big guy held by H" business partner confirms "the big guy" is Joe Biden another business partner testified that hunter was selling the biden name the same day a check for $400,000 showed up in one of the shell company accounts, Joe's brother wrote him a check for 10% the White House has changed their words from "doesn't talk to his son about business" to "not IN business with his son" according to Hunter, himself, he has given half his salary to Joe someone blew the whistle on seeming corruption when Obama was still in office so people on the left were questioning a long time ago Hunter's WHATSAPP messages to Chinese Communist Party official and chief executive of Beijing-based firm Harvest Fund Management using his father to demand money using his father who was sitting there with him obstructing investigations into GPS to determine if Joe and Hunter were in the same location at the time
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 23, 2023 21:54:18 GMT
If it was the other way around you would say the same exact thing. Maybe. But it isn’t the other way around. Right, because Trump isn't trying to jail his opponent OR remove him from the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 23, 2023 22:43:34 GMT
Maybe. But it isn’t the other way around. Right, because Trump isn't trying to jail his opponent OR remove him from the ballot. No, but he has threatened to. No actual crimes required.
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 23, 2023 23:09:46 GMT
Right, because Trump isn't trying to jail his opponent OR remove him from the ballot. No, but he has threatened to. No actual crimes required. And Biden is actually DOING it.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 23, 2023 23:50:42 GMT
No, but he has threatened to. No actual crimes required. And Biden is actually DOING it. I think you’re confused. Trump is being tried for actual crimes. With, ya know, evidence and all. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 24, 2023 0:00:27 GMT
And Biden is actually DOING it. I think you’re confused. Trump is being tried for actual crimes. With, ya know, evidence and all. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Biden is just a bit behind. You know. Obstruction and all.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 24, 2023 0:06:31 GMT
I think you’re confused. Trump is being tried for actual crimes. With, ya know, evidence and all. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Biden is just a bit behind. You know. Obstruction and all. Yeah, let’s just wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Dec 24, 2023 0:09:53 GMT
Maybe. But it isn’t the other way around. Right, because Trump isn't trying to jail his opponent OR remove him from the ballot. For whatever reason, again, it isn’t the other way around. 😁 It feels like you are in a quarrelsome mood today. 🤔😁
|
|
|
Post by morecowbell on Dec 24, 2023 0:33:15 GMT
Right, because Trump isn't trying to jail his opponent OR remove him from the ballot. For whatever reason, again, it isn’t the other way around. 😁 It feels like you are in a quarrelsome mood today. 🤔😁 The one and ONLY reason it isnt the other way around is because Trump is NOT trying to jail his political opponent and is NOT trying to remove his political opponent from the ballot. Your guy Biden is doing exactly that. The going consensus here is... no facts or viewpoints allowed that don't support the only accepted narrative. When you look around and see the situation created by those on the Left here, that there is no longer anyone still around here to give those facts and/or viewpoints and then someone comes along and does and is told to sit down and shut the fuck up, you might not get sweetness and light in response So, I'm not in a quarrelsome mood, but you do have to consider what came before my responses to see who ACTUALLY starts quarreling.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 24, 2023 0:53:07 GMT
For whatever reason, again, it isn’t the other way around. 😁 It feels like you are in a quarrelsome mood today. 🤔😁 The one and ONLY reason it isnt the other way around is because Trump is NOT trying to jail his political opponent and is NOT trying to remove his political opponent from the ballot. Your guy Biden is doing exactly that. I realize that you fully believe this to be true. But for the benefit of other, more rational people who may be reading but not commenting, I would like to clarify that President Biden has studiously avoided getting involved in the business of the Justice dept, allowing them to follow the evidence and prosecute cases as they see fit. If he were actually trying to jail a political opponent, he would have done it in 2021, not allowed it to run head first into the next election. Trump, on the other hand, has said out loud that he would go after his political opponents, should he become president again. Nothing about maybe finding evidence first, just prosecuting them. He did tell us in 2016 that he’d be sending Hillary to prison. Huh. Guess his nominally ethical Attorneys General couldn’t find any actual evidence. That won’t be an issue next time around, not with some of the names that have been floated for AG. The rest of your post is utter rambling nonsense, so I deleted it here. Jeez, what a sense of victimhood.
|
|