helpisgood

4 hours ago, micmichd said:

Isn't there something like a statue of limitations in the USA? 

Great question!

(BTW, it's a statute of limitations.  Very common misspelling.  I am a bad speller myself.) 

You may thus find the following article interesting:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321

Also, I am sure that this would have come up right when the lawsuit, now being litigated, was first filed.  The Defense and/or the Court would have  noticed quickly that the "statute was blown."  One or more attorneys would have then been concerned about their license(s) to practice law and/or fines, etc.  In short, a big deal.      

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I doubt he has legal exposure for policies (more like LACK of policies) that he led while president. 

I think Jingthing is correctly referring to "sovereign immunity."  I am not going to open that can of worms by trying to explain it.  But, if it does interest you, that's how to get more info about it.

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Where do you get your news? Wow....

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-trump-and-supporters-rally-against-certification-of-election-2021-1

 

 

Orwell must be - wherever - saying something like, "I warned you about how they will use language to misrepresent the truth." That book 1984 should be assigned reading for every schoolchild.  

Thanks for the great photo!  Looks like it will be in a history book many years from now.

PS, should it not be, "Trump won bigly?"   ????

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

It's not clear what the remedy is in this case, i.e., what are the plaintiffs asking for?  Since it's civil, I assume it's money.  If this suit could bankrupt Trump, Rudy, PB, OK...it will certainly be worth filing. 

Great point, thanks!

Maybe the plaintiffs are hoping to uncover some interesting evidence during the Discovery Phase of the civil suit, esp. from Trump.  They can ask for documents and testimony, if they can get it.  Just follow the money and the paper trail(s).

Come to think of it, the Defense must be sweating out Mr. Trump testifying under oath in a deposition.  Settle!  Also, the litigation process may get to start to get too expensive for someone.     

Or, maybe Discovery is leverage to negotiate for a settlement especially from Trump, who likes to keep his finances secret.

Plus, could Deutsche Bank get later involved?

 Very interesting!  

Thanks for your thoughtful post!

Thanks for reminding me of a young Ali MacGraw.  Now I know my hormones are working just fine. ????  

12 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

144 constitutional lawyers called Trump 1st amendment defense frivolously illegally. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/trump-impeachment-defense.html

  Good link, thanks!

Here's two which explain that there are exceptions to the "free speech" clause, among which are "fighting words."  Such words would include incitement to violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Trump's team played a roughly 10-minute video showing prominent Democrats including Vice President Kamala Harris, Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other party officials using the word "fight" in political speeches.

But, what was the context and the circumstances that these other speakers were in?  How was it different from yet another Trump rally?  

Trump told his listeners that their vote was stolen thus they were supposedly disenfranchised and ineffectual, so they needed to "fight like hell" to stop a "stolen election."  He said he would go with them to the Capitol, but instead took cover.  

Trump had already seen the affect his own rallies had, so what did he expect?  And, like I have said in another thread, the Commander-in-Chief was very slow in responding to the assault on the Capitol.  

49 minutes ago, mistral53 said:

There seems to be a disconnect here that ought to be noticed by the general public, regardless of political bias: Some of the videos that were shown about the 'mob' showed a surprisingly mild mannered entry into the Capitol building - flag waving, walking disoriented, it look almost like they were surprised to have entered the building and did not know what to do next. The only thing disturbing in the videos were the weasels currying startled about, I think they are called politicians?

 

If this was a carefully pre-planned assault as it is made out to be, there would have been fires and massive destruction - one broken window does not a Kristallnacht make............

 

For the record, I am not impressed by the ex-president and his policies, he was neither goof for America nor the rest of the world.

As Placeholder correctly points out there was also violence and threats of violence.

Plus, there's the mere fact that we have video of the mob breaking and entering (burglary?), and then trespassing on federal property.  I am too tired to look that up, but I imagine those are federal felonies especially since that was the Capitol.  

Most interesting for me is that these people allowed themselves to be filmed.  "Yeah, before we finish with the armed robbery, let's take a selfie with the victim."  

Good night, Folks!

30 minutes ago, mistral53 said:

For the record, I am not impressed by the ex-president and his policies, he was neither goof [sic] for America nor the rest of the world.  [added sic]

A "goof for America"?  Yeah, I know it was a typo from a good post.  The "f" is next to the "d" on the keyboard.  Anyway, I agree with your first paragraphs.  

However, saying Trump was a "goof for America" was actually an even better description.  Thanks!

Trivia question for the 1939 movie version:

Margaret Hamilton played the Wicked Witch of the West, a character that frightened little children.  What was Hamilton's other profession?

A kindergarten teacher...really!  I bet you didn't want to get "in trouble" in that class.  ????    

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002121/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

4 hours ago, webfact said:

The trial is being held with extraordinary security around the Capitol in the wake of the siege including armed security forces and a perimeter of fencing and razor wire.

The fact that these precautions is obviously a sensible thing to do is a setback for the "Great American Experiment" of democracy.  The cry of "take back my country" with a violent mob trespassing and looting the republic's Capitol was surely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.   

It is scary that so many believed that the election "was stolen" with no evidence given.  I think that they believed because they wanted to believe.  Hopefully, lessons can be learned and better days will follow.  

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

One assumes 'domestic terror' matters will need to be enacted under law, not by EO,

Actually, I think an executive order can work if it falls within the powers granted by a Congressional statute (law).  Still, I think you have it basically right without any of the annoying jargon.  

By the way, I have always enjoyed your posts.  You appear to be a very well-meaning person.  Thanks! 

3 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

We may well agree that EOs are not the preferred method to govern. I would much rather see Congress introducing Bills, assigning to Committee, bringing forth studies, experts to give input as to what are the best policy options, bringing the Bill to the floor for Debate and the Vote ...but ... Aside from the way things are designed to work ... EOs reversing poor policy by the last administration is best for my country right now. Damage needs to be addressed.

Fully agree with you.  I like your thinking!  

Just to be clear, (had to deal with this for a living) the bills that Congress passes into law are, generally, statutes which need to fall within the purview of the Constitution.  Then, the executive orders are supposed to fall within the purview of one or more statutes, with some possible "broad interpretations" at times, probably more with foreign affairs for POTUS.  

Thus, in the OP's case, the new Congress with the Democratic Party's new majority can do Pres. Biden a big favor by passing bill(s) that give him, besides what's explicitly provided in the bill(s), a green light on more things that he wants to do (other exec. orders or whatever) besides what he can now slip through with executive orders.