Patterico's Pontifications

2/2/2024

Weekend Open Thread

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:26 am



[guest post by Dana]

Let’s go!

First news item

Much to the consternation of the Trump camp, but good for her:

Nikki Haley ‘s path to the GOP nomination is rapidly shrinking following recent losses in Iowa and New Hampshire. But she’s vowing to stay in the race indefinitely, backed by thousands of committed donors, a key slice of the party’s moderate wing and a new willingness to attack the mental fitness and legal baggage of 2024 Republican front-runner Donald Trump. And the harder Haley fights, the more Republican officials fear she may hurt his long-term prospects in the all-but certain general election ahead against Democratic President Joe Biden…“I am not going anywhere,” she told reporters on Thursday. “We have a country to save. And I am determined to keep on going the entire way. As long as we can keep closing that gap, I’m gonna keep staying in.”

Second news item

NY governor wants illegal migrants deported after attacks on law enforcement:

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Thursday that the reported migrants who were recorded on video assaulting two police officers over the weekend in Times Square should be deported.

“Get them all and send them back,” she said in response to a question about the people who have been arrested in connection with the assaults. “You don’t touch our police officers. You don’t touch anybody.”

She made similar remarks Wednesday after a reporter asked her whether the people should be deported.

“I think that’s actually something that should be looked at, I mean, if someone commits a crime against a police officer in the state of New York and they’re not here legally. Definitely worth checking into,” said Hochul, a Democrat.

In 2023, by executive order, and without legislation, the governor declared New York a “sanctuary” state.

Third news item

Heartbreak:

Grace Powell was 12 or 13 when she discovered she could be a boy.

It was classic gender dysphoria, a feeling of discomfort with your sex.

Reading about transgender people online, Powell believed that the reason she didn’t feel comfortable in her body was that she was in the wrong body. Transitioning seemed like the obvious solution. The narrative she had heard and absorbed was that if you don’t transition, you’ll kill yourself.

After going through cross-sex hormone treatment at 17, she had a double mastectomy and transitioned to a transgender man before leaving for college. Unfortunately, she now has regrets:

At no point during her medical or surgical transition, Powell says, did anyone ask her about the reasons behind her gender dysphoria or her depression. At no point was she asked about her sexual orientation. And at no point was she asked about any previous trauma, and so neither the therapists nor the doctors ever learned that she’d been sexually abused as a child.

“I wish there had been more open conversations,” Powell, now 23 and detransitioned, told me. “But I was told there is one cure and one thing to do if this is your problem, and this will help you.”

Fourth news item

Latest demands by Hamas:

Leaders from Hamas and Islamic Jihad held a call on Friday to discuss a proposal for a potential hostage deal and ceasefire, according to a statement.

The statement noted that the leaders agreed that any deal should incorporate the following:

Complete end to the aggression
Withdrawal of the occupation army outside the Gaza Strip
Lifting of the siege and reconstruction…

Hamas has called for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he would not agree to. On Tuesday, Netanyahu also vowed to press on until Israel’s goal of eliminating Hamas in Gaza is complete.

Fifth news item

EU announces good news for Ukraine:

The European Union agreed a funding deal worth more than $50 billion for Ukraine in a crucial summit on Thursday that comes at a pivotal moment in the war.

The funds had been blocked since December after Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban had vetoed the deal at a previous summit. Failure to have reached an agreement would have been a major blow to Ukraine, at a time when its outmanned and outgunned forces are struggling on the battlefield amid a renewed Russian assault. Meanwhile, military aid from the United States has dried up amid an ongoing battle in Washington over future funding for Kyiv.

An official text, published by the EU Council, said that the 27 member states had approved €50 billion ($54 billion) to be sent to Ukraine from 2024 to 2027. It detailed €33 billion “in the form of loans” and €17 billion in “non-repayable support” that could be “generated from frozen Russian assets. The text makes multiple mentions of the money being used as part of Ukraine’s path to joining the bloc.

Unfortunately:

Joe Biden has requested a further $61 billion in funding for Kyiv but has so far been stonewalled by Republican hardliners on Capitol Hill who say US support lacks a clear end game.

The US president’s top diplomat issued a bleak warning over the situation on Monday, saying Ukraine’s gains over two years of grinding war were in doubt if Congress did not act.

He said: “Without it, simply put, everything that Ukrainians achieved and that we’ve helped them achieve will be in jeopardy”.

“Absent that supplemental [funding], we’re going to be sending a strong and wrong message to all of our adversaries that we are not serious about the defence of freedom, the defence of democracy,” he said.

Sixth news item

‘Yes, we were romantically involved, but that shouldn’t disqualify me‘:

The Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, and Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor working on the case against Donald Trump and 14 other defendants, confirmed for the first time on Friday they had a romantic relationship. But they denied any wrongdoing and Willis said she should not be disqualified from the case.

Seventh news item

Oops!:

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has questioned several witnesses about a closet and a so-called “hidden room” inside former President Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago that the FBI didn’t check while searching the estate in August 2022, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News…

According to sources, some investigators involved in the case came to later believe that the closet, which was locked on the day of the search, should have been opened and checked.

As investigators would later learn, Trump allegedly had the closet’s lock changed while his attorney was in Mar-a-Lago’s basement, searching for classified documents in a storage room that he was told would have all such documents.

Eighth news item

Another Russia critic stealthily moved to solitary confinement:

Lawyers for Russian opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza Jr., who is serving a 25-year sentence for treason, revealed Tuesday he has been transferred to another prison in Siberia and placed in solitary confinement again over an alleged minor infraction…One of his lawyers, Maria Eismont, told Russia’s independent Novaya Gazeta newspaper that she received a letter in which he said he was transferred to Penal Colony No. 7 in the city of Omsk and placed in a restricted housing unit for at least four months. In the letter, a copy of which his other lawyer, Vadim Prokhorov, posted on Facebook, Kara-Murza said prison officials on Friday accused him of disobeying a command that he said wasn’t even given to him…

Kara-Murza, who twice survived poisonings that he blamed on Russian authorities, has rejected the charges against him as punishment for standing up to Putin and likened the proceedings to the show trials under Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

Have a good weekend.

–Dana

629 Responses to “Weekend Open Thread”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (8e902f)

  2. It there are still documents at Mar-a-Lago, I’d favor a healthy period of incarceration for contempt.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  3. “Joe Biden has requested a further $61 billion in funding for Kyiv but has so far been stonewalled by Republican hardliners”

    When Republicans aren’t pouncing or seizing, they’re hardlining. You have to get near the last paragraph in the article to see what they’re hardlining about. Like Democrats, I wouldn’t expect the UK Telegraph to care much about our border security, and they clearly don’t.

    Also left out is why Victor Orban came around. He had been rightly miffed that the EU was withholding funds allotted to Hungary while pushing to give funds to Ukraine. Orban put his country first, and the EU relented. This lesson will certainly be lost among the endless jumble of media misinformation. It’s not a lesson Democrats want to learn anyway.

    lloyd (dcebd0)

  4. Sixth news item

    ‘Yes, we were romantically involved, but that shouldn’t disqualify me‘:

    The Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, and Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor working on the case against Donald Trump and 14 other defendants, confirmed for the first time on Friday they had a romantic relationship. But they denied any wrongdoing and Willis said she should not be disqualified from the case.

    That’s a lot of desperation there, and there are problems upon problems for the judge to weigh in on this:
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2024/02/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems.html

    whembly (5f7596)

  5. That’s a lot of desperation there

    In the Trump camp? You betcha.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  6. https://alphanews.org/fire-at-building-housing-3-conservative-organizations-investigated-as-arson/

    Some reporting on the arson committed against John Hinderaker’s office in Minnesota. So far a complete reporting blackout from the usual suspects.

    NJRob (238da0)

  7. @5

    That’s a lot of desperation there

    In the Trump camp? You betcha.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 12:14 pm

    Not really. At minimum, this pushes the court date past the election while dealing with all of these misconduct allegations. Not sure what the Judge would do, but the hearing to resolve this is Feb 15th, and who knows how long the Judge would take to resolve this.

    I think, the best case scenario for Fani, is that the Judge removes both Fani and Wade, and that Wade’s co-prosecutors takes over. However, the defense is asking the judge to bar everyone from Fani’s office, so who know what would happen to the case then.

    whembly (5f7596)

  8. As long as we can keep closing that gap, I’m gonna keep staying in.”

    Closing the gap is not what she is poised to do, although of course the only poll that counts is the one they take on Election Day (or Election Week or so)

    She means the gap is results getting smaller from early polls through Iowa to New Hampshire.

    “Get them all and send them back,” she said in response to a question about the people who have been arrested in connection with the assaults. “You don’t touch our police officers. You don’t touch anybody.”

    From what I read, they were very glad (and anxious) to leave New York and head (this time) for California. (they got the money from a Catholic church to whom they gave false names – not that I suppose anyone that early would have recognized their real names)

    It wasn’t actually illegal for them to leave New York City – no court order against it – it will only become illegal if and when they miss their next court date, so maybe there is no cause for extradition till then.

    It all started when someone tried to resist arrest and was supported by some others.

    The whole shelter they were in was a hotbed of crime and disorder.

    That’s where all thieves and violent people gravitate to. Non-interfered with drug dealing, fights between people, carrying knives, arrests for shoplifting going back to October…and some more honest begging.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  9. No shadow

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  10. The statement noted that the leaders agreed that any deal should incorporate the following:

    Complete end to the aggression
    Withdrawal of the occupation army outside the Gaza Strip
    Lifting of the siege and reconstruction…

    Hamas has called for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, something Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he would not agree to.

    This disagreement was papered over by Qatar and Egypt and others by dividing the proposed ceasefire into three parts, in which some hostages would be released in the first two part on terms like the Black Friday November truce, and the details of Part 3 worked out later.

    Things are pretty grim in Gaza. Women giving birth without clothes for the baby. Some amputees taken to Egypt for treatment, and then returned to Gaza.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  11. I think, the best case scenario for Fani

    Is that the judge tosses the complaint out, calling it a “media-driven nothingburger”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  12. Haley’s main goal is to stay in the race so that if Trump *does* implode, she’s the alternative.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  13. Death wish (video)

    Would you sell life insurance to this motorcyclist?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  14. RIP Carl Weathers (76). Best known as Apollo Creed in four
    Rocky films, as well as The Mandalorian.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  15. Whembly,

    You don’t have the benefit of seeing the Atlanta papers regularly and noticing trend lines. We started at experts saying “she’s toast if any of this is true” to, well, it’s kind of embarassing, but there is nothing in Georgia law requiring she recuse. It resembles what we have seen with the cntroversy around Clarence Thomas’ vacations.

    There has been a big conspiracy theory that Willis developed this trial so she could get boyfriend Wade a soft gig. Merchant implies this in her filing, and our own Mr. Finkelman started offering theories along those lines. Willis specificly denies they were having a romantic relationship wen he was selected. Wade also indicates that he took a significant revenue hit in taking the case. I have linked below, because Willis’ filing to the court is embedded in the article — and that makes interesting reading. (By the way, $250/hr for counsel is well below market rates in Atlanta)

    https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-fulton-special-prosecutor-admits-personal-relationship-with-da-in-trump-case/YOPP3SAOJVHUDESW3RR6UWTB2E/

    Appalled (b5dec0)

  16. Haley’s main goal is to stay in the race so that if Trump *does* implode, she’s the alternative.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 12:24 pm

    I doubt Trump will implode over the next two months. After that, Trump should have enough delegates to win the nomination; and it is highly unlikely that a Trump dominated convention would select anyone else, not matter what happens.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  17. #16

    Both Kevin and Rip can be right on this (and I think they are). Haley’s best chance is now. In 2028, she is eight-nine years from her last government gig, and MAGA will not have forgiven her.

    Appalled (b5dec0)

  18. That’s a lot of desperation there

    In the Trump camp? You betcha.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 12:14 pm

    LOL!🤣🤣🤣

    Monmouth University/WaPo South Carolina Primary Poll 2/1/24:

    ………
    A majority (58%) of potential Republican primary voters currently support Trump (up from 46% in September) while 32% support Haley (up from 18% in the fall). Trump commands majority support among both men (62%) and women (54%) and all age groups …….. He has especially high levels of support among white evangelicals (69%) and voters without a college degree (68%). Trump splits the vote with Haley among voters who are not white evangelical (46% to 42% for Haley) and college graduates (44% to 46% for Haley).

    ……..Fully 3 in 5 (60%) say the GOP should keep Trump on the ticket if he wins the nomination but is convicted of a crime related to the 2020 election. A similar 62% say they would still cast a general election ballot for Trump in that situation while just 17% would vote for incumbent President Joe Biden. Among current Trump supporters in the state’s primary, 88% feel he should stay on the ticket even if convicted, with 90% saying they would still vote for him over Biden in November.

    As it stands now, 7 in 10 voters believe Trump would definitely (42%) or probably (29%) beat Biden in November. There is less confidence in Haley’s prospects if she were to become the nominee, with just 21% saying she would definitely beat Biden and 42% saying she probably would. …….
    ………
    Potential Republican primary voters trust Trump over Haley across a broad range of issues. …….

    ………More Trump voters (73%) report being extremely motivated to turn out than Haley supporters are (45%) according to the poll. On the other hand, South Carolina holds an open primary with no partisan registration. This means any registered voter who does not participate in this Saturday’s Democratic primary is eligible to cast a Republican ballot at the end of the month. …….Trump has a decisive advantage among voters who have only participated in Republican primaries (67% to 24% for Haley) as well as those who have not voted in any primary since 2016 (66% to 31%). However, Haley (55%) actually leads Trump (27%) among those who have voted in both parties’ primaries during this span.

    “Haley’s hopes appear to hang on pulling in Democratic-leaning voters who would never support her in a general election but simply want to stop Trump. Our sampling frame for this poll did not include voters who have participated only in Democratic primaries. If a sizable number of those voters decide to skip this week’s primary and show up for the Republican contest instead, she could narrow the gap. It would remain a tough challenge, though, for her to actually close it,” said (Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.)

    Murray added, “Another problem for Haley is that even a close second-place finish may not provide much momentum because of South Carolina’s winner-take-all delegate allocation rule. ……..
    ………..

    More:

    ……….
    Trump also benefits from overwhelming support among voters who say President Biden was not legitimately elected but rather won the White House due to fraud, a false claim repeatedly advanced by the former president. In South Carolina, 57 percent of potential GOP primary voters say Biden was elected because of fraud and of those 85 percent currently support Trump for the nomination.
    ……….
    In September, 59 percent of potential Republican primary voters in South Carolina said they had a favorable impression of Haley. In the new poll, her favorability has declined to 45 percent, with 41 percent having an unfavorable view. Among those who say they are “strong” Republicans, 48 percent have an unfavorable view of her compared with 38 percent who are favorable. In September, 65 percent of those who said they were strong Republicans rated her favorably.

    Trump, on the other hand, maintains a significantly better image, with 66 percent of potential primary voters saying they have a favorable impression of him. That is up from 60 percent in September. Among strong Republicans, his favorable rating is 84 percent, marginally higher than in September.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  19. Haley’s best chance is now.

    Not much of a chance, though.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  20. 19 — Her best chance is the Supreme Court disqualifying Trump. That’s not quite a black swan event, but only about a 3-5% chance.

    Appalled (b5dec0)

  21. Both Kevin and Rip can be right on this (and I think they are)…….

    Appalled (b5dec0) — 2/2/2024 @ 12:57 pm

    That’s impossible. Kevin thinks Trump will lose to Haley, while I think (and the polls show) that won’t be happening.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  22. And in 2028, after being out of the public eye for four more years (and public office since 2018 when she resigned from the Trump Administration), no one will remember her. She should go back to her corporate boards where she can make real money doing nothing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  23. Appalled (b5dec0) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:11 pm

    Haley has a better chance of becoming President than Trump being disqualified by the Supreme Court.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  24. She does. Betting market put her possibility at 7% (your link) and I put Trump disqualification at 3-5%.

    Appalled (65ffe7)

  25. I put Trump disqualification at 3-5%.

    Based on what?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  26. 25 — Based on the fact there are at least some conservative amici briefs that support such a move, and one could see someone like Roberts (and Kavanaugh) wanting to defend his institution by finding an originalist reason to disqualify a would-be authoritarian.

    Unfortunately, there is no polling available. 🙂

    Appalled (b5dec0)

  27. @15

    Whembly,

    You don’t have the benefit of seeing the Atlanta papers regularly and noticing trend lines. We started at experts saying “she’s toast if any of this is true” to, well, it’s kind of embarassing, but there is nothing in Georgia law requiring she recuse.

    We’re still at the defense asking for:
    1) case to be thrown out
    2) if not 1, Fani / Wade and her office kicked off
    3) this establishes a record in the case that can be used on appeal if Judge dismisses the complaint.

    People forget, these are serious crimes whereby the defendant’s personal liberty is a stake, so what you’re seeing are vigorous, bare-knuckle legal fight by a competent defense attorney (*cough* unlike a certain Trump lawyer *cough*)

    It resembles what we have seen with the cntroversy around Clarence Thomas’ vacations.

    Absolutely not comparable in any way shape or form.

    There has been a big conspiracy theory that Willis developed this trial so she could get boyfriend Wade a soft gig. Merchant implies this in her filing, and our own Mr. Finkelman started offering theories along those lines. Willis specificly denies they were having a romantic relationship wen he was selected.

    The precise start of their relationship has no bearing on this issue… it’s just an attempt to deflect.

    The ordeal is bizarre… such as that Wade filed for divorce from his ex the day after Willis hired him. Sure that could just be a coincidence, but there’s also the question of why Willis chose Wade at all. He had never prosecuted a felony, ever, and had specialized in personal-injury law. The fact that she picked him over other well qualified attorneys on her staff is weird.

    Wade also indicates that he took a significant revenue hit in taking the case. I have linked below, because Willis’ filing to the court is embedded in the article — and that makes interesting reading. (By the way, $250/hr for counsel is well below market rates in Atlanta)

    Appalled (b5dec0) — 2/2/2024 @ 12:47 pm

    Yeah, he took a hit because he spent quite a bit going on lavish vacations with his boss.

    whembly (5f7596)

  28. @26

    25 — Based on the fact there are at least some conservative amici briefs that support such a move, and one could see someone like Roberts (and Kavanaugh) wanting to defend his institution by finding an originalist reason to disqualify a would-be authoritarian.

    Unfortunately, there is no polling available. 🙂

    Appalled (b5dec0) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:44 pm

    Funny you say that in the face of an actual authoritarian sitting in the Whitehouse as we speak.

    whembly (5f7596)

  29. Funny you say that in the face of an actual authoritarian sitting in the Whitehouse as we speak.

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:58 pm

    lol!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  30. whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:58 pm

    Obviously you’ve never lived under a true authoritarian.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  31. Funny you say that in the face of an actual authoritarian sitting in the Whitehouse as we speak.

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:58 pm

    An attempted autogolpe is as authoritarian as it gets.

    norcal (403962)

  32. @29

    Funny you say that in the face of an actual authoritarian sitting in the Whitehouse as we speak.

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:58 pm

    lol!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:04 pm


    @30 whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:58 pm

    Obviously you’ve never lived under a true authoritarian.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:06 pm

    I’m mocking the statement that Trump’s a “wannabe-authoritarian” when Joe Biden had that following:
    -massive lockdown polices
    -his administration tried to spin a “Ministry of Truth™” department
    -his administration pressured social media companies to push regime favorable narratives.

    whembly (5f7596)

  33. @31

    Funny you say that in the face of an actual authoritarian sitting in the Whitehouse as we speak.

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 1:58 pm

    An attempted autogolpe is as authoritarian as it gets.

    norcal (403962) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:07 pm

    The idea that Trump tried “a coup” is something that only fabulist perpetuates.

    whembly (5f7596)

  34. The idea that Trump tried “a coup” is something that only fabulist perpetuates.

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:11 pm

    Really? Mike Pence could have easily given in to Trump’s pressure tactics.

    norcal (403962)

  35. Whembly,

    You ought to read the Willis filing — it answers the questions as well as they are going to be answered about Wade’s qualifications. I mean, you aren’t going to find these quotes in your Fox News diet:

    Counsel for Defendant Roman, of course, is well-familiar with the experience and qualifications of Special Prosecutor Wade, whatever contrary representations are made in Roman’s motion. During a judicial campaign in 2016, Defendant Roman’s counsel Ashleigh Merchant was an enthusiastic supporter of Wade’s candidacy, and described him in glowing terms. Ex. C (May 2016 Facebook posts of Ashleigh Bartkus Merchant: “Why Nathan Wade? Nathan is ethical . . . Experience matters. Nathan’s experience includes: Public Servant. Prosecutor. Private Attorney. Judge . . .”; “Nathan has practiced in every area of the law that appears before the Superior Court bench . . . He is a recipient of the State Bar of Georgia’s Justice Robert Benham Award for Service to the Community. He is also a recipient of the Gate City Bar Judicial Section Legacy Award (Justice Robert Benham Legacy Award) . . . [He] received Georgia’s Top Lawyers Award in 2006 and 2009 . . . .”) (all emphasis added)).

    By the way, Merchant claimed that the unsealed records in the divorce would back up her claims. They didn’t. That’s a real blow to her credibility (don’t think its not) and I really doubt the court is going to allow a fishing expedition unsupported by much of anything

    I think Willis should not have decided to have a relationship with a co-worker, for the reason we now see. However, Trumpworld specializes in slander, and there is very little reason to pay much attention to the mud.

    Appalled (b5dec0)

  36. Overview of Amicus Briefs Supporting Petitioner in Trump v. Griswold

    ……….(Below is) an overview of about thirty (out of more than forty) of the amicus briefs. And we will do so in a fairly expeditious fashion: by reproducing the tables of contents. A good tip for law students: skimming the TOC should provide a precise overview of how a brief will proceed. Of these thirty-odd briefs, about a dozen expressly argue that the President is not an “Officer of the United States.” ……..

    President Trump’s Merits Brief

    I. The president is not an “officer of the United States”
    II. President Trump did not “engage in insurrection”
    III. Section 3 should be enforced only through Congress’s chosen methods of enforcement
    IV. Section 3 cannot be used to deny President Trump access to the ballot
    V. The Colorado Supreme Court violated the Electors Clause and the Colorado Election Code

    Brief amicus curiae of Professor Seth Barrett Tillman

    I. Plaintiffs’ Requested Relief is Barred by Griffin’s Case (1869)
    A. Griffin’s Case is persuasive authority that settled the meaning of Section 3
    B. Decisions from Louisiana and North Carolina are consistent with Griffin’s Case
    C. The Colorado Supreme Court engaged in improper speculation about Chief Justice Chase’s motives
    D. Griffin’s Case is consistent with the deeply rooted sword-shield dichotomy in federal courts’ jurisprudence

    II. In 1788, 1868, and today, “Officer of the United States” in the Constitution extends exclusively to appointed positions and not to elected positions
    A. In the Constitution of 1788, the President did not hold an “Office … under the United States”
    B. In the Constitution of 1788, the President was not an “Officer of the United States”
    C. In 1868, the President was not an “Officer of the United States” in the Constitution
    D. There is a tradition of authority from the Judicial and Executive Branches demonstrating that the President is not an “Officer of the United States”

    ……..
    Brief amicus curiae of Vivek Ramaswamy
    ……..
    Amicus brief of Public Interest Legal Foundation and Hans von Spakovsky

    I. The Continued Legal Viability of Section 3 Is Suspect
    II. Section 3 Does Not Apply to Former President Donald Trump.
    III. No State Court Has the Constitutional Authority to Overrule the Judgment of the Senate that Acquitted President Trump of “Incitement of Insurrection.”
    IV. Section 3 Is Not Self-Executing and No Court Has the Authority to Enforce Section 3 Because Congress Has Not Passed a Federal Law Providing for Enforcement.
    V. States Cannot Add Qualification Beyond What the Constitution Sets Forth.

    ……….
    Amicus brief of The Honorable Peter Meijer
    ………
    Amicus brief of Kansas Republican Party and 32 Other State and Territorial Republican Parties

    I. The Present Controversy is not Ripe for Adjudication
    A. Political Parties’ Choices of Their Candidates for National Offices Implicate the Right to Free Association Under the First Amendment
    B. At This Stage, This Question is Not Ripe

    II. The Colorado Supreme Court Erred in its Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
    A. The Colorado Supreme Court may not Independently Determine Qualifications for the President of the United States
    B. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is Not Self Executing
    C. Congress has Used its Implementing Power Under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, Foreclosing the Analysis of the Colorado Supreme Court

    Amicus brief of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and 177 Other Members of Congress

    I. The Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Encroaches on Congress’s Express Powers
    A. Federal Implementing Legislation Is Required to Enforce Section 3
    B. De-Balloting a Candidate Effectively Denies Congress Its Power to Remove a Section 3 Disability
    C. Section 3 Determinations Fall Within the Political Question Doctrine Because They Are Reserved for Congress

    II. Section 3 Does Not Apply to Former President Trump

    III. The Colorado Supreme Court’s Decision Lacks Neutral Principles and Will Lead to Widespread De-Balloting of Political Opponents
    A. The Decision Below Failed to Meaningfully Confine “Engaging in Insurrection”
    B. A Lengthy List of Partisan Grievances Could Be Labeled As “Engaging in Insurrection”

    Amicus brief of Former United States Attorneys
    ……….
    Amicus brief of States of Indiana, West Virginia, 25 Other States, and the Arizona Legislature

    I. Section 3 cannot be used to disqualify a person from holding office unless Congress first acts
    II. Without more direction from Congress, courts cannot say what constitutes “insurrection” under Section 3
    III. Allowing state courts to apply Section 3 to Presidents without congressional action would damage our system of government

    ………
    Amicus brief of The Secretaries of State of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia

    I. Section Three Does Not Empower Secretaries of State to Disqualify Candidates for Federal Office
    A. The Plain Text Does Not Empower Secretaries of State to Disqualify Presidential Candidates.
    B. Historical Precedent Confirms That Section Three Does Not Give Secretaries of State An Inherent Disqualification Power Under The Constitution.

    II. Even if the Court Holds That Section Three Is Self-Executing, It Should Nevertheless Avoid Any Construction That Empowers Secretaries of State To Exercise An Inherent Disqualification Power Because of the Obvious Practical Problems That Would Flow From Such A Decision

    ………
    Amicus brief of Former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III, Michael B. Mukasey and William P. Barr; Law Professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson; Citizens United and Citizens United Foundation

    I. Section 3 Does Not Disqualify Presidential Candidates from the Ballot.
    A. Section 3’s text and structure show that candidates for President are excluded from its reach.
    B. Prior drafts of Section 3 confirm that excluding the President was deliberate.
    C. Criticism from the other side of the debate cannot withstand scrutiny.

    II. Section 3 Requires Enabling Legislation Under Section 5, Such as 18 U.S.C. § 2383.
    A. (sic) Article II’s presidential qualifications do nothing to suggest that Section 3 is self-executing.
    B. The Fourteenth Amendment contains both provisions that are self-executing and those that require Congress to legislate.
    C. Section 3’s history reveals that it requires enabling legislation.
    D. Congress enacted relevant legislation in 18 U.S.C. § 2383, but President Trump is not accused of violating that statute.

    III. It Would Be Highly Imprudent to Interpret Section 3 in Any Way that Empowers Partisan Officials to Unilaterally Disqualify Political Opponents from Public Office.

    ………

    The original post contains links to each amicus brief.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  37. @34

    The idea that Trump tried “a coup” is something that only fabulist perpetuates.

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:11 pm

    Really? Mike Pence could have easily given in to Trump’s pressure tactics.

    norcal (403962) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:16 pm

    Had Pence went through with it, it still wouldn’t be a coup. Pence “counting” the electoral count isn’t he coronation. It’s merely a ministerial role, for which Pence did the right thing to objecting Trump’s cockamame legal theory.

    There were no where near enough votes in the House to reject the initial slates, even if Pence/Trump convinced Congress to reconsider the electoral slates.

    whembly (5f7596)

  38. @35

    Whembly,

    You ought to read the Willis filing — it answers the questions as well as they are going to be answered about Wade’s qualifications. I mean, you aren’t going to find these quotes in your Fox News diet:

    Counsel for Defendant Roman, of course, is well-familiar with the experience and qualifications of Special Prosecutor Wade, whatever contrary representations are made in Roman’s motion. During a judicial campaign in 2016, Defendant Roman’s counsel Ashleigh Merchant was an enthusiastic supporter of Wade’s candidacy, and described him in glowing terms. Ex. C (May 2016 Facebook posts of Ashleigh Bartkus Merchant: “Why Nathan Wade? Nathan is ethical . . . Experience matters. Nathan’s experience includes: Public Servant. Prosecutor. Private Attorney. Judge . . .”; “Nathan has practiced in every area of the law that appears before the Superior Court bench . . . He is a recipient of the State Bar of Georgia’s Justice Robert Benham Award for Service to the Community. He is also a recipient of the Gate City Bar Judicial Section Legacy Award (Justice Robert Benham Legacy Award) . . . [He] received Georgia’s Top Lawyers Award in 2006 and 2009 . . . .”) (all emphasis added)).

    By the way, Merchant claimed that the unsealed records in the divorce would back up her claims. They didn’t. That’s a real blow to her credibility (don’t think its not) and I really doubt the court is going to allow a fishing expedition unsupported by much of anything

    I think Willis should not have decided to have a relationship with a co-worker, for the reason we now see. However, Trumpworld specializes in slander, and there is very little reason to pay much attention to the mud.

    Appalled (b5dec0) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:22 pm

    I have. It’s not persuasive.

    You really should read this:
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2024/02/fani-willis-has-problems-upon-problems.html

    The author drives home the point about Wade’s credentials:

    Well, his defenders note, the man was a judge and a prosecutor. With all due respect: not really, or not in any way that would prepare him for the task at hand. Wade held those titles only at the municipal level, handling petty misdemeanors or less. He has never — repeat, never — tried a single felony criminal case. Yet Willis selected him to lead the most complex and important racketeering case in Georgia history? Something’s up.

    whembly (5f7596)

  39. A failed attempt to subvert a legitimate election is forever disqualifying. I can’t understand how anybody thinks otherwise.

    norcal (403962)

  40. “I am not going anywhere,” (Haley) told reporters on Thursday. “We have a country to save. And I am determined to keep on going the entire way. As long as we can keep closing that gap, I’m gonna keep staying in.”

    Problem is, Haley isn’t closing the gap between herself and Trump. Today the 538 average has Trump at +54 over Haley. On January 1st, Trump was at +50.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  41. A coup isn’t less of coup even if it failed. The intent is still there.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  42. @36

    Overview of Amicus Briefs Supporting Petitioner in Trump v. Griswold

    ……….(Below is) an overview of about thirty (out of more than forty) of the amicus briefs. And we will do so in a fairly expeditious fashion: by reproducing the tables of contents. A good tip for law students: skimming the TOC should provide a precise overview of how a brief will proceed. Of these thirty-odd briefs, about a dozen expressly argue that the President is not an “Officer of the United States.” ……..

    Past SCOTUS cases did state that POTUS isn’t an officer of the US, with the distinction between delegated authority vs elected authority.

    But, I think the whole Amendment 14, sec 3 argument leaves quite a bit of ambiguity.

    whembly (5f7596)

  43. @41

    A coup isn’t less of coup even if it failed. The intent is still there.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:42 pm

    You saying that the behaviors by Trump in 2020 befits a “coup” is a hyperbolic attempt to negatively frame the argument in bad faith to shut down the conversation.

    You are desensitizing the severity of the “coup” or “insurrection”.

    The intent, no matter how dumb the rationale was, was to use every legal means to challenge the election.

    Do I wish Trump simply accepted it, and moved on?

    Absolutely.

    But, I’m not going to sit back and let others re-frame the narrative to something that it wasn’t.

    whembly (5f7596)

  44. whembly (5f7596) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:50 pm

    I won’t let you put words in my mouth, I never mentioned Trump’s name. My statement would apply to any coup attempt by anyone.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  45. Breaking:

    The U.S. began conducting airstrikes on Iranian militants in Iraq and Syria on Friday, the first of what officials expect to be multiple rounds of retaliatory actions following the deaths of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan this week.

    U.S. bomber aircraft struck more than 85 targets connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force and “affiliated militia groups,” the U.S. military said in a statement. The Quds Force is Iran’s primary unit charged with conducting covert operations outside Iran.
    ………
    The military used more than 125 precision munitions to strike the targets, which included command-and-control centers, rockets, missiles, drone storage sites and munitions facilities, U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

    A Defense Department official said long-range B-1B Lancer bombers were used in the strike. The U.S. has no current plans to strike inside Iran, a senior administration official said. …….
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  46. @44

    I won’t let you put words in my mouth, I never mentioned Trump’s name. My statement would apply to any coup attempt by anyone.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2024 @ 2:55 pm

    Then why interject into the conversation where it would be obvious to assume that you were talking about Trump?

    whembly (c88dc4)

  47. Then why interject into the conversation where it would be obvious to assume that you were talking about Trump?

    whembly (c88dc4) — 2/2/2024 @ 3:05 pm

    Because you jumped to a pre-determined conclusion?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  48. @Appalled, see the defense’s replay to Fani Willis’ submission:
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24401699-roman-reply-to-willis-disqualification-response

    ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
    Let us be clear: if Mr. Roman had not uncovered the now-admitted personal relationship between Willis and Wade, no one may have ever known about it. That raises the obvious and important question: If they had nothing to hide in the first place because they did nothing wrong, then why did they intentionally not tell anyone about it until they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar? This highlights the very reason why this Court cannot just take their word for it.

    Notably, Wade’s affidavit proves that a hearing in this matter is needed. For example, if Mr. Roman was permitted to cross examine Wade, he could ask questions such as the following:

     In Paragraph 17 of your affidavit, you swore that you met Ms. Willis in October of 2019 at a Municipal Court training. Isn’t it true that you began more than just a friendship at that conference?

     In Paragraph 31 of your affidavit, you swore that you have never cohabitated with Ms. Willis but the attached documents show you shared a king size bed with her in Aruba from November 1, 2022 until November 4, 2022. (See Exhibit “A”).

     Additionally, witnesses will testify that you cohabitated with Ms. Willis at her home in South Fulton until her father moved in with her and you then began to cohabitate at the apartment of a friend of hers in East Point.

    Additionally, witnesses will testify that you cohabitated with Ms. Willis at an AirBNB in Hapeville that was paid for by tax payer money to serve as a “safe house” for you and Ms. Willis.

    If his experience is so significant then he should welcome the opportunity to testify as to the specifics of the cases he has tried and enjoy the candid transparency that would bring to the process instead of hiding behind an unsubstantiated claim that he has “tried complex” matters including murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and drug trafficking.3 To put it plainly, he has given this Court and the public no reason to take his word for it.

    A hearing is also needed because it appears that the District Attorney’s Office is not being entirely “candid and transparent” as they allege in their response.5 For example, the State attached to it’s motion as Exhibit “H” a contract that Mr. Roman has been asking for, but has never received. Erica Willingham, the Open Records Officer for the Fulton County District Attorney responded repeatedly that she had given undersigned counsel all of the contracts that existed between FCDA and Mr. Wade but yet this contract was not contained among those. (See Exhibit “B”). This creates important factual questions about whether Wade and Willis have been “transparent” that can only be resolved at an evidentiary hearing. Mr. Roman requested copies of the invoices that are now attached to the State’s response as Exhibit “3”. On January 4, 2024 through the Open Records Portal for the Fulton County District Attorney, Mr. Roman requested these invoices and made repeated attempts to obtain them, but the District Attorney’s Office failed to do so “based on staffing levels and workloads”. The first time those invoices were ever made available to Mr. Roman was an exhibit to the State’s response. The State’s response also blames Mr. Roman for not supplementing his motion once the divorce file was unsealed. That is the exact purpose of an evidentiary hearing, and Mr. Roman intends to present the evidence at the hearing. This is a criminal case, not a civil case. It cannot be decided on ex parte, self-serving affidavits. Some of the individuals whom Mr. Roman has subpoenaed to testify have personal knowledge that Wade and Willis’ personal relationship began before his appointment as a special prosecutor. In other words, they have knowledge that the assertion by Willis in the State’s response and in Wade’s affidavit are both false. This is the reason Mr. Roman is entitled to cross-examine the State’s witnesses, including Willis and Wade, on these material facts going to the heart of the issue of whether they should be disqualified.

    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Roman requests that this Honorable Court reject the State’s request in its brief to cancel the evidentiary hearing in this matter.

    Also, this is just the initial response to argue with the Judge to keep the Feb 15 on the docket.

    It appears Roman’s attorney will be submitting a much more detailed response to Willis’ statements.

    whembly (c88dc4)

  49. @47

    Because you jumped to a pre-determined conclusion?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2024 @ 3:08 pm

    You’ll need to forgive me when you’re inserting yourself into the conversation streams.

    whembly (c88dc4)

  50. it is highly unlikely that a Trump dominated convention would select anyone else, not matter what happens.

    Even if he has a stroke, joins the Communist Party, or dies.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  51. and MAGA will not have forgiven her.

    And I will not have forgiven or forgotten MAGA. Hopefully everyone else will have forgotten them, just like Italians forgot Il Duce by 1947.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  52. Rip, you really need to fess up how much you want Trump to be re-elected. The pretense doesn’t match your feet.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  53. That’s impossible. Kevin thinks Trump will lose to Haley, while I think (and the polls show) that won’t be happening.

    That’s not quite true. I think that there is a good chance that Trump will manage to lose, and that Haley will be the last one standing.

    Wait for the rape charges.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  54. Haley has a better chance of becoming President than Trump being disqualified by the Supreme Court.

    I would be shocked if they disqualified him. Not only would they have to find that the 14th Amendment can be activated separate from a conviction for insurrection (for which he is not charged), that this can be shown absent absent a conviction or any kind, AND that it has been so shown.

    It is dimly possible that they will assert that a conviction on attempting to bugger the Electoral College would be sufficient.

    It is just slightly possible that they could assert that being subject to incarceration is disqualifying until the prison term has been completed, but I’m not aware that anyone is arguing that. Yet.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  55. Funny you say that in the face of an actual authoritarian sitting in the Whitehouse as we speak.

    In some respects every president since Reagan has been a statist control-freak. “Authoritarian” is simply a matter of degree.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  56. -massive lockdown polices

    Nearly all lockdowns started (and some ended) under Donald Trump.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  57. Rip, you really need to fess up how much you want Trump to be re-elected. The pretense doesn’t match your feet.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 3:56 pm

    Again, you’re letting your imagination get the better of you. Nothing I have ever posted here could lead you to that conclusion. It’s the vast number of Republican voters, not me, that wants Trump to be re-elected.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  58. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 3:58 pm

    Facts absolutely not in evidence.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  59. For the completist: All of the filings in Trump v. Anderson

    The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5 2024.

    There are an astounding number of amicus briefs.

    J. Michael Luttig et al:

    This brief focuses on two textualist points. First, it
    would violate the rule of law and textualism for this Court
    to create an off-ramp to avoid adjudicating whether Mr.
    Trump is disqualified. The power to decide a dispute about
    a presidential candidate’s constitutional qualifications
    is a judicial power that has been vested by the Electors
    Clause initially in the States, and by Article III’s grant
    of appellate jurisdiction ultimately in this Court. Section
    5 of the Fourteenth Amendment merely gives Congress
    power to legislate a judicial enforcement mechanism in
    addition to this pre-existing judicial power of the States
    and this Court.

    Mr. Trump does not argue that the Constitution gives
    Congress judicial power over a presidential qualifications
    dispute. Section 5 of Article I gives Congress the power
    only to “be the Judge of the . . . Qualifications of its own
    Members.” In contrast, Section 3 of the Fourteenth
    Amendment merely checks the judicial power of the
    courts by giving Congress the power by two-thirds vote
    to remove, for any reason, disqualification under Section
    3, even after it has been judicially adjudicated.

    Second, the terms of Section 3 of the Fourteenth
    Amendment disqualify Mr. Trump. The Court should heed
    the warning of Justice Holmes that cases of “immediate
    overwhelming interest” often “make bad law.” Northern
    Sec. Corp. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400-01 (1904)
    (Holmes, J., dissenting). Particularly because Section
    3 emerged from the hallowed ground of the Civil War,
    this Court must accord Section 3 its fair meaning, not a
    narrow construction. Mr. Trump was “President of the
    United States.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1. He never
    disputes that the President is an “officer.” It follows, as
    the Fourteenth Amendment generation understood, that
    the “President of the United States” is an “officer of the
    United States.” Mr. Trump incited, and therefore engaged
    in, an armed insurrection against the Constitution’s
    express and foundational mandates that require the
    peaceful transfer of executive power to a newly-elected
    President. In doing so, Mr. Trump disqualified himself
    under Section 3.

    Brief of 12 former Republican members of Congress:

    On January 6, 2021, a violent mob mounted an unprecedented
    attack not just on the U.S. Capitol building
    and members of Congress, but on the Constitution
    itself. The attack marked the first time in U.S. history
    that the peaceful transfer of presidential power according
    to law was disrupted by violence inspired, incited,
    and encouraged by the defeated incumbent
    president himself.2 It also “marked the most significant
    assault on the Capitol building since the War of
    1812.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th. 10, 18–19 (D.C.
    Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1350 (2022). The
    mob threatened to kill government officials, including
    Vice President Mike Pence (then acting as president
    of the Senate) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and
    forced all members of Congress to halt their constitutional
    duty to certify results of the 2020 presidential
    election. If the mob had achieved its ultimate goal of
    keeping Trump in office beyond the end of his term, it
    would have thrown the nation into a constitutional
    crisis and brought an end to the American experiment
    in democratic self-government.

    This is not a partisan issue. The mob threatened
    violence against Republicans and Democrats alike. In
    the wake of the attack, leaders from across the political
    spectrum condemned the events of January 6 as
    an insurrection and sought to hold Trump responsible.
    This was an attack on the Constitution itself.
    As time has passed and new election cycles have
    begun, some have tried to rewrite the history and significance
    of the insurrection on January 6. But any
    reasonable, good faith consideration of the events surrounding
    January 6 necessitates the conclusion that
    Trump encouraged an armed, violent mob to prevent
    Congress from taking an essential step in the transition
    of presidential power. As a result of his own actions,
    Trump is not qualified to serve as president or
    in any other role proscribed by Section 3 of the Fourteenth
    Amendment.

    Brief of Ilya Somin:

    Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment
    (hereinafter “Section 3”) safeguards our republic
    against the threat posed by public officials who have
    previously undermined it by engaging in insurrection
    or giving “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the
    United States. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 3. Having
    shown their true colors once, these insurrectionist
    present and former officials are not permitted a second
    chance to undermine the republic. As aptly stated by
    the Colorado Supreme Court, “interpreting Section 3
    does not ‘turn on standards that defy judicial
    application,’” but instead entails evaluation based
    upon “familiar principles of constitutional
    interpretation.” (The court quotes Zivotofsky v.
    Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 at 201 (2012)).

    Section 3 states:

    No person shall be a Senator or
    Representative in Congress, or elector of
    President and Vice-President, or hold
    any office, civil or military, under the
    United States, or under any State, who,
    having previously taken an oath, as a
    member of Congress, or as an officer of
    the United States, or as a member of any
    State legislature, or as an executive or
    judicial officer of any State, to support
    the Constitution of the United States,
    shall have engaged in insurrection or
    rebellion against the same, or given aid
    or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
    Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
    each House, remove such disability.

    By its text, Section 3 does no more nor less than
    impose a qualification for holding federal or state
    office that excludes those who have taken a prior oath
    of office and then participated in an insurrection from
    holding office afterwards.3 It is no different from any
    other legal qualification for becoming President. He or
    she must be at least 35 years of age, a natural-born
    U.S. citizen, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years, and
    one who has not served two prior presidential terms.
    See U.S. Const. Art II, § 1 and Amend. XXII.
    Notably, while Petitioner and Petitioner’s amici
    repeatedly comment about the consequences of Mr.
    Trump’s disqualification or the conduct that led to
    that disqualification, none of the Colorado Supreme
    Court justices, even those who dissented, disagreed
    with the trial court’s determination that Mr. Trump
    engaged in insurrection against the Constitution. Nor
    did any agree with Mr. Trump’s claim that the
    presidency is exempt from Section 3. Anderson et al v.
    Griswold et al, (D. Colo. 2023).
    Further, all acknowledge that Colorado, like every
    other state, has an obligation under U.S. Const. Art.
    II, Sec. 1 to regulate the manner their presidential
    electors are selected. For the most part, Petitioner’s
    amici do not contest that a state has an “important
    and well-established interest in regulating ballot
    access and preventing fraudulent or ineligible
    candidates from being placed on the ballot.” Bullock v.
    Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (2005) (which further held
    that “a State has an interest, if not a duty, to protect
    the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or
    fraudulent candidacies”). Nor is it generally disputed
    that a state has a legitimate interest in adopting and
    following specific statutory processes when judging
    election disputes that arise under state law. See
    Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 947, 948 (10th Cir.
    2012) (Gorsuch, J.).
    The key questions before this Court are whether
    Donald Trump is disqualified under Section 3, and
    who has the authority to determine that Section 3 is
    applicable and, therefore, should be applied.
    As this Court undertakes the weighty task of
    reviewing this case, this amicus brief hopes to provide
    guidance on two specific issues that have been raised
    repeatedly by Petitioner and Petitioner’s amici. The
    first is whether Mr. Trump had to be convicted of a
    crime before he could be disqualified under Section 3.
    The second is whether disqualification in the absence
    of such a conviction violates Mr. Trump’s right to due
    process under the Fourteenth Amendment. As will be
    shown below, the answer to both questions is a
    resounding, “No.”
    Part I explains why a criminal conviction is
    unnecessary for disqualification under Section 3. A
    criminal conviction is not required under the text and
    original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In
    addition, the distinction between civil and criminal
    proceedings is a fundamental aspect of our legal
    system. The same events can give rise to both criminal
    charges and civil liability or (as in this case)
    disqualification. One is not a prerequisite to the other.
    Indeed, as demonstrated by the famous case of O.J.
    Simpson, a person acquitted of a crime may
    nonetheless be subject to civil liability for the very
    same events.
    If there is no general requirement of a criminal
    conviction, there can be no requirement of a specific
    conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2383, the federal criminal
    insurrection statute. Conviction under Section 2383 is
    not and was not designed to be the exclusive mode of
    enforcing Section 3 disqualification.
    Part II explains why disqualification in the
    absence of a criminal conviction does not violate Mr.
    Trump’s due process rights. The Due Process Clause
    of the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to
    situations where a person is deprived of “life, liberty,
    or property.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. Neither life,
    nor liberty, nor property is lost by virtue of
    disqualification from various public offices. Even if
    the Due Process Clause does apply, the civil process
    and standard of proof used by the Colorado courts are
    more than sufficient.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  60. Fun note:

    The amicus curiae brief of Professors Akhil Reed Amar and
    Vikram David Amar describes an 1860–61 attempt by high-level
    federal officials to seize the Capitol and prevent Abraham Lincoln’s
    inauguration. See generally Amicus Curiae Brief of Akhil
    Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar in Support of Neither Party,
    at 6–14. Unlike Trump, there is no indication then-President
    James Buchanan played any role in that attempt and, unlike the
    January 6 insurrection, it did not ultimately disrupt the transfer
    of presidential power.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  61. Facts absolutely not in evidence.

    Behavior is. E Jean Carroll would have been able to claim rape, but for the statute of limitations. Mr Grab-them-by-the-pussy is likely to have serious skeletons in those locked closets. Be interesting to see the actual text of some of these non-disclosure agreements.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  62. I have ever posted here could lead you to that conclusion

    I am not alone in reaching it.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  63. Whembly,

    If Fani actually lied in her filing and that can be proved with something (other than some “witness” dredged up from
    Someplace or other) she has put herself in a bigger mess. That’s not the first time it happened. I don’t trust the source, though. I expect, though that some bed sharing did happen in Aruba in November, 2022, however.

    Don’t be surprised if Merchant doesn’t get to have her hearing. She claimed material in her filing lived in divorce records that just weren’t there. Now she makes additional charges after not substantiating her first set.

    My guess is that Fani Willis wanted someone she knew and trusted working with her. It explains her pick far more than the hot sex tale Ashley Merchant wants to sell.

    Appalled (157a33)

  64. From the amicus brief filed by 15 historians:

    THE ORIGINS OF SECTION THREE

    A. From the Start of the Civil War, the Federal Government Took Steps to Ensure Loyalty and Disqualify Insurrectionists in its Midst
    B. At the End of the War, Disqualification Became a Pressing Concern as Insurrectionists Were Elected to Congress

    II. THE DRAFTING AND RATIFICATION OF SECTION THREE

    A. A Congressional Inquiry Discovered Widespread Rebelliousness in the South
    B. The Development of Section Three Demonstrates Congress’s Intent to Make Disqualification Targeted and Permanent
    C. Southern States Resisted Ratification, in part, Because of the Disqualification of ex-Confederates

    III. THE PERSISTENCE OF SECTION THREE

    A. The Jefferson Davis Case Showed That Section Three Required No Criminal Conviction and Was Self-Executing
    B. Requests for Amnesty Underscore the Broad and Immediate Impact of Section Three

    ……….
    STATEMENT OF INTEREST

    Amici curiae are distinguished scholars whose expertise includes the histories of federal constitutional amendment, the laws of war, and the Civil War and Reconstruction. All amici are elected members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and winners of either the Pulitzer or the Bancroft Prize or both. …….. Amici’s interest in this appeal arises from the gravity of the case before the Court and the necessity of grounding any decision in a proper historical understanding of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. As eminent American historians with expertise in the relevant era, actors, and events, amici are well qualified to assist the Court by establishing the original intent, meaning, and public understanding of the Disqualification Clause.

    INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
    ………
    ……….T)he framers of the Fourteenth Amendment hoped not only to prevent a resurgence of secessionism but also to protect future generations against insurrectionism. An early draft of Section Three limiting its reach to those who had participated in “the late insurrection” was eliminated in favor of language that disqualified both past and future insurrectionists who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present,” said one senator during floor debate. Without a disqualification clause that would endure, a Congressional committee warned, “flagrant rebellion, carried to the extreme of civil war,” would become “a pastime.” Future insurrections could be defeated by force of arms but “the battle may be still fought out in the legislative halls of the country.” Insurrectionists could take over state legislatures, state houses, Congress, the cabinet, and even the White House. Section Three was meant to prevent that possibility. Its framers intended Section Three: (1) to automatically disqualify insurrectionists; (2) to apply not only to the Civil War but also to future insurrections; and (3) to bar anyone who has betrayed an oath to uphold the Constitution from becoming President of the United States. It remains in place and in force today.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  65. It will depend on what the Georgia rule is about the District Attorney exercising independent judgment on the appointment and conduct of the special prosecutor.

    nk (772e52)

  66. I have ever posted here could lead you to that conclusion

    I am not alone in reaching it.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 4:38 pm

    Then there are a lot of misguided people here. You may think I am promoting Trump by posting polls that have shown persistently leading all other Republican candidates, but I would do the same if any of the other candidates were leading (and revel in the fact he was behind). I understand their (and your) frustrations that DeSantis or Haley or Christie or whomever were not leading the pack, but that doesn’t change the facts on the ground.

    Republican voters want Trump. That is be all and end all of it. Not posting polls that showed Trump as the leading candidate wouldn’t change any results. Trump would still win.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  67. An early draft of Section Three limiting its reach to those who had participated in “the late insurrection” was eliminated in favor of language that disqualified both past and future insurrectionists who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present,” said one senator during floor debate.

    This is important and a refutation of the Civil-War-only attack.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  68. Republican voters want Trump. That is be all and end all of it. Not posting polls that showed Trump as the leading candidate wouldn’t change any results. Trump would still win.

    By studiously refusing to put any part of yourself into these posts, save for the occasional snark, uniformly proclaiming the inevitability of Trump, you leave one thinking that your preference is one you are unwilling to voice here.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  69. BTW, that argument by [black] historians effectively argues that the disqualification should not be limited to Trump.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  70. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2024 @ 4:50 pm

    A second amicus brief from 25 historians:

    I. The Disqualification Clause of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment Covers the President of the United States

    A. Contemporary Evidence From Congressional Debates Over Section 3 and Later Amnesty Demonstrates That the Section Covers the President B. Other Evidence Shows that Contemporaries Regarded the President as a civil officer of the U.S
    C. Also probative is the explicit recognition by the framers of the original Constitution of 1787 that the President is a “national officer of the United States”

    II. Section 3 Enduringly Protects the Nation From Future Insurrections, With No Further Action Required of Congress

    A. Congressional debates demonstrate that framers of Section 3 advisedly choose to disqualify insurrectionists enduringly by a constitutional amendment rather than by statute
    B. Amnesty Acts passed by Congress after ratification of the 14th Amendment did not pardon future insurrectionists
    C. Adverse consequences followed from requalifying former Confederates under amnesty
    D. The framers did not require any additional actions by Congress to effectuate Section 3

    INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

    We are twenty-five professional Ph.D. historians with appointments as faculty at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Most of us have many decades of experience as researchers and teachers and are current or emeritus faculty with endowed chairs and positions as distinguished professors, the highest academic ranking. Several of us have testified extensively in civil and voting rights litigation. Our more than one hundred books have won numerous national prizes. Among other positions, some of us have served as President of the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, the Southern Historical Association, the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, and the Alabama Historical Association. Our expertise encompasses the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Southern “redemption,” and American history more broadly, including politics, voting, and elections. We understand that assessing historical precedent is crucial for resolving whether 1) Section 3 of the 14th Amendment covers the president and 2) whether its implementation requires an additional act of Congress. We have professional interests in helping the Court reach its decision by appropriately analyzing probative historical evidence.

    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

    ……..
    Contemporary information provides direct evidence of the enduring reach of the 14th Amendment. Congress had previously enacted disqualifying statutes but now chose to make disqualification permanent through a constitutional amendment. Republican Senator Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said, “This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present…” To this end, the Amnesty Acts of 1872 and 1898 did not pardon future insurrectionists. Other evidence demonstrates that implementation of Section 3 did not require additional acts of Congress. No former Confederate instantly disqualified from holding office under Section 3 was disqualified by an act of Congress. In seeking to quash his indictment for treason, Jefferson Davis argued that he was already punished through his automatic disqualification to hold public office under Section 3, which “executes itself … It needs no legislation on the part of Congress to give it effect.” The government agreed but opposed quashing his indictment. Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase, serving as a Circuit Court judge, also agreed. Later, in Griffin’s Case, Chase seemed to take a different position. However, his ruling that Section 3 disqualification required congressional action applied only to officials lawfully in office before the states ratified the 14th Amendment.
    ……….

    Footnotes omitted, as they were in post 64..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  71. By studiously refusing to put any part of yourself into these posts, save for the occasional snark, uniformly proclaiming the inevitability of Trump, you leave one thinking that your preference is one you are unwilling to voice here.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 5:08 pm

    That’s your problem, not mine. I consistently advocated for Chris Christie, to no avail here or in the real world. But I refuse to engage in fantasies about what I wish would happen, I can only deal with the world as it is. The only inevitability about Trump is that he consistently led in the polls. No amount of wishcasting could change that.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  72. No amount of wishcasting could change that.

    Millions doing the “wishcasting” (voting) could.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  73. BTW, that argument by [black] historians effectively argues that the disqualification should not be limited to Trump.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 5:10 pm

    Not sure what argument you are talking about, the historians named in the brief in post 64 (Jill Lepore, David Blight, Drew Gilpin Faust, and John Fabian Witt) are white.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  74. There are quite a few good arguments on both sides. If the Court’s members believe that Trump instigated the insurrection (and that it WAS an insurrection), and they are convinced that proof can be obtained outside of a trial, it’s possible they will disqualify, or set clear grounds for some future disqualification. I doubt they want this coming back.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  75. @74: I misread something in the PDF title. Although the white professor of African-American studies was a surprise.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  76. No amount of wishcasting could change that.

    Millions doing the “wishcasting” (voting) could.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 5:18 pm

    Changing the subject; we’re not talking about voters, we talking about posters here. There has been a whole lot of wishcasting going on here.

    So far the voters wish for Trump, and the polls of upcoming primaries forecast much the same. As the pollster said about South Carolina,

    Another problem for Haley is that even a close second-place finish may not provide much momentum because of South Carolina’s winner-take-all delegate allocation rule. …….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  77. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/biden-takes-aim-at-grocery-stores-for-ripping-people-off-amid-continued-high-prices-played-for-suckers/ar-BB1hErFO

    President Joe Biden took aim at grocery stores, blaming them for “ripping people off” with high pricing amid the continued inflation blame game.

    President Biden’s remarks came during a speech at the South Carolina’s First in the Nation Dinner in Columbia, South Carolina.

    “Inflation is coming down. It’s now lower in America than any other major economy in the world,” Biden said. “The cost of eggs, milk, chicken, gas, and so many other essential items have come down.”

    “But for all we’ve done to bring prices down, there are still too many corporations in America ripping people off: price gouging, junk fees, greedflation, shrinkflation,” the president continued.

    Well, it’s going to stop. Americans, we’re tired of being played for suckers,” Biden said to resounding applause. “And that’s why we’re going to keep these guys — keep on them and get the prices down.”

    Ahh, here’s the communist authoritarian speaking. Threatening grocery stores for not fixing prices in his favor. He’s speaking his inner Chavez.

    Why are people supporting this SOB again?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  78. Good news – bad news

    California is about to get lots and lots of rain, and will store almost none of it.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  79. It’s NOT inflation! It’s HIGH PRICES!!11!!!

    If he is right, and every last producer is jacking up prices with abandon, then the entire capitalist system and the “invisible hand” is a fraud, and the last 250 years have been a hoax.

    Or, maybe he’s got a problem with us using our own two eyes instead of his juked stats.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  80. TVs are really cheap though.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  81. President Biden’s remarks came during a speech at the South Carolina’s First in the Nation Dinner in Columbia, South Carolina.

    First to secede, for sure.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  82. Just gotta share:
    Although I disagree with him sometimes, Kevin M is IMHO far more the ‘objective observer’ that Rip loves to imagine himself as.

    qdpsteve again (a18cf6)

  83. Of all the crimes Trump has committed against America, getting Biden elected President was by far the worst. Kamala Harris waiting in the wings, and Nikki Haley as the alternative, make it exceptionally brutal and heinous.

    nk (69ded8)

  84. qdpsteve again (a18cf6) — 2/2/2024 @ 5:33 pm

    LOL!

    Rip Murdock (28c72c)

  85. It is now guaranteed that Trump will not face his election subversion trial (or any Federal trial) in March, and possibly not until after the primaries:

    Former President Donald Trump’s federal election interference trial in Washington, D.C., will no longer begin on March 4, Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in a court order released Friday.

    It is unclear when exactly the trial will now start, but the case has been on pause for nearly two months — Trump’s team requested a stay on Dec. 7, and it was granted on Dec. 13 — which would mean the soonest the trial could start would likely be late April or early May.

    A start date in early May could easily mean the trial won’t conclude until after the Republican National Convention, scheduled for July 15-18 in Milwaukee.
    ………….
    Friday’s ruling comes as the D.C. Circuit Court has not yet decided on whether the former president is immune from prosecution. A panel of federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments on Jan. 9, and the case is on an expedited schedule.

    “The court will set a new schedule if and when the mandate is returned,” said the court order from Chutkan.
    ………….
    The elimination of the March 4 start date increases the chances that Trump’s New York case involving allegations of hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels will be the former president’s next trial. That case is currently set to start on March 25.
    ########

    >

    Rip Murdock (28c72c)

  86. First to secede, for sure.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 5:32 pm

    If at first you don’t secede, try try and try again.

    With apologies to (among others) Robert the Bruce.

    Rip Murdock (28c72c)

  87. Ultimate wish-casting:

    Got an email from the Haley campaign about being a convention delegate. Probably sent out thousands of those, and then there’s the chances, but what the heck, why not?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  88. Hopefully, no one will ask Halley about Nullification.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  89. If the SC rules against Trump, it had better be 9-0, or maybe 8-1. 5-4 just won’t work.

    If they rule FOR Trump, 5-4 would be pretty bad, too.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  90. Shooter McGavin memorializes Mr. Weathers. RIP, Chubbs.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  91. If at first you don’t secede, try try and try again.

    That is pretty much why 14.3 exists.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  92. Biden bombs Iranian targets.

    No, he bombed targets in Iraq and Syria. He didn’t attack the source, Iran, where the f-cking drones are made, so it’s a pinprick.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  93. Trump-financed astroturf. Like his hair, the union “support” is a big lie all the way down to the roots.

    Donald Trump’s campaign reportedly paid $20,000 to Drake Enterprises, a non-union auto parts shop in Clinton Township, for a rally in September.

    This payment was ostensibly for staging an event that projected an image of union support, complete with “Union Members for Trump” signs, despite the attendees being employees of the non-union company.

    This move was seen as a counteraction to President Joe Biden’s support from the UAW and his participation in a strike by auto workers.

    The financial details of this transaction were disclosed in a Federal Election Commission filing, highlighting the expenditure for the facility rental and apparent staging of the event.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  94. So reading these briefs, at least as far as the summary arguments, many of which seem the same.

    1. The “Officer of the United States” argument. This is a game-ender if it succeeds, and it seems to be a yes/no issue. There are many reasons, historical, practical — and failing the laugh test — why this pedantic argument must fail, and only Talmudic rendering of sentence structure to favor its success.

    2. Trump did not engage in insurrection, or it was not an insurrection in which he engaged. He engaged in something. That something led to the storming of Congress, invasion of both Chambers, at least two deaths, and the evacuation of the House, Senate and Vice President to secure areas. It did not end until superior force arrived.

    The goals were not achieved, but this is not an affirmative defense. A failed putsch is still a putsch. Any observer knew it for what it was. It is reasonable to term this an insurrection, and the existence of other potential insurrections does not change that.

    3. There must be proof, in a court of law, with all the bells ans whistles of due process, before participation in insurrection can be established. The respondents claim that there was such. Others say that it was only due-ish process, and in any event no objective crime was charged or proven, only that Trump seemed to be involved in what seemed to be an insurrection.

    And maybe this is the case. I dunno. But it would seem that a SC holding here that established some further process would not help Trump in the end.

    4. 14.3 is not self-executing. Even if Trump were convicted of everything he has been charged with, the only thing that Congress has instituted with a penalty of disqualification is a single crime of “insurrection”, and Trump has not been charged under that.

    Case law is mixed, and the circumstances differ. In 1868, it was easy to show that a person who had taken the federal oath had violated that oath by siding with the Confederacy — matter of records. In that situation it was self-executing and people were dismissed from office after a short hearing.

    In this case showing that Trump had engaged in insurrection requires a due process determination of some sort. It is not simply a matter of record. The respondents assert that there was such a determination and that it wasn’t even close.

    The more I read of these briefs, I see the plaintiffs case as weak, ultimately resting on a due process claim. Which Trump could lose.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  95. No, he bombed targets in Iraq and Syria.

    He bombed Iranian targets in those places. The full headline:

    U.S. Strikes Over 85 Targets at 7 Sites in Iraq and Syria Against Iran’s Forces and Proxies

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  96. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 8:57 pm

    It’s not a strike at the source of the problem, i.e., Iran. If we don’t sink their some or most of their navy or obliterate some or most of their drone manufacturing, they’ll see it as just another weak response, IMO. The Iranian theocrats need to pay, and they need to feel it.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  97. @kevin@79 There are a bunch of efforts up here in nor-cal to shove it all into various aquifers. Unfortunately there are apparently a limited number of places where you can do that properly. It seems to have something to do with the gravel to clay ratio. IDK what they are doing with it in socal.

    Nic (896fdf)

  98. From a NeverTrumper POV, the GA trial was going to be the last to happen, so Ms. Willis’ ethical shortcomings aren’t terribly relevant to the election.

    The most important and most easily provable case is in Ms. Cannon’s court but, the way she’s going, I doubt we’ll see a verdict before Election Day, and maybe not even a trial, despite the ease of the case for Special Counsel Smith.

    No, Mr. Smith will have a delayed trial on Trump’s election interference case, and it’s touch-and-go whether Trump will be convicted before Election Day, and it’s past due for the DC Circuit to make their ruling on absolute immunity.

    What it may all come down is Bragg’s case on Stormy Daniels, the weakest of them all. Trump is lucky to have such third rate detractors.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  99. For all the congressional chicken hawks and draft dodgers Sen. Chuck Hagel a vietnam war veteran said it best when he told vietnam war draft dogger and chicken hawk dead eye dick cheney If you want to go to war so bad you be on the first chopper into baghdad! Cheney like other chicken hawks decided to let others do his fighting for him. You want to attack Iran get yourself a gun and drive into Iran on the tehran highway. Any takers?

    asset (bd3881)

  100. For all the congressional chicken hawks and draft dodgers Sen. Chuck Hagel a vietnam war veteran said it best when he told vietnam war draft dogger and chicken hawk dead eye dick cheney If you want to go to war so bad you be on the first chopper into baghdad! Cheney like other chicken hawks decided to let others do his fighting for him. You want to attack Iran get yourself a gun and drive into Iran on the tehran highway.

    asset (bd3881)

  101. Here is a comparison of charge vs Fani’s response.

    https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-da-fani-willis-responds-a-closer-look-at-the-allegations-and-her-defense/LHMISQC7TNHCBPINKTTTTGCJYI/

    This does not take into account the Ashleigh Merchant reply which, frankly, looks like she wants to do a sleazy trial in a televised hearing. The legal goal she’s going for is to get her guy’s case dismissed because the RICO charge against her guy is make-work for the boy toy. Good luck with that.

    Note to Whembly — Fani Willis does the brass knuckles too.

    Appalled (c08a48)

  102. The Loser is proposing a regressive tax on Americans.

    Jim Miller (751a6b)

  103. If at first you don’t secede, try try and try again.

    That is pretty much why 14.3 exists.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/2/2024 @ 8:05 pm

    Secession and insurrection are two different things. Trump arguably attempted to commit insurrection (something he won’t be indicted for by next week), but he didn’t attempt secession.

    Rip Murdock (28c72c)

  104. It’s not a strike at the source of the problem

    Yes, and the Speaker agrees with you.

    “The tragic deaths of three U.S. troops in Jordan, perpetrated by Iran-backed militias, demanded a clear and forceful response. Unfortunately, the administration waited for a week and telegraphed to the world, including to Iran, the nature of our response,” Johnson said in a statement.

    “The public handwringing and excessive signaling undercuts our ability to put a decisive end to the barrage of attacks endured over the past few months,” he added.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  105. From the Rampell column I linked to at 103:

    Haley, who was U.N. ambassador under President Donald Trump, has finally stepped up criticism of her former boss and 2024 rival. She has attacked Trump’s cozy relationship with authoritarians, his mental fitness and his spending record.

    But perhaps her most striking line of attack was this: “This is a man who now wants to go and put 10 percent tariffs across the board, raising taxes on every single American,” Haley said Monday on CNBC. “It’s going to raise the cost of anything from baby strollers to appliances under Donald Trump. Middle-class families can’t afford that.”

    Among other things, the Loser’s tariff proposal might double the inflation rate.

    Jim Miller (751a6b)

  106. Secession and insurrection are two different things.

    Secession is simply state-level insurrection.

    The amendment, passed after the Civil War and targeted at current and future “insurrections”, dealt with both. They did not want the architects of secession back in roles of power where they could continue their agitation with further insurrections.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  107. The more I read of these briefs, I see the plaintiffs case as weak, ultimately resting on a due process claim. Which Trump could lose.

    Rephrased: The more I read of these briefs, I see the petitioners case as weak, ultimately resting on a no-due-process claim. Which Trump could lose.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  108. IDK what they are doing with it in socal.

    There have been repeated proposals to use local depressions and bowls in the low desert (see Lake Perris) for long-term storage. These fail repeatedly for two reasons: damage to the desert environment and the always-popular “even if you started now, it wouldn’t be ready for 10 years” refrain.

    Part of the problem is the myopic absolutism of the endangered species act, where no colorably-different population of a species or subspecies can be put at risk by any action, even if that action is environmentally beneficial to other endangered species. Droughts kill. And there is always some 3-spot desert toad that is different than the normal 4-spot desert toad to put a kibosh on the whole thing.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  109. The Loser is proposing a regressive tax on Americans.

    And here I disagree with Haley. A tariff is a tax, of course, but we have a lot of taxes like that. We have taxes on tobacco, both to discourage tobacco use and to fund some programs to mitigate the harms. These taxes are very regressive but that’s hardly the point.

    Is a tax on certain imports, both to discourage the purchase of those imports and to mitigate the economic damage those imports cause, any different really? They can both be seen as sin taxes.

    That some claim that tariffs are “paid” by the other country does not mean that is actual belief. It’s just that politicians are dishonest fu**s. To point out that a tax is a tax is not exactly brave, if you oppose the tax.

    The real argument to make against tariffs is not that they are a tax, but that the trade they affect is beneficial. That’s a hard argument to make as China drives everyone else out of the solar panel business by using slave labor and not having any pollution laws.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  110. It’s not a strike at the source of the problem, i.e., Iran. If we don’t sink their some or most of their navy or obliterate some or most of their drone manufacturing, they’ll see it as just another weak response, IMO. The Iranian theocrats need to pay, and they need to feel it.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/2/2024 @ 9:18 pm

    What do you think the more probable Iranian response will be-apologies for killing our soldiers, or unleashing Hezbollah (or direct Iranian missile attacks) on Israel, terrorist attacks (such as suicide bombings in theaters, airports, and malls) in Europe and the US, etc.?

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  111. Rip Murdock (b7c7da) — 2/3/2024 @ 9:54 am

    Iran has already escalated, Rip.
    Just like Putin perceived Biden weakness and became emboldened to invade Ukraine after his feckless withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iran is seeing the same thing and amping up attacks through its proxies.
    I remember a time when Peace Through Strength was actually a thing, like when Reagan shredded half of Iran’s navy in less than a day because of their belligerence. They got real quiet after that.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  112. Iran has already escalated, Rip.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/3/2024 @ 10:36 am

    Avoiding the question. If the West attacks Iran proper, do you think Iran will cease its attacks or will they escalate their retaliation and attack the West as I outlined?

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  113. Iran has been at war with us since 1979. They should have been stopped the moment they abrogated the NNPT, just like Israel stopped Saddam. Should we wait until they have a dozen bombs to hide behind?

    And really, Iranian attacks on US soil? Fear-monger much?

    How did that work for Afghanistan? Pretty sure they could have done without 2001-2017, and will be VERY unlikely to let anything of that sort happen again.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  114. I remember a time………

    That was then. Things have changed over the last 36 years. Reagan failed to retaliate after the much larger 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon (the 40th anniversary was last October), which killed 241 Americans (none died when the USS Samuel Roberts was damaged.).

    President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) believed to be training Hezbollah militants. A joint American–French air assault on the camp where the bombing was planned was also approved by Reagan and Mitterrand. U.S. Defense Secretary Weinberger lobbied successfully against the mission, because at the time it was not certain that Iran was behind the attack.
    ………….
    Eventually, it became evident that the U.S. would launch no serious and immediate retaliatory attack for the Beirut Marine barracks bombing beyond naval barrages and air strikes used to interdict continuous harassing fire from Druze and Syrian missile and artillery sites. A true retaliatory strike failed to materialize because there was a rift in White House counsel, largely between George P. Shultz of the Department of State and Weinberger of the Department of Defense, and because the extant evidence pointing at Iranian involvement was circumstantial at that time: the Islamic Jihad, which took credit for the attack, was a front for Hezbollah which was acting as a proxy for Iran, affording Iran plausible deniability.

    Secretary of State Shultz was an advocate for retaliation, but Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was against retaliation. ………

    Source. Footnotes omitted.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  115. And really, Iranian attacks on US soil? Fear-monger much?

    You criticize me for not using my imagination, and then you criticize me for thinking “outside the box.” It’s entirely possible that there are IRGC and Quds Force sleeper cells in the US right now.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  116. Watch The Siege; the terrorist attack scenario is plausible, other parts not so much (maybe).

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  117. News outside the bubble: Second republican pleads guilty to shooting at new mexico elected officials at their homes. (CNN)

    asset (b7fd5a)

  118. @111 somebody gets it.

    asset (b7fd5a)

  119. Read my post @100. War hawks Don’t let others do your fighting for you. If you want to attack Iran get your gun go to baghdad rent a jeep and get on the tehran highway. 3 african-american national guard from Georgia died. How many here who want to bomb bomb bomb Iran our african – american. Not this weekend anyway one of my young race girls Doriane Pin is racing in a formula 4 in dubai and I while she is racing the boys I don’t want her dodging rocket attacks. Doriane will be the next woman to race in formula One after 50 years un less Jamie Chadwick beat her their.

    asset (b7fd5a)

  120. Avoiding the question. If the West attacks Iran proper, do you think Iran will cease its attacks or will they escalate their retaliation and attack the West as I outlined?

    There was no avoiding. Read my response again.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  121. RIP legendary MC5 co-founder, guitarist, and singer Wayne Kramer:

    ……….
    Formed in Detroit in the mid-Sixties, MC5 (shorthand for Motor City Five) first came to prominence as the house band for left-wing rallies in the city at the time. Following a performance outside the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968, Kramer and company returned to Detroit and its Grande Ballroom in October of that year to lay down what would become their landmark album Kick Out the Jams.

    The live LP — with its rallying cry “Kick out the jams, motherf@ckers” — would ultimately land on Rolling Stone’s list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. “Kick Out the Jams writhes and screams with the belief that rock & roll is a necessary act of civil disobedience. The proof: It was banned by a Michigan department store,” Rolling Stone wrote of the album. “The MC5 proved their lefty credentials the summer before the album was recorded when they were the only band that showed up to play for the Yippies protesting the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.”
    …………

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  122. Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/3/2024 @ 1:21 pm

    I read your response, and it doesn’t address what you think Iran might do in response to a direct attack by the West. What happened 36 years ago is irrelevant.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  123. RIP actor Don Murray (94):

    ………..
    Murray was Oscar-nominated for his debut performance as Beauregard “Beau” Decker, the lovestruck cowboy who falls for Marilyn Monroe’s saloon singer Cherie in Joshua Logan’s Bus Stop, an adaptation of the William Inge play.

    A conscientious objector during the Korean War who fulfilled his service obligation by working in German and Italian refugee camps, Murray became known for building an acting career in what were once called “message” movies, films with socially responsible themes. In Fred Zinnemann’s A Hatful of Rain (1957), he played a morphine-addicted war veteran, and in 1962 starred as a closeted (and blackmailed) gay senator in Otto Preminger’s Advise & Consent.

    Numerous other films would follow, including a co-starring role opposite Steve McQueen in 1965’s Baby the Rain Must Fall. In 1972 he appeared in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes as a governor out to destroy a pair of earth-stranded apes, and in 1986 he played the father of Kathleen Turner’s title character in Peggy Sue Got Married.
    ………….

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  124. Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/3/2024 @ 1:21 pm

    If you don’t think Iran will escalate its attacks on the US (as I speculated above), that’s a perfectly valid position; but I think it’s unlikely.

    A direct attack on Iran, whether to destroy its Navy or the IRGC headquarters, and especially if downtown Tehran or Qom are bombed (as some Republican Senators have advocated) would set off massive retaliation by Iran and its proxies. I don’t think the American people or government are ready for that.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  125. I read your response, and it doesn’t address what you think Iran might do in response to a direct attack by the West. What happened 36 years ago is irrelevant.

    That’s just your opinion, based on your own personal speculation. I gave you an actual incident history and the aftermath.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  126. You criticize me for not using my imagination, and then you criticize me for thinking “outside the box.”

    No, you are so far inside the box, you can’t see the walls. Any nation which brought a campaign of terror to the USA would be at war with us in short order, just as Afghanistan was, and Iraq for standing too close.

    And as we showed in Iraq, we can bring a big war half-way around the world. It may be that we cannot win the peace afterwards, but we can sure as F kill every last person who pissed us off.

    Iran would be better off with a Pahlavi restoration anyway.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  127. A direct attack on Iran, whether to destroy its Navy or the IRGC headquarters, and especially if downtown Tehran or Qom are bombed

    I guess this is why there are so many Iraqi terrorist attacks in the US.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  128. Continuing to read the Trump v. Anderson briefs, and the respondent’s side has much the better of it. The Trump side seems to hinge their argument on the nonsensical (the president is not an officer) or the debunked (the amendment is not self-enforcing). The claim to a need for due process is well-taken, but what is needed for it to be substantive?

    Assuming that the Court doesn’t punt on some procedural arrgument, what do they do about due process?

    1. Say that the CO trial was sufficient.
    2. Say it wasn’t but _____ would be.
    3. Say only a conviction on a charge of Insurrection would qualify.

    I know that everyone says that it’s a very long shot that they’d rule against Trump, but there aren’t a lot of Trump supporters on the Court. Maybe not any, and does he really deserve the benefit of the doubt?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  129. If Trump were disqualified, the GOP race would come unstuck, of course. MAGA would have to turn its eyes elsewhere, assuming that Congress did not remove the disqualification. I doubt they’d turn to Haley.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  130. RIP US Army Captain (Ret.) and Medal of Honor recipient Larry Taylor (81):

    ……….
    Capt. Larry Taylor, 81, waited 55 years before his piloting heroics that saved the lives of four men during the Vietnam War were recognized with the nation’s highest award for military valor.
    …………
    (resident Joe Biden presented Taylor with the medal at the White House on September 5, 2023,and said in his remarks) that when he called Taylor to inform him he would receive the medal, that Taylor said, “I thought you had to do something to receive the Medal of Honor.”
    …………

    From his Medal of Honor citation:

    ……….
    First Lieutenant Larry L. Taylor distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving with Troop Delta, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 1st Infantry Division on June 18th, 1968, near the village of Ap Go Cong, Republic of Vietnam.

    On this date, First Lieutenant Taylor commanded a light fire team of two Cobra helicopter gunships scrambled on a nighttime mission in response to an urgent call for aerial fire support from a four-man, long-range patrol team.

    Upon arrival, First Lieutenant Taylor found the patrol team surrounded and heavily engaged by a larger Viet Cong force. He immediately requested illumination rounds and supporting artillery to assist with identifying the enemy positions.

    Despite intense enemy groundfire, he flew at a perilously low altitude, placing a devastating volume of aerial rocket and machine gun fire on the enemy forces encircling the friendly patrol.

    For over approximately 45 minutes, First Lieutenant Taylor and his wingman continued to make low-level, danger-close attack runs on the surrounding enemy positions.
    ………….
    (Taylor) continued to circle it at a low level under intense enemy fire, employing his searchlight to make fake gun runs on the enemy positions to distract them from the patrol team.

    Running low on fuel and with the patrol team nearly out of ammunition, First Lieutenant Taylor decided to extract the team with his two-man Cobra helicopter gunship — a feat never before accomplished.
    …………
    He directed the patrol team to move 100 yards towards the extraction point, where First Lieutenant Taylor, still under enemy fire, landed his helicopter and instructed the patrol team to climb aboard anywhere they could.

    With the four-man, long-range patrol teams seated on rocket pods and skids, he evacuated them to the nearest friendly location, undoubtedly saving their lives.

    First Lieutenant Taylor’s conspicuous gallantry, his profound concern for his fellow soldiers, and his intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

    Taylor’s other personal decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross (4), Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal (43), and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with 2 bronze stars.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  131. That’s just your opinion, based on your own personal speculation. I gave you an actual incident history and the aftermath.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/3/2024 @ 1:51 pm

    Apparently the destruction of the Iranian Navy didn’t take, and Reagan’s failure to respond to Marine barracks bombing convinced Iran the US wouldn’t respond to a much more deadly attack.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  132. Tucker Carlson is in Moscow, home to Vlad the Butcher, presumably awaiting instructions.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  133. That’s just your opinion…….

    That’s right, and I’m asking for yours, but apparently you don’t have one.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  134. A direct attack on Iran, whether to destroy its Navy or the IRGC headquarters, and especially if downtown Tehran or Qom are bombed

    I guess this is why there are so many Iraqi terrorist attacks in the US.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/3/2024 @ 1:57 pm

    Don’t be obtuse. The US hasn’t done anything like that……yet.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  135. Just because Iran behaved one way 36 years ago doesn’t mean they will behave the same way know.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  136. If Trump were disqualified, the GOP race would come unstuck, of course. MAGA would have to turn its eyes elsewhere, assuming that Congress did not remove the disqualification. I doubt they’d turn to Haley.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/3/2024 @ 2:18 pm

    As I have been saying all along.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  137. That’s right, and I’m asking for yours, but apparently you don’t have one.

    Except I gave you one. This isn’t hard.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  138. I guess we’ll find out over the next several months.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  139. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/3/2024 @ 1:56 pm

    We’ll see.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  140. If Trump were disqualified, the GOP race would come unstuck, of course. MAGA would have to turn its eyes elsewhere, assuming that Congress did not remove the disqualification. I doubt they’d turn to Haley.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/3/2024 @ 2:18 pm

    If Trump is disqualified in only a few minor states, but has enough convention delegates to be nominated, I would expect a split, with Trump’s delegates walking out, followed by an independent presidential campaign. The remaining delegates could nominate Haley, but who knows?

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  141. Correction to post 131:

    (President Joe Biden presented Taylor with the medal at the White House on September 5, 2023,and said in his remarks) ……..

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  142. Can we get real? The Democrats did not install Ronna McDaniel as Chair of the RNC, engage in nine years of smears and lawfare to dirty up Trump (including two phony impeachments), and get the Pentagon to fix the Super Bowl and coopt Taylor Swift, in order to have Biden running against anybody other than Trump. Only Trump can get Biden reelected and the Democrats are not going to allow anything or anybody to keep him from being the Republican nominee.

    nk (0f57ec)

  143. “but there aren’t a lot of Trump supporters on the Court”

    I figure all are 3-digit IQ’s. Spouses I don’t know….

    AJ_Liberty (0a0925)

  144. #110 Haley did not say that the tariffs proposed by the Loser are regressive, I did.

    The point isn’t hard to understand, though perhaps I should have said something more nuanced, like “regressive in their likely impact”.

    Tariffs are, in effect, a sales tax on imported goods. Since poor people generally save little, they pay a higher proportion of their income with most sales taxes, compared to the rich.

    (Here’s a much fuller explanation.)

    Jim Miller (dd40b3)

  145. Sixty-five years ago today

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  146. Democrats are not going to allow anything or anybody to keep him from being the Republican nominee.

    nk (0f57ec) — 2/3/2024 @ 3:05 pm

    Or Republican voters.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  147. Alvin Bragg presses charges, gets b!tch slapped

    A judge blasted Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for trying to throw the book at two New Yorkers who bought fake COVID-19 vaccine cards — despite routinely going easy on others charged with far more serious crimes.

    In a ruling issued this week, state Supreme Court Justice Brendan T. Lantry dismissed felony charges against the pair, who were not publicly identified, calling the case overkill.

    J.O., a nursing student, and R.V., an employee with the city Department of Environmental Protection, were among hundreds accused of buying fake vaccination cards from a New Jersey stripper, Jasmine Clifford.

    The two were among just 16 people Bragg’s office “cherry-picked” to prosecute and charge with felony criminal possession of a forged instrument, the judge said.

    Fourteen pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, but J.O. and R.V. moved to dismiss the charges, prompting the DA’s office to contest the effort — and sparking outrage from the jurist.

    Bragg’s office “routinely — nearly daily — move[s] to dismiss significantly more serious counts or entire indictments” to avoid harsher penalties for previously convicted felons or to avoid jeopardizing people’s immigration status, the judge wrote in an opinion issued Tuesday.

    “These motions submitted [by Bragg and his prosecutors] are made months or even years after the 45-day period has expired to dismiss . . . sexual assaults, drug sales, robbery, burglary, and other violent and non-violent serious felony offenses.”

    City Council Minority Leader Joseph Borelli (R-Staten Island) cheered the judge, who is the former chairman of Staten Island’s Republican Party, while pointing out that one of the defendants got the forged card to maintain her nursing school enrollment only to get the jab anyway.

    “This is what Alvin Bragg is — a clown,” Borelli told The Post. “Imagine prosecuting a scared woman for this, even though she didn’t even use the fake card, while at the same time letting violent perps go. I’m glad the judge called him out for the world to see.”

    As for Bragg’s violent perps who assaulted NYPD:

    Gomez, Arocha, Juarez and Reveron were reportedly charged with assault and released without bail.

    A law enforcement source told the New York Post that the group recently fled to California after giving fake names to a nonprofit group that transports migrants, and that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol have since issued warrants for the men.

    Bragg still has his NeverTrump MVP credentials going for him.

    lloyd (556417)

  148. The only “invisible hands” were the business interests writing checks to Milton Friedman to keep on being their propagandist. The only rule merchants follow is “whatever the market will bear”. The maximum price that they can sell their goods for.

    Americans are consumers. In both senses of the word. We eat a lot and we buy a lot of gee-gaws. Up to the maximum price we are in a position to pay, and for some there are credit cards too. Whether it’s eggs or iPhones.

    Biden figures that Americans will pay a 10% additional markup and it can either go into the Treasury or into the merchants’ profit margins. And he’d rather have it go into the Treasury. Because, in the absence of a tariff, the merchants will not hesitate one second to impose a 10% markup if they think that “the market will bear it”.

    nk (72c3e0)

  149. Bragg still has his NeverTrump MVP credentials going for him.

    lloyd (556417) — 2/3/2024 @ 4:43 pm

    That’s all he needs to some. They would support the most evil entity possible if it’s to “stop Trump.”

    I also see it’s complete radio silence on a Republican blogger/liberty lawyer whose office was fire-bombed by likely leftists to shut him and his organization up. Not a word.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  150. Trump’s delegates walking out, followed by an independent presidential campaign.

    Most states bar an independent and/or third party candidate from the general election ballot who previously participated in a party primary. Only Iowa, Connecticut and New York lack such laws.

    https://ballotpedia.org/When_states_adopted_sore_loser_laws

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  151. If Trump was disqualified from the office, it wouldn’t matter what he wanted to do. I would not expect a narrow SC decision favoring Colorado’s unique case, as that would just be chaos. It’s going to be a broad decision, one way or the other. If they do a narrow one, they’ll be back at it before spring.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  152. Tucker Carlson is in Moscow, home to Vlad the Butcher, presumably awaiting instructions.

    An oil change and a tune-up. Or maybe he’s negotiating Trump’s defection.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  153. I guess this is why there are so many Iraqi terrorist attacks in the US.

    Don’t be obtuse. The US hasn’t done anything like that……yet.

    I’m pretty sure we bombed the heck out of Baghdad, with plenty of casualties. We killed a lot of their troops and hanged their government. And yet, no terrorist attacks here at home. We made it pretty clear that we would not stand for it after 9/11. Of course, Biden may be different than W, word is he opposed the raid that killed bin Laden.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  154. I figure all are 3-digit IQ’s.

    God, I hope so. I’d want to believe it was 140+, but I confess there is at least one clunker.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  155. Tariffs are, in effect, a sales tax on imported goods.

    There are better understood as a sin tax. You may disagree about the “sin”, but that’s normal with sin taxes. Their job is to punish or discourage people from buying the product and sometimes to redress harms.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  156. (Here’s a much fuller explanation.)

    Why don’t you just call us all dummies?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  157. Bragg still has his NeverTrump MVP credentials going for him.

    Yeah, all NeverTrump is just like Bragg. Just like all Trump’s supporters are like Klansmen.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  158. The only rule merchants follow is “whatever the market will bear”. The maximum price that they can sell their goods for.

    Unless, or course, they want to sell more than the other guy. Then they charge slightly less. Repeat as necessary. It’s the reason gas prices come down.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  159. @122 Thanks for the information.

    asset (17ea45)

  160. @146 This is why the rich want to do away with income tax and institute national sales tax. In az poor people on minimum wage pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes and fees, then do the rich. State income tax is nearly a flat tax.

    asset (17ea45)

  161. @151 When it happens to my side your side says they probably did it themselves! As I posted earlier second republican pleads guilty to shooting at democrat elected officials in their home. (DU) (CNN) At the time it happened democrats were accused of doing it themselves. joe pags show for one and their were others

    asset (17ea45)

  162. Sixty-five years ago today

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da) — 2/3/2024 @ 4:06 pm

    And Waylon Jennings took the bus instead (there is a Netflix doc about the 1985 We are the World recording session where Waylon quit because they were going to do verses in Swahili)!

    But whew! Im probably not the only one who clicked on this and expected a space exploration milestone instead.

    urbanleftbehind (6b10c0)

  163. Mike Lee
    @BasedMikeLee
    Earlier today, a reporter standing outside the Senate chamber told me that, after four months of secrecy, The Firm™️ plans to release the text of the $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package—possibly as soon as tomorrow.

    Wasting no time, she then asked, “if you get the bill by tomorrow, will you be ready to vote on it by Tuesday?”

    The words “hell no” escaped my mouth before I could stop them. Those are strong words where I come from. (Sorry, Mom).

    The reporter immediately understood that my frustration was not directed at her.

    Rather, it was directed at the Law Firm of Schumer & McConnell (“The Firm™️”), which is perpetually trying to normalize a corrupt approach to legislating—in which The Firm™️

    (1) spends months drafting legislation in complete secrecy,

    (2) aggressively markets that legislation based not on its details and practical implications (good and bad), but only on its broadest, least-controversial objectives,

    (3) lets members see bill text for the first time only a few days (sometimes a few hours) before an arbitrary deadline imposed by The Firm™️ itself, always with a contrived sense of urgency, and then

    (4) forces a vote on the legislation on or before that deadline, denying senators any real opportunity to read, digest, and debate the measure on its merits, much less introduce, consider, and vote on amendments to fix any perceived problems with the bill or otherwise improve it.

    Whenever The Firm™️ engages in this practice, it largely excludes nearly every senator from the constitutionally prescribed process in which all senators are supposed to participate.

    By so doing, The Firm™️ effectively disenfranchises hundreds of millions of Americans—at least for purposes relevant to the legislation at hand—and that’s tragic.

    It’s also unAmerican, uncivil, uncollegial, and really uncool.

    So why does The Firm™️ do it?

    Every time The Firm™️ utilizes this approach and the bill passes—and it nearly always does—The Firm™️ becomes more powerful.

    The high success rate is largely attributable to the fact that The Firm™️ has become very adept at (a) enlisting the help of the (freakishly cooperative) news media, (b) exerting peer pressure in a way that makes what you experienced in middle school look mild by comparison, and (c) rewarding those who consistently vote with The Firm™️ with various privileges that The Firm™️ is uniquely capable of offering (committee assignments, help with campaign fundraising, and a whole host of other widely coveted things that The Firm™️ is free to distribute in any manner it pleases).

    It’s through this process that The Firm™️ passes most major spending legislation.

    It’s through this process that The Firm™️ likely intends to pass the still-secret, $106 billion supplemental aid / border-security package, which The Firm™️ has spent four months negotiating, with the luxury of obsessing over every sentence, word, period, and comma.

    I still don’t know exactly what’s in this bill, although I have serious concerns with it based on the few details The Firm™️ has been willing to share.

    But under no circumstances should this bill — which would fund military operations in three distant parts of the world and make massive, permanent changes to immigration law — be passed next week.

    Nor should it be passed until we have had adequate time to read the bill, discuss it with constituents, debate it, offer amendments, and vote on those amendments.

    There’s no universe in which those things will happen by next week.

    Depending on how long it is and the complexity of its provisions, the minimum period of time we should devote to this bill after it’s released should be measured in weeks or months, not days or hours.

    https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1753180993815523601?

    He’s 100% right of course.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  164. I thought McConnell did not want to undermine Captain Moroni’s key issue, either, at this point.

    nk (271185)

  165. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/3/2024 @ 5:47 pm

    I would not expect a narrow SC decision favoring Colorado’s unique case, as that would just be chaos. It’s going to be a broad decision, one way or the other. If they do a narrow one, they’ll be back at it before spring.

    You can have a narrow decision overturning th Colorado decision.”Most probably the Supreme Court will say the case isn’t ripe and won’t be ripe until and unless Trump is elected president (or Congress votes him disqualified) next January, It could also say astate could pass anew law removing Trump from the ballot in that state and whether electors can defect to Trump will be a matter for consideration if it happens,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  166. 1. Say that the CO trial was sufficient.
    2. Say it wasn’t but _____ would be.
    3. Say only a conviction on a charge of Insurrection would qualify.

    Say only a federal court can determine that, and there is no need to decide it until after a president is elected and the proper time is between the commpletion of the election and the inauguration.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  167. Sammy, I bet you $100 against a jelly donut that the justices do not want to put the decision off if they can avoid it, and VERY MUCH do not want to disqualify a president-elect.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  168. Sammy, who did you vote for in 2012 and 2016?

    AJ_Liberty (0a0925)

  169. @165 Good for Mike Lee. A party that puts drunk driving illegal migrants ahead of American interests can’t be trusted with a rushed border deal, or likely any border deal. As usual, the media will run interference and Nevertrump will buy into it.

    lloyd (04f091)

  170. AJ_Liberty (0a0925) — 2/4/2024 @ 8:50 am

    Sammy, who did you vote for in 2012 and 2016?

    I believe Romney and a probably spoiled vote for Paul Ryan in 2016, at the suggestion of Assemblyman Dov Hikind (who when I asked him if that would be counted, admitted he didn’t know!)

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  171. Does Trump look like Elvis?

    Former President Donald Trump shared a strange post on social media asking his followers if they think he resembles Elvis Presley.

    In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump shared a photo of half of his face spliced with the King of Rock and Roll’s face.

    He wrote: “For so many years, people have been saying that Elvis and I look alike. Now this pic has been going all over the place. What do you think?”

    Trump is a national cognitive test.

    nk (61807e)

  172. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/4/2024 @ 8:47 am

    Sammy, I bet you $100 against a jelly donut that the justices do not want to put the decision off if they can avoid it, and VERY MUCH do not want to disqualify a president-elect.

    I think they do want to put the decision off, in the hopes hey can avoid it altogether – and that enough of them are not good at making political prognostications. I do think they VERY MUCH do not want to disqualify a president-elect, and they will avoid that if at all possible.

    Besides, the Democrats will also sue to invalidate the election of (Elise Stefanik or whoever) as Vice President, (or else it would be almost pointless as Trump could mostly govern from a back room) on the grounds that, by favoring clemency for Jan 6 conspirators, she too, (after the fact) gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the constitution (see 14th amendment text)

    It will be hard to distingi=uish the two cases, as far as ruling on a preliminary basis.

    What the Supreme Court will do is hint, now, that they could disqualify a president after an election, but they are extremely unlikely to go through with it if it comes to that.

    Instead of a jelly donut what about a green banana?.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  173. Those who don’t react to every Trump post probably win the cognitive test.

    lloyd (04f091)

  174. Those who don’t react to every Trump post probably win the cognitive test.

    Oh yeah!?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  175. appalled @15:

    There has been a big conspiracy theory that Willis developed this trial so she could get boyfriend Wade a soft gig. Merchant implies this in her filing, and our own Mr. Finkelman started offering theories along those lines.

    Yes, I said that the minor defendants have a better case and it could be that she made such a big case because of that,

    Willis specifically denies they were having a romantic relationship wen he was selected. Wade also indicates that he took a significant revenue hit in taking the case.

    But now I have an idea that fits the facts better:

    Willis gave Wade the gig so that they could spend more time together.

    Corroborating evidence: Wade filed for divorce the day after he got the gig.

    (They weren’t ina “relationship” when he was hired, but they knew each other for several years.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  176. Trump is a national cognitive test.

    No, he’s a test of where you live, what credentials you hold, how much you like office work, your view of your future and what the powers that be have done to you.

    People can be disaffected and still be compos mentis, and the elites that pushed the Romneys, Clintons, Obamas and Woke culture on us have a lot to answer for themselves.

    Sure, Trump is an asssh0le, but sometimes you want someone like that aimed at those who are fracking you.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  177. Note: I admit that the “elite” have been very very good to me, but that does not mean that I can’t see the other POV.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  178. What do I think? I think you’re a flipping lunatic.

    For so many years people have been saying that Elvis and I look alike. Now this pic has been going all over the place. What do you think?

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  179. When it happens to my side your side says they probably did it themselves! As I posted earlier second republican pleads guilty to shooting at democrat elected officials in their home. (DU) (CNN) At the time it happened democrats were accused of doing it themselves. joe pags show for one and their were others

    asset (17ea45) — 2/3/2024 @ 7:06 pm

    Your side likes to do Jussie Smoletting and they also like committing arson.

    NJRob (90d161)

  180. Nikki Haley gets her one-on-one debate with Donald Trump.

    And it’s about as close as she’ll ever get.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  181. They weren’t ina “relationship” when he was hired, but they knew each other for several years

    Source?

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  182. Sock it to him!*

    SNL Cold Open with Trump in South Carolina

    (special guest star)

    ——
    *classical reference

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  183. @180:

    Dress Trump up in white and sequins and I think he’d look more like Liberace.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  184. Did you know that there is no party registration in South Carolina? Presidential Primaries are open to all registered S.C. voters.

    https://scvotes.gov/voters/voter-faq/

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  185. Kevin, I often think of the alternative reality (where I wish to you) with non-senile and decent candidates from each party, battling it out over policy issues without all the craziness.

    What do you see for such a match up? I understand that the system no longer allows non-nutty deluxe people to run, but what if?

    Simon Jester (69c7b2)

  186. At this point, I’d go with Haley vs Newsom. On a scale of 1 to 10, what we have now is a 1 vs a 2. Haley vs Newsom are both over a 5, with some alteration for political preference.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  187. It boggles my mind that RFK, Jr might be the alternative.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  188. Simon, you’re in the ed biz. Where did we go wrong?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  189. I guess this is why there are so many Iraqi terrorist attacks in the US.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/3/2024 @ 1:57 pm

    Non-sequitor. There are nearly 10,000 Iranian “students” in United States, undoubtedly including hundreds of IRGC and Quds force operatives. What Iraq did or didn’t do in retaliation of the US invasion is irrelevant.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  190. alternative reality

    Jan 6, 2021, President Romney gives his farewell address after 8 years of unbridled prosperity.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  191. Did you know that there is no party registration in South Carolina? Presidential Primaries are open to all registered S.C. voters.

    https://scvotes.gov/voters/voter-faq/

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/4/2024 @ 11:03 am

    Unless you voted in yesterday’s Democratic primary.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  192. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/4/2024 @ 10:58 am

    That’s as close as Haley will ever get to debating Trump.

    Comedy gold!

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  193. Kevin, we let weirdo ideas corrupt education. That isn’t code for “disagree with me.” You should hear the bizarre things that are now acceptable.

    I recommend “The Canceling of the American Mind” by Greg Lukianoff and Ricki Schott.

    Absolutely Haley vs Newsome.

    There have been fine choices in the past. I fear for the future.

    I sometimes think we are one of the very dark “alternaties” in Michael Kube-McDowell’s “Alternities.”

    http://alternities.com/wp/?page_id=174

    Simon Jester (69c7b2)

  194. CNN General Election Poll2/1/24:

    ……….
    Overall, 49% of registered voters say they would back Trump if an election between the two were held today, while 45% support Biden and 5% say they’d vote for someone else. Those numbers are identical to CNN polling on the contest in the fall, and the demographic dynamics of the contest appear to be steady – with a wide education gap among the most notable demographic divides, and smaller differences by age or race than in other recent presidential elections.
    ………….
    A month into the election year, there are few signs of movement in how the public views either candidate. Both Trump and Biden continue to be deeply underwater in favorability ratings (59% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Biden and 55% have a negative take on Trump), and many say that Biden does not deserve reelection (66%). Americans largely see Trump’s views and policies as “too extreme” (63%), while most see Biden’s views and policies as “generally mainstream” (61%).
    …………..
    Polling consistently shows that the idea of a third party or independent candidate for president is popular, but in reality, third-party bids rarely generate as much support as pre-election polling would suggest.

    The pull of party loyalty comes through in the poll’s broad majorities who say they would be content should their party’s likely nominee win. ……….
    ………..
    ……….. Trump’s last remaining major GOP opponent, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, holds a clear lead over Biden among voters nationwide in another hypothetical general election scenario: 52% support her compared with 39% for Biden. ………..

    Still, many Americans say they don’t know enough about Haley to have an opinion of her (42%). Those who do currently break more negative than positive, 32% unfavorable to 25% favorable.
    ………….
    …………About 7 in 10 (72%) Republican-aligned voters say the party has a better chance to win the White House with Trump at the top of the ticket than someone else, and 57% say they would be enthusiastic should he become president again. And most Republican-aligned voters view Trump as generally mainstream (62%) rather than too extreme (37%). ……..

    Haley faces more pessimism among the potential Republican electorate about her chances to win. ………

    Among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, her favorability rating lags far behind Trump’s: 31% have a favorable view of Haley, compared with 71% who have a positive view of Trump.
    ………….

    Poll crosstabs.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  195. Post 196 should have been blockquoted.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  196. Unless you voted in yesterday’s Democratic primary.

    Indeed. A big contest that.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  197. Quinnipiac University General Election Poll 1/31/24:

    As signs point to the 2024 presidential election being a repeat of the 2020 race between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Biden holds a lead over Trump 50 – 44 percent among registered voters in a hypothetical general election matchup……….
    ………….
    In today’s poll, Democrats (96 – 2 percent) and independents (52 – 40 percent) support Biden, while Republicans (91 – 7 percent) support Trump.
    ………….
    Women 58 – 36 percent support Biden, up from December when it was 53 – 41 percent.

    Men 53 – 42 percent support Trump, largely unchanged from December when it was 51 – 41 percent.
    ………….
    In a five-person hypothetical 2024 general election matchup that includes independent and Green Party candidates, Biden receives 39 percent support, Trump receives 37 percent support, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. receives 14 percent support, independent candidate Cornel West receives 3 percent support, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein receives 2 percent support.
    …………
    In a hypothetical 2024 general election matchup between President Biden and Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, a former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Governor, 47 percent of voters support Haley and 42 percent support Biden.
    ………….
    With the 2024 Republican presidential primary now whittled down to two candidates, 77 percent of Republican and Republican leaning voters support Trump and 21 percent support Haley. In December’s poll with more candidates in the race, Trump received 67 percent support and Haley received 11 percent support.
    ………….

    Poll crosstabs.

    Rip Murdock (b7c7da)

  198. Polls comparing Trump’s standing versus Haley’s in a match up against Biden are meaningless, because Haley is not the presumptive nominee. If she were, she’d suddenly become the main target of the media/Democrats and she’d wilt like a hothouse flower, as would her poll numbers. See McCain 2008.

    lloyd (81296d)

  199. “Never tell me the odds”

    — Han Solo

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  200. See McCain 2008.

    McCain folded because he was a boob. He knew less than nothing about financial matters, but when the market crashed, he suspended his campaign to rush back to DC to “help” the grown-ups and was publicly rebuffed. If only it had been Romney.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  201. Obama knew as little, but he didn’t run to center state to demonstrate that.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  202. Could’ve had Cruz in 2016, but the establishment said no and pushed Kasich and Trump rather than support a conservative. We know how that worked out.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  203. It took more than 24 hours, but Nikki Haley walked back her secession comments on CNN’s State of the Union:

    DANA BASH: On a related topic, this week, you told radio host Charlamagne tha God that you believe states have the right to secede from the union. Now, I know you have said that is unlikely, but this is a pretty important issue that I want you to clarify as somebody who wants to be president.

    Do you really think individual states have the right to leave the USA?

    HALEY: Well, he was talking about a conversation from a dozen, 13 years ago during the time when I was a Tea Party candidate. States were very upset about government control. They were very upset about government spending.
    ………….
    No one is talking about seceding. That’s not an issue at all. ……….
    BASH: I didn’t realize this, but the current Texas Republican Party platform that was added in 2022 does call for a statewide voter referendum on whether Texas should — quote — “reassert its status as an independent nation.” So I just, again, want to — because this is such a foundational issue, I want to clarify for voters. You want to be president of the United States. Do you think that any state has a right to secede?

    HALEY: No. According to the Constitution, they can’t.

    What I do think they have the right to do is have the power to protect themselves and do all that. Texas has talked about — talks about seceding for a long time. The Constitution doesn’t allow for that. But what I will say is, what’s the — where’s that coming from? That’s coming from the fact that people don’t think that government is listening to them.
    ………….

    As a reminder, here is what Haley said about secession in 2024; and here is what she said in 2010:

    …………
    When asked about secession, Haley said that while she believed under the Constitution that states have the right to secede from the rest of the country. When asked if she would support the seccession of South Carolina, which was the first state to secede during the Civil War, she said she did not think “it’s gonna get to that point.”

    “The Union, I think that they do,” Haley inaccurately said. “I mean, the Constitution says that.”
    …………

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  204. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/4/2024 @ 11:03 am

    Did you know that there is no party registration in South Carolina? Presidential Primaries are open to all registered S.C. voters.

    South Carolina is the only state where the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries are held on separate dates. The Dem primary on Feb.3, and the Rep. primary on Feb. 24. South Carolina is one of the few states (another is Louisiana) that tends to hold elections on Saturdays.

    A person cannot vote in both primaries but the choice of party expires with that.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  205. Rip Murdock (68deca) — 2/4/2024 @ 1:22 pm

    I’m confused-what’s her position again? The one from 2010 and reiterated last week, or her stance today (Sunday)?

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  206. I read that in a 3-person race involving Trump, Biden and Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley was polling at 12%. But that’s all affected by people thinking about whom other people will vote for.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  207. Polls comparing Trump’s standing versus Haley’s in a match up against Biden are meaningless, because Haley is not the presumptive nominee.

    I agree, these polls are extremely hypothetical.

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  208. I read that in a 3-person race involving Trump, Biden and Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley was polling at 12%. But that’s all affected by people thinking about whom other people will vote for.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 2/4/2024 @ 1:27 pm

    It’s also never going to happen.

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  209. Could’ve had Cruz in 2016

    We may have him in 2024 if the SC boots Trump. I guarantee you that MAGA will have a few words to say.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  210. I’m confused-what’s her position again? The one from 2010 and reiterated last week, or her stance today (Sunday)?

    Two different ideas a mere 14 years apart? Horrors!

    “Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said. ‘One can’t believe impossible things.’

    I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the [White] Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast….”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  211. But count on Rip to hold politicians he doesn’t like to their exact words in long interviews — even ones where they are repeatedly asked a question until the gaffe appears — while ignoring the silly mistakes of those politicians he likes. Oh, wait, it’s just the polls.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  212. Stupid people make their mind up and stick with it, because it was so hard the first time.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  213. “Former President Donald Trump shared a strange post on social media asking his followers if they think he resembles Elvis Presley.”

    Maybe fat Elvis….hopefully soon dead Elvis on the crapper….but that would violate the karma-crushing penalty of death wishing. I’m sure Trump is just pinging the normal-verse so they will obligingly give him a ping back.

    It would be nice to ignore the man or that shear dumb-assery would eventually render him…like the pillow guy…irrelevant. But apparently this is democracy in its purest form. The people want a man of the people….with a billion dollars and a model for a wife…errr, 3rd wife. Crude, mean, mendacious, and spiteful. It’s the new list of what appeals in Republican leaders. Yeah yeah I know….it’s the policies…and how you get there is just the sausage making. But character is destiny. When you need a leader is when you start to see the deficits…and hear injections of disinfectant to beat coronavirus….and shady deals for personal benefit.

    But the alternative is worse…apparently. Whether its flip-a-coin Haley or Senile-Joe. The people have spoken and we need to give it to them…good and hard. At this point, I just want there to be massive accountability. If we are heading down the black-diamond-slope on one ski, blindfolded, and inebriated….then I want it clear who pushed us clear of the green-slope for their 30 coins and jollies.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  214. Rip Murdock (68deca) — 2/4/2024 @ 1:26 pm

    Politicians change stances. It’s hopelessly idealistic to expect otherwise. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    norcal (053dda)

  215. They weren’t in a “relationship” when he was hired, but they knew each other for several years

    183. Rip Murdock @ 10:46 am

    Source?

    It’s right there in her statement:

    https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-fulton-special-prosecutor-admits-personal-relationship-with-da-in-trump-case/YOPP3SAOJVHUDESW3RR6UWTB2E

    Willis and Wade had been friends since 2019, according to the DA’s office, but were not involved in a personal relationship until after he was hired to lead the Trump case in November 2021.

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  216. Rip Murdock (68deca) — 2/4/2024 @ 1:39 pm

    It’s also never going to happen.

    According to a comment here, all but 3 states disqualify a person who ran in a primary for presidet from running in the general election on a third party line but I don’t know if that’s true. Or will hold up. Deends on the wording probably.\\Instead of Haey you could substitute other names in a poll (if they were famous)

    Sammy Finkelman (b434ee)

  217. that would violate the karma-crushing penalty of death wishing

    I usually follow that rule, but here I make an exception.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  218. I would dearly love it if a presidential candidate had all of my views and nothing I didn’t like. But I accept some imperfection. It’s always about the lesser of two weevils.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  219. I don’t know if that’s true. Or will hold up

    That comment had a link, and at that link there was a discussion of failed attempts to run anyway.

    The only thing you can do is run a write-in campaign, as the courts have ruled they must offer that path. And good luck.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  220. And, contradicting myself in only 2 minutes:

    https://ballotpedia.org/Sore_loser_laws_for_presidential_candidates,_2016

    Some states bar candidates who sought, but failed, to secure the nomination of a political party from running as independents in the general election. These restrictions are sometimes called sore loser laws. Richard Winger, editor and publisher of Ballot Access News, has argued that, generally speaking, “sore loser laws have been construed not to apply to presidential primaries.” In August 2015, Winger compiled a list of precedents supporting this interpretation. He argued that in 43 of the 45 states with sore loser laws on the books, the laws do not seem to apply to presidential candidates. Winger claimed that sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates in only two states: South Dakota and Texas. See the table below for further details

    Very long table of precedents at link

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  221. The asylum farce isn’t just a US thing

    Police are looking for Abdul Shokoor Ezedi, 35, who was last seen in north London on Wednesday evening. A mother and her three-year-old daughter hurt by the corrosive substance could have suffered “life-changing” injuries in the attack.

    The 31-year-old woman and her daughter remain in hospital, along with her older daughter, eight.
    Five police officers were injured as they responded, as were four members of the public who tried to help.

    The attack took place near Clapham Common at about 19:25 on Wednesday.
    The suspect attempted to escape the scene in a car but crashed into a stationary vehicle, then ran.
    One witness described seeing the suspect lift a young child over his head and throw her onto the ground like a “ragdoll”, telling the BBC the incident was like a “horror movie”.

    In 2018, Ezedi was convicted of one charge of sexual assault and one of exposure, before being granted asylum in 2020. He received a nine-week jail term suspended for two years for the sexual assault and, for the exposure, 36 weeks’ imprisonment to be served consecutively, also suspended for two years.

    Ezedi made his first unsuccessful asylum application in 2016. He later tried a second time and said he had converted to Christianity, meaning he would have been at risk if he returned to Afghanistan.
    After this second claim was refused, he appealed against the decision and a tribunal overturned it in 2020, having heard from a church witness who said he believed that Ezedi had converted to Christianity.

    MP Jonathan Gullis, on Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby: “’Woke Welby’ has enabled political activists within the clergy to help illegal economic migrants, predominantly young single men, secure the right to permanently remain in the UK with this so called ‘guidance’.

    “What this proves to the British public is that lefty lawyers, Sir Keir Starmer, attention-seeking celebrities, and the Church of England are happy to leave our borders wide open – undermining our national security, and helping the smuggling gangs continue their disgusting trade of human life.”

    Sound familiar?

    lloyd (2aa6e7)

  222. https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/02/muslims-in-dearborn-michigan-celebrated-the-events-of-october-7th/

    Welcome to Dearborn, America’s Jihad Capital

    Thousands march in support of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Protesters, many with kaffiyehs covering their faces, shout “Intifada, intifada,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “America is a terrorist state.” Local imams give fiery antisemitic sermons. This isn’t the Middle East. It’s the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, Mich.

    Almost immediately after Oct. 7, and long before Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza, people were celebrating the horrific events of that day in pro-Hamas rallies and marches throughout Dearborn. A local headline describing an Oct. 10 event at the Ford Performing Arts Center read “Michigan rally cheers Hamas attack.” Imam Imran Salha of Dearborn’s Islamic Center of Detroit told the crowd that Israel’s past actions have put “fire in our hearts that will burn that state”—Israel— “until its demise.” In May 2023, Mr. Salha had urged his congregation to say “amen” in agreement with his prayer that Allah “eradicate from existence” the “sick, disgusting Zionist regime.” In October 2022, according to the Washington Free Beacon, his organization received $150,000 in funding from the Homeland Security Department’s nonprofit security grants program.

    At another rally, held Oct. 14 in front of the Henry Ford Centennial Library, Imam Usama Abdulghani also didn’t hide his support for Hamas’s terrorist actions. The American-born, Iranian-educated Shiite Islamic scholar called Oct. 7 “one of the days of God” and a “miracle come true.” He described the attackers as “honorable.” He said they were “lions” defending “the entire nation of Muhammad the messenger.”

    Local enthusiasm for jihad against Israel and the West extends beyond celebration of Hamas. The Islamic Center of America, a leading Dearborn mosque, held a memorial service on Dec. 30 for a Hezbollah operative killed in an Israeli airstrike. The Hadi Institute, which runs an Islamic Montessori school and bills itself as a youth community center, held a “Commemoration of the Martyrs” on Jan. 5. This event honored Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, leader of the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. Both men were on the U.S. list of designated terrorists when they were killed in a U.S. airstrike on Jan. 3, 2020. The commemoration included poetry and praise, along with claims about ISIS being operated by both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Mossad. Imam Abdulghani used his remarks to express his “warmest congratulations” to “our very special leader, Imam Khamenei”—essentially declaring allegiance to the Iranian ayatollah who regularly calls for the destruction of the U.S.

    What is to be done?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  223. Perhaps the House should re-create the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which was first formed to combat Naziism and Stalinism prior to WW2.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  224. The committee was correct. That’s never discussed.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  225. The 370 page Senate border deal appears to have been hammered out. Anyone can wade through it, but why bother? According to The Hill:

    The deal includes provisions to raise standards for asylum screening and to process claims faster, ends the practice known as “catch and release,” and provides a new authority to close the border to most migrants when crossings reach a set threshold. It also seeks to make it easier for migrants to get work authorization and eliminate the immigration court backlog.

    First, the president can end catch and release himself. He doesn’t need a bill to do that. It was gone under Trump and Biden reinstated it on day one. When the bill goes nowhere in the House, he’ll lie and say catch and release is continuing because the bill didn’t pass, and the media will buy it.

    Second, an authority to close the border once a threshold is reached implies they can close the border. Therefore, why is there even an acceptable threshold? Why isn’t it zero? Because the goal here is to get an acceptable threshold of thousands per day codified into law. It’s not to put a bogus cap on it that will never actually happen under this administration.

    Third, work authorization is a magnet for migrants. NYC has complained the migrants are overloading shelters because they aren’t authorized to work. This would ease their situation, as they see it, and make the problem worse for everyone else. A win for Democrats.

    Fourth, eliminating the court backlog is just a way to keep the turnstiles turning. To ease the backlog, money should be spent on enforcement and interdiction. Democrats don’t want this, of course.

    Fifth, asylum screening standards would have to be raised considerably to make any impact. We should know the exact details, but the fact that Schumer and Biden are on board already isn’t a good sign.

    HR2 was dead on arrival in the Senate many months ago. The House will return the favor. The difference of course is that the House will get blamed and the Senate won’t. Again, it’s too bad we have a president who will halt Ukraine aid in order to keep his open borders policies.

    lloyd (e8e666)

  226. More details on the threshold limit:

    A key provision of the bill in Title IV is the creation of an emergency authority to summarily remove foreign nationals who enter the U.S. illegally, without standard removal proceedings under Title 8, if the week-long average of such entrants increases to over 5,000 persons per day. This summary removal requirement expires only once the two-week average number of illegal entries decreases to 3,750 persons per day.

    5,000 per day is insane.

    A week ago, Lankford had mocked Republicans who pointed to that exact provision, and implied it was just rumor: “Right now there’s internet rumors is all that people are running on. It would be absolutely absurd for me to agree to 5,000 people a day. This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day.”

    What a lying POS. But, I’m glad there are Senators like Lankford around to remind us how pathetic the GOP establishment always was and is.

    lloyd (e8e666)

  227. It’s not a perfect deal, but it moves the issue in a better direction, but pro-Putin hack Speaker Johnson won’t even give it a hearing.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  228. Israeli minister ben-givr say Israel would be better off if trump defeats biden. Trump would allow us to deal with gaza and clean up the west bank. (DU)

    asset (1fbf41)

  229. @181 Your side doesn’t? Reuters dec. 1 2023 ex-marine pleads guilty to fire bombing abortion clinic. This was just the latest plenty of earlier examples.

    asset (1fbf41)

  230. Here’s another good summary of the bill that Trump and Speaker Johnson will reject, thus doing Putin’s bidding.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  231. @199 national polls are pretty meaningless. Accurate polls in az, ga, mi, nev, pa. and wi. will have meaning.

    asset (1fbf41)

  232. @204 See lying ted self destruct Indiana primary 2016.

    asset (1fbf41)

  233. @224 I ask the same question about racist trumpsters. What is to be done. It comes from a book title by v. lenin. Cease-fire supporters are growing all the time and hamas supporters are piggy backing on them.

    asset (1fbf41)

  234. @225/226 Trumpsters would be the first to be brought up on un-american activites. Back then it was klansmen in congress asking the question it would be crypto-fascists and racists today.

    asset (1fbf41)

  235. 5,000 per day is insane.

    It is 1.8 million per year. The lower number (3750) comes out to almost 1.4 million per year. Of new workers to compete with American tradesmen and less-skilled Americans. Note that these folks are in the core of Trump’s support.

    I agree with lloyd here, it’s a travesty wrapped in lies and surrounded by bad math.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  236. Are there really millions of people fleeing monstrous tyranny is Central America? If so, wouldn’t it be far cheaper to send the Marines? Mexico isn’t much better — 170,000 murders in the last few years — but at least they have gun control. *sigh*

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  237. Here’s another good summary of the bill that Trump and Speaker Johnson will reject, thus doing Putin’s bidding.

    Paul,

    Why do you write off as immaterial 2 million new semi-skilled immigrants each year? Believe it or not, there are other issues than Ukraine and why do you expect the people who will be hurt THEMSELVES by those things that don’t affect YOU, to give a rat’s ass about what Putin does 8,000 miles away? Just because you think it’s important.

    This “deal” puts front and center the entire MAGA complaint about a system that treats the college-educated elites as the only thing that matters and tosses everyone else into the collateral damage pile? You don’t care about the migrants because your only interaction will be to hire them as day labor. But the carpenters out there see an existential danger.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  238. The House should reject this. The Senate should, too. The deal needs to be better. Lloyd has the best of this argument.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  239. @238 yes drug gangs are running rampant except perhaps nicuragua where they were able to fight off reagan/bush C.I.A. drug dealing. Hillary clinton interfered with guatamala and honduras when they tried to fight the drug cartels. Columbia the same.

    asset (1fbf41)

  240. Last night I finished Nate Silver’s The Signal and the Noise and can recommend it to anyone who wants to learn to think more logically.

    About everything from baseball to earthquakes to poker to terrorism. And more.

    Jim Miller (c66f9a)

  241. Now they’ll pack a grudge agin’ you,” declared the sheriff. “And I’ll pack a riot-gun,” said Lonesome laughing.

    We’re not going to get any kind of decent border security and immigration law, or enforcement, from the crapweasels we keep sending to DC. Every single one of them is looking out for his own special interest and making deals with the others’ special interests to get them passed.

    nk (4443a9)

  242. This is a question, since I pay little attention to such things: Are many of the Grammy awards essentially political? When they are announced each year, that’s the impression I get, but I don’t follow that scene, so I don’t know for sure.

    Jim Miller (c66f9a)

  243. @239

    This “deal” puts front and center the entire MAGA complaint about a system that treats the college-educated elites as the only thing that matters and tosses everyone else into the collateral damage pile? You don’t care about the migrants because your only interaction will be to hire them as day labor. But the carpenters out there see an existential danger.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/4/2024 @ 10:44 pm

    NOT only that… this is literally how you get more Trump.

    No, that’s not a hyperbole… it’s a fact.

    In the 2016 campaign and in Trump 1st’s term, this was THE signature issues that he actually did make things “better” and that his supporters roundly recognize as moving in the “right direction”.

    To Democrats and #NeverTrumpers, good job in trying to re-elect Trump.

    Be sure to dot all the i’s and t’s when documenting your campaign contribution for Trump.

    * shakes head in amazement *

    whembly (5f7596)

  244. @244

    This is a question, since I pay little attention to such things: Are many of the Grammy awards essentially political? When they are announced each year, that’s the impression I get, but I don’t follow that scene, so I don’t know for sure.

    Jim Miller (c66f9a) — 2/5/2024 @ 5:14 am

    Not a “right v left” political… but industry political, yes.

    Not just Grammys either.

    whembly (5f7596)

  245. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/4/2024 @ 2:11 pm

    norcal (053dda) — 2/4/2024 @ 2:43 pm

    Haley’s position on secession was well known-the interviewer referenced her 2010 pronouncement; she wasn’t “badgered”. And even then she could have said secession was unconstitutional. She only came to that position afterwards, after being questioned about it on CNN, a few days after she confirmed her past views.

    A campaign conversion.

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  246. And if Haley was “badgered”, it shows how easily she can be pushed around.

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  247. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/4/2024 @ 3:31 pm

    The only thing you can do is run a write-in campaign, as the courts have ruled they must offer that path.

    I think the validity of these laws may depend upon signing deadlines

    And good luck

    Lisa Murkowski won a write in election in Alaska for United States Senator in 2010 – also the mayor of Buffalo won re-election there not long ago after losing a Democratic primary. (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut won on a third party ticket in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary, but that was the end for him – that could not be replicated in 2012. In 2006 the Republicans basically abandoned their own candidate.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  248. If Taylor Swift wanted to help a candidate for president, either Joe Biden or third party, the best way she could do it would be to write and release a song about it, and try to get it to go viral.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  249. Rip, do you actually think you are going to persuade the statistically insignificant number of NeverTrump here to not support Haley because of her views on secession? And since you’ve already declared her a dead-candidate walking, why do you care so much about her views on secession….which probably does not crack the top 20 issues that voters actually care about?

    She remains leaps and bounds better than the guy who thinks he could have negotiated the Civil War away and who trusted Putin over his own intelligence services. Haley will support Ukraine, NATO, and Taiwan….and will pick advisors that we can trust. She’s a long shot but deserves the support of any constitutional conservative.

    The country deserves a non-geriatric candidate that has the energy and character to lead.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  250. There he goes again:
    In 2016, the Loser made absurd claims about unemployment:

    “Don’t believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment,” Trump declared after he won the New Hampshire primary. “The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.”

    In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit that August, Trump said the unemployment rate was “one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics.”

    In 2017, he began boasting about unemployment coming down — using the same sources he had derided, during the 2016 campaign.

    And now that he is running again? You guessed it, if you have been paying any attention to American politics in recent years. The Loser is back to claiming that unemployment is far higher than the official measures.

    (It seems likely to me that the Loser’s endless falsehoods have — to some extent — protected other politicians from the full consequences of their falsehoods. That certainly seems to be true of Joe Biden, for example.)

    Jim Miller (3f900f)

  251. Rip, do you actually think you are going to persuade the statistically insignificant number of NeverTrump here to not support Haley because of her views on secession?

    No. Actually, I would say the number of NeverTrumpers here exceed the number of Trump supporters.

    And since you’ve already declared her a dead-candidate walking, why do you care so much about her views on secession….which probably does not crack the top 20 issues that voters actually care about?

    It shows her ignorance of the Constitution, and as someone who represents a “new generation” her views on secession and the Civil War are definitely old school Southern positions. She flipped flopped on her long held positions on secession and the Civil War, making it look like she concedes the obvious when challenged. Combined on her other flip flops (like her proposal for for banning Internet anonymity) shows how she can be easily rolled.

    It isn’t me who has declared Haley a “dead-candidate walking,” its Republican voters. Haley is already conceding she won’t win in South Carolina, and unfortunately for her South Carolina is a winner-take-all primary.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  252. And despite all her criticisms (finally!) of Donald Trump, Haley still hasn’t disavowed her promise to pardon him.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  253. You won’t get any argument from me about the multitude of reasons why Donald Trump shouldn’t be president, but I think it’s pretty safe to say Nikki Haley won’t be the Republican presidential nominee.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  254. Rip has a way of writing that makes Haley sound as bad as Trump. It sounds like the left-wingers who shriek about SNL letting her on their cold open on Saturday.

    On Haley’s secession follys, though, don’t blame Rip for that. Dana brought it up first.

    Appalled (43902e)

  255. Rip has a way of writing that makes Haley sound as bad as Trump. It sounds like the left-wingers who shriek about SNL letting her on their cold open on Saturday.

    Hardly. Trump has no peer in behaving badly; Haley hasn’t done anything comparable. And it has nothing to do necessarily with her positions on the issues, it’s just I object to her inconsistency and hypocrisy.

    On Haley’s secession follys, though, don’t blame Rip for that. Dana brought it up first.

    Appalled (43902e) — 2/5/2024 @ 10:01 am

    Haley brought secession first. Dana merely highlighted it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  256. When she was a Boeing board member (2019-2020), what did she know about the 737 MAX problems, and when did she know it? The Lion Air crash occurred in 2018, and the Ethiopian Airlines crash occurred in 2019, so there must have been some board discussions about the plane’s safety and manufacturing flaws during her tenure.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  257. @255, I get it, you believe she won’t be the nominee, but you…just…can’t…stop complaining about her. And about all things…secession!….which is whack-a-doodle. No one seriously believes Texas is going anywhere…and what that would even look like.

    If it’s not Haley…and it’s not Trump….and there’s no commentary about all the wrong positions Biden has taken throughout his political career, is it safe to pencil you in for that Biden/Harris yard sign? Or is it more principled non-voting?

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  258. @255, I get it, you believe she won’t be the nominee, but you…just…can’t…stop complaining about her. And about all things…secession!….which is whack-a-doodle. No one seriously believes Texas is going anywhere…and what that would even look like.

    Again, Haley is the one who brought up secession, not me. Why is that so hard to understand?

    If it’s not Haley…and it’s not Trump….and there’s no commentary about all the wrong positions Biden has taken throughout his political career, is it safe to pencil you in for that Biden/Harris yard sign? Or is it more principled non-voting?

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 2/5/2024 @ 11:02 am

    Principled non-voting. I don’t care about Biden’s current or past positions, and I would never vote for him (or any Democrat) under any circumstances.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  259. https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/01/democrats-vote-against-dui-illegal-immigrant-deport-bill/
    Do you know what country also deports or bans convicted DUIs.

    That wasteland that is Canada.

    whembly (5f7596)

  260. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/3/2024 @ 2:18 pm

    If Trump were disqualified, the GOP race would come unstuck, of course. MAGA would have to turn its eyes elsewhere, assuming that Congress did not remove the disqualification. I doubt they’d turn to Haley.

    If Trump were disqualified by a state, (and he could be using other criteria than a determination, as fact, that he took part in an insurrection, the GOP would probably run his Vice President and some other name as the ticket, but tell everyone their Electors would vote for Trump for president. Disqualifying his vice president is a bit more advanced than states would be ready to go.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  261. Important: This WaPo editorial, “On campus and off, dictators are exporting repression to the U.S.”

    Example:

    A striking example of this transnational repression is contained in charges recently filed by the Biden administration against an Iranian narcotics trafficker, Naji Sharifi Zindashti, and two Canadians. They are accused of participating in a murder-for-hire plot against two victims who had fled to the United States from Iran. Mr. Zindashti was acting at the behest of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security, U.S. officials charge. The indictments of Mr. Zindashti and the others allege that they used an encrypted messaging service, SkyECC, to recruit people to shoot the victims. In keeping with a trend seen in similar cases, Mr. Zindashti apparently sought to exploit cutouts or third parties in the United States to avoid detection, but the plot was disrupted by the Justice Department. At the same time, the Treasury Department announced sanctions against the Zindashti network for “numerous acts of transnational repression including assassinations and kidnappings across multiple jurisdictions in an attempt to silence the Iranian regime’s perceived critics.”

    Jim Miller (39e131)

  262. One reason I think the Republicans want to kill the immigration bill, is because, however draconian it may be, it will NOT stop illegal immigration, not even the type that involves crossing the border, but they don’t want to let that on to their voters.

    However, House Speaker Mike Johnson seems to have claimed on Meet the Press yesterday that, if they got 100% of what they wanted, it will only reduce it to 30% of some unspecified level:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-february-4-2024-n1308551

    SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON:

    Well, let’s make a couple of things clear here, Kristen. You know, we passed the support for Iran [sic? – I can’t locate the video here fast] many months ago, three months ago. Immediately after I became Speaker, we sent the necessary resources there. We passed our bill on border security nine months ago. It’s been sitting on Chuck Schumer’s desk collecting dust ever since. The H.R. 2, which is our signature bill right out of the beginning, right out of the block, for the House Republican Conference and our Republican majority, would have solved this problem. We would resolve the broken asylum system and the broken parole system. We would re-institute Remain in Mexico which would stem the flow by probably 70%. We would end the ‘catch and release,’ the mass releases of illegals into our country that’s happened. This border is out of control. All these problems have mounted. And the Senate has been dithering ever since. We cannot wait anymore. The reason we are going to send the new Israel package over is because the time is urgent. And we have to take care of that responsibility.

    Elsewhere he says simply “stem the flow”

    What we’re saying is you have to stem the flow.

    But he also said earlier in passing that to “stem the flow” is reduce the flow to 30% of some baseline.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  263. So stem = cut to 30% of some standard level.

    Video of NBC Meet the Press presidential poll.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/biden-trails-trump-by-20-points-on-the-economy-as-his-approval-ratings-plummet-nbc-news-poll-203574341540

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  264. 263.

    to recruit people to shoot the victims

    Did they try to recruit people to cross the border and claim asylum or did they try to recruit people who were already in the United States or has valid visas?

    If they had any sense, it would be the latter.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  265. Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 2/5/2024 @ 12:15 pm

    Don Jr. 🤣🙃🤪

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  266. Mike Johnson did say “support for Iran.”

    Did he mean Ukraine (I think the House did pass a stand-alone bill) or did he mean money for action that enable the United States to act against Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  267. Don Jr would tend to avoid confusing people who saw the ballot.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  268. Principled non-voting.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/5/2024 @ 11:18 am

    Living is a state where Trump Republicans dominate the primary, and Democrats dominate the general election, it’s my only option.

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  269. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/5/2024 @ 10:40 am

    Haley brought secession first.

    Actually it was someone at a town hall type Q&A who brought it up.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  270. If Trump were disqualified by a state

    Why do you respond with a different scenario? As I’ve repeatedly said, the Court will not leave this in chaos. They will vote for absolute inclusion or absolute exclusion. Only Trump would like the drama of a state by state “trial.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  271. reagan/bush C.I.A. drug dealing

    If this were my blog, I would treat this the same as QAnon nonsense.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  272. She remains leaps and bounds better than the guy who thinks he could have negotiated the Civil War away

    They tried to: the unratified 13th Amendment:

    No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

    It was passed by Congress in late 1860 by a bare 2/3rds in each House and set to the states by Abraham Lincoln as one of his first official acts. Secession, however, made adoption impossible.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  273. Haley’s position on secession was well known-the interviewer referenced her 2010 pronouncement; she wasn’t “badgered”

    Tell me, if you ask a witness the same question 3 times in court, what term do your think they will use? Probably after the second time.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  274. Haley is already conceding she won’t win in South Carolina

    Another Rip lie about Haley. From the link he posted :

    Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley insisted on Thursday that she won’t actually have to win in her home state in order to achieve victory there — after two huge losses in the first two states to vote in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

    There is no concession there. And the loss in NH was not “huge”, she got 43%.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  275. Are many of the Grammy awards essentially political?

    No more than the Oscars or the Emmys. Of the Nobels, for that matter. Just ask Al Gore.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  276. And despite all her criticisms (finally!) of Donald Trump, Haley still hasn’t disavowed her promise to pardon him.

    Rip, you already think she’s an opportunist crapweasel, why do you think she won’t find a reason to change her mind after MAGA has voted for her because Trump asked them to?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  277. When she was a Boeing board member (2019-2020), what did she know about the 737 MAX problems, and when did she know it

    The entire board did not know, other than management was moving some operations overseas, but they said it was all going ducky. Do you think she had the code printed out and debugged it? She quit the board later for other reasons (opposition to a federal bailout).

    Yet another example of Rip’s poo-flinging at Haley.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  278. however draconian it may be

    It’s draconian to the Democrat left, but to anyone else it’s fig leaves.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  279. Living is a state where Trump Republicans dominate the primary, and Democrats dominate the general election, it’s my only option.

    No, your only option is to man up and go down to the polls and object. The lack of participation by non-Democrats is one of the reasons why all those idiotic initiatives pass 53-47 and why down-ballot Republicans keep losing by narrow margins in competitive districts.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  280. It’s just rationalization, Rip, and when you break that into parts, it’s “Rational lies”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  281. 272. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 1:01 pm

    Why do you respond with a different scenario?

    Because it is the only scenario which is possible.

    As I’ve repeatedly said, the Court will not leave this in chaos. They will vote for absolute inclusion or absolute exclusion.

    No they won’t. They will not exclude – it’s premature – but they likely will not include either. They could say that a state cannot rely on the 14th amendment to exclude, but it could exclude for other reasons (which the states of Colorado and Maine probably have not.)

    They could either exclude on the grounds that some state official or court, authorized by state law to do so, decides that a federal court would later disqualify Trump (but not that he is in fact disqualified) or on some other basis, like running for re-election after having lost.

    Neither of these two cases is current law but they could ask a state court to determine what the state’s law is.

    Only Trump would like the drama of a state by state “trial.”

    I don’t think the Supreme Court will authorize that. I was talking about removing Trump from the ballot on some other basis.

    The Supreme Court may allow states to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot but make them pay a political price if they do.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  282. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 1:20 pm

    It’s draconian to the Democrat left, but to anyone else it’s fig leaves.

    Draconian in denying asylum on any grounds if too many people claim it, or in limiting the grounds, and in “closing the border” (what does that mean?) but it won’t accomplish what they tell their voters is the objective – and it is not possible.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson alternates between saying that that a law is necessary to stem the flow, and that no law is necessary and furthermore that stemming the flow (merely) means reducing it to 30% of (the current or some previous) level.

    Trump and the Republicans know that their bill won’t accomplish its stated objectives; that’s why they are trying to sabotage the bill and say it is all up to the president anyway.

    Senator Mitch McConnell is reported to have said this bill gets them more of what they want than they would get if there was a Republican Senate and Republican House and Republican president) presumably because it’s only Biden’s appeasement of the Republicans because of his fear of losing the election that would get them 60 votes for this)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  283. Let’s remember what article 3 does:

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

    We talk about this terms of ballot access at the state level, but given our current system, I could see the Vice-President enforcing the insurrection clause to prevnt Trump electors from being voted next January. (Call it January 6 all over again). Unless the court holds, as a matter of consitutional law, what an insurrection is and give guidance on whether Trump did it, this could turn into a very large mess.

    I am curious how the Court gets out of this one.

    Appalled (43902e)

  284. Haley brought secession first.

    Actually it was someone at a town hall type Q&A who brought it up.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 2/5/2024 @ 12:55 pm

    The town hall questioner brought up the causes of the Civil War (another answer she whiffed on), not secession. Haley defended secession and the Confederacy in 2010, so her answers to these questions shouldn’t have surprised anyone.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  285. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley insisted on Thursday that she won’t actually have to win in her home state in order to achieve victory there — after two huge losses in the first two states to vote in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

    There is no concession there. And the loss in NH was not “huge”, she got 43%.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 1:11 pm

    Nikki lost NH by 11 points, so it wasn’t exactly close in the state most favorable to her politics (the college educated wine & cheese crowd). Insisting you don’t have to win your home state, and knowing that South Carolina is a winner take all primary, means she is conceding she will not win any delegates. Being the second person in a two person race means you’ve lost. Moral victories don’t count.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  286. No, your only option is to man up and go down to the polls and object. The lack of participation by non-Democrats is one of the reasons why all those idiotic initiatives pass 53-47 and why down-ballot Republicans keep losing by narrow margins in competitive districts.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 1:23 pm

    My principled non-voting only extends to the presidential primary/general election. I vote on everything outside of those contests.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  287. When she was a Boeing board member (2019-2020), what did she know about the 737 MAX problems, and when did she know it

    The entire board did not know, other than management was moving some operations overseas, but they said it was all going ducky. Do you think she had the code printed out and debugged it? She quit the board later for other reasons (opposition to a federal bailout).

    Yet another example of Rip’s poo-flinging at Haley.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 1:17 pm

    No, but the board (of which she was a part of) should have been asking questions. Did she? We don’t know.

    Her opposition to the federal COVID bailout is rich given the millions of subsidies and other benefits she flung at Boeing while governor.

    When she was a South Carolina House representative, Ms. Haley missed the 2009 vote that secured public support for tax breaks and state-issued bonds for the Boeing project.
    ……..
    Ms. Haley said at the time that she had a previously scheduled event and put a note in the official House journal that she would have voted yes, had she been there.

    While governor, Ms. Haley used the powers and influence of her office to help smooth Boeing’s expansion in the state, people familiar with the matter said. She made working with the bureaucracy user-friendly, they recalled, helping cut through red tape for permits and securing training for constituents who would become Boeing employees.

    Besides the state assistance, the airplane maker was attracted to South Carolina because of its approach toward unions. As governor, Ms. Haley worked to keep organized labor from gaining a foothold at Boeing’s facilities, recording ads for the company, criticizing unions in speeches and referring to her high heels as a tool for kicking them out of the state.

    In Ms. Haley’s 2014 re-election campaign, a Boeing aircraft appeared prominently in some of her advertising.

    Boeing went on to be one of the largest corporate donors to Ms. Haley’s 2011 inauguration celebration, and its 1.2-million-square-foot factory formally opened in June of that year.
    ……….
    While governor, Ms. Haley used the powers and influence of her office to help smooth Boeing’s expansion in the state, people familiar with the matter said. She made working with the bureaucracy user-friendly, they recalled, helping cut through red tape for permits and securing training for constituents who would become Boeing employees.
    ……….
    “Boeing is now a part of the fabric of South Carolina,” Ms. Haley said in 2013 as the company continued to grow in South Carolina. “So this is family, and when family does well, we all get excited.”

    When Boeing served her purposes, she quit.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  288. Rip,

    Haley’s ability to talk up the Confederacy in 2010 gave her the credibility in her State to take down the stars and bars after the church shooting. Some of that stuff was part of politics in South Carolina in that period.

    What worked in South Carolina then is probably animating her soft-ish on Trump and other fascists approach in 2024. It may be why some of the magnolia scented takes on “The Late Unpleasentness” make their unwanted appearnce. It’s not working, and that’s unfortunate.

    Appalled (43902e)

  289. I could see the Vice-President enforcing the insurrection clause to prevnt Trump electors from being voted next January

    Perhaps, but in the revised Electoral Count Act, while the House had a provision for that in its version, the final version that was passed and signed removed 14th Amendment considerations from the short list of valid objections.

    Not that it would stop Kamala Harris, but she would have no legal basis for doing so and a legislative history not in her favor.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  290. *and* it would be an abuse of her authority every bit as much as it would have been an abuse of Pence’s authority to interfere in 2020.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  291. RIP Bob Beckwith (91):

    Wearing his old firefighter helmet from Ladder Company 164 in Queens, the Long Island resident stood with President George W. Bush as he delivered a rousing speech to weary responders three days after hijackers crashed airplanes into the twin towers of the old World Trade Center, killing 2,753 people.
    ………
    Beckwith was 69 years old and retired for seven years following a 30-year career when he rushed to help with search-and-rescue efforts as scores of other current and former first responders did in the hours and days after the attacks.

    Beckwith said he was simply looking for a good vantage point to see the president as he surveyed the destruction. But Bush made an unexpected detour and hopped aboard the crushed Engine Co. 76 truck where he was standing, Beckwith recalled to the AP on the 10th anniversary of the attacks in 2011.

    Barbara Beckwith said her husband helped the president get up on the fire truck and was about to let himself down when Bush intervened, assuring his spot in history.

    “The president said to him, ‘Where are you going?’” she recounted. “‘You’re going to be right here with me.’”
    ……….
    The moment, which was captured in video and photos by The Associated Press and other news outlets, became an enduring image of resilience following the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil. It even landed Beckwith on the cover of Time magazine, a keepsake he proudly displayed at his home for years.
    ……….
    Bush, who remained in contact with the family over the years and even checked in as Beckwith’s health worsened, was among those who called Monday morning to send condolences, his wife said.

    In a statement, the former president said Beckwith’s “courage represented the defiant, resilient spirit of New Yorkers and Americans” following the attacks.

    “When the terrorists attacked, Bob suited back up and, like so many brave first responders, raced toward the danger to save and search for others,” Bush wrote Monday. “I was proud to have Bob by my side at Ground Zero days later and privileged to stay in touch with this patriot over the years.”
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  292. Haley’s ability to talk up the Confederacy in 2010 gave her the credibility in her State to take down the stars and bars after the church shooting. Some of that stuff was part of politics in South Carolina in that period.

    Apparently she is still “talking up the Confederacy” even today.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  293. There are a few options for the Court:

    1. It doesn’t apply to the President or Vice-President as they are not “officers.” Trump is QUALIFIED.

    This is patent BS and I can’t see anyone trying it. But maybe in a mishegas divided opinion, Thomas might try this to keep the peace at home.

    2. It only applied to the Civil War period. Trump is QUALIFIED

    (Bzzzzzt. Wrong.)

    3. Congress has never established a procedure (other than the crime of Insurrection), so there is not path to execute 14.3. Trump is QUALIFIED

    There is a bit of support for this, even some outside the Trump camp, but it seems that this idea was discarded by 1870.

    4. It was not an insurrection. Trump is QUALIFIED

    Highly unexpected.

    5. It may have been an insurrection, but Trump had no part in it. Trump is QUALIFIED

    Also unexpected.

    6. It may have been an insurrection and Trump may have participated a little bit in it, but there has been no due process/insufficient due process/no criminal conviction. Trump’s best argument, and a contender for an actual decision. Trump may be QUALIFIED or DISQUALIFIED

    At this point the Court has to say what due process would consist of. 6a) State by state hearings under state law; 6b) some federal tribunal & soon; 6c) conviction of _________. I think that 6a is most likely of these choices, and also most dangerous and cowardly.

    7. It was an insurrection, Trump participated in it, there was substantial due process in which Trump participated. Trump is DISQUALIFIED.

    Coupled with all of this is the reason for 14.3 — that an insurrectionist is barred because he would try again. And Trump, by every word or action, clearly would try again and by threat he is actually trying now.

    The Court needs to put this behind us. Not matter what they choose they will take a hit — the Dems will hate them (more), MAGA will hate them (too), or they will be seen as cowards by both sides.

    I see #7 as quite likely.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  294. Politically, disqualifying Trump may give the Court cover for other rightward moves. Calling them “Trump’s judges” would be much harder. I would hope that they would be unanimous in that.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  295. 7. It was an insurrection, Trump participated in it, there was substantial due process in which Trump participated. Trump is DISQUALIFIED.
    ………
    I see #7 as quite likely.

    I’ll take that bet, I see that result as highly unlikely; only if the SC wants to see blood in the streets. My bet is that a majority will rule that the states have no role under Section 3 to make such a determination, only Congress after the election, possibly during the Electoral College.

    1. It doesn’t apply to the President or Vice-President as they are not “officers.” Trump is QUALIFIED.

    Roberts has already said the President isn’t an “officer of the United States”, see Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010):

    The people do not vote for the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the “assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).

    2. It only applied to the Civil War period. Trump is QUALIFIED

    I agree, a losing argument.

    3. Congress has never established a procedure (other than the crime of Insurrection), so there is not path to execute 14.3. Trump is QUALIFIED

    Ditto.

    4. It was not an insurrection. Trump is QUALIFIED

    I would be surprised if the Court ruled on the question, but if they did, a majority would say it wasn’t.

    5. It may have been an insurrection, but Trump had no part in it. Trump is QUALIFIED

    Ditto.

    6. It may have been an insurrection and Trump may have participated a little bit in it, but there has been no due process/insufficient due process/no criminal conviction. Trump’s best argument, and a contender for an actual decision. Trump may be QUALIFIED or DISQUALIFIED

    Possible, Trump QUALIFIED.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  296. I’ll take that bet, I see that result as highly unlikely; only if the SC wants to see blood in the streets

    This is actually my point: Trump threatens a new insurrection if he does not get his way. This is WHY we have this section of the 14th and it is sheer cowardice to back down now. Do you think this will be the end of his demands?

    See “The Sudetenland”

    I see that you side with the pedants on #1. Legal myopia and properly ridiculed by most.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  297. So the expectation is that the Board of Directors of Boeing should have have started their own independent external investigation into quality at Boeing?

    steveg (5856ca)

  298. What If?

    The court will hear arguments this week that Trump is prohibited from running for office because he violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and supported an insurrection on Jan. 6. The conventional wisdom is that the court won’t disqualify Trump — that even if that’s what the law requires, it would be too explosive a move to oust the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination. In other words, if ever there were a case in which the Supreme Court might put a finger on the scales in favor of keeping the peace over following the law, this one might be it.

    But what if the court shocks the country, and rules Trump is no longer eligible? ……..

    We asked some of the smartest political analysts, legal scholars and security experts out there on what would happen next in such an extraordinary circumstance. Here’s what they said.

    Rachel Kleinfeld (senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace):

    Concerns that a Supreme Court decision might catapult the country back into Jan. 6-like mass violence are misplaced.
    ……….
    The question carries the implicit suggestion that we should worry about violence from a Supreme Court decision more than from other possible outcomes. In fact, violence is likely no matter what happens.
    ……….

    Richard L. Hasen (professor of law and political science at UCLA)
    ………
    If the ruling comes out that Trump is in fact disqualified, it will be hard to paint it as a “partisan” or “liberal” decision. There are only three Democratic-appointed justices on the court, so a ruling against Trump would require the votes of at least two Republican-appointed judges. This stands in contrast to a possible 6-3 ruling in which the justices divide along party lines with the conservatives keeping Trump on the ballot and the liberals voting to keep him off. Perhaps if Trump is disqualified with the vote of at least two conservative justices, some voters in the middle who thought Trump should remain on the ballot might be assured by the bipartisan nature of the decision.

    My greatest concern of a ruling disqualifying is not therefore about a hit to the court’s legitimacy, but the potential for violence………..

    Aziz Huq (law professor at the University of Chicago)

    If the Supreme Court follows the overwhelming facts and the law, it will find Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency. I don’t expect the court to rule that way, but if it did, would the matter be settled? Hardly. Formally, the decision binds only the parties — Trump and the Colorado state litigants. What of the balance of the country? I would anticipate that such a decision would trigger serial, overlapping waves of resistance.

    First, it is not clear to me that legislators and officials in Republican states would honor that decision in preparing general election ballots for November………

    Second, state legislators might instruct their slate of Electoral College electors to vote for Trump regardless of whether he’s kept off the ballot all the way through November. ……..
    ………..
    Finally, what of rank-and-file Trump voters? Are they going to peaceably accept that result, or see it as another manifestation of the “deep state?” ………
    ……….

    Ashley Jardina (Assistant professor of public policy at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia)
    ………..
    I’m skeptical that the Supreme Court will disqualify Trump from running for president. But if Trump isn’t on the ballot, we might see lower turnout among Republican voters than expected. …….Without an alternative candidate to throw their support behind, many MAGA voters may simply not participate in the election.
    ……….

    Scott Jennings (longtime Republican adviser and a senior CNN political commentator)

    If the Supreme Court does this, it would rip the country apart. Biden would have no choice but to stand down, because the assumption by most Americans (and all Republicans) would be that he and his party personally orchestrated the ditching of his chief rival, who is beating him in the polls. Failure to stand down would cement for most Republicans that we live in a banana republic where the ruling elites are above the rules and the law.

    I also assume that several Republican-run states would simply ignore the Supreme Court and put Trump on the ballot anyway (even if the RNC nominated someone else)……..

    I doubt that Nikki Haley or any anti-Trump candidate could even get the nomination in these circumstances. Mechanically I suspect the party could move to install a Trump proxy for the nomination, which at this point is decidedly not Haley. Could be Donald Trump Jr., for all I know……..

    In states where he was not on the ballot, there would be massive write in campaigns to elect him president. ……..
    ……….

    Steven Simon (Visiting professor of practice in Middle East Studies at the University of Washington)
    ……….
    Trump’s MAGA Republican base, which includes heavily armed militia groups, is seething over what they believe was his fraudulent defeat in 2020 and many assume they will get their revenge in November. Trump himself has declared that he will exact retribution on their behalf. Were he preemptively denied the chance to fulfill this pledge, some would no doubt resort to violence. The critical variables are how many and how much.
    ……….
    ……….
    Donell Harvin (Homeland security expert and educator)
    ……….
    The violent extremism that I envision would range from widespread violence against government buildings and symbols, to targeted acts of violence and stochastic terrorism against any individuals perceived of actively working against the former president’s interests, or those who were complacent in not defending him. ……..
    ……….
    ……….(T)here are violent domestic groups, called accelerationists, that are organized around the central theme of a second Civil War or a national race war. Such talk resonates with those on the fringes of our society that have both maligned intent and the means to rapidly organize and act upon their beliefs. While the reelection of Donald Trump could bring with it a swell of normalized domestic extremism, the disqualification of the former president could send us into an abyss of violence and division not seen since the Civil War.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  299. > If the Supreme Court does this, it would rip the country apart. Biden would have no choice but to stand down, because the assumption by most Americans (and all Republicans) would be that he and his party personally orchestrated the ditching of his chief rival, who is beating him in the polls. Failure to stand down would cement for most Republicans that we live in a banana republic where the ruling elites are above the rules and the law.

    On the other hand, failure to disqualify Trump will cement for a lot of anti-trumpists that Trump has sufficiently stacked the courts to ensure that it’s impossible to use the judicial system to prevent the end of the Republic.

    There are *zero* good outcomes, here.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  300. So the expectation is that the Board of Directors of Boeing should have have started their own independent external investigation into quality at Boeing?

    steveg (5856ca) — 2/5/2024 @ 4:04 pm

    Given the consequences of the two 737 MAX crashes within a few months of each other, resulting in nearly 350 killed, that might have been a good idea, but they chose to lie to the federal government instead.

    Corporations hire outside investigators all the time reviewing corporate misconduct. But as I said, Boeing chose to lie.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  301. I’ll take that bet, I see that result as highly unlikely; only if the SC wants to see blood in the streets

    This is actually my point: Trump threatens a new insurrection if he does not get his way. This is WHY we have this section of the 14th and it is sheer cowardice to back down now. Do you think this will be the end of his demands?

    Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

    MAGA is 50% astroturf, 50% hot air, and 100% grift. Its power reaches only to other members of the cult. There will be no blood in the streets. There will weeping, wailing, and gnashing of dental work, and tears mixed with snot running down Donnie’s chin.

    nk (a540a6)

  302. Biden would have no choice but to stand down,

    That would be wonderful, but I fear too much to hope for.

    nk (a540a6)

  303. Again, the most telling reason to kick Trump off the ballot is that it IS likely to precipitate an insurrection. An insurrection that Trump has been threatening. And insurrection that he will continue to threaten. If he is kicked off the ballot, if he loses the election, if he wins but is thwarted by the courts. Probably if he is not allowed to run for a third term.

    The 14th Amendment was designed so that if you participate in an insurrection you are not going to be allowed near power to lead one again. The entire “there will be violence” argument is sufficient to disqualify him now.

    This will not improve in time. No appeasement does.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  304. I’ll take that bet, I see that result as highly unlikely; only if the SC wants to see blood in the streets

    This is actually my point: Trump threatens a new insurrection if he does not get his way.

    I don’t Trump will need to threaten anything, his supporter already have the green light.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  305. I really don’t see a 6-3 Republican majority SC disqualifying Trump. I stand by my prediction that the Court will weasel itself out of making that decision by stating the states have no authority under Section to disqualify Trump.

    Any predictions on how long it will take the Court to issue its opinions? If they’re like the appeals court hearing Trump’s immunity claim, it will be around Nov. 4th.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  306. MAGA is 50% astroturf, 50% hot air, and 100% grift.

    And I daresay 100% armed.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  307. @300: Excellent article, Rip. I suggest that people read the whole thing at the source. It makes many of my points, and mostly agrees that the Court MUST disqualify Trump.

    A new argument: If they leave him on the ballot, it legitimatizes what he did and others will repeat it in the future.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  308. And I daresay 100% armed.

    And your point? Should we bow down and accept that Trump has armed men willing to subvert our government?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  309. I don’t Trump will need to threaten anything, his supporter already have the green light.

    I said “he threatens”, that includes “has already threatened”

    Why are we giving this man the benefit of the doubt? We know what he is.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  310. Any predictions on how long it will take the Court to issue its opinions?

    Bush v Gore took less than a week.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  311. And your point? Should we bow down and accept that Trump has armed men willing to subvert our government?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 5:03 pm

    By ignoring the comment by nk, you’ve stripped mine of all meaning.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  312. Bush v Gore took less than a week.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 5:05 pm

    So what? That’s what posters here said two months ago, about the appeals court ruling on Trump’s immunity argument and we’re still waiting. The SC could have sped things up by accepting the special counsel’s interlocutory appeal, but they declined. What makes you think the Supreme Court will feel obligated not to run out the clock on this case and issue a decision in June?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  313. I see that you side with the pedants on #1. Legal myopia and properly ridiculed by most.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 3:47 pm

    I didn’t; I merely pointed out that the phrase “officers of the United States” had already been defined. If you read my response from the top, my prediction was there.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  314. @301 A Republic which fears the will of the people may as well fold up shop.

    The 14th Amendment exists because there was a significant segment of the voting population who took up arms against the Union and could be depended on to vote their candidates into office. There was good reason to fear this segment of the electorate, thus the constraints on who they could vote for. To apply this to tens of millions of law abiding voters in 2024 is nonsense. If you fear their vote and seek to deny it, don’t assault the English language by claiming it’s to preserve the Republic.

    No, there won’t be any blood in the streets. There will be cynicism, apathy and distrust of institutions dialed up to eleven, and resignation that the fix is in. That’s probably worse.

    lloyd (cd3202)

  315. I see that the garbage open borders bill destroys any semblance of a border and gives immediate working papers to all illegal invaders. It also says that only contiguous invaders are considered in the 8500 per day. They desire to destroy our nation. Why?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  316. Kevin,

    your desires, if approved by the Supreme Court, will ensure a socialist, one party state from which there is no electoral escape. It will tell all voters who support Trump that their votes don’t count. They will cease to vote. Period.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  317. So what? That’s what posters here said two months ago, about the appeals court ruling on Trump’s immunity argument and we’re still waiting. …….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/5/2024 @ 5:12 pm

    True that.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  318. Nikki Haley Asks for Secret Service Protection After Increase in Threats

    Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has applied for Secret Service protection because of increasing threats she has received as Donald Trump’s last major opponent for the 2024 GOP nomination.

    Haley confirmed the application for protection in an interview Monday afternoon with The Wall Street Journal.

    “We’ve had multiple issues,” the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador said after a campaign event here. “It’s not going to stop me from doing what I need to do.”
    ………
    Late last week in Columbia, S.C., a woman was tackled by a member of Haley’s private security detail when she tried to rush the stage. There have also been protesters in recent days at her events upset about her support for Ukraine and Israel.
    ………
    Haley’s South Carolina home was also the subject of at least one recent swatting incident, where a person falsely reports a crime in progress to draw law enforcement to a particular location. She told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that she wasn’t home at the time of the incident, but that her elderly parents and their caregiver were there.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  319. By ignoring the comment by nk, you’ve stripped mine of all meaning.

    You might think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  320. It will tell all voters who support Trump that their votes don’t count. They will cease to vote. Period.

    Promise?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  321. Promise?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/5/2024 @ 6:31 pm

    If you desire leftism that bad, move to Cuba.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  322. Trump is a leftist in my book. A racist leftist, but a leftist just the same. All “Big Government” is leftist.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  323. I see that the garbage open borders bill destroys any semblance of a border and gives immediate working papers to all illegal invaders.

    That’s the right-wing narrative, right there in a nutshell. The bottom line is the cult leader didn’t want it, and his supplicants fell in line, and killing the deal helps the Russian mass-murdering war criminal. The GOP is on the side of evil when it comes to Putin’s War Against Ukraine.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  324. The irony is that Trump endorsed Lankford (despite lying that he didn’t on Bongino), praising him for being strong on the border.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  325. The Border Patrol union’s statement in support here.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  326. Not satisfied with halting Ukraine aid, now Biden is intent on stopping aid to Israel in order to keep his open borders policies.

    President Joe Biden said he would veto a standalone bill to fund Israel as Congress continues to battle over funding for Ukraine and the U.S. southern border.

    The House is expected to vote on a standalone bill this week that provides $17.6 billion in aid to Israel while the country is at war with the terrorist organization, Hamas. Ahead of the vote, the White House Office of Management and Budget called the bill a “cynical political maneuver” and said Biden would veto the bill if it makes it to his desk.

    lloyd (0fd644)

  327. That’s the right-wing narrative, right there in a nutshell. The bottom line is the cult leader didn’t want it, and his supplicants fell in line, and killing the deal helps the Russian mass-murdering war criminal. The GOP is on the side of evil when it comes to Putin’s War Against Ukraine.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/5/2024 @ 7:10 pm

    Thanks for the left wing, open borders narrative.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  328. The GOP is on the side of evil when it comes to Putin’s War Against Ukraine.

    And that’s all you can see. Sad.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  329. And that’s all you can see. Sad.

    No, that’s not all, Kevin. Asshole.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  330. Paul, you might be able to find common ground someone like Rob if you were willing to consider that the border problem was existential to him. But all you can see is that *something* is stopping aid to Ukraine and you cast that something in the most pejorative terms rather than look at what their reasons might be.

    You are NJRob’s flip side.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  331. Thanks for the left wing, open borders narrative.

    Things that Rob Don’t Like = Left Wing.
    Simplistic and hyperpartisan and brainless.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  332. Paul, you might be able to find common ground someone like Rob if you were willing to consider that the border problem was existential to him.

    Why should I, Kevin. I reject the premise.
    We have a border bill that improves the border situation, and it was rejected before the details even came out, and it’s all because of one person, the cult leader of the GOP.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  333. Here’s a summary of the border bill from Politico. Of note, once shut down, the border doesn’t reopen until “encounters of illegal crossings drop to 75 percent of the number that initially triggered the closure.”

    Asylum claims are stricter and processed faster. And so forth. If there’s one other improvement that could be made, it’s to have Mayorkas replaced with someone competent and is focused on law enforcement.

    But it doesn’t matter. Trump doesn’t want it because he feels it’ll hurt his election chances, and the party fell in line. Trump first, Putin second, USA third.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  334. I guess I don’t have to detail how the border bill improves the situation. JVW and Rothman already did that for me. Are JVW and NRO’s Rothman socialists, too?

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  335. Those open borders left-wingers at the Wall Street Journal are saying that it’s a border bill worth passing.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  336. Breaking:

    Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case
    ……………
    “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the judges wrote in their 57-page decision.

    “We reject all three potential bases for immunity both as a categorical defense to federal criminal prosecutions of former Presidents and as applied to this case in particular,” the decision said.
    …………….

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  337. Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/5/2024 @ 8:28 pm

    Of note, once shut down, the border doesn’t reopen until “encounters of illegal crossings drop to 75 percent of the number that initially triggered the closure.”

    That’s an attempt to arrive at a number that the cartels can live with.

    If they wait too long they may have to make the trigger 10,000 or 15,000

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  338. Zelensky is going to make a shake-up in Ukraine but it probably won’t affect the chances of Ukraine aid passing.

    The bill iss dead,

    Ukraine will get some aid from seized Russian assets. A bill authorizing that will pass.

    When it is clear the bill is dead, the Senate will pass stand-alone aid to Israel. Biden’s veto threat is only to stop the Senate from passing it, but he will reverse himself.

    Aid to Taiwan and humanitarian aid to Gaza (with maybe a provision that none of it can go to UNWRA because UNWRA laundered money to Hamas) will pass as part of some broader bill.

    Mayorkas will not get removed in his Senate trial,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  339. The bill will pass after a few cosmetic changes. It may take a discharge petition, but the Speaker does not have complete control of the House. Some of the things that have been posted recently make me less concerned about what the bill allows, and I think that some of the House members also will feel similarly.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  340. Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    As expected. Vexatious litigant.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  341. Immunity appeal decision (PDF)

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  342. @342

    Appeals court rejects Trump’s immunity claim in federal election interference case

    As expected. Vexatious litigant.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 8:42 am

    Gooood. Good.

    Doubtful SCOTUS would entertain taking this up.

    Now lets see the partisan right goes after Biden when his term ends.

    “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”
    -Lavrentiy Beria

    Because this is how it ends.

    whembly (5f7596)

  343. Summary:

    PER CURIAM Donald J. Trump was elected the 45th
    President ofthe United States on November 8, 2016. He was
    sworn into office at noon on January 20, 2017, and served until
    histerm expired at noon on January 20, 2021. At that moment,
    President Trump became former President Trump and his
    successor, Joseph R. Biden, became President and began his
    own four-year term . U.S. CONST. art II, § 1. Although this
    sequence is set by the Constitution, id. amend . XX, it did not
    proceed peacefully . Indeed, from election day 2020 forward,
    the government alleges that President Trump denied that he had
    lost hisbidfor a second term and challenged the election results
    through litigation, pressure on state and federal officers, the
    organization of an alternate slate of electors and other means.
    His alleged interference in the constitutionally prescribed
    sequence culminated with a Washington, D.C., rally held on
    January 6, 2021, the day set by the Electoral Count Act, 3
    U.S.C. § 15(a) , for the Congress to meet in joint session to
    certify the election results. The rally headlined by President
    Trump resulted in a march of thousands to the Capitol and the
    violent breach of the Capitol Building. The breach delayed the
    congressional proceedings for several hours and itwas not until
    the early morning of January 7th that the 2020 presidential
    election results were certified, naming Joseph R. Biden as the
    soon-to-be 46th President.

    Since then, hundreds of people who breached the Capitol
    on January 6, 2021, have been prosecuted and imprisoned.
    And on August 1, 202 in Washington, D.C., former President
    Trump was charged in a four-count Indictment as a result ofhis
    actions challenging the election results and interferingwith the
    sequence set forth in the Constitution for the transfer of power
    from one President to the next. Former President Trump
    moved to dismiss the Indictment and the district court denied
    his motion. Today, we affirm the denial. For the purpose of
    this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen
    Trump, with allofthe defenses ofany other criminal defendant .
    But any executive immunity that may have protected him while
    he served as President no longer protects him against this
    prosecution

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  344. Now lets see the partisan right goes after Biden when his term ends.

    Let’s see them find standing. There is a huge difference between something being brought by the DoJ and something being brought by Breitbart.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  345. Bill Clinton was held to answer for perjury he committed during his time in office. He settled as an immunity claim would have bee equally preposterous, even though he had been acquitted of perjury in a Senate trial.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  346. @346

    Now lets see the partisan right goes after Biden when his term ends.

    Let’s see them find standing. There is a huge difference between something being brought by the DoJ and something being brought by Breitbart.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 8:51 am

    Sorry. Them’s the rules now.

    I skimmed the order and I’m not seeing the majority making any delination between what is and is not a presidential official act. (if they did, please point me to page #). Because, if there’s no distinction, the woah momma…people with ax to grind is gunna be busy when a POTUS becomes a former-POTUS.

    The Obama administration assassinated a US citizen w/o due process, that the ACLU tried to sue. Surely this opens the door again under this precedent.

    Or, for more recent, Joe Biden abdication of his border policies could open him up to legal jeopardy contributing to opioid overdose in this country.

    I can see lawyers channeling their inner-Beria after this.

    I hope SCOTUS takes this up, but I doubt it.

    whembly (5f7596)

  347. @347

    Bill Clinton was held to answer for perjury he committed during his time in office. He settled as an immunity claim would have bee equally preposterous, even though he had been acquitted of perjury in a Senate trial.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 8:53 am

    I’m a little foggy on the details… but, I don’t believe the courts even considered the merits of presidential immunity. Hence why he settled. Right?

    whembly (5f7596)

  348. The Court is required to assume, in an interlocutory appeal, that the indictment is true since the appeal is that these charges cannot be brought. What are the charges again?

    The Indictment alleges that former President Trump
    understood that he had lost the election and that the election
    results were legitimate but that he nevertheless was
    determined to remain in power. Indictment ¶2. He then
    conspired with others to cast doubt on the election’s outcome
    and contrived to have himself declared the winner.

    Note: The Former President Trump’s campaign and his supporters also
    unsuccessfully challenged the election results in several state and
    federal courts.

    (These appeals are not part of the indictment)

    The Indictment charges that he and his co-conspirators allegedly
    advanced their goal through five primary means:

    First, they used knowingly false claims of election fraud
    to attempt to persuade state legislators and election officials to
    change each state’s electoral votes in former President Trump’s
    favor. Indictment 10(a) . For example, he and his allies
    falsely declared that more than ten thousand dead voters had
    voted in Georgia ; that there had been 205,000 more votes
    than voters in Pennsylvania” ; that more than 30,000 non
    citizens had voted in Arizona ; and that voting machines …
    had switched votes from [Trump] to Biden. Id. at 12.

    Second, then-President Trump and his co-conspirators
    organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted
    states attempting to mimic the procedures that the
    legitimate electors were supposed to follow.” Indictment
    (b) . They then caused these fraudulent electors to
    transmit their false certificates to the Vice President and other
    government officials to be counted at the certification
    proceeding on January 6.

    Third then-President Trump and his co-conspirators
    pressed officials at the Department of Justice to conduct sham
    election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted
    states that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had
    identified significant concerns that may have impacted the
    election outcome . Indictment 10(c) .

    Fourth, then-President Trump and his co-conspirators
    attempted to convince then-Vice President Mike Pence to use
    his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to
    fraudulently alter the election results. Indictment
    (d) . When the Vice President rebuffed them, he stirred his
    base of supporters to increase pressure on the Vice President .
    See id at 10(d) , 96, 100. Ultimately, on the morning of
    January 6, 2021, he held a rally in Washington D.C. where he
    repeated knowingly false claims of election fraud to gathered
    supporters” and ” directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the
    certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice
    President to take the fraudulent actions he had previously
    refused. Id. at 10(d ) , 90(c) .

    Fifth, and finally , from the January 6 rally, thousands of
    his supporters including individuals who had traveled to
    Washington and to the Capitol at [his ] direction swarmed
    the United States Capitol, causing violence and chaos that
    required the Congress to temporarily halt the election
    certification proceeding. Indictment 107, 119, 121. At that
    point, he and his co-conspirators exploited the disruption by
    redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and
    convince Members of Congress to further delay the
    certification . Id. at 10(e) .

    I would appreciate it if those who call this indictment indefensible when applied to a former President would tell me why these acts are part of a President’s duty or privileges or in some other way related to the performance of his office. Because, like Nixon’s cover-up or Clinton’s perjury they clearly were not.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  349. I don’t believe the courts even considered the merits of presidential immunity. Hence why he settled. Right?

    Because Clinton knew “that dog would not hunt.” Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he was a very smart man and well versed in the law. Trump is neither of those things.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  350. whembly,

    A prediction: those attempts at “getting back” will not get past the first hearing, and may result in sanctions.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  351. @350

    The Court is required to assume, in an interlocutory appeal, that the indictment is true…

    Is that really normal?

    Because I did do a double-take when in the background the court stated “At this stage of the prosecution, we assume that the allegations set forth in the Indictment are true”. The case hasn’t even started! Struck me as “guilty until proven innocent” mindset.

    I didn’t see how United States v. Ballestas fit in here… that case was already adjudicated in district court when it was appealed.

    whembly (5f7596)

  352. @352

    whembly,

    A prediction: those attempts at “getting back” will not get past the first hearing, and may result in sanctions.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 9:09 am

    Sorry. Thems the rules.

    Kevin, we cannot have multi tiered justice… even if the guy being targeted now is someone we despise.

    whembly (5f7596)

  353. Whembly, yes, it’s normal. The court cannot decide if the allegations are true, that requires a trial. Trump is alleging that, even if the allegations are true, he would be immune – so the question the court is answering is, if the allegations are true, would trump be immune?

    This is normal appellate work for an appeal of a ruling made at this stage of trial.

    aphrael (dec136)

  354. @355

    Whembly, yes, it’s normal. The court cannot decide if the allegations are true, that requires a trial. Trump is alleging that, even if the allegations are true, he would be immune – so the question the court is answering is, if the allegations are true, would trump be immune?

    This is normal appellate work for an appeal of a ruling made at this stage of trial.

    aphrael (dec136) — 2/6/2024 @ 9:24 am

    Thanks buddy, that makes sense.

    whembly (5f7596)

  355. What aphrael said.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  356. Note that interlocutory appeals (those before any trial) in criminal cases are extremely rare and must be based on solid immunity grounds to even be heard.

    [We are only allowed] to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a small class
    of interlocutory decisions that conclusively determine the
    disputed question, resolve an important issue completely
    separate from the merits of the action, and are effectively
    unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment

    All three of these must be satisfied, and an amicus actually brought this up, so the court had to spend some time explaining why they even considered the appeal.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  357. One must keep in mind that, despite all the posturing, that Trump’s primary goal here is to delay. If he wins, great, but if he pushes the prosecution past the election his lawyers have done their job.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  358. The Obama administration assassinated a US citizen w/o due process, that the ACLU tried to sue. Surely this opens the door again under this precedent.

    Or, for more recent, Joe Biden abdication of his border policies could open him up to legal jeopardy contributing to opioid overdose in this country.

    Wishcasting.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  359. Or, for more recent, Joe Biden abdication of his border policies could open him up to legal jeopardy contributing to opioid overdose in this country.

    Biden then should be impeached. Unless one can prove (through direct evidence) that Biden deliberately encouraged or organized drug smuggling (or human trafficking), this is political hyperbole. Shocking!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  360. The Obama administration assassinated a US citizen w/o due process, that the ACLU tried to sue. Surely this opens the door again under this precedent.

    Or, for more recent, Joe Biden abdication of his border policies could open him up to legal jeopardy contributing to opioid overdose in this country.

    The first was certainly within the president’s war powers, and in any event was an act of State. Had it been done for reasons other than the prosecution of a war, or within the United States and not clearly related to his duty to defend, then you’d have a point, like if Biden ordered MTG killed.

    The second is still related to Biden’s duties, and it is long-standing that the results of policy are not actionable if the policy was lawful. I guess if the charges included “fraudulently supporting [and/or profiting from] the importation of fentanyl” then there would be no immunity from a trial.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  361. But in what universe is “attempting to organize fraudulent election returns and/or coerce same” within the duties of the office? If it is, what boundaries are there?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  362. The Obama administration assassinated a US citizen w/o due process, that the ACLU tried to sue. Surely this opens the door again under this precedent.

    That US citizen (Anwar Al-Aulaqi) was an Al-Qaeda terrorist leader. The fact that his son was killed at the same time is tragic, but not criminal. Anwar should have been a better father and not placed his son in danger.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  363. RIP country singer Toby Keith (62).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  364. Note that Aaron Burr, as sitting Vice-President, shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel in New Jersey. Hamilton died several days later in New York. Burr was charged with crimes in both states and fled them to avoid prosecution. The charges were later dropped for other reasons (e.g. the NJ charges were dropped because Hamilton died in NY). But clearly Burr was not believed to have immunity at a time when most of the Founders (including Burr) were still alive to object.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  365. Second GOP rep says he’ll vote against Mayorkas impeachment

    Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) announced Tuesday that he would vote against a resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, becoming the second Republican to buck the party and putting GOP plans in jeopardy.

    In a 10-page memo, McClintock offered criticism of Mayorkas but said his party had failed to identify an impeachable crime.

    “Clearly the founders worried that the power of impeachment could be used to settle political disputes and so searched for limiting language to avoid such abuse,” McClintock wrote, writing his colleagues had failed to demonstrate any high crime or misdemeanor.

    Assuming full attendance, Republicans can only lose three votes to pass its impeachment resolution. But with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) absent due to treatment for blood cancer, that number dwindles to just two if all other members are present, leaving no more room for GOP defections.
    ……….
    Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) has already said he plans to vote against the Mayorkas resolution, similarly arguing his colleagues failed to meet the standards laid out in the constitution.
    ………
    “As long as the acts are within the constitutional power of the executive, those acts are not impeachable, no matter how foolish, corrupt, damaging, or egregious” (McClintock writes).
    ………

    Note to Kevin M: McClintock’s memo starts with your favorite movie quote.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  366. Here is McClintock’s full memo.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  367. Vice-President Spiro T Agnew was charged with bribery while in office and resigned as part of a plea deal. He also did not assert (and would not have been granted) immunity.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  368. McClintock’s memo starts with your favorite movie quote.

    Well, perhaps. My favorite quote is “Hey, a lesson here, Bey, you come at the King, you’d best not miss!”, but that’s a TV show, so maybe you’re right.

    P.S. Tom McClintock is a stand-up guy and a deficit hawk.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  369. “As long as the acts are within the constitutional power of the executive, those acts are not impeachable, no matter how foolish, corrupt, damaging, or egregious”

    I’m not sure this is true. Impeachment is not a criminal matter, but a political one. It may involve criminality, but any abuse of the public trust is impeachable.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  370. whembly expresses the concern upthread that there is no real limiting principle in the DC Court decision. Since Trump made a very broad claim regarding presidential immunity, the court’s rejection of the theory does not overrule precedent or open any floodgates. The decision could be applied against the next president who is indicted for trying to interfere with an official proceeding involving the electoral college. Otherwise, cases against the President thrown out before would still be thrown out.

    Appalled (0ae745)

  371. I’m really not convinced that the VP is an apt comparison, though, as the VP has no real duties and no real power, and at the end of the day the concern about the chilling effect of malicious post-term or during-term prosecution interfering with necessary presidential action simply *doesn’t apply*.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  372. #368 — McLintock’s argument is impressive. Thanks for linking it.

    I do take the Gerald Ford view of impeachment, rather than the viewpoint attributed to Madison. The Mayorkas impeachment would have been a useful tool, had Biden been intractable on impeachment, as it would have forced a debate on policy. However, the guy who is intractable is Trump, who must have the country falling apart in order to make the case that he alone can fix it. So, it’s another pointeless exercise by the most pointless GOP in history.

    Appalled (0ae745)

  373. @372

    whembly expresses the concern upthread that there is no real limiting principle in the DC Court decision. Since Trump made a very broad claim regarding presidential immunity, the court’s rejection of the theory does not overrule precedent or open any floodgates. The decision could be applied against the next president who is indicted for trying to interfere with an official proceeding involving the electoral college. Otherwise, cases against the President thrown out before would still be thrown out.

    Appalled (0ae745) — 2/6/2024 @ 10:44 am

    I’m saying that there wouldn’t be an limiting principles for former Presidents.

    I re-read the DC ruling. There’s zero arguments to ascertain what is or is not official acts of the President.

    So, if former POTUS doesn’t enjoy any of the same immunities that are afforded to Judges, prosecutors and Congress critters, then yes, I don’t see any limiting principles that would prevent partisan prosecutors going after former Presidents.

    Which would open that obnoxious, and insipid doors for partisan prosecutors.

    I think Courts should be able to establish what are and are not “official acts of the Presidency”, and that those official acts enjoys immunity unless Congress impeaches/convicts the President. But, that’s pie in the sky as I’m sure that runs afoul to separation of powers doctrines.

    whembly (5f7596)

  374. whembly,

    Courts only consider the case before them, and resolve the case on the narrowest grounds possible. This decision would have been the wrong place to resolve what you want resolved.

    There is case law around official/unoffical acts for civil purposes, which are discussed in some depth in the decision just reached. Litigation usually does not give you a bright line rule applicable in all cases. That’s supposed to be the job of the legislature.

    Appalled (0ae745)

  375. McClintock’s view on impeachment would have caused him to vote against the first Trump impeachment (which I’m sure he did), as what was charged was neither criminal not unconstitutional. It was merely a corrupt breach of public trust, which is OK by Tom.

    Yet another politician I like but do not agree with completely.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  376. Oooof:
    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/wrongfully-inserting-racial-animus-into-this-case-trump-motion-says-da-in-rico-case-should-be-disqualified-maybe-even-disbarred-for-racially-charged-speech-at-black-church/

    ‘Wrongfully inserting racial animus into this case’: Trump motion says DA in RICO case should be disqualified, maybe even disbarred, for ‘racially charged’ speech at Black church

    whembly (5f7596)

  377. There’s zero arguments to ascertain what is or is not official acts of the President.

    There’s plenty there. There is a discussion of types of acts, and how purely discretionary acts are immune from court review. But acts in defiance of otherwise-constitutional statutes are not.

    If a president sends military aid to a corrupt dictatorship, there is no legal remedy.

    If a president sends military aid to a corrupt dictatorship in the face of a law that says he cannot do that, then he has committed a crime and can be prosecuted. He is not above the law.

    There are laws against trying to falsify electoral votes. There are laws against conspiring to disrupt Congress. There are laws against trying to deprive citizens of their votes, or the results thereof. There are laws against corruptly interfering in electoral procedures.

    Any president can be charged with these. Now, perhaps Joe Biden has committed crimes regarding the Southern border, and maybe someone will make that case. But any attempt to, um, trump up some case will be met with political backlash 10 times worse than any gain hoped for. Playing to the choir is never a good idea, even though that is Trump’s stock in trade.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  378. ‘Wrongfully inserting racial animus into this case’: Trump motion says DA in RICO case should be disqualified, maybe even disbarred, for ‘racially charged’ speech at Black church

    It WAS tacky, but in this day and age? And Trump is not above that himself, talking about how a Hispanic judge was a shill for Mexico.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  379. @379

    If a president sends military aid to a corrupt dictatorship in the face of a law that says he cannot do that, then he has committed a crime and can be prosecuted. He is not above the law.

    ….

    Any president can be charged with these. Now, perhaps Joe Biden has committed crimes regarding the Southern border, and maybe someone will make that case. But any attempt to, um, trump up some case will be met with political backlash 10 times worse than any gain hoped for. Playing to the choir is never a good idea, even though that is Trump’s stock in trade.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:35 pm

    Asylum cases, by law, must be detained.

    That’s what the law says.

    The Biden administration is ignoring that.

    Are you arguing that Biden could be charged (post-Presidency) for not following this law?

    whembly (5f7596)

  380. I think Courts should be able to establish what are and are not “official acts of the Presidency”, and that those official acts enjoys immunity unless Congress impeaches/convicts the President. But, that’s pie in the sky as I’m sure that runs afoul to separation of powers doctrines.

    The idea was to avoid holding a trial. Are you now saying the should hold a trial to see if they should hold a trial?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  381. @380

    ‘Wrongfully inserting racial animus into this case’: Trump motion says DA in RICO case should be disqualified, maybe even disbarred, for ‘racially charged’ speech at Black church

    It WAS tacky, but in this day and age? And Trump is not above that himself, talking about how a Hispanic judge was a shill for Mexico.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:37 pm

    Trump’s not an attorney, and as such isn’t held to the same professional standards are Willis, as the DA.

    whembly (5f7596)

  382. Are you arguing that Biden could be charged (post-Presidency) for not following this law?

    If it is that clear. I am willing to bet that there are 5 pages of that rule and 100 exceptions and waffle-words.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  383. Trump’s not an attorney, and as such isn’t held to the same professional standards are Willis, as the DA.

    Well, he has attorneys on staff, and they support his evil theiving election-stealing, so if we are having a morals charge comparison, I win.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  384. @382

    I think Courts should be able to establish what are and are not “official acts of the Presidency”, and that those official acts enjoys immunity unless Congress impeaches/convicts the President. But, that’s pie in the sky as I’m sure that runs afoul to separation of powers doctrines.

    The idea was to avoid holding a trial. Are you now saying the should hold a trial to see if they should hold a trial?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:38 pm

    Yes.

    I know there’s some separation of powers concerns with this, but set that aside a bit for now.

    Today, judges, prosecutors and polices enjoys a judicial construct calls “Qualified Immunity” where it shields them from individual liability unless the official violated a clearly established constitutional right or “meat and potatoes” laws (ie Bribery, extortion, etc…).

    Do Presidents enjoy, or even need, this “Qualified Immunity” doctrine?

    whembly (5f7596)

  385. @385

    Trump’s not an attorney, and as such isn’t held to the same professional standards are Willis, as the DA.

    Well, he has attorneys on staff, and they support his evil theiving election-stealing, so if we are having a morals charge comparison, I win.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:41 pm

    I’m not having a comparison here.

    Trump, et. el. is still a defendant.

    AG Willis is the head prosecutor leveraging all the powers of the state and authority to prosecute individuals.

    Just because you don’t like the defendants, doesn’t mean the “other side” gets a pass either.

    Because, this is how norms are broken and precedents are etched into stone.

    whembly (5f7596)

  386. whembly,

    If the judge takes the racial animus charge seriously, he will have already disqualified Willis over the affair with her associate.

    Appalled (0ae745)

  387. Willis is sleazy for what she said at the church. But that should have nothing to do with the righteous charges against Donald Trump. I really don’t understand your full-court press in favor of that jackass.

    It’s not that there aren’t issues with some of the people who oppose him (and Alvin Bragg and all his cases are crap), but you seem to see every single argument that might bend in Trump’s favor as the word of the Lord, and I really don’t know why you’re doing that.

    Wouldn’t getting Trump out of public live be better for the right? And him less of a godsend for the left? In most of the country everything that Trump has touched has turned to crap — he narrows the party and enables the other one. The centrists all go to the polls thinking “F Trump!” as they mark their ballots.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  388. @388

    whembly,

    If the judge takes the racial animus charge seriously, he will have already disqualified Willis over the affair with her associate.

    Appalled (0ae745) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:51 pm

    I’m not sure this judge wants to disqualify anyone at this point, but that hearing is on the 15th.

    whembly (5f7596)

  389. @386: Did you know, that in Robert’s Rules, any member can appeal a ruling of the Chair, EXCEPT decisions made DURING an appeal of a ruling.

    There’s a reason for this, and it involves fun-house mirrors.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  390. Trump’s whole routine is chaos and obfuscation. His administration was like that, his businesses are like that and life is like that. Please can we get off this ride now?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  391. Professors William Baude and Michael Paulsen on have posted on The Volokh Conspiracy rejoinders to objections to their position that Donald Trump is covered by Section Three of the 14th Amendment.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  392. @389

    Willis is sleazy for what she said at the church. But that should have nothing to do with the righteous charges against Donald Trump.

    Do attorney’s not have to abide by ethic standards are not? Seems to me, that this causes some issues with adverse judgements on appeal.

    I really don’t understand your full-court press in favor of that jackass.

    1) I agree with you that Trump is the jackass.
    2) Ya’ll know who was my preferred candidate, and I lost on that front.
    3) I’m #NeverDemocrat. Deal with it. (slowly puts on my shades with pyrotechnics in the background)
    4) I’m pushing back on the NeverTrumpers to at least consider the possibility that, while Trump shouldn’t set foot in the Whitehouse again, that using any and all possibilities to legally undermine Trump so close the election is also damaging the norms and expectations in general.

    It would be a drastically different conversation had these prosecutors started this in 2020, rather than 2023.

    It’s not that there aren’t issues with some of the people who oppose him (and Alvin Bragg and all his cases are crap), but you seem to see every single argument that might bend in Trump’s favor as the word of the Lord, and I really don’t know why you’re doing that.

    Again, just because you believe Trump is a jackass doesn’t means you should support legal frivolous and legal contortions to “get Trump” in a naked partisan manner during election seasons.

    I’ll concede that the Documents case is the one that may have legal merits, but even that, there are a ton of things that needs to by adjudicated simply because we’re dealing with former Presidents.

    Wouldn’t getting Trump out of public live be better for the right?

    Absolutely. But not at all cost. The behavior by his opponents is that Trump is evil, Trump is a dictator, Trump is a monster are all connotations that any action at all, is justified.

    If you can’t see how dangerous that is, then there’s going to be very little we’d agree on on this subject.

    And him less of a godsend for the left?

    The left/Democrats (BIRM) wanted to run against Trump. It’s the only explanation that I can come up with these legal cases being purposed done during the primaries and the almost “off hand” by Democrats and media (BIRM) until the nomination. Once Trump is nominated, Trump is going to face an onslaught of negative media such that he would actually drag down ballots. We may be even see a “Blue wave” in Biden v. Trump in 2024, despite how awful Biden is.

    In most of the country everything that Trump has touched has turned to crap — he narrows the party and enables the other one. The centrists all go to the polls thinking “F Trump!” as they mark their ballots.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:54 pm

    Probably so.

    Why do you think I was so adamant that we’d coalesce being a not-Trump candidate all those months ago. If we couldn’t do it last year, it’s too late and Trump is the prohibited favorite in the primary.

    whembly (5f7596)

  393. 1. When an Atlanta politician is in trouble, the race card is played. Hard, and usually at a black church. What Fani Willis did is in that tradition.

    2. I gotta say that a televised hearing about Willis unfortunate looking for love in the wrong places will do more to prejudice a jury pool than what she said at the black church.

    3. I don’t want the Fulton County case — which I think is a righteous one — delayed any farther. I don’t see the rights of Trump and his colleagues have been trampled here. Doing broad RICO cases is the F. Willis brand — she wasn’t doing it to keep her boyfriend emloyed.

    4. Fani is going to pay a price. Leftists are ticked at her for putting this case at risk. Also, while she may avoid a televised hearing on February 15, the state legislature has appointed a committee with the power to subpoena her and embarass her. She will have a chance to have all her dirty linen aired in public. That too feels righteous to me.

    5. Will I get what I want? I don’t know.

    Appalled (0ae745)

  394. #394

    Trump is not the “prohibited favorite” unless the Supreme Court does something we do not expect.

    Appalled (0ae745)

  395. @396

    #394

    Trump is not the “prohibited favorite” unless the Supreme Court does something we do not expect.

    Appalled (0ae745) — 2/6/2024 @ 1:45 pm

    I’m sure Rip will confirm, but yes, Trump is the prohibited favorite in the primary.

    If Trump’s the nominee, then Biden is the prohibited favorite imo that he’ll surpass his 81 million vote in the general.

    In some ways, I kind HOPE that SCOTUS will say that Trump is disqualified from running for office. At last it puts that debate to bed.

    That way, we’d have a real race with Haley.

    whembly (5f7596)

  396. Asylum cases, by law, must be detained.

    That’s what the law says.

    The Biden administration is ignoring that.

    Are you arguing that Biden could be charged (post-Presidency) for not following this law?

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:38 pm

    Is there a criminal penalty attached?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  397. Trump is not the “prohibited favorite” unless the Supreme Court does something we do not expect.

    Appalled (0ae745) — 2/6/2024 @ 1:45 pm

    I’m sure Rip will confirm, but yes, Trump is the prohibited favorite in the primary.

    If anyone expects the Supreme Court to disqualify Trump, they are kidding themselves. As I said before, I expect the SC to say that states cannot disqualify a candidate under Section 3, only Congress.

    And yes, Trump is the prohibitive favorite to win the Republican nomination, because that is who Republican voters want.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  398. Asylum cases, by law, must be detained.

    That’s what the law says.

    The Biden administration is ignoring that.

    @398

    Are you arguing that Biden could be charged (post-Presidency) for not following this law?

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/6/2024 @ 12:38 pm

    Is there a criminal penalty attached?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/6/2024 @ 2:18 pm

    Dunno. If you break this law, what’s the recourse?

    It’s found here:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225
    Found in sec. 1225(b)(1)(B)(IV) which states:

    Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.

    whembly (5f7596)

  399. Is there a criminal penalty attached?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/6/2024 @ 2:18 pm

    Dunno. If you break this law, what’s the recourse?

    It’s found here:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225
    Found in sec. 1225(b)(1)(B)(IV) which states:

    Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/6/2024 @ 2:47 pm

    Again, there appears to be no criminal penalty for not detaining an alien subject.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  400. @401

    Again, there appears to be no criminal penalty for not detaining an alien subject.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/6/2024 @ 2:54 pm

    If you squint really hard, you might see some provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sarbanes-oxley_act
    Which was used by DC prosecutors to enhance the sentencing guidelines for J6 rioters.

    Actually, stand on one foot AND squint really hard, you can see it.

    Allegedly.

    Creative prosecutors will find novel uses for just about anything. They’d just need to let their Beria flag fly!

    whembly (5f7596)

  401. If you squint really hard, you might see some provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sarbanes-oxley_act
    Which was used by DC prosecutors to enhance the sentencing guidelines for J6 rioters.

    Actually, stand on one foot AND squint really hard, you can see it.

    Allegedly.

    Creative prosecutors will find novel uses for just about anything. They’d just need to let their Beria flag fly!

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/6/2024 @ 3:07 pm

    Which you didn’t bring up in the first place.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  402. whembly (5f7596) — 2/6/2024 @ 3:07 pm

    Good luck!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  403. In some ways, I kind HOPE that SCOTUS will say that Trump is disqualified from running for office. At last it puts that debate to bed.

    They can’t. The disqualification is only from occupying the office not from being elected to it. The 20th amendment contemplates a disqualified person being elected to the presidency.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  404. SAD!

    House Republicans failed in their effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who they alleged has refused to enforce U.S. immigration laws to stop people from entering the country illegally from Mexico.

    The near-party-line vote on the GOP-led measure was 214 in favor to 216 against, with a handful of Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition. Mayorkas would have been the first sitting cabinet official to be impeached in the nation’s history, underscoring the fierce politics and finger pointing over immigration policy.

    The vote’s defeat marked an embarrassment for the party, as Mayorkas has been a primary target of Republicans who blame the Biden administration for recent record high levels of border crossings. It also underscores the party’s lack of wiggle room on contentious measures, with a razor-thin 219-to-212 majority when all members are present.

    Four Republicans—Reps. Ken Buck of Colorado, Tom McClintock of California, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Blake Moore of Utah—voted with all Democrats on the measure. Moore changed his vote to “no” at the last minute as a procedural move to preserve a future vote. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R., La.), who is being treated for cancer, didn’t vote.
    ……….

    Political theater, but it beats legislating.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  405. House rejects Israel aid bill amid fight over bipartisan border package

    The House on Tuesday failed to pass a standalone bill to provide aid to Israel amid congressional infighting over a bipartisan Senate border bill that also included foreign aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

    The vote was 250-180. The bill needed a two-thirds majority to pass in the House under an expedited process for its consideration — a steep hurdle.

    Forty-six Democrats voted in support of the measure, while 14 Republicans opposed it.
    ……….
    The vote marked back-to-back defeats for House GOP leadership on Tuesday, after a vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas failed just minutes before the Israel aid bill was brought up for consideration.
    ………
    ………The measure, known as the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act and introduced by Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., does not contain spending offsets that Johnson said Democrats objected to in previous legislation.
    ………..
    Early in Johnson’s speakership, the House passed a bill that would have provided $14.3 billion in aid to Israel but also included IRS cuts, which Senate Democrats and President Joe Biden opposed.
    ………..
    The legislation also faced opposition from the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which criticized the bill’s lack of provisions to offset the spending with cuts elsewhere.
    ………..

    Tough day for Speaker Johnson, dealing with defectors on the Mayorkas impeachment vote and now this.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  406. Ronna McDaniel is out:

    The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, has told former President Donald J. Trump she is planning to step down shortly after the South Carolina primary on Feb. 24, according to two people familiar with the plans.

    Mr. Trump is then likely to promote the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Michael Whatley, as her replacement, according to several people familiar with the discussions. Under the arcana of the committee’s rules, however, Mr. Trump cannot simply install someone, and a new election must take place.
    …………
    Mr. Trump likes Mr. Whatley for one overwhelming reason, according to people who have discussed him with the former president: He is “a stop the steal guy,” as one of the people described him. He endorses Mr. Trump’s false claims about mass voter fraud and Mr. Trump believes he did a good job delivering North Carolina, a 2020 swing state, to him.

    Mr. Whatley has baselessly claimed that election security efforts from Republicans in North Carolina stopped Democrats from cheating. He is also currently the general counsel at the Republican National Committee and has endorsed efforts to develop new voting laws.
    …………
    Mr. Trump has complained about the R.N.C. election efforts as insufficient, even as the party has poured resources into creating a full-time “Election Integrity Department,” which has been involved in 77 lawsuits in 23 states, according to the party.
    …………

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  407. https://www.businessinsider.com/save-plan-student-loan-borrowers-new-debt-relief-save-income-driven-plan-2024-2

    Biden was told by the Supreme Court he lacked the authority to do this. He continues to spit on the Constitution and break the law. But continue pretending he’s business as usual.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  408. Biden was told by the Supreme Court that the HEROES act could not be used to support a wholesale rewriting of the student loan statute, and that the plan he had put forth before that constituted a wholesale rewriting of the statute.

    It does not follow that other attempts to provide student loan relief are necessarily unconstitutional; it depends what their claimed statutory basis is and whether the changes are so pervasive as to constitute a wholesale rewriting of the student loan statute.

    Your claim assumes many facts not in evidence.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  409. “Carlson said he was interviewing Putin so that Americans would finally know the truth about the war in Ukraine.”

    Sweet mother of God. I suspect Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva, two American journalists currently imprisoned in Russia for covering the war, will not watch the “interview”. If Tucker challenges any of Putin’s lies…I’ll be shocked. He’s shown little interest in fact checking Trump so likely more of the same.

    AJ_Liberty (6bea07)

  410. Trump is the prohibited favorite in the primary.

    From your lips to God’s ears.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  411. Although I’ve sure you mean “prohibitive” which is a completely different meaning.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  412. House Republicans failed in their effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas

    The can have another go.

    The original vote was 215-215, with Steve Scalise not attending. One Republican changed his vote to NO, so that he could move to reconsider, presumably when they aren’t a man down.

    Will they? Hard to say.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  413. @413: I see this was discussed.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  414. Biden was told by the Supreme Court that the HEROES act could not be used to support a wholesale rewriting of the student loan statute, and that the plan he had put forth before that constituted a wholesale rewriting of the statute.

    It does not follow that other attempts to provide student loan relief are necessarily unconstitutional; it depends what their claimed statutory basis is and whether the changes are so pervasive as to constitute a wholesale rewriting of the student loan statute.

    Your claim assumes many facts not in evidence.

    aphrael (4c4719) — 2/6/2024 @ 6:06 pm

    Bull spit. It’s the same lie like when Biden did his other moratoriums that he knew were unconstitutional but he did them anyway. Face it. Anyone voting for Biden is voting for someone throwing the Constitution in the trash and wiping himself with it first.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  415. True.

    Putin rewards Tucker Carlson with an interview, just how Stalin rewarded Walter Duranty.

    More on Duranty and his “special relationship” with the Russian dictator or yore.

    Duranty was The New York Times’ man in Moscow, as the line went, with a cushy apartment in which to entertain expatriates and a reputation as a leading authority on the Soviet Union. Duranty had staked his name on the idea that Josef Stalin was the strong leader the communist country needed. He is often credited with coining the term “Stalinism.”

    In return, Duranty won rare interviews with Stalin and wrote glowingly about Stalin and his plans. The Pulitzer board cited his “dispassionate interpretive reporting” in awarding him a prize in 1932 for a series of reports the previous year. The first was a front-page article that started with the line: “Russia today cannot be judged by Western standards or interpreted in Western terms.”

    Duranty’s “reporting” was a during a time when Stalin murdered three to five million Ukrainians in the Holodomor. Funny how history can repeat, or echo.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  416. aphrael (4c4719) — 2/6/2024 @ 6:06 pm

    Absolutely correct.

    Rip Murdock (68deca)

  417. Nikki Haley (33%) loses to “none of these candidates” (62%) in the Nevada Republican primary. No delegates were chosen, and Donald Trump didn’t compete. He will be in the Nevada Republican caucus on February 8th, where 26 delegates are available. Haley is not competing in the caucus.

    Rip Murdock (bec137)

  418. None of these gets more votes then nikki haley in nevada primary. The orange jesus is the messiah of the republican party.

    asset (fc7895)

  419. @419: Leave it to Rip to lead the Trump victory lap.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  420. @419: Leave it to Rip to lead the Trump victory lap.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/6/2024 @ 10:23 pm

    I really don’t know why you think that I favor Trump. I never said anything nice about him. I can’t help how the results turned out. It will be reported exactly like that in all the media outlets. No matter how it is spun, the story remains the same.

    The question should be is why Haley didn’t compete in the Nevada caucuses, where she could actually win delegates.

    Rip Murdock (bec137)

  421. Rip Murdock (bec137) — 2/6/2024 @ 11:30 pm

    If/when Haley wins a primary, I will post that also. It’s all news.

    Rip Murdock (bec137)

  422. “God assigned Trump to be President”
    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/06/john-king-south-carolina-voters-haley-trump-vpx.cnn

    How the heck do you argue with that? The more I hear from South Carolina Republicans, the more I fear for our Republic. Even absent actual evidence, she knows in her gut that the 2020 election was corrupt. God something something something blah. Cult.

    It’s unclear what campaign message breaks through mega-MAGA ignorance. Rip can continue to rip Haley as a loser, finger-to-the-wind, empty vessel, but he’s yet to show using statistical evidence a strategy that can reverse the levels of ignorance that seem pretty rampant. “Christie said” ain’t exactly evidence…and you either view J6 as significant….or you don’t.

    Does this godly woman seem like someone who will respond to Christie’s “full-Liz” fitness argument? Like Soylent Green, it’s the people. This is the revenge of the 2-digit-IQ people and they will not be denied. It will either result in a massive loss to weekend-at-Joe’s or more impeachment crisis theater as the retribution tour commences…unconstrained and fully validated. Like Jake and Elwood Blues, she’s on a mission from God. Until this GOP child touches the hot stove, sadly there won’t be any learnin’…

    AJ_Liberty (6bea07)

  423. If/when Haley wins a primary, I will post that also. It’s all news.

    This was one she was not competing in. She signed up, then the Trumpies moved everything to a caucus. This is just a gotcha news item, intended to embarrass. And you are right there with the “news.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  424. Pray for John Roberts to get his thumb out.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  425. Could this cartoon be about the Loser’s followers?

    (I don’t always agree with Wiley Miller — who is, as far as I know, no relation — but I recognize that he is a smart guy.)

    Jim Miller (a8cd1d)

  426. #417 If you want to understand that era Political Pilgrims is worth reading.

    Although the Soviet Union was becoming worse under Stalin’s evil rule, many leftists were seeing progress there, perhaps partly because of the failures of the Great Depression, here.

    Jim Miller (a8cd1d)

  427. This was one (the Nevada caucuses) she was not competing in. She signed up, then the Trumpies moved everything to a caucus. This is just a gotcha news item, intended to embarrass. And you are right there with the “news.”

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/7/2024 @ 6:29 am

    What’s embarrassing is that Haley lost by 2 to 1 to “none of these candidates.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  428. Nikki Haley lost the nonbinding Nevada primary 2-1 to “None of These Candidates” (None of the Above, which means nothing practical is always an option in Nevada elections.)

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/haley-loses-nevada-republican-primary-without-trump-rcna137367

    Nikki Haley loses to ‘none of these candidates’ in the Nevada GOP primary

    NBC News projects that more voters chose not to pick a candidate at all than back Haley. Trump wasn’t on the ballot, since he’s participating in Thursday’s caucus, instead.

    ….It was a stinging rebuke of Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and South Carolina governor — and one that some party leaders had encouraged. The outcome in Nevada was Haley’s third consecutive loss in an early-state primary contest.

    Still, Haley’s campaign indicated that the results wouldn’t affect how long she’d stay in the race.

    “Even Donald Trump knows that when you play penny slots, the house wins. We didn’t bother to play a game rigged for Trump. We’re full steam ahead in South Carolina and beyond,” spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said.

    Cartoon: (by Brendan Loper)

    https://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-cartoon/wednesday-february-7th-none-of-these-candidates

    Caption:

    “I want you to set up a super PAC for whoever this ‘None of These Candidates’ is. They just might be the future of the Party.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  429. None of these is on few ballots as politicians don’t like to be reminded of what the voters think of them. Biden, trump, none of these on national ballot would be interesting.

    asset (192a2c)

  430. As an American, the only valid reason for Tucker Carlson to be in Moscow is to bring Mr. Gershkovich home with him. Instead, he chose to be Putin’s tool.

    Unbelievable! I am like hundreds of Russian journalists who have had to go into exile to keep reporting about the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine. The alternative was to go to jail. And now this SoB is teaching us about good journalism, shooting from the $1000 Ritz suite in Moscow.

    As a “journalist”, I doubt we’ll see Tucker going to Ukraine to get Zelenskyy’s side of the story.

    Paul Montagu (a340b1)

  431. U.S. Airstrike Kills Iraq Militia Leader Behind Deadly Drone Attack on American Base

    A U.S. airstrike in Baghdad killed a commander of the Iran-backed Iraqi militia blamed for a deadly drone strike at a U.S. base in Jordan last week, as the U.S. sharpens its efforts to deter attacks on its forces.

    The commander, of the Iraqi militia group Kataib Hezbollah, was responsible for directly planning and participating in attacks on American forces in the region, the Pentagon said. The U.S. didn’t name the commander, who was identified in Iraqi media reports as Abu Baqir al-Saadi.
    ……….
    “In general, U.S. strikes have targeted capabilities to make it harder for these groups to target American forces. Now, the U.S. is going after the brains of the operations,” said Andrew Tabler, a former Middle East director at the White House’s National Security Council and now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank.

    “This keeps these groups from planning future attacks and may be seen as payback. But the risk is when you are killing leaders, you risk retaliation and more attacks on U.S. forces,” Tabler said.
    ……….
    U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. military operations in the Middle East, conducted a strike in Baghdad in early January in the first known targeted killing of an Iranian-backed militia leader by the Biden administration, marking a more aggressive effort to hold accountable militant leaders who are targeting American forces in the region. That strike killed Moshtaq Talib al-Saadi and one of his associates as they were traveling in a vehicle in eastern Baghdad.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  432. They can keep him. I get that it’s a journalistic windfall to confront evil….but Tucker is no journalist. He is a propagandist….and if his product is the expected whitewash, he should be summarily shunned.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  433. Tucker Carlson should register as a foreign agent of Russia.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  434. Everyone in congress who opposes aid to ukraine is an agent of putin wither they register or not. MTG, bobbert and gaetz are useful idiots.

    asset (f2593b)

  435. Sad!

    Marianne Williamson has suspended her campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination after coming in second in the South Carolina primary with just 2 percent of the vote.

    The self-help author challenged President Joe Biden from the left — adopting most of the last presidential platform of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — but Williamson struggled with raising money and a lack of organization. Her campaign is in debt, and more than one dozen disgruntled staffers have been left in its wake.
    …………..
    During the course of Williamson’s campaign, she went through four campaign managers……..
    …………..
    But like much of the campaign, even Williamson’s dropout wasn’t well executed.

    After the New Hampshire primary contest, Williamson hosted a call with volunteers and floated the end of her presidential bid. She finished not only behind a write-in campaign to vote for Biden, who did not campaign in the state, but also Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who only entered the race last October.
    ………….
    …………. According to the last financial disclosures, the campaign owes about $593,000. Williamson also put in about $470,000 to keep her campaign afloat.
    ………….
    …………Williamson delayed the publication of The Mystic Jesus: The Mind of Love last fall, when the book’s announcement attracted accusations that the campaign was a “grift” to promote the book.
    #######

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  436. She was hoping for miracles, of course.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  437. he should be summarily shunned.

    I don’t have any problem with Trucker going to Russia….

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  438. I’ll say this again: Trump is the bully, not the victim.
    If you’re a Republican and not Trump’s pizda-ass-b!tch, then your political career is in jeopardy if you don’t fall in line.

    Case in point: Mike Gallagher is one of three House members who voted against impeaching Mr. Mayorkas and, even though there’s no evidence that he committed high crimes or misdemeanors, Mr. Gallagher will likely get primaried. The irony is that a workable immigration bill is dead, but a pointless impeachment of a political appointee is still kicking, and it exemplifies how f-cked up our politics are.

    Trump is why we don’t have an immigration deal, and it’s why Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan are betrayed.
    The word that came to my mind today is malevolent, as in, Trump is a malevolent force on my party and my country, but he’s going to get nominated and it’s going to get ugly for the rest of this year, win or lose, and this will put me in a really bad, pissed off mood for this year as well. You know it’s f-cked up when purveyors of evil like Putin and purveyors of disinformation like Tucker and doing victory laps. This is so goddam frustrating.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  439. Same BS every day. Why wont trumpsters stop being populists who loathe corporate republican free trade economic libertarian neo-cons. Can’t you be good little drones again and take your marching orders from koch bros. think tanks like the federalists and club for growth and vote what ever mitt romney/jeb bush clone we run, so we can continue to sell out the white working class to the multi-national corporations!

    asset (f2593b)

  440. If you’re a Republican and not Trump’s pizda-ass-b!tch, then your political career is in jeopardy if you don’t fall in line.

    It’s a problem. There are only two companies you can work for, and one is run by a madman, and the other one is run by fools.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  441. @442 Not fools. Biden and the democrat establishment has a job to do for the deep state. They must do what ever it takes to keep the left party base from taking over the democrat party Because once the left has neutralized the right they will come after them! Get tough on border like Obama the deporter in chief. Biden gets primaried by somebody other then marianne williamson. Until you understand the realpolik it is not foolishness it has a purpose. The deep state can tolerate trumpsters not the squad.

    asset (f2593b)

  442. I know Haley is doing better than expected, despites phony-baloney astroturf polls and rigged party primaries, because the Democrat media now has her in their sights. As in gunsights. As in “shoot her down” in case she might be the nominee instead of Trump.

    Not that I would vote for her any more than I would vote for Kamala Harris. But a lot of people would rather vote for her than for Trump.

    nk (890a96)

  443. There’s a trick to herding cattle. Actually, there are a lot of tricks to herding cattle, but this is one is for gathering a scattered herd.

    You make your first bunch the biggest, and then hold them in place. (They don’t need much holding if they’re already fed and watered.) Then you hunt down the smaller bunches and scattered heads and haze them towards the big bunch. They will gravitate there like water to a pool.

    What? It’s an open thread, ain’t it?

    nk (890a96)

  444. What do you do with the bull whose intent is to keep the herd scattered?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  445. The cows with calves, as well. One of two things.

    Segregation. You only put your four-year old market steers and heifers in the trail herd. The breeding stock stays behind on the range.

    For rebels that slip through, cowboys have to eat too.

    There was stray in the herd and the boss said “Kill it!”.
    So I shot in the rump and it landed in the skillet.
    Yippee-ki-o- ki-ay!

    nk (149173)

  446. There was a movie, Cattle Empire with Joel McCrea, the progenitor of the TV show Rawhide, with a scene of that second option early in the movie.

    nk (149173)

  447. *shot it in the rump*

    nk (149173)

  448. Live oral argument link:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  449. 7AM Pacific

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  450. These are the main questions, afaik:

    1. Is the President an “officer”?

    2. Does disqualification require a Congressionally-approved procedure?

    3. Is disqualification a criminal matter, or a civil one?

    4. Is disqualification a state-by-state matter, under state election codes, or a federal matter?

    5. If it is a federal matter, what court has jurisdiction and using what rules?

    After that we can get to “Was it an insurrection?” and “Did Donald Trump engage in it?”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  451. @ 450. Thank you, Kevin!

    nk (149173)

  452. @452: Since Congress requires 2/3rds of each House to remove a disqualification, can they simply refuse to provide any needed disqualification procedure by minority intransigence?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  453. Opinions (no audio) at 10AM EST before case.

    Go here for liveblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  454. Opinion in Department of Agriculture Rural Development v. Kirtz

    The court holds unanimously that a consumer can sue a federal agency for violating the terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  455. Opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities

    Unanimous: The court holds in Murray v. UBS that under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a whistleblower is not required to prove that his employer acted with retaliatory intent.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  456. Last opinion. Audio starts after Sotomayor shuts up.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  457. Trump’s side is first.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  458. They are arguing that US Term Limits bars using Section 3 as a qualification for office.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  459. Roberts is dubious.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  460. Kagan is aghast.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  461. The Trump folks are relying on Griffin’s Case, and Kagan is almost laughing at them.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  462. OOOPs. Now it’s Kagan, that must have been either Sotomayor or Jackson.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  463. First justice was Sotomayor.

    Barrett is arguing that there might be some difference between the federal and state levels.

    Alito is arguing that barring a candidate is different than barring someone from taking office. “Who can enforce section 3?”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  464. Sotomayor points out that states routinely disqualify candidates for underage, etc.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  465. Jackson tries to get back to “officer”, rest of the court isn’t interested.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  466. Does the fact that Congress can lift a disability mean that prior determination isn’t valid? The answer seems to be no.

    Jackson attacks the low-hanging “officer” nonsense.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  467. Trump’s guy isn’t all that keen on the “officer” thing.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  468. The “officer” usage in the Constitution seems to be mishegas.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  469. Barrett tosses a whole new wrinkle in, by suggesting that a post-election Congressional enactment of a disqualification rule is in tension with impeachment.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  470. They seem to be running over Trump’s 40 minutes.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  471. The Trump bottom line is that Section 3 is not self-executing.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  472. Now for Colorado

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  473. Thomas is drilling Murray (colorado) on the history after the civil war, where states did not disqualify federal candidates. Murray replies that elections were different back then, and mostly party-controlled and it wasn’t really until a Congressman arrived to take office that objections could be made.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  474. Kavanaugh recites my #452. Who decides?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  475. It looks unlikely that the Court will allow individual states to make this decision, due to a diversity of procedures and standards.

    Murray is handicapped by not being able to argue a federal disqualification.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  476. The Court really does not like the mixture of conflicting state-level rulings.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  477. Gorsuch(?): On Jan 7th, was Trump disqualified from continuing as president? What would compel a subordinate to obey an order?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  478. Murray replies to the lack of uniformity by noting that it is only that way in the absence of federal procedure, but there is no dormant Supremacy clause that bars state action when Congress does nothing.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  479. We are clearly in penalty minutes now.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  480. Or, rather stoppage time.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  481. The Colorado case, narrowly defended, is untenable. Sotomayor finally tries to get Murray off of the state-level case.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  482. Murray makes a strong case for doing it now rather than after Trump has won.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  483. This is really a knarly federalism question. How did they solve the Gordian Knot again?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  484. Gorsuch seems still stuck on the “officer” thing. *sigh*

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  485. Note to self: Lists suck and are never ever “all-inclusive.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  486. Lists always end up with a “+” at the end (or noticeably lack one).

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  487. Stevenson, representing Colorado itself.

    They strongly suggest that Colorado has an absolute right to determine that candidates are qualified.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  488. She is defending the Secretary of State’s actions and the state’s procedures.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  489. After that we can get to “Was it an insurrection?” and “Did Donald Trump engage in it?”

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 6:25 am

    Trump not indicted under 18 USC 2383, so probably not.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  490. MY brain is full. It will be interesting to read the reviews.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  491. Trump not indicted under 18 USC 2383, so probably not.

    This is a civil disability, not a criminal one.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  492. Wasn’t that one of your predictions?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  493. @493

    Trump not indicted under 18 USC 2383, so probably not.

    This is a civil disability, not a criminal one.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 9:12 am

    What’s the civil code that describes insurrectiony conducts ?

    whembly (5f7596)

  494. Amendment 14, Section 3.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  495. Look, I listened to all of this thing, with 9 justice snd 3 lawyers going through every nook and cranny. To those who just dropped in, listen to the tape before you speak.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  496. It’s interesting that Jackson and Gorsuch are looking at the “officer” off-ramp. One thing that was hard to read: this is a state-level case and the respondents were defending that while the petitioners were talking more globally.

    There was some indication among the justices at the end that they may want to review this at a higher level. They are clearly uncomfortable with a state-by-state process, but also don’t want to just punt.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  497. Look, I listened to all of this thing, with 9 justice snd 3 lawyers going through every nook and cranny. To those who just dropped in, listen to the tape before you speak.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 9:21 am

    Are you now setting the rules? It’s our right to comment without listening at all to the argument. 😉

    I did listen; I see the at least a 7-2 ruling against Colorado, if not 9-0. Colorado’s presentation was weak; answering a question a Justice didn’t ask isn’t a winning strategy.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  498. @496

    Amendment 14, Section 3.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 9:20 am

    I mean, if they want to sorta punt, they can argue that Section 5 directs your to use the federal code for insurrection, and end with: Was Trump convicted of engaging in insurrection?

    It’s a punt in a way that they’re not really wading into whether or not he actually engaged in insurrection.

    whembly (5f7596)

  499. As I said before, I expect the SC to say that states cannot disqualify a candidate under Section 3, only Congress.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  500. I’m listening to bits and bobs of this hearing too, and I’m at Justice Jackson’s question…

    She’s trying to get the Colorado attorney to explain how his argument makes sense given that POTUS is NOT on the list.

    She’s making the point that the POTUS is far different from state officials and members of Congress.

    She seems to argue that POTUS is not an officer of the US.

    The Colorado attorney seems to flub this one.

    Didn’t expect this line of inquire from Justice Jackson…

    whembly (5f7596)

  501. The Court does not want to have this be 50 state rulings, but they also don’t want to declare the 14th Amendment insurrection clause a dead letter. I look for them to look at the process in Colorado and/or elsewhere and use it to make a national ruling. One way or the other.

    This is a federalism question, and presidential elections are almost entirely run by the states. To say that states have no say here seems difficult. But, again, 50 state actions here brings chaos.

    On the flip side you have the lack of a federal process where, in some kind of Dormant Supremacy Clause, Congress can by inaction preempt the states. That is also not viable.

    Between these two positions, where the law is unclear, we have the federal courts “who say what the law is.” I think they will. The decision will reverse Colorado, 9-0, but then it will answer the qualification question nationally.

    Also 9-0, but which 9-0 is hard to say.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  502. > I mean, if they want to sorta punt, they can argue that Section 5 directs your to use the federal code for insurrection, and end with: Was Trump convicted of engaging in insurrection?

    I doubt that’s going to be the outcome, because the implication of that outcome was that section three would only have applied to Confederate officers who had been tried and convicted, and adding that *procedural* requirement would have completely undermined the *substantive* goals of the clause.

    As much as I hate it, the ‘officer’ clause is the easiest offramp.

    What would be ideal in this situation is if Congress could use its power under the Elections Clause to clarify this, but there’s no way to get a majority behind any particular clarification.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  503. given that POTUS is NOT on the list.

    Lists suck. Last year I was reviewing a book for an organization that operates in 41 countries. They had a list talking about “all religions: Christian, Jew or Hindu”, neglecting the 7 Muslim countries that the organization operates in.

    My edit: “all religions.: Christian, Jew or Hindu

    This is how you get LGTBQ+

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  504. As much as I hate it, the ‘officer’ clause is the easiest offramp.

    You hate it because it is a dereliction of duty.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  505. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 9:39 am

    Will they overrule Griffin’s Case?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  506. What would be ideal in this situation is if Congress could use its power under the Elections Clause to clarify this, but there’s no way to get a majority behind any particular clarification.

    What happens in a Constitutional Crisis of this sort is that the Court sorts it out. Sometimes that works (US v Nixon), sometimes it doesn’t (Dred Scott v Sandford).

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  507. Will they overrule Griffin’s Case?

    CJ Chase did that himself 2 years later, and in any event it was a different question. Accepting Griffin’s argument, every decision by the disqualified judge would have to be vacated. The case here is not a retroactive one.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  508. Mitchell (Trump’s attornies?)… made a good point I think that Gorsuch briefly touched on…

    If Trump is disqualified under Section 3 as of Jan 6, 2021, then any actions he took before leaving office – or – if he gets reelected somehow (I think he’s saying), then those acts would be subject to challenge in federal court to be vacated as unconstitutional.

    whembly (5f7596)

  509. Unless of course, one wanted to undo any action by President Trump Jan 7 – Jan 20th.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  510. @510: THAT is Griffin’s Case, but that’s really the only similarity.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  511. the implication of that outcome was that section three would only have applied to Confederate officers who had been tried and convicted

    And most of those disqualifications were ministerial at the state level, or using the Qualification of Members clause in Congress.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  512. I see the following possible outcomes:

    1. Uphold Colorado
    2. Reverse, Not an officer or similar. Weak and cowardly, but it’s there.
    3. Reverse and
    –a. Declare it is a federal question and
    —-1. Requires Congress to pass a procedure
    —-2. Requires a federal court to review evidence
    —-3. The Supreme Court shall now rule:
    ——a. Qualified
    ——b. Not Qualified
    –b. Declare it to be non-justiciable and a matter for the voters

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  513. The whole line about how Congress can remove a disability will be ignored — like a pardon, a criminal is a criminal even though he might get a pardon.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  514. Will they overrule Griffin’s Case?

    CJ Chase did that himself 2 years later, and in any event it was a different question. Accepting Griffin’s argument, every decision by the disqualified judge would have to be vacated. The case here is not a retroactive one.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 9:47 am

    Not quite.

    In Re. Griffin involved a defendant’s challenge to a criminal conviction based on the fact that the judge in the case had fought for the Confederacy. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was writing for an appeals court and not the Supreme Court, ruled that the “insurrection ban” could not be enforced against the judge unless Congress first passed a law.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  515. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/8/2024 @ 10:14 am

    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  516. Rip, I know what Griffin’s Case was, involving a habeas appeal about someone convicted by a judge who should have not been a judge. The basis was that it would undo every act the judge did.

    Besides not being precedential, it was also not on point. The current case is not retroactive. Further, CJ Chase ruled the opposite way on another case a bit later, saying that Section 3 WAS self-enforcing.

    The Court did not seem included to defer to Griffin; they don’t have to “overrule” it as it isn’t a SC case.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  517. I believe it was in the Jefferson Davis case where Chase ruled that the clause was self-executing. There are those who attack Chase on both cases, saying they were both political decisions.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  518. This is a case where for the good of the country Roberts should pursue whatever outcome can get closest to unanimity.

    In that vein, I think 3(a)(3) is out of the question. And I don’t think 3(b) is reasonable. So I think we end up with (2) or some form of 3(a) that doesn’t get to step 3.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  519. There’s another issue, aphrael — they don’t want it coming back, either, and the buck stops there.

    Saying he’s not an officer guts the 14th Amendment utterly. If the top job, the commander-in-chief, is not covered then there is no rational or moral basis for Section 3.

    Upholding Colorado has no upside, so they are going to have to choose a federal answer.

    I guess they could side with Trump and say the provisions is NOT self-executing wrt the President and that Congress needs to act. This may result in Congress acting as they count the Electoral votes, with their options being “Allow the election-stealer to take office” OR “Steal the election.” Neither good.

    Any other course eventually gets them to 3(a)(3).

    My question is this: Why are we still dealing with this toxic man?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  520. What I would like to see is a principled 9-0 vote that Trump is disqualified. Also, a winning lotto ticket.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  521. “Gorsuch(?): On Jan 7th, was Trump disqualified from continuing as president? What would compel a subordinate to obey an order?”

    I would think there would need to be some sort of inquiry with due process. The question is who and how much?

    “As much as I hate it, the ‘officer’ clause is the easiest offramp.”

    This is true but it leaves one with the unsatisfying conclusion that an insurrectionist cannot be a Senator or House member, but he can be the head of the Executive Branch. Without more evidence of why the framers would do that with the 14A, it seems like a tough conclusion to market to “we the people”. Along with the question about the oath, this would be the least satisfying to the average voter. I would prefer something that gets at due process.

    I want a ruling that puts future insurrectionists on notice and challenges Congress to create a clear process. Then I want this court to not grant cert on the question of immunity so the J6 trial has a shot of starting early this summer.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  522. Rip, I know what Griffin’s Case was……

    Not everyone does.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  523. 59.

    Brief of 12 former Republican members of Congress:

    …If the mob had achieved its ultimate goal of keeping Trump in office beyond the end of his term

    Stopping the certification would not have accomplished that.

    It would, if the constitution and laws of the United States had been followed, have made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Acting President of the United States, and Trump knew that, (that explains why he wanted no more than a 10-day delay) even if it could be that some of the people who stormed the Capitol did not (and I’m wondering how these members of Congress could overlook that)

    Trump had no intention of attempting a coup by military force (and if he did he didn’t exactly need to stop the counting to do that).

    Trump had rejected anything along these lines when asked to do so by Mike Flynn and Sydney Powell in an Oval Office meeting on the night of December 18, 2020 at which people from the White House counsel’s office were present, and also Rudolph Giuliani, (who was called in for reinforcement by White House counsel Pat Cipollone and others) all of whom argued against what Mike Flynn was proposing. (seizing voting machines)

    Trump did not want to do anything that had no basis whatsoever in law.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  524. What I would like to see is a principled 9-0 vote that Trump is disqualified. Also, a winning lotto ticket.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 10:59 am

    Not with Alito and Thomas on the Court. Based on your taxonomy, this will be the result:

    3. Reverse and
    –a. Declare it is a federal question and
    —-1. Requires Congress to pass a procedure

    Trump qualified, since Congress has not enacted a procedure. If Trump is later convicted of insurrection (ha!), he can be impeached.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  525. In the United States, unlike many other democracies, the top office holder does not continue in office if he is not replaced. His term ends at the end of 1441 days, precisely at noon and not one second can be added to his term by any disruption in government.(Going to year round Daylight Savings Time in the middle of his term could subtract one hour, but in any case that would require an Act of Congress)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  526. The problem with that, Rip, is that it demands federal Supremacy through inaction, in an election process that is almost entirely conducted by the states who hold near-plenary power.

    It may be less dissatisfying than any other plan, but are you trying to tell me that Alito and Thomas are Trump cultists?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  527. There is a danger to the Court here, of course, but even if the Court chooses to avoid a decision, they only saddle Congress with the duty.

    At least if the Court does it, it might be based on evidence, law and logic. If Congress does it next January to President-elect Trump, it will be on purely political grounds and FAR more dangerous.

    To me, this is Roberts’ moment. Can he bring in a solid, final, near-unanimous decision, or will the court fracture into 5 different camps?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  528. Related News:

    Firebrand Rep. Matt Gaetz and at least 65 House Republicans rolled out a resolution Tuesday stating that former President Donald Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

    The one-page resolution attempts to undercut justification to jettison Trump off state ballots across the country. This comes as the Supreme Court is poised to hear oral arguments on the Colorado matter on Thursday.

    “We are here today to authoritatively express that President Trump did not commit an insurrection and we believe Congress has a unique role in making that declaration,” Gaetz (R-Fla.) explained at a press conference.

    “It’s time for members of the House and Senate to show where they stand on this question.”

    In tandem with the House resolution, Sen. JD Vance (D-Ohio) unveiled a companion bill in the Senate.
    ………

    The resolution reads:

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that former President Donald J. Trump did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-1 resentatives that former President Donald J. Trump did 2 not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United 3 States, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  529. And, again, why are we allowing this to continue?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  530. “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

    Not one member of the Supreme Court cared to talk about that, nor whether Trump played a part.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  531. But only 65? I take that as good news.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  532. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 10:57 am

    Saying he’s not an officer guts the 14th Amendment utterly.

    Saying he never was an officer doesn’t gut it – it just means that Trump slips through the cracks, as every person elected to the president in the history of the United States, with the exception of George Washington, had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States – and that only if the presidential oath is not such an oath.

    What you are probably thinking of is the presidency not being an “office…under the United States” but, if it’s not, then impeachment doesn’t disqualify the person impeached and convicted from holding it.

    In fact a president could not be removed from the presidency if it wasn’t an “office”

    My question is this: Why are we still dealing with this toxic man?

    Because nobody in politics is both willing and able to argue intelligently with him.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  533. I agree with someone on NPR that the decision will be 9-0 or 8-1 (with Sotomayor possibly dissenting)

    I think Justice Clarence Thomas will write a concurring opinion saying that Colorado could disqualify a presidential candidate on any basis, but that nothing has been shown to show that it did on any other a basis than determining that Trump was disqualified on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th amendment, without any other basis in state law, and they can’t do that.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  534. > And, again, why are we allowing this to continue?

    Because too many people either don’t see the danger or assume the danger is a nonexistent hallucination by members of a different tribe. Not to mention a lot of people who *welcome* the danger because, if realized, they think it will help them achieve their policy objectives.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  535. @Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 9:57 am

    3. Reverse and
    –a. Declare it is a federal question and
    -4. Applies only after a candidate is elected/

    Although voters can take into account the possibility that a candidate for president may eventually be found disqualified, in which case the vice president on that ticket will become president.

    But the candidate must have an opportunity to petition Congress to remove the disability.

    Congress may by law set up a procedure.

    It did, (although that seems targeted at lower offices) but it was repealed in 1948 in a general revision of the US code because there was then no longer any person to whom Section 3 could apply to, just like today we might soon repeal a provision in law dealing with membership in Germany’s Nazi Party from 1933 to 1945 (the law saying that someone had to sign on a visa application that they had not been)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  536. whembly (5f7596) — 2/8/2024 @ 9:47 am

    If Trump is disqualified under Section 3 as of Jan 6, 2021, then any actions he took before leaving office – or – if he gets reelected somehow (I think he’s saying), then those acts would be subject to challenge in federal court to be vacated as unconstitutional.

    As null and void.

    In particular, this would apply to pardons. I don’t think the Supreme Court wants to go there (and neither does almost anyone else)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  537. The problem with that, Rip, is that it demands federal Supremacy through inaction, in an election process that is almost entirely conducted by the states who hold near-plenary power.

    It may be less dissatisfying than any other plan, but are you trying to tell me that Alito and Thomas are Trump cultists?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 11:45 am

    I’m saying, based on their questions and their history, they are the most likely to support Trump’s position. For example, both said they would have heard Texas’s lawsuit challenging the 2020 election. Alito and Thomas also dissented in the 7-2 Trump v. Vance case, where the Court said “Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President”.

    To me, this is Roberts’ moment. Can he bring in a solid, final, near-unanimous decision, or will the court fracture into 5 different camps?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 11:50 am

    9-0 or 8-1 in favor of Trump.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  538. But only 65? I take that as good news.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 11:53 am

    So far.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  539. 9-0 or 8-1 in favor of Trump.

    No. It may be in favor of Trump’s non-self-executing argument, but it decides nothing and may bring Congress to the brink later. They would be doing it for their ease, and doing the country a large disservice.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  540. @521

    There’s another issue, aphrael — they don’t want it coming back, either, and the buck stops there.

    Saying he’s not an officer guts the 14th Amendment utterly. If the top job, the commander-in-chief, is not covered then there is no rational or moral basis for Section 3.

    Not really. Section 3 would cover all the positions listed. It’s just puts pressure on Congress to judicially and in good-faith leverage their impeachment powers.

    Upholding Colorado has no upside, so they are going to have to choose a federal answer.

    Correct. I think it starts here. Where they’ll land is anyone’s guess.

    I guess they could side with Trump and say the provisions is NOT self-executing wrt the President and that Congress needs to act. This may result in Congress acting as they count the Electoral votes, with their options being “Allow the election-stealer to take office” OR “Steal the election.” Neither good.

    Any other course eventually gets them to 3(a)(3).

    But, section 5 already directs Congress to enforce provisions of the 14th, and they already have, with current insurrection federal laws.

    My question is this: Why are we still dealing with this toxic man?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 10:57 am

    Simple.

    Other people gets to vote too.

    whembly (5f7596)

  541. Bottom line, the difference is that Biden cooperated and Trump obstructed.
    Still, the report casts a poor light on Biden’s mental faculties, so the choice still comes down to mentally diminished and mentally unhinged/unraveling. Great job, Dems and GOP, you both did our country a major disservice.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  542. @543

    Bottom line, the difference is that Biden cooperated and Trump obstructed.
    Still, the report casts a poor light on Biden’s mental faculties, so the choice still comes down to mentally diminished and mentally unhinged/unraveling. Great job, Dems and GOP, you both did our country a major disservice.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/8/2024 @ 12:49 pm

    The DOJ is F’ing with all of us…

    If you read the filing, check this out:

    We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.

    Turley is spitting fire:

    Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley 10m
    The DOJ is defending the lack of criminal charges against Joe Biden while noting the difficulty of going to trial against a “‘well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” …

    Jonathan Turley
    @JonathanTurley

    …Biden is found to have “willfully retained” documents but he is still viewed as too sympathetic a potential defendant as “a sympathetic” person. Trump is clearly neither sympathetic nor sufficiently old to warrant such consideration.

    whembly (5f7596)

  543. The arguments caught almost all the main points that could be made. Trump’s lawyer several times explained why he did not bring up several issues,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  544. whembly, Trump willfully retained 15 boxes of records that contained 197 classified documents, but he cooperated with the feds and returned them (eventually) without penalty. That’s the actual comparison.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  545. Biden skates the deep state protects its own. No prosecution after biden leaves office. Trump had right to declassify as president senator biden did not.

    asset (50362e)

  546. Rule of Law tears are flowing.

    lloyd (7e8349)

  547. whembly (5f7596) — 2/8/2024 @ 1:16 pm

    Turley seems to forget that the DOJ has held since 1973 that “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  548. 9-0 or 8-1 in favor of Trump.

    No. It may be in favor of Trump’s non-self-executing argument, but it decides nothing and may bring Congress to the brink later. They would be doing it for their ease, and doing the country a large disservice.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 12:33 pm

    “Deciding nothing” is the point. Given the choice, I’m sure that the SC would rather not be involved at all. Still, I believe that will be the vote 9-0 or 8-1 in favor of Trump. Trump could always be impeached if found guilty of insurrection.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  549. @549 The filing had this covered, and so did Turley:

    “It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

    lloyd (8a8826)

  550. SAD!

    Peter Navarro, a former trade adviser to President Donald Trump who was convicted of contempt of Congress, has been ordered to report to prison after a judge denied Navarro’s effort to stay out of prison while he appeals the conviction.

    Navarro was sentenced by Judge Amit Mehta in late January to four months behind bars after a jury in Washington, DC, found him guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena related to the congressional investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    “Defendant’s request for release pending appeal is denied,” Mehta wrote in his ruling Thursday. “Unless this Order is stayed or vacated by the D.C. Circuit, Defendant shall report to the designated Bureau of Prisons facility on the date ordered by the BOP.”
    ………..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  551. lloyd (8a8826) — 2/8/2024 @ 2:49 pm

    A Trump Justice Department can always reject that determination and file charges against Biden. The SC report is not binding, only recommendations.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  552. The House could also add the “willful retention of classified information” to its Biden impeachment articles.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  553. But, section 5 already directs Congress to enforce provisions of the 14th, and they already have, with current insurrection federal laws.

    Every other part of the 14th Amendment is enforceable through state law, through civil suit AND through federal law. It’s just that here the effect is never local.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  554. But, whembly, are you really arguing that

    1) States cannot enforce this because federal law and the Supremacy Clause, even though

    2) There is no federal law providing a civil course of action?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  555. Great job, Dems and GOP, you both did our country a major disservice.

    Once the GOP settles on the terminally damaged Trump, Biden will bow out and Newsom and Harris can fight it out. For America!

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  556. so the choice still comes down to mentally diminished and mentally unhinged/unraveling.

    Name your poison.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  557. 521. Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 10:57 am

    they could side with Trump and say the provisions is NOT self-executing wrt the President and that Congress needs to act. This may result in Congress acting as they count the Electoral votes, with their options being “Allow the election-stealer to take office” OR “Steal the election.” Neither good.

    No, that would not be the choice.

    The choice would be between “Allow the would-be election-stealer to take office” OR “Allow his vice president to assume office while he exercises power from a back room”

    The Twentieth amendment is on point: (its Section 3 deals, among other things, with discovering an impediment to a president taking office – they were probably thinking mainly of him not getting enough votes but it covers this too)

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

    Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Now, this could create a situation similar to that of the first Trump Administration with lower ranking officials (and/or the vice president) restraining Trump’s worst impulses.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  558. Those would be the choices if it was decided when the Electoral votes were counted.

    Unless the Democrats tried to disqualify the vice president elect also on grounds of the 14th amendment’s Section 3 (because say clemency was promised to the Jan 6 defendants and that’s giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the constitution.)

    Now the “aid and comfort” clause was bought up by Justice Alito (in the context of a hypothetical about other states disqualifying (Biden) because he sent money to Iran (even for what he thought were good reasons) and Trump’s lawyer mentioned that the aid and comfort clause was also in the treason provision and there it has always been interpreted as meaning aiding in war.

    But the 14th amendment refers to enemies of the constitution, so theoretically they could do it.

    But I say even if they had the votes to disqualify Trump. they probably wouldn’t have the votes to do that to his vice president also and make Hakeem Jeffries Acting President for up to four years..

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  559. Lawrence Lessig’s scenario of states ordering electors not to vote for the winner (on the grounds that, as things stand now, if a state could order electors to keep their pledges, it could also order them to violate their pledges – if they could tell them whom they had to cast their votes for they can tell them to vote for anyone) was also brought up. And the lawyer said there was an issue of changing the law after the date the election took place so the Justice changed the hypothetical to say they did it 3 days before the election because the polls were bad. I don’t think the lawyer gave an answer.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  560. Someone on MAGA radio said that now he thought that Biden might last asa candidate even till the election.

    They’ve come up with examples of mental deficiency.

    Biden can’t remember names. He called French president Macron – Mitterrand (and also described the G-7 as NATO allies which is not exactly what they are – they are the top western industrialized countries 6 in NATO plus Japan – it <i/ is hard to describe, which is why it is called the G-7.

    And Biden could not remember the name of that terrorist group that that rules Gaza that Israel is fighting a war with that he’s trying to negotiate a ceasefire with and finally had to be helped out by a reporter.

    https://nypost.com/2024/02/07/news/biden-appears-to-forget-hamas-name

    “There is some movement, and I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna …,” the 81-year-old commander-in-chief said, pausing to stare blankly ahead.

    “Let me choose my words — there’s some movement, there’s been … a response from the, uh…,” he said, again pausing while looking ahead with the same lost look.

    “There’s been a response … from … the opposition, but, um —” he said.

    Sounding confused about what he was supposed to say, Biden suddenly looked up to his left while getting much-needed guidance.

    “Yes, I’m sorry, from Hamas,” he said of the terror group behind the war with Israel, a key US ally.

    A New York Post editorial described it this way:

    https://nypost.com/2024/02/07/opinion/joe-bidens-mental-decline-cannot-be-ignored

    Answering a question about hostage negotiations on Tuesday, a frail President Biden was plainly confused and disoriented, mumbling and pausing, even unable to recall Hamas’ name: “There is some movement, and I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna … Let me choose my words: There’s some movement, there’s been a response from the, uh … There’s been a response from the opposition, but, um … ”

    Then a reporter helped out: “Hamas?” Biden grabbed on: “Yes, I’m sorry, from Hamas.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  561. Biden could not remember what year it was that his son died. (it was 2015 the year before the 2016 presidential election)

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  562. Lawrence Lessig’s scenario of states ordering electors not to vote for the winner ……..

    In reality, the selection of electors has been farmed out by the states to the political parties themselves, with a list of nominees submitted to the secretaries of states or election commissioners. States have very little control over electors, and none over delegates to the party conventions.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  563. Lawrence Lessig’s scenario of states ordering electors not to vote for the winner ……..

    Always distrust information from Lawrence Lessig.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  564. We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” it said. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him — by then a former president well into his eighties — of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

    Justice is not blind, it’s partisan.

    NJRob (2a9183)

  565. There are two different words in Section 3: “office” and “officer”

    “Office refers to the positions that can (or can’t) be held by a person “Officers” are people who hold, or held, a subset of them.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  566. scenario of states ordering electors not to vote for the winner

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 5:33 pm

    Always distrust information from Lawrence Lessig.

    ne of the justices was taking that scenario (which came from Lawrence Lessig – he even wrote a book about it – seriously. Lessig claimed that the court needed to clarify its ruling on how states could control the vote of the Electors,

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  567. The following question appears on my primary ballot:

    > To support all Alameda students and maintain quality schools without increasing tax rates by attracting and retaining excellent teachers; sustaining strong academic programs in reading, writing, math, science, and arts; supporting struggling students; and preparing students for college/careers; shall an Alameda Unified School District measure levying $0.585/building area square foot capped at $15,998/parcel, and’$598/unimproved parcel, be adopted, raising $24,000,000 annually for 9 years with senior exemptions, audits, citizens’ oversight, and all funds staying local?

    Leaving aside how I feel (and what I think) about the policy question — yikes that’s a poorly written question.

    aphrael (71d87c)

  568. @546

    whembly, Trump willfully retained 15 boxes of records that contained 197 classified documents, but he cooperated with the feds and returned them (eventually) without penalty. That’s the actual comparison.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d) — 2/8/2024 @ 1:35 pm

    There’s an allegation that Trump didn’t cooperate.

    Trump is the only person, it seems, that you’re unwilling to at least consider he’s innocent and that the prosecution must prove that he did, in fact, break the law.

    Joe Biden, it seems, only escaped prosecution because Hur pulled a “no reasonable prosecutor would take this case”…and that Biden is too enfeeble and mentally compromise. That’s, a hella indictment there.

    whembly (5f7596)

  569. @549

    whembly (5f7596) — 2/8/2024 @ 1:16 pm

    Turley seems to forget that the DOJ has held since 1973 that “indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/8/2024 @ 2:39 pm

    Turley mentioned elsewhere, that Hur even stated that even if that 1973 OLC memo wasn’t in effect, he still wouldn’t have brought charges.

    whembly (5f7596)

  570. @554

    The House could also add the “willful retention of classified information” to its Biden impeachment articles.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/8/2024 @ 2:56 pm

    That.

    And also add that his very own prosecutor deemed him too enfeebled to stand trial. If a POTUS couldn’t be charged (assuming that ’73 OLC wasn’t in effect), then he shouldn’t hold office as he’d be too enfeeble to exercise his presidential powers.

    whembly (5f7596)

  571. @556

    But, whembly, are you really arguing that

    1) States cannot enforce this because federal law and the Supremacy Clause, even though

    2) There is no federal law providing a civil course of action?

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 2:59 pm

    Yes.

    Hence why I’m saying impeachment, is the proper venue to prosecute an insurrectiony President. And then that former POTUS can be federally charged for insurrection.

    What’s stopping Jack Smith from charging Trump with Insurrection?

    whembly (5f7596)

  572. Even Andy McCarthy is reading this tea leave:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/question-about-hur-report/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=third

    Is the point to make the case against indicting President Biden or for invoking the 25th Amendment against President Biden?

    Frankly, I vastly prefer Biden to step down. The Kamala Harris becomes the presumptive Democrat Nominee™ against Trump and stands a really good chance in beating him, despite her unpopularity. She won’t have the same “Hillary Clinton Baggage”. Just a run-of-the-mill government democrat.

    whembly (5f7596)

  573. There’s an allegation that Trump didn’t cooperate.

    whembly, it’s beyond mere allegation. He was indicted for that lack of cooperation, meaning SC Smith has evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he obstructed law enforcement and instructed his minions to do the same.
    The subpoena and the FBI search should tell anyone not in denial that Trump lied and obstructed.

    Paul Montagu (d52d7d)

  574. “Office refers to the positions that can (or can’t) be held by a person “Officers” are people who hold, or held, a subset of them.

    Nobody cares.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  575. Leaving aside how I feel (and what I think) about the policy question — yikes that’s a poorly written question.

    Maybe a bit argumentative?

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  576. Hence why I’m saying impeachment, is the proper venue to prosecute an insurrectiony President. And then that former POTUS can be federally charged for insurrection.

    What’s stopping Jack Smith from charging Trump with Insurrection?

    1) Because the 14th amendment cases after the civil war were civil cases — there was no criminal penalty imposed for having violated an oath, only a civil disqualification.

    2) To invoke the Supremacy Clause the feds have to point to some federal law that overrides state laws. The absence of such a law is NOT an argument for the feds. Simply having a criminal law regarding some specified crime does not mean that any state law regulating broader behavior is enjoined. If the feds have a law against murdering a federal agent, that does not mean that states cannot have laws against murder.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  577. Frankly, I vastly prefer Biden to step down. The Kamala Harris becomes the presumptive Democrat Nominee™ against Trump and stands a really good chance in beating him, despite her unpopularity. She won’t have the same “Hillary Clinton Baggage”. Just a run-of-the-mill government democrat.

    You don’t know Kamala Harris then. She is a total piece of work.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  578. The problem with Biden today is not about any documents, it’s that a sane and careful federal prosecutor said he is out to lunch.

    Biden is suffering from common senility, likely from a series of micro-strokes. Trump seems more down the Alzheimer’s route, with cognitive gaps and wild mood swings. Neither should have responsibility for a child, let alone a nation.

    As Nikki Haley said today: The first party who dumps their 80yo candidate wins.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  579. Because justice is about choosing the right venue

    DC Jury Finds Climate Skeptics Defamed ‘Hockey Stick’ Model Creator — 12 Years Later

    A Washington, D.C., jury ruled in favor of University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann on Thursday in a defamation case he brought against two critics of his work more than a decade ago.

    Mann first filed the defamation suit in October 2012 against Rand Simberg, who compared Mann to convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky for Mann’s alleged data manipulation in his signature 1998 “hockey stick” climate model in a blog post for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and Mark Steyn, a right-of-center political pundit who referenced Simberg’s blog post in his own writing about the “hockey stick” model for National Review. Steyn will reportedly have to pay $1 million in damages, while Simberg will have to pay $1,000, according to The New York Times.

    lloyd (f2cafe)

  580. They didn’t say that Mann was right, or even that he was a good person, just that comparing him to Jerry Sandusky defamed him.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  581. I believe the Mann/Steyn lawsuit was filed in Washington DC because that is where the Competitive Enterprise Institute is located, and Simberg’s libelous statement was made on their website.

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  582. If Biden drops out or is dumped by the Democrats, it won’t be Harris who will be the nominee. Given her polling, that’s a no brainer.

    Gavin Newsom, please pickup the white courtesy phone.

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  583. As Nikki Haley said today: The first party who dumps their 80yo candidate wins.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 7:34 pm

    Well, it won’t be the Republicans. Trump favorability +59 over Nikki Haley; and +59 among Republican voters nationally.

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  584. @566 It would have better for biden’s re-election if he was prosecuted for knowing what we was doing instead of not for being a snile old fool who lacked the mental capacity to defend himself! Rethugs are already calling for 25th amendment. Democrats will now be asked if Biden be given mental capacity tests.

    asset (1ed649)

  585. Well, it won’t be the Republicans.

    Then they won’t win.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  586. Lloyd – the case was brought in DC because it was originally brought against Competitive Enterprise Institute, which published the allegedly libellous piece by Simberg, as well as Simberg. In 2012.

    This when want forum shopping. CEI is headquartered in DC, that is absolutely a proper place to being a suit against it.

    a judge later dismissed the case against CEI, probably on section 230 grounds. At that point, though, moving the trial would be highly unusual.

    Forum shopping is a real problem. This isn’t an example.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  587. Simberg’s libelous statement

    Given the damage awards, I think the libel was Steyn’s and Simberg just repeated it.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  588. Forum shopping is a real problem. This isn’t an example.

    Sure it is, if you are filing against a Section 230 sham defendant. And since Simberg was only hit for $1,000 (and Steyn for 1000 times that), it wasn’t Simberg either.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  589. No non leftist can get a fair trial in DC. We have become Soviet Russia.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  590. “There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.” — Ari Fleischer

    nk (058dbb)

  591. In 2016, Trump campaigned on “repealing” (his word) New York Times v. Sullivan, the case which made it more difficult for public figures to sue for defamation on matters of public interest.

    Would you say that he enjoyed mixed success?

    nk (058dbb)

  592. How leftist do you need to be not to like being compared to Jerry Sandusky?

    nk (058dbb)

  593. What Mann did with his hockey stick scam made it appropriate. The analogy was apt. The way Mann talks about people shows he can dish it out, but cannot take it. That so many here have no turned their backs on free speech, the analogy is even more appropriate.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  594. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1754474523972288898

    Texas Gov.
    @GregAbbott_TX
    : “The area where we have occupied this park in Eagle Pass, Texas, that we put up the razor wire, there used to be 3,000 or 4,000 people crossing that area a day. For the past three days, we’ve averaged just 3 people crossing that area.”

    For those who have decided to become leftists because “Trump.”

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  595. What the Biden cases suggests to me is that he did not have a competent chief of staff and head secretary working for him. Any modern president should have people working for him who take care of classified documents, for him (or her).

    That doesn’t mean that Biden is not to blame for having those documents, but that he may be more to blame for not having the right people to take care of them.

    (We know that bureacrats tried hard to protect Hillary Clinton and the Loser, from their own folly, in handling classified material. And that experts tried to protect both Obama, who insisted on using his Blackberry, and Trump, who also insisted on his phone in ways that could be listened to.)

    Jim Miller (0a1d08)

  596. > What Mann did with his hockey stick scam made it appropriate.

    What Mann did with his hockey stick scam made it appropriate to imply that he is a pedophile?

    Really?

    > That so many here have no turned their backs on free speech, the analogy is even more appropriate.

    Really?

    Why are you here if you think that, NJRob?

    aphrael (4c4719)

  597. That so many here have no turned their backs on free speech, the analogy is even more appropriate.

    Rob, do you really think that “free speech” includes slander, libel and defamation? Sure Mann was a public figure in some degree (not as much as a Trump or a Biden), but there are limits.

    Calling him a pedophile in print, falsely and with clear malice, is actionable in civil court. The 1st Amendment continues to protect against criminal charges and government action, but the harm, if any, to an individual is something that individual can object to and seek damages.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  598. Jim Miller (0a1d08) — 2/9/2024 @ 6:53 am

    Part of this is the explosion in communications and data devices. Thirty years ago, classified documents came in colored folders and were unmistakable in their security requirements. There were no thumb drives, clouds or world wide web. ARPAnet was just then becoming the Internet.

    I wonder how many government procedures and requirements still need updating, and how many senior officials still have no F clue what the dangers are.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  599. I have lost count of the times I have shown up for jury service (only not to be picked). I did not drive an hour in morning rush hour traffic and wait around all day in the venire room with the intent not to follow the judge’s instructions, and I doubt that anybody else there did either. Jurors take the proceedings and their oaths seriously and do their best to be fair and bring in a fair verdict according to the law and the evidence.

    nk (dce873)

  600. And attorneys do their best to kick ideologues off the panel.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  601. “What the Biden cases suggests to me is that he did not have a competent chief of staff and head secretary working for him. Any modern president should have people working for him who take care of classified documents, for him (or her).”

    That’s my conclusion too. Any competent assistant takes care of these details and makes sure the rules are followed. Still, there does seem like a fair share of arrogance among the political elites. It’s a horrible example to those with clearances that follow the rules.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  602. “Rob, do you really think that “free speech” includes slander, libel and defamation?”

    Rob is not exactly careful with his pronouncements and conclusions. Shoot first, aim later. Everything is about us versus them and protecting the narrative. He’s fine with a leftist being defamed.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  603. The number of people who call Trump a totalitarian, who say he will destroy the nation make these cries particularly laughable.

    NJRob (e6b4b9)

  604. Simberg’s libelous statement

    Given the damage awards, I think the libel was Steyn’s and Simberg just repeated it.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 11:07 pm

    Incorrect.

    Mann first filed the defamation suit in October 2012 against Rand Simberg, who compared Mann to convicted pedophile Jerry Sandusky for Mann’s alleged data manipulation in his signature 1998 “hockey stick” climate model in a blog post for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and Mark Steyn, a right-of-center political pundit who referenced Simberg’s blog post in his own writing about the “hockey stick” model for National Review………

    My emphasis.

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  605. Biden (and Trump as well) kept hard copies which might have been destroyed if they had not kept them unless they made some markings on them) and classified documents were not segregated, Not only that, but some of the classified information Biden kept were his own notebooks (which he had trouble deciphering, by the way) Petraeus had gotten in trouble for his own notes,

    The rules are unreasonable (not designed for human beings) and if everybody kept them strictly, nobody would know anything about what’s going on in places like Iraq and Syria and Yemen and policy toward Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e)

  606. Let’s see if the courts let the puntive damages stand. I don’t think they will. Michael Mann did not suffer reputational harm and the quote read more like traditional blogger overstatement rather than calling Mann a child molester. (The quote had Mann doing to data what Sandusky did to minors. That’s tacky, but not an accusation of a heinous crime)

    This is quite different than E. Jean Carrol, for example.

    Appalled (91eed2)

  607. “What Mann did with his hockey stick scam made it appropriate to imply that he is a pedophile?”

    The defendants did not imply he was a pedophile. The comments in question were an attempt to draw an analogy to Penn State investigating Sandusky and finding nothing, and Penn State investigating Mann’s analysis and finding nothing.

    lloyd (7e8349)

  608. @601 Venue shopping is a thing. Let’s not rape reality like some Sandusky dude.

    lloyd (7e8349)

  609. You cannot imagine the depths of my disappointment that I have failed to convince you, lloyd.

    nk (0a34cb)

  610. Trump Tropes. No true Trump supporter believes that “The Assigned By God Stable Genius” can get a fair trial in DC.

    nk (0a34cb)

  611. What was Hur’s finding other than that Biden couldn’t get convicted in DC, though he obviously broke the law. 100% correct.

    lloyd (7e8349)

  612. It’s almost funny that Trump’s folks think the damage in Hur’s report was about the documents.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  613. Biden will be dropping out of the race this month.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  614. The number of people who call Trump a totalitarian, who say he will destroy the nation make these cries particularly laughable.

    And Trump would throw them all in jail for doing so. Thankfully, what citizens say about their leaders is particularly strongly protected. No politician has sued QAnon, which is way the heck over the line.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  615. Far-right candidate announces for Maryland Senate seat

    OK, Larry Hogan isn’t far-right, but he is to some people who have by-lines.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  616. Who did Trump throw in jail while President Kevin? Please share with us your wisdom.

    NJRob (e6b4b9)

  617. Biden will be dropping out of the race this month.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/9/2024 @ 10:38 am

    LOL!

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  618. This is quite different than E. Jean Carrol, for example.

    Appalled (91eed2) — 2/9/2024 @ 9:16 am

    I don’t expect either Mann or Carroll to collect their judgments.

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  619. No politician has sued QAnon, which is way the heck over the line.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/9/2024 @ 10:40 am

    QAnon isn’t an organization, it is a belief system.

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  620. Rip Murdock (6503df) — 2/9/2024 @ 10:48 am

    Marianne Williamson dropped out too soon.

    Rip Murdock (6503df)

  621. lloyd (7e8349) — 2/9/2024 @ 10:22 am

    What was Hur’s finding other than that Biden couldn’t get convicted in DC, though he obviously broke the law. 100% correct.

    That there were some innocent explanations for hanging on to the material that a jury might believe.

    https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/joe-biden-classified-documents-case-special-counsel-81df1bac

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  622. A Washington, D.C., jury ruled in favor of University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann on Thursday in a defamation case he brought against two critics of his work more than a decade ago.

    There must have been some other contested statement other than the comparison to a different issue – maybe Man claimed that the hockey stick was not a fraud, or not a deliberate one..

    This verdict, on a matter of public interest, cannot be allowed to stand.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  623. Biden cannot survive the Hur report. He will drop out whiule there is still time for a candidate to be chosen. LBJ was in the race until the end of March, 1968. Biden can’t wait that long.

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  624. That there were some innocent explanations for hanging on to the material that a jury might believe.

    Also the diminished culpability of a tired, senile old man with fading memory.

    Not all that great in a President either.

    If you focus on the charges, you are saying “See, Trump’s not so bad!” when the real message here is “Biden is not able to do the job.”

    Kevin M (ed969f)

  625. @582

    They didn’t say that Mann was right, or even that he was a good person, just that comparing him to Jerry Sandusky defamed him.

    Kevin M (ed969f) — 2/8/2024 @ 8:05 pm

    He didn’t say that.

    It was an indictment of Penn State’s investigative prowess, in that, the same administration who refused to investigate Sandusky, refused to investigate Mann.

    whembly (5f7596)

  626. @597

    What the Biden cases suggests to me is that he did not have a competent chief of staff and head secretary working for him. Any modern president should have people working for him who take care of classified documents, for him (or her).

    That doesn’t mean that Biden is not to blame for having those documents, but that he may be more to blame for not having the right people to take care of them.

    (We know that bureacrats tried hard to protect Hillary Clinton and the Loser, from their own folly, in handling classified material. And that experts tried to protect both Obama, who insisted on using his Blackberry, and Trump, who also insisted on his phone in ways that could be listened to.)

    Jim Miller (0a1d08) — 2/9/2024 @ 6:53 am

    Except that, in the Hur report, the ghostwriter testified that Biden told him he had classified documents in his basement.

    This wasn’t a case where Biden was surprised he had these documents.

    He knew.

    whembly (5f7596)

  627. Rob is not exactly careful with his pronouncements and conclusions. Shoot first, aim later. Everything is about us versus them and protecting the narrative. He’s fine with a leftist being defamed.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 2/9/2024 @ 8:38 am

    What leftist was defamed?

    Speak up.

    NJRob (eb56c3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2981 secs.