Free Republic

“Unfortunately the website is not available to European readers, so could you, please, tell me how they explained that all the vote counts were equal despite some votes being double counted?”

The officials’ explanation is that the ballots were SCANNED twice but not COUNTED twice. Sometimes, when they fed a ballot into a scanner, it didn’t get scanned properly for some reason, so they tried again.

The obvious check would be to examine the list of people who signed in to vote. The number of such voters in a precinct should equal the total number of ballots counted in that precinct. I don’t know whether this was done.

“I meant to say that Trump has been known to favor RINOs over other Republican candidates even in close primary races.”

Would you elaborate on that? I’m a little hazy on the details. There might have been cases where Trump endorses the less conservative candidate in favor of some rich guy who can self-fund, but I don’t think Trump has favored RINOs very often.

Thanks for the info! You’re right that the ability to raise money is a key consideration. I’m glad to learn that Smiley has done well in that regard. It also means that she starts with a large donor list from her 2022 race. Many of them will presumably help her out again.

There's probably some danger of a repeat of the 2022 "jungle primary" result. If Newhouse's Republican challengers again split the vote, then Newhouse could again be the highest-finishing Republican. Some Democrat could take second place. Then the November runoff would again be RINO versus Democrat.

According to the NR article, Trump has endorsed a candidate who, in 2022, finished fourth, with only 12% of the vote. Maybe he should reconsider that in light of Smiley's entry. In 2022, she ran for the Senate against long-time Democratic incumbent Patty Murray. Murray had the advantages of incumbency and huge name recognition (she'd been in the Senate since 1993). Smiley lost by 15%. That's a decent showing in state where Biden beat Trump by 19%. In this very red Congressional district, Smiley should have a good chance.

As I understand the dynamic, a lot of short selling can benefit the investors who purchased the stock early. At some point, the short sellers must go into the market to buy shares to cover their short position. Their hope is that, by the time that happens, the stock price will have fallen and they can buy shares cheaply. The risk is that other short sellers will also be looking to buy the stock, which drives the price up.

From Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_squeeze for full article):

“Short squeezes result when short sellers of a stock move to cover their positions, purchasing large volumes of stock relative to the market volume. Purchasing the stock to cover their short positions raises the price of the shorted stock, thus triggering more short sellers to cover their positions by buying the stock; i.e., there is increasing demand. This dynamic can result in a cascade of stock purchases and an even bigger jump of the share price.[2][3] Borrow, buy and sell timing can lead to more than 100% of a company’s shares sold short.[4][5] This does not necessarily imply naked short selling, since shorted shares are put back onto the market, potentially allowing the same share to be borrowed multiple times.[6]

“Short squeezes tend to happen in stocks that have expensive borrow rates. Expensive borrow rates can increase the pressure on short sellers to cover their positions, further adding to the reflexive nature of this phenomenon.”

Many individuals and institutions want to short the DJT stock simply because they dislike Donald Trump. That raises the potential that, down the road, there could be a short squeeze that would send the price skyrocketing, as spacejunkie2001 wrote.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: The foregoing is not investment advice. I’m just offering wild guesses based on what I read in the mass media. I, personally, am neither buying nor selling the stock. Good luck to those of you who do!

“Waste of time. That’s why...”

Of course there is zero chance of conviction in the Senate. But the Dems demonstrated with their impeachments of Trump that even a hopeless attack can generate useful publicity. There are lots of voters who will skip past routine political news to get to the baseball scores, but who will take notice if there’s an impeachment.

I unhappily offer my explanation for the failure to impeach: There are too many RINOs who are afraid to rock the boat.

“NASDAQ:DJT is option traded on the CBOE, I’d buy puts if I thought it was going to tank.”

An interesting point — but you can’t buy puts unless someone is willing to sell. It seems that most of the purchasers who are bullish on DJT stock are small investors who don’t get into anything as sophisticated as options trading. Institutions that are bearish would want to buy puts, not sell.

I’m one of those small investors who don’t get into options trading, lol. Is there a way to find out if a lot of puts (or calls) are being traded, and at what price?

“The dims will get him on via the courts, but it is fun to watch.”

The same rule was in effect last cycle, but the Republicans gave Trump an exception so he could get on the ballot. (It’s usual that the incumbent party’s convention goes second. That’s why, in 2020, the Democrats met the deadline but the Republicans didn’t.)

So, yeah, if the GOP politicians who control Ohio elections apply the rule selectively, the results will be: (1) they’ll get sued, (2) as you predict, they’ll lose the suit and Biden will get on the ballot, and (3) the Democrats, who don’t want to talk about the border, will instead talk about how the Republican Party tried a sleazy undemocratic maneuver. Net gain for Biden IMO.

“and Trump called for J6 protestors to peacefully protest”

Under this terrible decision, that doesn’t matter. Trump called for them to peacefully protest, therefore he was calling for them to protest, and he’d be liable for any criminal act that anyone committed during the protest. There’s no need to show that he ordered it or even wanted it.

Didn’t the Supreme Court just eliminate Trump’s best defense to the J6-related prosecution in DC?

Thanks for the explanation that Lang chose to waive his right to a speedy trial. Very valuable info!

“That is why when Trump wins again, the mass media needs to be seized by the military and all normal broadcasting shut down, to be replaced by the proceedings of the military tribunal(s) to follow until such time as full military justice has been administered to the evil garbage around us.”

I always thought of Free Republic as a place where people took pride in defending the Constitution.

Your plan for defending the Constitution is to abrogate the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, along with all of Article III?

And this will be done simply by Executive Order, because who needs that pesky Article I, either?

What happened to the “right to a speedy trial”???

I was wondering the same thing. Apparently the answer is that his case is caught up in the pending appeal to the Supreme Court, in which other J6 defendants argue against some of the charges on which they were convicted. If they win, Lang couldn’t be tried on similar charges, so his trial awaits the SCOTUS decision.

As to why he’s still in custody, his conduct was more violent than that of others, but the main thing is that he ruined his own bail application by shooting his mouth off afterwards. According to a news story:

[Judge] Nichols cited the two-hour duration of Lang's alleged combat with police; his lack of remorse as he bragged about his activities on social media; and the strength of the evidence against him in video recordings and his social media posts.

But the judge also gave another reason to keep Lang in jail: alarming comments that he allegedly made on social media after the riot about "getting a f---ing arsenal together" for Biden's inauguration and waging war against the government.

"I think these messages — which, again, happened after January 6th — they were not in the heat of the moment, and they reflect at least a risk that in the future Mr. Lang would, as the government put it, be at risk of committing or advocating violence in favor of his political beliefs," Nichols said, according to a transcript of the hearing.

Source: https://news.yahoo.com/three-years-jan-6-riot-080103869.html

The takeaway: If you're planning to get an arsenal together and wage war on the government, don't brag about your plans on social media.

“Article II section 4 would be superfluous if the head of the executive branch and the nation’s chief magistrate could be subject to prosecution under Article III.”

That doesn’t follow at all. A president could be prosecuted for acts done before becoming president, which would not be a basis for removal from office. Or a president while in office might commit an act that was a crime but that didn’t rise to the level of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (That phrase must mean something other than just any old crime.) Or a president might do anything at all on January 19, when there’s not enough time to go through impeachment and conviction.

The Constitution specifies the bases for removing someone from office. It doesn’t say that removal from office is a necessary prerequisite to an ordinary criminal prosecution, especially one brought after the president has left office anyway.

“Your argument is situational. That we should carve out exceptions and go outside the proper Constitutional remedy because, oh dear, this or that crime is so heinous.”

You’re simply assuming that the Constitution prohibits criminal prosecution of a president for anything done in office (official duty or not) unless and until there’s an impeachment and conviction. I don’t see the text of the Constitution as supporting that claim.

Thinking about horrible things a president might do isn’t situational. It’s part of understanding what the Framers meant. Did they mean that a president who committed treason, took bribes, or murdered someone on Fifth Avenue couldn’t be prosecuted unless the whole cumbersome mechanism of impeachment and conviction occurred first? That interpretation would have the potential to produce ridiculous results, and that potential is a reason for concluding that the Framers probably didn’t intend that.

There’s also the more obvious point that if they had meant it, they could have said it.

“Under Illinois law, unopposed write-in candidates must receive the same number of votes as would equal the number of valid petition signatures needed for ballot access. Otherwise, the write-in candidates are not elected.”

Many thanks! The linked article mystified me until I read your explanation.

I wrote, “But if that were the only remedy, then a rogue president plus 34 partisan hacks in the Senate could do anything.”

You answered, “Isn’t that what we have today?”

That’s what we have IF the Supreme Court agrees that a president can’t be prosecuted for anything unless there’s been an impeachment and a conviction. On that view, Biden can leave office on January 20 and never face any criminal liability for any of the charges you went on to list.

My view: Biden can’t be prosecuted for bad decisions on border policy, because, no matter how bad the decisions were, they’re part of his official duties, so he’s immune. But if it could be shown that he took bribes or the like, then he could be prosecuted. That will be the result if (but only if!) the Supreme Court rejects the argument you make in the OP.

“Even if the order were carried out, a president can be impeached and removed, then tried in an Article 3 court.”

But if that were the only remedy, then a rogue president plus 34 partisan hacks in the Senate could do anything. The president could, literally, get away with murder.

There should certainly be immunity for official acts. For example, IIRC, some of Trump’s executive orders were overturned in court for having violated some statute. Even if the EO is held unlawful, Trump couldn’t be prosecuted for that.

The criminal case in New York doesn’t fall within official immunity. The alleged crime occurred partly before Trump was inaugurated. Even as to things he did as President, nothing related to Stormy Daniels was part of his official duties. His best argument is that adultery is not a crime, hush-money payments are not a crime, and the indictment concerns only a bookkeeping dispute about how the payments were treated.

“And I am not sure why we having impeached Biden yet.”

They did at least impeach the Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas – but the Senate can’t do anything about that impeachment case until Mike Johnson officially transmits the articles of impeachment. The impeachment vote occurred on February 13. That was 58 days ago. Johnson has still done nothing.

Add that to the list of things to be “not sure” about concerning the nominally Republican politicians.

Suppose Biden ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump. Would Biden be completely immune from any prosecution as long as 34 of the Democrats in the Senate refused to convict him on an impeachment vote?

A sweeping claim of presidential immunity sounds fine as long as you like the President who’s claiming it.

“You don’t think the case is malicious prosecution? Queen Letitia campaigned on taking down Trump. There are no realtors in South Florida that I have heard say that the Mara Lago valuation was unreasonable on the Trump paperwork so the charges seem to be malicious.”

I haven’t read Justice Engoron’s decision, let alone the lengthy trial record. Here’s the impression I have from the media, so take it with a grain of salt. Or several.

1. Engoron’s criticism of Trump’s valuation of Mar-a-Lago was that Trump’s statements valued it as if there were no restrictions on its use. At one point, however, Trump had agreed to restrictions on use plus a conservation easement. Engoron found that it was fraudulent for Trump to use valuations that ignored these facts.

2. There were many issues besides Mar-a-Lago. The one I’ve seen mentioned most often is that Trump’s statements asserted that his penthouse apartment in Trump Tower, which he owned, had 30,000 square feet, but it actually had only 10,000.

3. On the appeal, the “no-harm” argument is a loser. So are the arguments about political motive and White House involvement. Trump’s best argument is that he can’t be punished personally for mistakes his subordinates made. There was conflicting evidence about the extent of his involvement.

4. To win a case of malicious prosecution, Trump would have to show much more than that he eventually won (even assuming he does). According to the excerpt in the OP, he would have to show that Letitia James “had no reasonable grounds to file and pursue the underlying case.” My guess is that all this financial stuff is complicated enough that, even if Trump eventually wins, he couldn’t meet that higher standard. Even an honest red-state jury would say that each side had at least SOME reasonable grounds. I’ll also guess that Trump would have to sue in blue New York. Note that a court has just ruled that an officer of the government of Florida (DeSantis) can’t be sued in Massachusetts for acts done in his official capacity in Florida (ordering the migrant transfer).

What you and I think of the case is irrelevant. I’m just making a prediction about what the courts will actually do.