Publicly held Trump trials - ongoing

[Hispo]

Last night I took a look at the leaked recorded testimony of Powell under oath and I must say it is quite impressive how she dared to say she was forced to plea guilty by prosecutors, that woman does not seem to be mentally well.
During her declarations one can easily see she is calm and not being extremely pressured by interviewers, but that is just a side story, keeping in mind what is going on in Trump world.

So far, left right news and media have been pushing the narrative Trump actually had plans to remain in power, regardless of the status of his lawsuits in different states where he claimed fraud took place,mthst theory being fueled by the collaboration of His co-conspirators. I am not sure whether he are yet in a phase of the trial where we are supposed to draw such serious conclusions, but it is clear the rise of popularity of Trump (in the polls) is alarming to those who do not agree with his second term run.

[BADecker]

^^^ Powell is an attorney. She knows the law attorney-style, because that was the way she was trained. But attorney-ism is only one slice of the pie, and he judges understand this.

CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (CJS) is the second major law encyclopedia in the US. It is rather public, and can be found in all law libraries of significance, and many regular libraries. Take a look at what you do when you hire an attorney to fight for you in a legal case - https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf.

The essence of the several CJS court and legal sites shown at the above website is, when you become the client of an attorney, you become a ward of the court. This means that you don't have any standing to do or say anything that the court doesn't want you to say... your attorneys are under the jurisdiction of the judge, who can disbar them if they don't obey his orders.. So, since Powell hired attorneys to represent her, she doesn't have the right to do anything other than what the court tells her to do.

It's as simple as that. And it is the same for Trump except for one thing. The judges and courts don't have any authority to interfere with a person running for the office of the Presidency. In Trump's case, the trial is a sham until after the 2024 elections, or after the end of his term if he wins. He knows it and they know it.

[paxmao]

^^^ Powell is an attorney. She knows the law attorney-style, because that was the way she was trained. But attorney-ism is only one slice of the pie, and he judges understand this.

CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (CJS) is the second major law encyclopedia in the US. It is rather public, and can be found in all law libraries of significance, and many regular libraries. Take a look at what you do when you hire an attorney to fight for you in a legal case - https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf.

The essence of the several CJS court and legal sites shown at the above website is, when you become the client of an attorney, you become a ward of the court. This means that you don't have any standing to do or say anything that the court doesn't want you to say... your attorneys are under the jurisdiction of the judge, who can disbar them if they don't obey his orders.. So, since Powell hired attorneys to represent her, she doesn't have the right to do anything other than what the court tells her to do.

It's as simple as that. And it is the same for Trump except for one thing. The judges and courts don't have any authority to interfere with a person running for the office of the Presidency. In Trump's case, the trial is a sham until after the 2024 elections, or after the end of his term if he wins. He knows it and they know it.

False, being a ward of the court does not mean anything like that. You are way out of your understanding of legal maters. You do have the right to say whatever you want when asked.

Judges are not interfering with Trump running for candidate, they are judging him for more than 50 felonies. It is such an stupid argument -  all any criminal would need to do is run for office and be free of being processed.

[BADecker]

^^^ Powell is an attorney. She knows the law attorney-style, because that was the way she was trained. But attorney-ism is only one slice of the pie, and he judges understand this.

CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (CJS) is the second major law encyclopedia in the US. It is rather public, and can be found in all law libraries of significance, and many regular libraries. Take a look at what you do when you hire an attorney to fight for you in a legal case - https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf.

The essence of the several CJS court and legal sites shown at the above website is, when you become the client of an attorney, you become a ward of the court. This means that you don't have any standing to do or say anything that the court doesn't want you to say... your attorneys are under the jurisdiction of the judge, who can disbar them if they don't obey his orders.. So, since Powell hired attorneys to represent her, she doesn't have the right to do anything other than what the court tells her to do.

It's as simple as that. And it is the same for Trump except for one thing. The judges and courts don't have any authority to interfere with a person running for the office of the Presidency. In Trump's case, the trial is a sham until after the 2024 elections, or after the end of his term if he wins. He knows it and they know it.

False, being a ward of the court does not mean anything like that. You are way out of your understanding of legal maters. You do have the right to say whatever you want when asked.

Judges are not interfering with Trump running for candidate, they are judging him for more than 50 felonies. It is such an stupid argument -  all any criminal would need to do is run for office and be free of being processed.

Children are not allowed to say anything substantial in court, except that the court allows them to. Why not? Because they are under age, and deemed to not have had enough experience in life to be able to speak in an appropriate way.

This means that when a person becomes a ward of the court through signing up with an attorney, he is considered to be like one who is under age. His signing up with an attorney reduces his status from an adult, to that of a child who doesn't have any standing in court except what the court allows. Simply do a search https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=meaning+of+%27ward+of+the+court%27&ia=web, and think about what those sites are saying.

You can see this plainly if you go to https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ward. When you combine this info with the info in the PDF at https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf : “Wards of court. Infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian. Davis Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d. 189, 190. Their rights must e guarded jealously. Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 F, 2d 289, 292. See Guardianship,” and the fact that a client of an attorney is a ward of court, you can see that Trump has been reduced to someone who isn't capable of thinking correctly, and has become a ward regarding the court. He needs to fire his attorneys so that he can take back his standing in court.

The fact that Trump is on trial takes away from his time to campaign for the presidency. There are no two ways about this. So, the judges are part of the interference of his running for office, because the whole batch of trials are interfering with his ability to campaign properly.

You simply aren't a US person. So, you maybe don't see that US law means what it says, not what people in other countries think that it means. And, because this is so plainly simple, it shows that you need to go back to school - even Ukrainian school - unless you are simply a hired propagandist, that is.

[paxmao]

^^^ Powell is an attorney. She knows the law attorney-style, because that was the way she was trained. But attorney-ism is only one slice of the pie, and he judges understand this.

CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (CJS) is the second major law encyclopedia in the US. It is rather public, and can be found in all law libraries of significance, and many regular libraries. Take a look at what you do when you hire an attorney to fight for you in a legal case - https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf.

The essence of the several CJS court and legal sites shown at the above website is, when you become the client of an attorney, you become a ward of the court. This means that you don't have any standing to do or say anything that the court doesn't want you to say... your attorneys are under the jurisdiction of the judge, who can disbar them if they don't obey his orders.. So, since Powell hired attorneys to represent her, she doesn't have the right to do anything other than what the court tells her to do.

It's as simple as that. And it is the same for Trump except for one thing. The judges and courts don't have any authority to interfere with a person running for the office of the Presidency. In Trump's case, the trial is a sham until after the 2024 elections, or after the end of his term if he wins. He knows it and they know it.

False, being a ward of the court does not mean anything like that. You are way out of your understanding of legal maters. You do have the right to say whatever you want when asked.

Judges are not interfering with Trump running for candidate, they are judging him for more than 50 felonies. It is such an stupid argument -  all any criminal would need to do is run for office and be free of being processed.

Children are not allowed to say anything substantial in court, except that the court allows them to. Why not? Because they are under age, and deemed to not have had enough experience in life to be able to speak in an appropriate way.

This means that when a person becomes a ward of the court through signing up with an attorney, he is considered to be like one who is under age...

You are not even trying to make sense do you? I am well aware what means for underage to be ward of court, but is absolutely irrelevant to Trumps case. That is just fucking hilarious, nobody has ever prevented him from speaking.

Look, I do not think you are an US citizen, you frequently link to foreign owned websites and you are doing everything you can to favour Ruzzia and China. You have such a shitload in your backpack to go around after years of shitposting that I wonder what kind of farm pays your bills for so long - it has to be big and well funded.

And well, I know you want me to say if I am or I am not an US citizen or who I am or where I am, but you have to do better. Much better.

[Hispo]

What are the actual chances of BADecker being a member of a troll farm funded by Russia? I mean, I am very aware that Russia lately has developed an inclination to bomb internet with their army of trolls, but I believe his account is older than when Russia started to heavily use their farms as a political strategy.
I think there are more possibilities of him just being a very conservative person from the United States with a very particual way of thinking...

Besides, I would not think some farms would be interested in participating in this forum, the usual social media like Twitter and YouTube are the usual targets of Russian trolls.

[BADecker]

People are starting to realize that Trump won't be convicted. Lots of info in the article.


Turley: Don't Count On A Trump Conviction - None Of These Cases Are Slam-Dunks


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/turley-dont-count-trump-conviction-none-these-cases-are-slam-dunks
Below is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the leaking of the interviews of former counsel to Donald Trump.

The interviews could magnify the difficulties for both Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Jack Smith in their respective prosecutions.  These cases still represent a serious threat to Trump, but these prosecutors must first overcome a glaring potential contradiction. That does not mean that Christie and the other candidates will not get a "Spring Break" with a conviction, but it could prove more challenging even with highly favorable jury pools.

Here is the column:

This week, Chris Christie declared that "it's over" for Donald Trump and predicted  that the former president would be a convicted felon "by the Spring." He was specifically referring to the prosecutions linked to the 2020 election denial in Atlanta and D.C.
...

[paxmao]

People are starting to realize that Trump won't be convicted. Lots of info in the article.


Turley: Don't Count On A Trump Conviction - None Of These Cases Are Slam-Dunks


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/turley-dont-count-trump-conviction-none-these-cases-are-slam-dunks
Below is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the leaking of the interviews of former counsel to Donald Trump.

The interviews could magnify the difficulties for both Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Jack Smith in their respective prosecutions.  These cases still represent a serious threat to Trump, but these prosecutors must first overcome a glaring potential contradiction. That does not mean that Christie and the other candidates will not get a "Spring Break" with a conviction, but it could prove more challenging even with highly favorable jury pools.

Here is the column:

This week, Chris Christie declared that "it's over" for Donald Trump and predicted  that the former president would be a convicted felon "by the Spring." He was specifically referring to the prosecutions linked to the 2020 election denial in Atlanta and D.C.
[...]


...

And here's another example of your selective reading.

I agree, the guy is likely to be a convict by spring and regardless of the opinion that the cases are not slam dunks, which they should never be, I also agree that they pose a strong threat to Trump, Trump's assets and Trumps empire of media.

It is not going to be challenging to convict him, the prosecution has been preparing for a long time, they have been meticulous in how the have put this case forward - of special interest how they have used the RICO.

[TwitchySeal]

People are starting to realize that Trump won't be convicted. Lots of info in the article.


Turley: Don't Count On A Trump Conviction - None Of These Cases Are Slam-Dunks


https://www.zerohedge.com/political/turley-dont-count-trump-conviction-none-these-cases-are-slam-dunks
Below is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the leaking of the interviews of former counsel to Donald Trump.

The interviews could magnify the difficulties for both Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Jack Smith in their respective prosecutions.  These cases still represent a serious threat to Trump, but these prosecutors must first overcome a glaring potential contradiction. That does not mean that Christie and the other candidates will not get a "Spring Break" with a conviction, but it could prove more challenging even with highly favorable jury pools.

Here is the column:

This week, Chris Christie declared that "it's over" for Donald Trump and predicted  that the former president would be a convicted felon "by the Spring." He was specifically referring to the prosecutions linked to the 2020 election denial in Atlanta and D.C.
[...]


...

And here's another example of your selective reading.

I agree, the guy is likely to be a convict by spring and regardless of the opinion that the cases are not slam dunks, which they should never be, I also agree that they pose a strong threat to Trump, Trump's assets and Trumps empire of media.

It is not going to be challenging to convict him, the prosecution has been preparing for a long time, they have been meticulous in how the have put this case forward - of special interest how they have used the RICO.

BADecker can embed garbage links three times per post, 5 times a day, but can't be bothered to read more than the headline...all about the seo.

[BADecker]

Actually, Americas is already much of a police state. Just try to stop paying income taxes easily. All that Trump would do is make America more of a police state.

Or look at the sham Trump trials that he is resisting using some of the police state authority already.

Trump's use of his police state would be good. But the Presidents who follow him would find ways of making it bad, and much more formally enslaving the people.


Brighteon Broadcast News, Nov 20, 2023 - Trump will be President in 2025...


https://www.brighteon.com/59cbbb99-5f8f-4bcd-9622-0da42e942f9c
... and will transform America into a POLICE STATE after ANTIFA+JIHAD in America
...

[DooMAD]

All that Trump would do is make America more of a police state.

Or look at the sham Trump trials that he is resisting using some of the police state authority already.

Trump's use of his police state would be good.

Well, at least you're honest about the fact that you openly support Fascism.  Too many of your ilk try to hide it.  I appreciate your candour.  It's refreshing to see people stand by what they believe in (even if what they believe in is reprehensible).

Related:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_U4ZqQH3Q

[BADecker]

All that Trump would do is make America more of a police state.

Or look at the sham Trump trials that he is resisting using some of the police state authority already.

Trump's use of his police state would be good.

Well, at least you're honest about the fact that you openly support Fascism.  Too many of your ilk try to hide it.  I appreciate your candour.  It's refreshing to see people stand by what they believe in (even if what they believe in is reprehensible).

Related:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_U4ZqQH3Q

Lol. If you are a taxpayer, you support fascism. If you are a Dem supporter, you support its active operation through the Biden team, way more than Trump has ever. Corruption is so deep in the US Government, that all the things that Trump says in your video, have to be done to stop fascism.

Again, the danger is that, if at the end of his next term as President, Trump doesn't find a method to lock in a repeal of all the things that he has to put in place to stop fascism, the following president could do worse than anything that the Biden team is doing.


Consider that the US Government was originally set in place as a Democracy, but that people were over the Government as a Republic. When the time comes, the people will assert their Republic qualities, and take down the Democracy as necessary. Trump is simply trying to make it easier on the people.

[TwitchySeal]

People are starting to realize that the maga movement is Facism for idiots. Lots of info in the article (it's a few months old).

Click the links.  Then click more links.  Then go back and click again.  Click click click.

Trump Is an Extremely Dumb Fascist


https://newrepublic.com/post/174706/indictment-trump-complete-fascist
The latest criminal indictment highlights his idiocy—but also the threat he still poses to American democracy.

In a democratic society, the law is the most efficient means by which to arrest fascism. This is why Trump faces indictments. It’s the surest way to stop him. Smart fascists know this, and they either stay within the law or, perhaps paradoxically, violate it so flagrantly that they end up redefining what “the law” even is. Fortunately for us, Trump is a dumb fascist, and his ignorance may prove to be his Achilles’ heel. We also—again fortunately—have a system and set of laws and traditions that are stronger than those of, say, Weimar Germany, so Trump hasn’t yet been able to pollute them, although if he is reelected, he certainly will.
...

All that Trump would do is make America more of a police state.

Or look at the sham Trump trials that he is resisting using some of the police state authority already.

Trump's use of his police state would be good.

Well, at least you're honest about the fact that you openly support Fascism.  Too many of your ilk try to hide it.  I appreciate your candour.  It's refreshing to see people stand by what they believe in (even if what they believe in is reprehensible).

Related:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_U4ZqQH3Q

Oh he's gone even further:

Stalin and Hitler might have gone about it in the wrong way, but their idea to get rid of the Jewish bankers was the right idea.

[BADecker]

^^^ You jokers are so humorous. You suggest that Trump isn't any good, because he might introduce fascism. And you completely ignore the fact that Biden and his team have introduced fascism the likes of which has never been see in history. You ignore, but claim ignorance. And you are right. Ignorance is what you do... Ignoring what's going on with the idea that it might go on someday.

[Hispo]

Is even the United States of America capable of harboring a facist government like so many people suggest it could happen if Trump comes back into the White House?
Because in order for something like that to happen, it would require the presidency to have access to power which does not regularly has, in countries where power in centralized in the executive branch it is something easier to imagine, but in USA an executive order by the president can in theory be overturned by a federal judge. Similar to what happened when Trump banned flights from several muslin majority countries and it was deemed against the constitution.
How would be even possible for Trump to centralized power in such a context.?

[DooMAD]

Is even the United States of America capable of harboring a facist government like so many people suggest it could happen if Trump comes back into the White House?
Because in order for something like that to happen, it would require the presidency to have access to power which does not regularly has, in countries where power in centralized in the executive branch it is something easier to imagine, but in USA an executive order by the president can in theory be overturned by a federal judge.

Trump called for the execution of one of his own military personnel.  If someone goes ahead and kills the guy, because it's what their "messiah" wanted, I don't think a judge can undo that.  Legal and federal safety nets can only go so far.  Never underestimate what tyrants can achieve outside of the law.

[TwitchySeal]

From the recent ruling where a federal judge found that Trump did participate in insurrection, but should not be removed from the ballot:

TRUMP’S HISTORY WITH POLITICAL EXTREMISTS
61. As noted above, Petitioners called an expert in political extremism,
Professor Peter Simi. Professor Simi has a Ph.D. in Sociology, teaches at Chapman
University, and has spent his 27-year career focused on political violence and
extremism. 10/31/23 Tr. 11:15–12:12. He has written two books on political violence and
extremism—American Swastika and Out of Hiding—and published over sixty peerreviewed articles or book chapters on different facets of political violence and
extremism. 10/31/23 Tr. 21:15–23:2. He has provided training on political extremism
and violence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security,
27
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Justice, and several state and local law
enforcement agencies across the country. 10/31/23 Tr. 23:20–24:6.
62. Professor Simi reviewed Trump’s relationship with his supporters over the
years, identified a pattern of calls for violence that his supporters responded to, and
explained how that long experience allowed Trump to know how his supporters
responded to his calls for violence using a shared language that allowed him to maintain
plausible deniability with the wider public. 10/31/23 Tr. 56:23–59:17, 200:22–203:12.
63. Trump himself agrees that his supporters “listen to [him] like no one else.”
Ex. 134. Amy Kremer also testified that Trump’s supporters are “very reactive” to his
words. 11/02/2023 Tr. 49:4–6.
64. Professor Simi testified about the following examples of patterns of calland-response that Trump developed and used to incite violence by his supporters.
65. At an October 23, 2015 rally, Trump said to his supporters in response to
protestors disrupting the rally, “See, the first group, I was nice . . . The second group, I
was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group I’ll
say, ‘Get the hell outta here!’” Ex. 127.
66. The next month, Trump used this very language, telling his supporters to
“get [a protester] the hell out of here” and the protester was then assaulted. When asked
about the attack the next day, Trump said “maybe [the protester] should have been
roughed up.” Ex. 50; 10/31/2023 Tr. 70:1–4, 71:13-72:1, 235:3–10.
28
67. At a February 2016 rally, Trump told his supporters to “knock the crap out
of” any protesters who threw tomatoes and promised to pay the legal fees of anyone
carrying out the assault. Ex. 51; 10/31/2023 Tr. 213:14–25.
68. At another February 2016 rally, Trump told his supporters that, in the “old
days” a protester would be “carried out on a stretcher,” and that he would like to “punch
him in the face.” Ex. 52; 10/31/2023 Tr. 214:6–25.
69. When asked about his supporters’ violent acts in March 2016, Trump said
the violence was “very, very appropriate” and that “we need a little bit more of” it. Ex.
53; 10/31/2023 Tr. 67:6–25.
70. At an August 2016 rally, Trump noted “Second Amendment people” might
be able to prevent Hillary Clinton (if elected President) and judges appointed by her
from interpreting the Constitution in unfavorable ways. Ex. 159.
71. In August 2017, when asked about the white supremacist Unite the Right
rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counter-protester was murdered, Trump stated
there “was blame on both sides . . . some very fine people on both sides.” Ex. 56;
10/31/2023 Tr. 68:12–20.
72. Far-right extremists, including David Duke, Richard Spencer, and Andrew
Anglin, thanked Trump for his comments and took them as an endorsement,
notwithstanding Trump’s condemnation of neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the
same speech. Professor Simi testified that the latter statement would be understood as
plausible deniability. 10/31/2023 Tr. 68:21–69:16, 74:18–75:9, 166:9–20, 226:11–
227:7.
29
73. At an October 2018 rally, Trump referred to a candidate who body
slammed a reporter as “my kind of guy.” Ex. 57; 10/31/2023 Tr. 215:22–216:5.
74. At a May 2019 rally, when one of his supporters suggested shooting
migrants, Trump stated: “That’s only in the panhandle you can get away with that
statement.” The crowd cheered. Ex. 58.
75. In a May 2020 tweet referring to an armed occupation of the Michigan
State Capitol by anti-government extremists, Trump tweeted that the attackers were
“very good people,” and that the Michigan Governor should respond by appeasing them.
Ex. 148, p. 3.
76. On May 29, 2020, President Trump threatened to deploy “the Military” to
Minneapolis to shoot “looters” amid protests over the police killing of George Floyd,
tweeting “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Ex. 148, p. 5.
77. During a presidential debate on September 29, 2020, Trump refused to
denounce white supremacists and violent extremists and instead told the Proud Boys to
“stand back and stand by,” later adding that “somebody’s got to do something about
Antifa and the left.” Ex. 1064. 13
78. Trump’s words “stand back and stand by” were well received and
considered an endorsement. In fact, the Proud Boys turned the phrase into a mantra
13 The Court acknowledges that the statement occurred during a debate, when the moderator
had asked Trump to ask white nationalists and militias to “stand down,” and further that
President Biden called on Trump to disavow the Proud Boys, specifically. Nevertheless, Trump’s
conduct is consistent with the pattern identified by Professor Simi in that an apparent disavowal
(though the Court notes that “stand back and stand by” does not carry the same meaning as
“stand down”) was immediately qualified by an apparent endorsement (i.e. that somebody has
“got to do something.”).
30
and put it on merchandise. 10/31/2023 Tr. 77:13–21. The Proud Boys and other
extremists understood this as a directive to be prepared for future violence. 10/31/2023
Tr. 78:21–23.
79. Trump also regularly endorsed and cultivated relationships with
incendiary figures connected with far-right extremists, including Alex Jones, Steve
Bannon, and Roger Stone. 10/31/2023 Tr. 57:8-10, 199:23-200:4, 222:21-225:2.
Katrina Pierson, a senior advisor to the Trump campaign who helped to organize the
Ellipse rally, testified that Trump “likes the crazies” (referring to individuals like
Alexander and Jones, whose speeches are often “incendiary” and “inflammatory”) “who
viciously defend him in public.” 11/01/23 Tr. 287:2–12, 299:4–16; see also 11/02/23 Tr.
57:15–58:3 (Amy Kremer calling Jones and Alexander “flamethrowers” and “agitators”
who “want to get everybody riled up”).
80. Trump retained Bannon and Stone as advisers, two individuals with very
close relationships with far-right extremists. 10/31/2023 Tr. 199:23–200:8, 222:21–23,
224:2–13. Though Trump did fire Bannon, he would eventually issue a presidential
pardon to him. 10/31/2023 Tr. 223:1–3. Regardless, the Court finds that Trump had
courted these fringe figures for many years through activities such as endorsing far-right
conspiracy theories like birtherism. 10/31/2023 Tr. 56:23–57:15.
81. On October 30, 2020, a convoy of Trump supporters driving dozens of
trucks (calling themselves a “Trump Train”) surrounded a Biden-Harris campaign bus
on a Texas highway. On October 31st, Trump tweeted a stylized video of the Trump
Train confrontation and stated, “I LOVE TEXAS!” Exs. 71; 148, p. 8.
31
82. On November 1, 2020, in response to news that the FBI was investigating
the incident, Trump tweeted, “In my opinion, these patriots did nothing wrong” and
indicated they should not be investigated. Ex. 148, p. 9. Later that day at a rally in
Michigan, Trump again celebrated the incident boasting “they had hundreds of cars,
Trump, Trump. Trump and the American flag.” Ex. 67.
83. At no point did Trump ever credibly condemn violence by his supporters
but rather confirmed his supporters’ violent interpretations of his directives. Professor
Simi testified that through these repeated interactions, Trump developed and employed
a coded language based in doublespeak that was understood between himself and farright extremists, while maintaining a claim to ambiguity among a wider audience.
10/31/2023 Tr. 53:2–54:12, 65:20–66:20, 76:9–23, 211:13–218:24.
84. For example, violent far-right extremists understood that Trump’s calls to
“fight,” which most politicians would mean only symbolically, were, when spoken by
Trump, literal calls to violence by these groups, while Trump’s statements negating that
sentiment were insincere and existed to obfuscate and create plausible deniability.
10/31/2023 Tr. 49:14–21, 59:7–17, 101:20–102:6.
85. The Court finds that Trump knew his violent supporters understood his
statements this way, and Trump knew he could influence his supporters to act violently
on his behalf. 10/31/2023 Tr. 126:11–19, 221:10–21.
86. The Court notes that Trump did not put forth any credible evidence or
expert testimony to rebut Professor Simi’s conclusions or to rebut the argument that
Trump intended to incite violence.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf
(page 26 on)

[paxmao]

^^^ You jokers are so humorous. You suggest that Trump isn't any good, because he might introduce fascism. And you completely ignore the fact that Biden and his team have introduced fascism the likes of which has never been see in history. You ignore, but claim ignorance. And you are right. Ignorance is what you do... Ignoring what's going on with the idea that it might go on someday.

I am not saying that he would introduce fascism, I am saying that he has already tried to do so and is getting ready to make sure nothing gets in his way next time he tries.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/16/politics/trump-agenda-second-term/index.html

A purge of the federal workforce of anyone deemed disloyal.

Wielding the power of federal law enforcement against political enemies.

As he seeks a return to the Oval Office, former President Donald Trump and his allies have promised a sweeping transformation of the federal government that would wield the executive branch’s power in radical and unprecedented ways.

His first term took him by surprise, now and on the ground of him being elected, is going to run over all the check and balances that prevent him being and absolute dictator. Replacing any Civil servant that tries to actually do their job instead of breaking the laws when Trump says to is a known plan:

Trump’s plan includes asserting more White House control over the Justice Department, an institution the former president has said he would utilize to seek revenge on his critics, including former allies.

“I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,”

“A lot of the relevant constraints have been norms and not rules. Those norms were enforced not by litigation, those norms were enforced politically. The reality of a second Trump administration is going to be a lot of novel litigation about these kinds of abuses of what were historically norms constraining the executive.”

But this is the key:

Part of Trump’s plans would reclassify tens of thousands of civil service workers — who typically remain on the job as presidents and their administrations change — as at-will employees, a move that would make it much easier to fire them.

The more or less permanent status of the Civil Servants is something that happens in most civilized countries. These norms are there for a reason, particularly those that protect the judiciary. A democracy is not based just in electing the people who represent the country, it includes also individual liberties and right that require at least three independent powers to balance and avoid fascism. Trump is clearly committed to demolish it.

Remember that Hitler was elected... he used democracy to destroy democracy.

[TwitchySeal]

Remember that Hitler was elected... he used democracy to destroy democracy.

Yes but not until after going to prison for a failed coup attempt.

[Hispo]

From the recent ruling where a federal judge found that Trump did participate in insurrection, but should not be removed from the ballot:

TRUMP’S HISTORY WITH POLITICAL EXTREMISTS
61. As noted above, Petitioners called an expert in political extremism,
[-snip-]


Trump intended to incite violence.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf
(page 26 on)

Read about it tonight and I seems both those lawyers/prosecutors seeking to keep Trump out the ballot will try to appeal, so he will ended stay out the ballot in that State, during the election next year. On the other hand, I have also read Trump's legal team has tried to appeal to this ruling, in the base they do not want this judge to effectively setting a precedent of Trump being legally a participant in an insurrection within the United States,  if they do an exception to the presidency, then it would be a very dangerous precedent to keep for the amendment. After all, those who rise to power are the one who try to stay in power by getting rid of democracy, there has been several instances of it happening through history.

Ironically, I could foresee that excluding Trump from the ballot in states he did not have a chance of winning anyways, will only encourage his supporters to vote in flipping states and increase his popularity, in a similar way to what happened with indictments.