Lawsuits against Trump over the Jan. 6 riot can move forward, an appeals court rules

a reply to: Mahogani

Were you to ever engage in spirited good faithed debate, id take up your mini mod suggestions.

Yet, your purpose here is clearly defined by your posting history and this topic is no different.

When you lie, obfascute and propagandize you make it about you.

Like the unsurrection notion....


Garbage in, garbage out.


Deal with it

a reply to: RazorV66

Post a link, using American laws, refuting what the court found.

I understand news like these trigger you guys and girls, but this is the American law.

Have you considered being on the side of Law and Order?

This is another very slippery slope. This means I can sue the President for emotional distress also. What a f'n clown show. This should go to the SCOTUS next.

He also never called for an insurrection. The best part is Eric Swalwell suing him....what a wimp of a man....

a reply to: Mahogani

Can you tell us what law they used? What was the precedent they used to say he could be sued?

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is another very slippery slope. This means I can sue the President for emotional distress also. What a f'n clown show. This should go to the SCOTUS next.

He also never called for an insurrection. The best part is Eric Swalwell suing him....what a wimp of a man....

And the people who are suing, the police officers and others, may not win. This may go nowhere.

But the court has ruled, after a long delay, that the president, whoever that is at the time, does not have immunity for the things they say, if they are outside of the presidential duties.

What that means is that the president is protected for duties that are deemed presidential, but if he were to go drinking and driving and killed someone, that is outside presidential duties and therefore no immunity from the law.

Hope that explains it all better.

originally posted by: Mahogani
a reply to: RazorV66

Post a link, using American laws, refuting what the court found.

I understand news like these trigger you guys and girls, but this is the American law.

Have you considered being on the side of Law and Order?

I understand you guys will be losing what’s left of your minds when Trump gets elected next year.
I am on pins and needles waiting for it.

Have you ever considered not supporting the America hating Democrats?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Mahogani

Can you tell us what law they used? What was the precedent they used to say he could be sued?

Of course, I'll find the link you want.

Here you go. Heads up, this is a PDF document.

PDF to Court Ruling; Dec 1, 2023

Let me know if you need help understanding any specific parts, and I'll do my best to help.

a reply to: RazorV66

Remember when they were worried about fascism.....?

a reply to: Mahogani

He raised the defense of presidential immunity for calling for an insurrection, as alleged.



Where can we see that actual wording?

I think they fear Trump because he does have such a loyal following that believe in him and I think it's terrible that folks got locked up just for being inside the building as part of the protest even though they had not committed any violent or destructive action.

But mobs can be tricky things to control....as we saw som people violently attacked law enforcement just because they represented authority figures and control enforcers.

Ashley Babbit got shot because she broke a window and while that may seem like minor infraction there are very Draconian mentalities out there who take vandalism of any extremes.

If someone tried to break and enter into your residence and broke a window to gain access would you hesitate to fire?

Same thing with certain trained agents and law enforcement in DC.they do not # around.

The guy prepared with zip ties had intent and was prepared to go through with his plan of action if the opportunity availed itself.

Most of the folks who entered the building were caught up in the moment and were respectful of the space we saw that evidence on camera.

Most of them just wanted these politicians to look at them face to face instead of being considered nothing more than words on paper or numbers on spreadsheets.

But things could turn violent quickly in the heat of the moment. While I do not doubt that most just wanted a face to face audience with their representatives to vocally vent their frustrations there was no telling if words would lead to action or not.

Everyone was evacuated because of the potential for things to spiral out of control when words were no longer enough.

I've been in a riot during WTO protests in Seattle so I've seen how quickly things can escalate and get out of hand.

The Q Anon Shaman got a bum rap because they gave him a tour and showed him around like family but I think it was the podium grab as a symbolic war trophy that got him nailed.

I don't fault Trump for being fed up with the swamp and saying the things he did and rallying his base to action but he was still effectively using position and influence to further his personal approach to problem solving and inciting a crowd to riot even in the well intended nature of his personal ideologies is still a felony...president or not.

The halls of DC and our public governance are not perfect. There is a lot going on out there and we need reforms and corrections of many aspects concern8ng term limits and accepting bribes by corporations because no one should be getting rich by being a public servant. That's counterintuitive to the entire foundation of the position and greed and money can make people do detestable things in the interests of just lining their pockets.

The only thing Trump did in his position of power that I find absolutely reprehensible was pass an initiative to raise the rents of the lowest income earners because he's a real estate guru and cares more about a profit than the very real realities of those struggling on the lowest end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

He's the first Republican who has done such an abusive thing. That act alone was more the actions of a greedy land barron and sorry but that's bull#.

Anyway regardless of how the courts decide about this whole debacle I hope justice prevails.

I'm no authority on Government Law on the legal system but I don't think someone in the Oval Office should be exempt from abuses of power.

That goes for anyone in the position...Democrat or Republican.

a reply to: Mahogani

" Lawsuits against Trump over the Jan. 6 riot "


There was no " Riot " ,Total BS Story Trying to Create a FALSE REALITY.................

Some of the court ruling says Trump was campaigning for office. But the election he lost was 2 months earlier. Good setup for another appeal and stall tactic. Trump was in office Jan6 too. Something they would have people believe as false Ass Backwards Courts

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
Trump was in office Jan6 too.

Yes, he was. That was the basis of his appeal. Since he was still president on Jan 6, he thinks he should have gotten a blanket immunity for any and all actions while president.

The court ruled that the presidents don't have a blanket immunity while performing or engaged in personal tasks.

originally posted by: Mahogani

“More than two years later, it is unnerving to hear the same fabrications and dangerous rhetoric that put my life as well as the lives of my fellow officers in danger on January 6, 2021,” he said (officer James Blassingame) in a statement. He added: “I hope our case will assist with helping put our democracy back on the right track; making it crystal clear that no person, regardless of title or position of stature, is above the rule of law.”

Yeah, I'll buy their BS when they stop referring to it as "our democracy" and they start holding democrats to the same standards of scrutiny.

a reply to: MrGashler

And you don't have to buy "their BS."

If you follow my posts, you'll understand I am not here to be liked, or to have my ego stroked with stars and flags. I am here to post the news that normally would not be seen by the far right, but news that are essential to our democracy.

It does not matter to me if you agree or not, or think it's bs or not, I just want you all to be informed.

And when you comment, it means you've read it.

Thank you for reading.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Sorry it may have been mostly peaceful but it still falls within the decision of what a riot entails. A collective action with violence and property damage.

Granted conservatives are surprisingly more controlled than liberal rioters because of their values and psychology but it was still a freaking riot.

My favorite part was when they started climbing the walls like lizards instead of using the staircase.

Classic.

The APPEAL can be resubmitted later, says the court.

Too soon at this point: www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: Mahogani

You are here to propagandize.

Not discuss
Not debate
Certainly not to find facts.

Your post history clearly shows this.

a reply to: MrGashler

Our republic is a threat to their democracy.

originally posted by: Mahogani
a reply to: MrGashler
And you don't have to buy "their BS."

If you follow my posts, you'll understand I am not here to be liked, or to have my ego stroked with stars and flags. I am here to post the news that normally would not be seen by the far right, but news that are essential to our democracy.

It does not matter to me if you agree or not, or think it's bs or not, I just want you all to be informed.

And when you comment, it means you've read it.

Thank you for reading.

For someone who is not here to be liked, you sure have a thing about stroking your own ego.
"I just want you all to be informed" - Well thank god you're here to inform us. How would we ever get informed were it not for you?
Do you really think the "far right" wouldn't have seen this if you hadn't posted it? Do you see yourself as breaking through the barrier of the echo chamber into the "far right" and "informing" everyone of things "essential to our democracy"?

There's that terminology again. "Our Democracy". I find buzzwords and phrases like that to be so interesting. The mainstream media and the left love to slap the "dog whistle" label on stupid sh*t, but maaaaan do they love making those "dog whistle" phrases. Nothing gets someone's attention quite like talking about "Our Democracy" and how it might be in danger of being weakened or damaged by the "far right". Who wouldn't want to defend and save "Our Democracy"? It's ours! It belongs to us! Goebbels would be so proud.