A Deeply Fractured US

[FJAG]

When was Trump tried and convicted of being an insurrectionist?

At the trial that the appeal comes from. You do not need a criminal conviction for insurrection in a civil proceeding.

The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Tags: oversight | james comer | americore | money | jim biden | joe biden | influence peddling
Rep. Comer: 'First Evidence' Against Biden Revealed
By Charlie McCarthy | Tuesday, 19 December 2023 10:55 AM

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability uncovered "the first example of evidence" that President Joe Biden directly benefited from peddling influence via his family's foreign business dealings, said Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the committee chair.

Comer, speaking on the "Verdict" podcast hosted by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said his committee exposed the evidence during testimony by "the owner" of Americore Health.

"[The president's brother, James Biden,] approached them [Americore] because he had heard they were financially distressed and said that because he's a Biden, and because of his brother's contacts in the Middle East, that he could help them acquire all the capital that they needed to get back on their feet from the Middle East, but they were going to have to pay Jim Biden first," Comer told Cruz and co-host Ben Ferguson on Monday.

"They gave him $600,000, and by all accounts, Jim Biden completely defrauded Americore Health. He never provided any funding or anything else."

Comer then explained Joe Biden's connection.

"Not only was that a pure example of influence peddling, Joe Biden received the last payment from Americore Health," Comer said.

"They sent a check to Jim Biden for $200,000. The exact same day that Jim Biden received that $200,000 check from Americore Health, they wrote Joe Biden a check for the exact same amount, $200,000. So, that was the first example of evidence that we found where Joe Biden directly benefited from the Biden influence peddling scheme."

James Biden has alleged the payment to Joe Biden was a loan repayment.

"From the notes that the whistleblowers have turned over, we know that sometime in 2018, the Bidens figured out that the IRS was breathing down their necks," Comer told Cruz and Ferguson.

"They changed the way they were operating. They went from receiving wires directing through the shells [shell companies] to receiving payments and calling them loans."

National Review reported that Carol Fox, an Americore Chapter 11 trustee, told the House panel that the now-bankrupt healthcare corporation that she saw no records or documentation of a loan from Americore to James Biden.

Instead, Americore chose to provide a loan with no documentation based on the promise that James Biden could bring in funding from the Middle East, the outlet reported.

Fox previously filed a lawsuit against James Biden claiming he made "representations that his last name, 'Biden,' could 'open doors' and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections," National Review reported.

The suit claims Americore sent $600,000 to James and Sara Biden's personal bank accounts in total and demanded James Biden repay Americore the full amount. James Biden ultimately agreed to a settlement payment of $350,000.

"I think James Biden probably committed just many crimes as Hunter Biden. The only reason we don't know about James Biden is he didn't leave a laptop lying around," said Comer, referring to the first son's infamous computer that had been left at a Delaware repair shop.

"At the end of the day, this example with Americore Health sure looks like securities fraud."

 

[brihard]

When was Trump tried and convicted of being an insurrectionist?

Colorado Supreme Court did not hold a criminal trial to be a requirement for such a finding under the 14th amendment. The reasoning of both the lower court and of the Colorado Supreme Court are both discussed in the latter court’s ruling, linked above. I expect that will be the primary focus of SCOTUS, and that they will shy away from finding, as Colorado did, that active excitement and passive encouragement qualifies as ‘engaging in’ insurrection. I personally suspect SCOTUS will adopt a narrower definition of ‘engagement’ in insurrection than what Colorado courts have.

 

[brihard]

Side thought: I wouldn’t want to be whatever poor bastards are responsible for providing protective services to Colorado Supreme Court and its justices…

 

[kkwd]

I think the USSC will figuratively beat this decision soundly about the head and shoulders with a big stick. I expect a unanimous decision. Who in the world would have thought a court could dictate who a citizen can vote for. In this case a citizen can't even do a write in vote for Trump. Seems like voter suppression or disenfranchisement.

 

[brihard]

I think the USSC will figuratively beat this decision soundly about the head and shoulders with a big stick. I expect a unanimous decision. Who in the world would have thought a court could dictate who a citizen can vote for. In this case a citizen can't even do a write in vote for Trump. Seems like voter suppression or disenfranchisement.

It will not be unanimous. It wasn’t unanimous at Colorado Supreme Court. The very nature of section three of the fourteenth amendment and its role in excluding eligibility is such that only a court can decide it. Given that this is based on a constitutional provision, it’s no more disenfranchising than the provision requiring natural born citizenship, or the minimum age of 35. The question at bar is one of basic eligibility for the office of President. In any case, SCOTUS will hear it and rule.

 

[kkwd]

It will not be unanimous. It wasn’t unanimous at Colorado Supreme Court. The very nature of section three of the fourteenth amendment and its role in excluding eligibility is such that only a court can decide it. Given that this is based on a constitutional provision, it’s no more disenfranchising than the provision requiring natural born citizenship, or the minimum age of 35. The question at bar is one of basic eligibility for the office of President. In any case, SCOTUS will hear it and rule.

I know you will be thrilled, having some cold winter's night reading material with the decision.

 

[brihard]

I know you will be thrilled, having some cold winter's night reading material with the decision.

Ugh.

 

[kkwd]

Ugh.

Well, to paraphrase Adrian Monk, the internet is a blessing and a curse. Remember the old days when we saw things on TV and heard it on the radio and when we wanted more info we went to the library? The internet, a place you can read all the things you want until you find something you agree with.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, to paraphrase Adrian Monk, the internet is a blessing and a curse. Remember the old days when we saw things on TV and heard it on the radio and when we wanted more info we went to the library? The internet, a place you can read all the things you want until you find something you agree with.

I've heard rumours that once upon a time people read words printed on pages and some folks felt that what was printed was wrong and corrupting and that people needed to be protected from it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

At the trial that the appeal comes from. You do not need a criminal conviction for insurrection in a civil proceeding.

Thanks, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. So, in essence, a court can make its evidence fit the situation and determine (convict?) a person of insurrection, in abstentia, without the defendant being allowed to plead his innocence or give testimony?

 

[FJAG]

Thanks, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. So, in essence, a court can make its evidence fit the situation and determine (convict?) a person of insurrection, in abstentia, without the defendant being allowed to plead his innocence or give testimony?

Trump was an intervenor in the action below and had full opportunity to spin his version of reality to the court. The trial court shot him down

After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Trump was an intervenor in the action below and had full opportunity to spin his version of reality to the court. The trial court shot him down

Gotcha, Tanks! Still seems weird to me.

 

[KevinB]

Gotcha, Tanks! Still seems weird to me.

The trial court also held that being convicted of insurrection didn’t bar one from running for President— the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that it did.

Trump wanted this to go to SCOTUS. To paraphrase Guns N’ Roses “Civil War”, ‘so you get what we had here today, what he wants, he gets’

 

[QV]

The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in a 4-3 decision that Donald Trump is ineligible for presidency of the United States under the 14th amendment. Looks like they’ve further ruled that, for this reason, he cannot be on a primary ballot in Colorado. They’ve stayed their own decision until Jan 4th to allow appellate action to commence, meaning this will be on a fast path to SCOTUS. I’ve not yet read the decision.

Colorado Republican presidential primary is on March 5th. Colorado went Democrat in the 2020 presidential election by a significant margin. The most significant outcome of this decision will be to send the question of Trump’s presidential eligibility to SCOTUS before primaries season. I’d personally be surprised to see this decision upheld at SCOTUS due to the sheer magnitude of it if they do.

https://x.com/kyledcheney/status/1737247893726109940

This will be overturned at SCOTUS. Trump's poll numbers will go up.

 

[KevinB]

This will be overturned at SCOTUS. Trump's poll numbers will go up.

Me waiting to see the SCOTUS actually deciding that it was an insurrection...

Honestly despite the Republican 'advantage' in the Court, this will be an interesting case, as IMHO the court has been pretty good with it's rulings so far (I am a Republican though), and I think it will depend on how the arguments are presented to the Court. At this point, all of the other cases against DJT are fairly irrelevant (other than him potentially going to jail).

I suspect the SCOTUS will rule against DJT, simply because the evidence does support the fact that he did in fact encourage and aid the Jan 6 events, and his chances for President will be sunk for good, then the Republican Party can back Nikki Haley, and have an actual chance at victory.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@KevinB I think the fact that the only lawyers he can now get seem to be useless don't help his case. When the judges are scolding them on record and questioning their competence it's probably a bad sign.

But you FA by not paying people (especially lawyers) I guess you find out.

 

[KevinB]

@KevinB I think the fact that the only lawyers he can now get seem to be useless don't help his case. When the judges are scolding them on record and questioning their competence it's probably a bad sign.

But you FA by not paying people (especially lawyers) I guess you find out.

By now I think most of the intelligent and educated folks have seen that DJT is out for himself and himself alone. His treatment of former aides, advisors, lawyers, etc has got to be fairly problematic for him to find competent counsel at this point.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

 

[brihard]

Me waiting to see the SCOTUS actually deciding that it was an insurrection...

Honestly despite the Republican 'advantage' in the Court, this will be an interesting case, as IMHO the court has been pretty good with it's rulings so far (I am a Republican though), and I think it will depend on how the arguments are presented to the Court. At this point, all of the other cases against DJT are fairly irrelevant (other than him potentially going to jail).

I suspect the SCOTUS will rule against DJT, simply because the evidence does support the fact that he did in fact encourage and aid the Jan 6 events, and his chances for President will be sunk for good, then the Republican Party can back Nikki Haley, and have an actual chance at victory.

Even if SCOTUS feels stuck agreeing with the ‘engage in insurrection’ reasoning, they also have the option of finding that President is not an applicable ‘office’ for purpose of article 14, as the original lower court did.