Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[dcbc 14496]

So apparently, the Postal Act of 1792 signed by this George Washington fellow lists the POTUS as an "officer of the United States."

 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

11 minutes ago, dcbc said:

So apparently, the Postal Act of 1792 signed by this George Washington fellow lists the POTUS as an "officer of the United States."

 

[dcbc 14496]

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yeah, I'd argue that commander in chief is the highest officer of the US military, but I know at least one of these supreme court justices loves this historical shit.

Edited January 5 by dcbc

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

If your workplace is called the Oval Office, doesn’t that make you an officer? Isn’t that the highest office in the land? If you’re the Commander in Chief, aren’t you the commanding officer to all those stupid generals who don’t understand nukes as well as you do?

[TDunk 590]

Dictator does not equate to officer. Checkmate, libtards. 

[Js1 85449]

[HenryJames 66135]

24 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If your workplace is called the Oval Office, doesn’t that make you an officer? Isn’t that the highest office in the land? If you’re the Commander in Chief, aren’t you the commanding officer to all those stupid generals who don’t understand nukes as well as you do?

Article II

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

[Dnaguy 12015]

34 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Article II

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

What woke commie country constitution did you take that from?

Peru?

This is America.

/MAGA

 

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

https://archive.ph/jK22N

 

Quote

Then-President Donald Trump's campaign directly orchestrated the filing of a certificate, signed by 16 Michigan Republicans, that falsely claimed he won the state's 2020 election, according to internal campaign emails obtained by The Detroit News.

The documents, which have become part of Attorney General Dana Nessel's ongoing investigation into the slate of false electors, showed that Trump's campaign staff helped coordinate the Republicans' gathering inside state party headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020. Then, Trump's team prepared the official mailing of the false certificate to Vice President Mike Pence and the National Archives, according to the emails.

 

Quote

Later, when it was unclear whether the Michigan and Wisconsin certificates would make it to Washington, D.C., in time for the counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump supporters, along with campaign employees, developed and executed a plan to fly the certificates there themselves.

The apparent objective was to bolster claims that the November 2020 presidential election was "rigged" and ultimately "void the results favoring" Democrat Joe Biden, wrote lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who helped create the electors plan, in a Jan. 1, 2021, email to Boris Epshteyn, a top Trump adviser.

 

Quote

"Alternatively, if Biden is simply held to under 270 by virtue of electoral votes not being counted (even though 'appointed'), or by virtue of a switch to legislature-certified electors, then the election gets thrown to the House," lawyer John Eastman, who was assisting the Trump campaign, wrote in another email on Jan. 1, 2021. "If the Republicans there hold true and vote with their state delegations, Trump should win a bare majority of the states."

Epshteyn responded to Eastman's message on Jan. 1, 2021, by questioning whether the information needed to be edited before it was sent to members of Congress.

 

 

Spoiler

The emails conflicted with the public comments of Michigan Republican leaders who said the false electors certificate was merely an attempt to give Trump a chance if the courts eventually overturned the election.

The revelations provide further proof that the false elector certificates advanced in seven battleground states, including Michigan, were not organic efforts by local Republican officials to question the election results in their states, but part of a larger scheme by Trump's campaign to maintain power.

While the strategy of interfering with states' certified results was unsuccessful in 2020, it could return for a future election. Michigan will have three statewide elections this year.
More than 2.8 million Michigan voters cast ballots for Biden in the November 2020 election. More than 2.6 million voted for Trump.

Trump's campaign didn't respond Thursday to a request for comment as he seeks the Republican nomination for president again this year.

The emails, obtained by The News, were gathered by the Michigan Attorney General's office after Chesebro began cooperating with authorities. He pleaded guilty to a felony charge of conspiracy to commit filing false documents as part of Georgia's probe into Trump's push to overturn the 2020 election results.

'Choose the fastest'
The false certificate from Michigan featured Republican National Committeewoman Kathy Berden's name as the sender when it was mailed to the National Archives on Dec. 15, 2020.
However, internal emails showed that Trump campaign staffer Shawn Flynn prepared the mailing and sought advice from others within the campaign on how to get it to the U.S. Senate office of then-Vice President Mike Pence, who oversaw the counting of electoral votes.

"Just wanted to check if these need to be sent a certain class of mail along with the extra service of certified mail and registered mail respectively?" Flynn wrote of the false Michigan certificate in a Dec. 15, 2020, email to Chesebro, two other Trump campaigns staffers and an employee of the Republican National Committee.

"Choose the fastest," Mike Roman, the Trump campaign's director of Election Day operations, replied at about 2 p.m. Dec. 15, 2020.

Documents obtained by Nessel's office showed that the false certificate was mailed from a post office in East Lansing to the National Archives that same day, Dec. 15, 2020.

Berden's lawyer, George Donnini, confirmed this week that his client, who resided in Snover, 116 miles away from East Lansing, didn't mail the certificate, although she was listed as the sender.

Flynn, a lawyer who uses an Oakland County address, didn't respond Thursday to a request for comment. Flynn worked on Election Day operations for the Trump campaign in Michigan and led the meeting of the false electors inside state party headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020, according to those who were present..

Nessel, a Democrat and Michigan's top law enforcement official, charged each of the 16 GOP electors with eight felonies in July. The charges include forgery and uttering and publishing.

The forgery charges focus on allegations the GOP electors made a false certificate with the intent to defraud. The uttering and publishing charges are similar, but for prosecutors to be successful, they must prove the electors somehow presented the false certificate in a way that would affect the rights of others.

The internal Trump campaign emails indicate that it was Trump campaign employees, not the electors, who presented the false document to federal government agencies. And in court last month, multiple Michigan Republican officials linked the Trump campaign to the organization and execution of the false electors' scheme.

Asked why it appeared those who coordinated the false electors plan hadn't been charged by the Attorney General's office, Nessel spokesman Danny Wimmer said the investigation remains "active and ongoing."

"...(T)he department has not ruled out potential charges against additional defendants," Wimmer added.

 

'Go along'
At the Dec. 14, 2020, gathering in Lansing, the 16 Michigan Republicans signed a certificate falsely claiming they were "duly" elected, which they weren't, and Trump had won Michigan's 16 electoral votes.

In reality, Michigan voters chose Biden's electors. He won the state by 3 percentage points or 154,000 votes, and the results were certified by the bipartisan Michigan Board of State Canvassers.

Trump's campaign was more involved than previously known in setting up the Dec. 14, 2020, event, according to the internal emails.

In a Dec. 11, 2020, message to Chesebro and Justin Clark, an adviser to Trump's campaign, Joshua Findlay, legal counsel for Trump's campaign, said his understanding from the team of Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, was that Chesebro was "running point" on the electors effort.
Jon Black, a regional political director for the Republican National Committee, was "coordinating" the electors plan in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Findlay said in the email.
"Jon Black would like to hold a call with the campaign and the electors in Michigan to discuss ASAP," Findlay wrote.

In another email on Dec. 11, 2020, Chesebro told Black that Bernard Kerik, a former New York police commissioner and close associate of Giuliani and Trump, was helping Giuliani push legislative leaders in Michigan "to go along."

Michigan's Republican legislative leaders at the time, Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey of Clarklake and House Speaker Lee Chatfield of Levering, ultimately decided against intervening in the awarding of Michigan's electoral votes.

In a statement on Dec. 14, 2020, Shirkey said the slate of Democratic electors should be able to proceed with their duty "free from threats of violence and intimidation" and acknowledged that Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris won Michigan's election.

Shirkey said Thursday that he didn't recall any member of the Trump campaign specifically asking him to appoint an alternative slate of electors.

'Asked me to contact you'
Chesebro also sent a Michigan electoral certificate form to be used at the Dec. 14, 2020, meeting, and a plan for casting the votes in Michigan to Roman and Kerik ahead of the electors gathering, records show.

Chesebro's plan said the Michigan GOP electors should cast ballots for both president and vice president, in addition to signing the certificates.

"These ballots are not to be sent to Washington; but they should be retained as proof that the electors did actually cast ballots for president & vice president," Chesebro's plan said of the ballots that were to be used.

A day earlier, on Dec. 10, 2020, Chesebro emailed Berden and Marian Sheridan, another of the 16 GOP electors in Michigan.

"Several people with the Trump campaign, including Justin Clark and Nick Trainer, gave me your contact info and asked me to help coordinate with the other five contested states, to help with logistics of the electors in other states hopefully joining in casting their votes on Monday," Chesebro wrote.

Trainer led the Trump campaign strategy in battleground states.

The subject line of the message from Chesebro was "URGENT -- Trump-Pence campaign asked me to contact you to coordinate Dec. 14 voting by Michigan electors."

Minutes later, Chesebro also sent the message he wrote to Berden and Sheridan to Giuliani. Giuliani then forwarded it to Epshteyn and Christina Bobb, a lawyer who was advising Trump, according to the emails obtained by The News.

Room 306
After the electors meeting on Dec. 14, 2020, Flynn informed Chesebro, Roman and others within the GOP that he was preparing packages of the false certificates to send to Pence, the National Archives, the Secretary of State's office and the chief judge in Michigan's Western District.

"I have attached a scan of the basic package of materials that will constitute one package going to each official," Flynn wrote to Roman. "It includes: one copy of the cover memo, one duplicate original of the certificate of electors, and one copy of the replacement elector forms."

But, by early January, Trump campaign staffers became concerned that the Michigan certificate wouldn't make its way to Congress for the official counting of votes on Jan. 6, 2021, the event that was the pinnacle of Trump's effort to overturn the election.

 

On Jan. 4, 2021, Roman, the Trump campaign operative, emailed Chesebro and Matt Morgan, general counsel for the Trump campaign, saying the Michigan certificate was mailed on Dec. 15, 2020, but was still "in transit."

"The latest update was posted this morning and stated the packages for the Senate president and archivist were at the D.C. sorting facility," wrote Roman, who now faces criminal charges in Georgia for his alleged role in orchestrating a false Trump electors scheme in that state.

Morgan later emailed, "You will probably need to enlist the help of a legislator who can deliver to the appropriate place(s). I strongly recommend you guys discuss a revised delivery plan with Rudy (Giuliani) to make sure this gets done the way he wants."

Morgan became "freaked out" that the Michigan votes were still at a sorting facility, Chesebro told investigators for Nessel's office in a recorded interview in December.

Roman floated the idea of chartering a flight to get the certificates to Washington, D.C., ahead of Jan. 6, 2021.

Instead, they developed a plan to have G. Michael Brown, deputy director of Election Day operations for Trump's campaign, fly on a commercial flight with the Michigan certificate to get it to the Trump International Hotel on Jan. 5, 2021. Meanwhile, Alesha Guenther, who worked for the Wisconsin Republican Party, flew with the Wisconsin certificate to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5, 2021.

Chesebro told Guenther in an email to meet him at the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C. Chesebro said he was in Room 306 and would keep the Wisconsin certificate in the room safe "until I later deliver to the Hill."

Jan. 6, 2021
Chesebro mentioned the idea of getting Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican with whom Chesebro was connected, to present the GOP certificates to Pence for the Jan. 6, 2021, vote counting, according to the emails.

Roman got U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania, involved and a House staff member met them in Washington, Chesebro told Nessel's investigators.
The House staff member walked the certificates to Johnson's team, he said.

"I don't know why logistically we didn't take it directly to Johnson, but that's how we did it," Chesebro told Michigan investigators.

The U.S. House's Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol obtained text messages that showed Sean Riley, Johnson's chief of staff, told Chris Hodgson, who worked for Pence, that Johnson needed to get something to Pence on Jan. 6, 2021.

"Do not give that to him," Hodgson responded when Riley revealed he was talking about "alternative" slates of electors, according to the text messages.

The false certificates ultimately weren't counted or considered on Jan. 6, 2021.

"I don't know what the expectation was that he would do with them, which, in addition to the security aspects of not receiving them, you know, right before he walks over to the joint session, I'm not sure what the expectation was that he would do with those documents as the joint session is about to start," Hodgson, Pence's director of legislative affairs, previously told the U.S. House committee.

On Jan. 8, 2021, the National Archives sent the false certificate it received from Michigan to Michigan's secretary of state's office. That document eventually spurred Nessel's investigation into the GOP electors.

"Because this did not come from the Michigan Secretary of State's office, we will not be adding the documents to the Electoral College website," wrote Katerina Horska, of the National Archives and Records Administration.

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

4 hours ago, dcbc said:

So apparently, the Postal Act of 1792 signed by this George Washington fellow lists the POTUS as an "officer of the United States."

The Founding Fathers' thoughts are irrelevant in this day and age.

-- Clarence Thomas, probably

Edited January 5 by jimmyjazz
speling

[Dnaguy 12015]

43 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://archive.ph/jK22N

 

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The emails conflicted with the public comments of Michigan Republican leaders who said the false electors certificate was merely an attempt to give Trump a chance if the courts eventually overturned the election.

The revelations provide further proof that the false elector certificates advanced in seven battleground states, including Michigan, were not organic efforts by local Republican officials to question the election results in their states, but part of a larger scheme by Trump's campaign to maintain power.

While the strategy of interfering with states' certified results was unsuccessful in 2020, it could return for a future election. Michigan will have three statewide elections this year.
More than 2.8 million Michigan voters cast ballots for Biden in the November 2020 election. More than 2.6 million voted for Trump.

Trump's campaign didn't respond Thursday to a request for comment as he seeks the Republican nomination for president again this year.

The emails, obtained by The News, were gathered by the Michigan Attorney General's office after Chesebro began cooperating with authorities. He pleaded guilty to a felony charge of conspiracy to commit filing false documents as part of Georgia's probe into Trump's push to overturn the 2020 election results.

'Choose the fastest'
The false certificate from Michigan featured Republican National Committeewoman Kathy Berden's name as the sender when it was mailed to the National Archives on Dec. 15, 2020.
However, internal emails showed that Trump campaign staffer Shawn Flynn prepared the mailing and sought advice from others within the campaign on how to get it to the U.S. Senate office of then-Vice President Mike Pence, who oversaw the counting of electoral votes.

"Just wanted to check if these need to be sent a certain class of mail along with the extra service of certified mail and registered mail respectively?" Flynn wrote of the false Michigan certificate in a Dec. 15, 2020, email to Chesebro, two other Trump campaigns staffers and an employee of the Republican National Committee.

"Choose the fastest," Mike Roman, the Trump campaign's director of Election Day operations, replied at about 2 p.m. Dec. 15, 2020.

Documents obtained by Nessel's office showed that the false certificate was mailed from a post office in East Lansing to the National Archives that same day, Dec. 15, 2020.

Berden's lawyer, George Donnini, confirmed this week that his client, who resided in Snover, 116 miles away from East Lansing, didn't mail the certificate, although she was listed as the sender.

Flynn, a lawyer who uses an Oakland County address, didn't respond Thursday to a request for comment. Flynn worked on Election Day operations for the Trump campaign in Michigan and led the meeting of the false electors inside state party headquarters on Dec. 14, 2020, according to those who were present..

Nessel, a Democrat and Michigan's top law enforcement official, charged each of the 16 GOP electors with eight felonies in July. The charges include forgery and uttering and publishing.

The forgery charges focus on allegations the GOP electors made a false certificate with the intent to defraud. The uttering and publishing charges are similar, but for prosecutors to be successful, they must prove the electors somehow presented the false certificate in a way that would affect the rights of others.

The internal Trump campaign emails indicate that it was Trump campaign employees, not the electors, who presented the false document to federal government agencies. And in court last month, multiple Michigan Republican officials linked the Trump campaign to the organization and execution of the false electors' scheme.

Asked why it appeared those who coordinated the false electors plan hadn't been charged by the Attorney General's office, Nessel spokesman Danny Wimmer said the investigation remains "active and ongoing."

"...(T)he department has not ruled out potential charges against additional defendants," Wimmer added.

 

'Go along'
At the Dec. 14, 2020, gathering in Lansing, the 16 Michigan Republicans signed a certificate falsely claiming they were "duly" elected, which they weren't, and Trump had won Michigan's 16 electoral votes.

In reality, Michigan voters chose Biden's electors. He won the state by 3 percentage points or 154,000 votes, and the results were certified by the bipartisan Michigan Board of State Canvassers.

Trump's campaign was more involved than previously known in setting up the Dec. 14, 2020, event, according to the internal emails.

In a Dec. 11, 2020, message to Chesebro and Justin Clark, an adviser to Trump's campaign, Joshua Findlay, legal counsel for Trump's campaign, said his understanding from the team of Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, was that Chesebro was "running point" on the electors effort.
Jon Black, a regional political director for the Republican National Committee, was "coordinating" the electors plan in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Findlay said in the email.
"Jon Black would like to hold a call with the campaign and the electors in Michigan to discuss ASAP," Findlay wrote.

In another email on Dec. 11, 2020, Chesebro told Black that Bernard Kerik, a former New York police commissioner and close associate of Giuliani and Trump, was helping Giuliani push legislative leaders in Michigan "to go along."

Michigan's Republican legislative leaders at the time, Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey of Clarklake and House Speaker Lee Chatfield of Levering, ultimately decided against intervening in the awarding of Michigan's electoral votes.

In a statement on Dec. 14, 2020, Shirkey said the slate of Democratic electors should be able to proceed with their duty "free from threats of violence and intimidation" and acknowledged that Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris won Michigan's election.

Shirkey said Thursday that he didn't recall any member of the Trump campaign specifically asking him to appoint an alternative slate of electors.

'Asked me to contact you'
Chesebro also sent a Michigan electoral certificate form to be used at the Dec. 14, 2020, meeting, and a plan for casting the votes in Michigan to Roman and Kerik ahead of the electors gathering, records show.

Chesebro's plan said the Michigan GOP electors should cast ballots for both president and vice president, in addition to signing the certificates.

"These ballots are not to be sent to Washington; but they should be retained as proof that the electors did actually cast ballots for president & vice president," Chesebro's plan said of the ballots that were to be used.

A day earlier, on Dec. 10, 2020, Chesebro emailed Berden and Marian Sheridan, another of the 16 GOP electors in Michigan.

"Several people with the Trump campaign, including Justin Clark and Nick Trainer, gave me your contact info and asked me to help coordinate with the other five contested states, to help with logistics of the electors in other states hopefully joining in casting their votes on Monday," Chesebro wrote.

Trainer led the Trump campaign strategy in battleground states.

The subject line of the message from Chesebro was "URGENT -- Trump-Pence campaign asked me to contact you to coordinate Dec. 14 voting by Michigan electors."

Minutes later, Chesebro also sent the message he wrote to Berden and Sheridan to Giuliani. Giuliani then forwarded it to Epshteyn and Christina Bobb, a lawyer who was advising Trump, according to the emails obtained by The News.

Room 306
After the electors meeting on Dec. 14, 2020, Flynn informed Chesebro, Roman and others within the GOP that he was preparing packages of the false certificates to send to Pence, the National Archives, the Secretary of State's office and the chief judge in Michigan's Western District.

"I have attached a scan of the basic package of materials that will constitute one package going to each official," Flynn wrote to Roman. "It includes: one copy of the cover memo, one duplicate original of the certificate of electors, and one copy of the replacement elector forms."

But, by early January, Trump campaign staffers became concerned that the Michigan certificate wouldn't make its way to Congress for the official counting of votes on Jan. 6, 2021, the event that was the pinnacle of Trump's effort to overturn the election.

 

On Jan. 4, 2021, Roman, the Trump campaign operative, emailed Chesebro and Matt Morgan, general counsel for the Trump campaign, saying the Michigan certificate was mailed on Dec. 15, 2020, but was still "in transit."

"The latest update was posted this morning and stated the packages for the Senate president and archivist were at the D.C. sorting facility," wrote Roman, who now faces criminal charges in Georgia for his alleged role in orchestrating a false Trump electors scheme in that state.

Morgan later emailed, "You will probably need to enlist the help of a legislator who can deliver to the appropriate place(s). I strongly recommend you guys discuss a revised delivery plan with Rudy (Giuliani) to make sure this gets done the way he wants."

Morgan became "freaked out" that the Michigan votes were still at a sorting facility, Chesebro told investigators for Nessel's office in a recorded interview in December.

Roman floated the idea of chartering a flight to get the certificates to Washington, D.C., ahead of Jan. 6, 2021.

Instead, they developed a plan to have G. Michael Brown, deputy director of Election Day operations for Trump's campaign, fly on a commercial flight with the Michigan certificate to get it to the Trump International Hotel on Jan. 5, 2021. Meanwhile, Alesha Guenther, who worked for the Wisconsin Republican Party, flew with the Wisconsin certificate to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 5, 2021.

Chesebro told Guenther in an email to meet him at the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C. Chesebro said he was in Room 306 and would keep the Wisconsin certificate in the room safe "until I later deliver to the Hill."

Jan. 6, 2021
Chesebro mentioned the idea of getting Wisconsin U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican with whom Chesebro was connected, to present the GOP certificates to Pence for the Jan. 6, 2021, vote counting, according to the emails.

Roman got U.S. Rep. Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania, involved and a House staff member met them in Washington, Chesebro told Nessel's investigators.
The House staff member walked the certificates to Johnson's team, he said.

"I don't know why logistically we didn't take it directly to Johnson, but that's how we did it," Chesebro told Michigan investigators.

The U.S. House's Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol obtained text messages that showed Sean Riley, Johnson's chief of staff, told Chris Hodgson, who worked for Pence, that Johnson needed to get something to Pence on Jan. 6, 2021.

"Do not give that to him," Hodgson responded when Riley revealed he was talking about "alternative" slates of electors, according to the text messages.

The false certificates ultimately weren't counted or considered on Jan. 6, 2021.

"I don't know what the expectation was that he would do with them, which, in addition to the security aspects of not receiving them, you know, right before he walks over to the joint session, I'm not sure what the expectation was that he would do with those documents as the joint session is about to start," Hodgson, Pence's director of legislative affairs, previously told the U.S. House committee.

On Jan. 8, 2021, the National Archives sent the false certificate it received from Michigan to Michigan's secretary of state's office. That document eventually spurred Nessel's investigation into the GOP electors.

"Because this did not come from the Michigan Secretary of State's office, we will not be adding the documents to the Electoral College website," wrote Katerina Horska, of the National Archives and Records Administration.

 

 

 

Yeah, but a court of law didn't charge him specifically on a charge of insurrection and he's never been found guilty.

Therefore he can run. And considering the 14th amendment is vague on this, we strike it down.

Considering that 15th and 16th amendment are also of the same reconstruction era thinking that are founding fathers specifically left out of the original constitution we strike those down as well.

/6 of SCOTUS

[4th&Five 41571]

 

[Jive Turkey 12630]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

4 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Didn't they announce this shit back in August or so?

[kevwun 15811]

The amount increased.  I think it was originally 250 million.

[Hard Times 302]

16 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

They need to do the right thing and keep Doturd off the ballot in all states, but they probably won't.

[WhatTheBuck 28794]

20 minutes ago, Hard Times said:

They need to do the right thing and keep Doturd off the ballot in all states, but they probably won't.

I hope they recognize that Trump is a threat to the sovereignty of the court. Look at what Netanyahu is doing in Israel. Look at Erdogan in Turkey. Look at Orbán in Hungary. If Trump regains power, he’ll be a tyrant and expect the court to do his bidding…or else. 

[Red Five 40877]

It's amazing to watch clips on Fox of idiots saying things like "Well Trump put them on the court so they need to come through for him". Uh huh, because that's how that's supposed to work. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

All the legal talking heads keep mentioning multiple off ramps for SCOTUS on Trump ballot issue. They know SCOTUS is going to overrule. 

[nbmishoid 963]

Who here thinks the supremes will rule in favor of Colorado, and extend that to Trump not being eligible, period.  They don’t need/want him now.  To extreme a hope?

[bolverk 29695]

34 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

Who here thinks the supremes will rule in favor of Colorado, and extend that to Trump not being eligible, period.  They don’t need/want him now.  To extreme a hope?

They'll find a way to keep him on the ballot, whether legitimately or not, but I don't know what it'll be based on other than "let the people decide"

That Postal Service Act language from 1792, specifically mentioning the President was an officer *should* be enough to say the 14th applied to him. Colorado's Supreme Court did a thorough analysis and determined he was engaged in insurrection.

SCOTUS justices swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution too, and the 14th is part of that.

[Gatorubet 30274]

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

Who here thinks the supremes will rule in favor of Colorado, and extend that to Trump not being eligible, period.  They don’t need/want him now.  To extreme a hope?

Yes.  But to look fair, they will not overturn the DC circuit saying that immunity is not a defense.  So when they allow a convicted Trump to assume the presidency after his election in 2024, they will throw their hands in the air and point to their impartial rulings.

I do repeat this as the long-shot possibility: Roberts is worried about SCOTUS losing its authority - and people deciding to just not follow them. To quote Stalin about the Pope, “how many divisions does Roberts have?”  A Justice Marshall Marbury v Madison moment. 

The stain of corruption from Thomas is so strong that Trump‘s attorney Hubba Dabba Do publicly reminding SCOTUS that they need to rule for Trump - because they are his puppets put there to do his bidding - may push them over the edge in a 5-4 decision to make a ruling that is solely meant to show that Trump does not own them.

Don’t bet on that. 

Edited January 6 by Gatorubet

[wildcat09 29360]

They’re going to decide that the 14th requires a conviction. It’s wild that anyone is even considering any other possibility.

[Red Five 40877]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They’re going to decide that the 14th requires a conviction.

We probably should have done that at some point in the last three years. 

[Willfully Horn 8040]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

We probably should have done that at some point in the last three years. 

Garland waiting until November 2022 to appoint a special prosecutor was an abdication of duty.

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Garland waiting until November 2022 to appoint a special prosecutor was an abdication of duty.

In his defense, Garland had to wait until Smith’s purple smock got back from the dry cleaners. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

They’re going to decide that the 14th requires a conviction. It’s wild that anyone is even considering any other possibility.

Constitutional originalists will somehow find the word “conviction” in the 14th amendment 

chefs kiss 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

They'll find a way to keep him on the ballot, whether legitimately or not, but I don't know what it'll be based on other than "let the people decide"

That Postal Service Act language from 1792, specifically mentioning the President was an officer *should* be enough to say the 14th applied to him. Colorado's Supreme Court did a thorough analysis and determined he was engaged in insurrection.

SCOTUS justices swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution too, and the 14th is part of that.

No, language in legislation does not offer a guide to language in the Constitution.  Different documents, different purposes, different authors.  The Postal Service Act does have the benefit of being an example of contemporary usage.  But this probably isn't a case of that.

Usage in the Constitution is pretty context-specific.

There's so many "outs" because section 3 of the 14th Amendment is some of the shoddiest draftsmanship in the Constitution.  Rivaled by the Second Amendment.

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's so many "outs" because section 3 of the 14th Amendment is some of the shoddiest draftsmanship in the Constitution.  Rivaled by the Second Amendment.

If only the plain meaning of the text  had as much interpretive value as scholastic conjectures about whether the framers meant to indicate through omission that the chief executive of the government was somehow not an officer. 

Edited January 7 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 31512]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If only the plain meaning of the text  could offer some kind of interpretive clues. 

For better or worse, plain meaning has rarely if ever been an interpretive tool of the US Constitution.  

We didn't really get into looking hard at the document until the 20th Century and, by then, the idiom of late 18th century America was lost to history.

Funny thing, "plain meaning" is an interpretive tool used for patent claims, most all of which in litigation were drafted within the past two decades (you tend not to litigate patents that are expired, and they expire after 20 years).  You'd be surprised how hard it is to get people to agree on plain meaning or to offer a judge a principled way of choosing between two "plain meaning" interpretations of a word or phrase.  You almost always have to resort to something else.

Edited January 7 by TwiceHorn

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If only the plain meaning of the text  could offer some kind of interpretive clues. 

Sort of goes without saying that some people who have committed treason should still be eligible to hold the highest office of our country while other traitors shouldn't depending on their previous job classification. OTOH, can anyone really know what the 14th Amendment means?

[jimmyjazz 46000]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For better or worse, plain meaning has rarely if ever been an interpretive tool of the US Constitution.  

Yeah, I see it often in the workplace, too.  For instance, it is often difficult to suss out whether "and" means something different than "or".

[dcbc 14496]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

For better or worse, plain meaning has rarely if ever been an interpretive tool of the US Constitution.  

We didn't really get into looking hard at the document until the 20th Century and, by then, the idiom of late 18th century America was lost to history.

Funny thing, "plain meaning" is an interpretive tool used for patent claims, most all of which in litigation were drafted within the past two decades (you tend not to litigate patents that are expired, and they expire after 20 years).  You'd be surprised how hard it is to get people to agree on plain meaning or to offer a judge a principled way of choosing between two "plain meaning" interpretations of a word or phrase.  You almost always have to resort to something else.

The plain meaning rule is alive and well in contracts.  And just because the parties don't agree on the meaning, doesn't mean its ambiguous.  At least around these-here parts.

 

/not the first time I've typed that, albeit not verbatim. 

Edited January 7 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 31512]

32 minutes ago, dcbc said:

The plain meaning rule is alive and well in contracts.  And just because the parties don't agree on the meaning, doesn't mean its ambiguous.  At least around these-here parts.

 

/not the first time I've typed that, albeit not verbatim. 

Of course it is.  Patents and contracts and, for the most part, legislation, are current, contemporary documents.

And no, not every disagreement over a term or phrase makes a term ambiguous or insoluble.

But, people like plain meaning here because it suits their ends.  More or less just like every interpretive device is chosen:  I like the outcome.  I.e. Calvinball.

Ironically, originalism is a time-adjusted form of plain meaning, e.g plain meaning when drafted 200 years ago.

As far as "officers" go, the real loaded term is "Officers of the United States."  That one does have a very particular meaning attaching to those who are appointed by the President with the advise and consent of the Senate, and may be removed by impeachment.  Which is as opposed to "inferior officers," who are appointed by the President without the advise and consent of the Senate and serve at the pleasure of the President or as Congress has dictated.  Shit gets messy sometimes.

Thank God they didn't say Officers of the United States in the 14th.  Signs and wonders they didn't.

Edited January 7 by TwiceHorn

[HenryJames 66135]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If only the plain meaning of the text  had as much interpretive value as scholastic conjectures about whether the framers meant to indicate through omission that the chief executive of the government was somehow not an officer. 

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

[F250 28802]

40 minutes ago, dcbc said:

The plain meaning rule is alive and well in contracts.  And just because the parties don't agree on the meaning, doesn't mean its ambiguous.  At least around these-here parts.

 

/not the first time I've typed that, albeit not verbatim. 

I've had the unfortunate experience of being involved in many software contract negotiations. Fucking lawyers will beat the shit out what something clearly means.

Me usually after being asked to clarify a sentence because it could imply some unintended service offering.

[dcbc 14496]

7 minutes ago, F250 said:

I've had the unfortunate experience of being involved in many software contract negotiations. Fucking lawyers will beat the shit out what something clearly means.

Me usually after being asked to clarify a sentence because it could imply some unintended service offering.

 

I saw a contract somewhat recently that said payment due at x:xx p.m.  "Dallas, Texas time."  My initial reaction was that it was a really stupid substitute for "CST," until I thought about daylight savings time and realized why some lawyer insisted on that term. 

Edited January 7 by dcbc

[Bullneck 19185]

9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

I saw a contract somewhat recently that said payment due at x:xx p.m.  "Dallas, Texas time."  My initial reaction was that it was a really stupid substitute for "CST," until I thought about daylight savings time and realized why some lawyer insisted on that term. 

You should have crossed it out and written "Tulsa Time."

[tbone_ 14134]

I had a land seller’s counsel object to the time is of the essence clause the other day.

Really showed off some law school learning there bud.

[dcbc 14496]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

You should have crossed it out and written "Tulsa Time."

Thankfully, that's not my role in the process anymore.

[NWBuck 8576]

I've heard an argument that SCOTUS may overrule Colorado/Maine on the grounds that the president hasn't been indicted for insurrection (with those trials ongoing). 

But since the House impeached him for "incitement of insurrection" on Jan 13th, would impeachment on those terms carry the same weight as indictment? 

(I know, I know... They'll all find facts or arguments to support their preconceived decisions) 

[HenryJames 66135]

Fourteenth doesn’t say anything about indictment. 
 

…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

9 hours ago, F250 said:

I've had the unfortunate experience of being involved in many software contract negotiations. Fucking lawyers will beat the shit out what something clearly means.

Me usually after being asked to clarify a sentence because it could imply some unintended service offering.

Ironically that’s why I like negotiating with lawyers on the other side- they get so wound around the axle about language that’s only disputed in catastrophic situations that they inadvertently wind up reopening commercial terms with real value.

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, originalism is a time-adjusted form of plain meaning, e.g plain meaning when drafted 200 years ago.

I don’t buy that. The evidence suggests that what is laughably called “originalism” is the jurisprudential equivalent of how extreme fundamentalist evangelicals use proof-texting to demonstrate that God commands us to stone gays here in 2024. 
 

And to be clear- I have a ton of respect for lawyers and revere the legal profession. But part of why I keep coming back to the point that the profession appears to be in an ethical crisis is that from the outside looking in, it seems that charlatans and grifters have been accepted as a legitimate form of practitioner just so long as they maintain a facade of professional standard. 

Edited January 7 by Bozo_Casanova

[Red Five 40877]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

Fourteenth doesn’t say anything about indictment. 
 

…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. 

I would say that sitting on his ass and refusing to do anything at all, for hours, as President of the United States, while the Capitol was under attack.... should count. 

In fact, he popped off to people who called him begging for help. "Well I guess they care more about the stolen election than you do, Kevin". And to this day he's talking about pardoning them all. So, yeah, it sort of looks like the 14th was written for him.

[Eastwood 4394]

55 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ironically that’s why I like negotiating with lawyers on the other side- they get so wound around the axle about language that’s only disputed in catastrophic situations that they inadvertently wind up reopening commercial terms with real value.

Because in the event that those catastrophic situations happen, guess who catches the blame for there being "ambiguity" in the document?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13586]

13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

And to this day he's talking about pardoning them all.

Is offering pardons to people convicted of seditious conspiracy really giving aid. I'd argue he's robbing them of the opportunity for rehabilitation and personal growth. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26510]

43 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Because in the event that those catastrophic situations happen, guess who catches the blame for there being "ambiguity" in the document?

It doesn’t come up, seriously. When deals blow up it’s because of bad-faith breech, non-payment, performance issues or delivery, not narrowly tailored risk management language. The wagons get circled, we deal with it, and if there’s accountability after the fact it flows downhill through the business (ie, not middle or back office) after an analysis of root cause. 
The literal only time in 25 years I’ve seen a lawyer held to account after the fact over a contract that blew up it was because they didn’t spot an end-run around the termination language buried in definitions.

I've been lucky to have worked with great in-house and outside counsel virtually my entire career. They’ve provided extremely valuable support and partnerships, and I like to think that I’ve been a good partner in large part because I take full ownership of the commercial agreement and look to them for risk mitigation and structuring guidance.

Edited January 7 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 105178]

Because in the event that those catastrophic situations happen, guess who catches the blame for there being "ambiguity" in the document?

Only if you didn’t advise your client about the potential, but remote, risk, and let them make a business decision.
Good contract review isn’t hard: 1) these terms are really important, let’s get them right, or be willing to walk away; 2) these terms are somewhat important, let’s negotiate on them and maybe use them for some horse-trading (maybe you give on a couple of them, in exchange for a price break); and 3) these terms carry some remote risk (yes, this term provides that if every EU country is conquered by Tanzania in a war, the contract is terminated…I think there’s a pretty low risk of that happening, so you need to make the business decision of whether you can live with that risk), so decide if you can live with that risk. Note that the overall value of the contract has some bearing on the amount of risk to be tolerated.
Generally, if you spend a shitload of time haggling over category 3, you’re either a dumb client or a bad lawyer (spoiler: there are plenty of both out there).
Oh, and writing in plain English isn’t hard. But a lot of lawyers who are addicted to using forms that have been used and re-used for 20 years have a hard time with it. I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear. That’s what it’s there for.
Back to the topic: the SCOTUS will fuck this up 5-4 or 6-3, it’s just a question of how they’ll fuck it up.

[dcbc 14496]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And to be clear- I have a ton of respect for lawyers and revere the legal profession. But part of why I keep coming back to the point that the profession appears to be in an ethical crisis is that from the outside looking in, it seems that charlatans and grifters have been accepted as a legitimate form of practitioner just so long as they maintain a facade of professional standard. 

You're not wrong.  Just know that some of us still are pushing back against that with all of the logic and reason at our disposal.

Edited January 7 by dcbc

[Eastwood 4394]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Only if you didn’t advise your client about the potential, but remote, risk, and let them make a business decision.
Good contract review isn’t hard: 1) these terms are really important, let’s get them right, or be willing to walk away; 2) these terms are somewhat important, let’s negotiate on them and maybe use them for some horse-trading (maybe you give on a couple of them, in exchange for a price break); and 3) these terms carry some remote risk (yes, this term provides that if every EU country is conquered by Tanzania in a war, the contract is terminated…I think there’s a pretty low risk of that happening, so you need to make the business decision of whether you can live with that risk), so decide if you can live with that risk. Note that the overall value of the contract has some bearing on the amount of risk to be tolerated.
Generally, if you spend a shitload of time haggling over category 3, you’re either a dumb client or a bad lawyer (spoiler: there are plenty of both out there).
Oh, and writing in plain English isn’t hard. But a lot of lawyers who are addicted to using forms that have been used and re-used for 20 years have a hard time with it. I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear. That’s what it’s there for.
Back to the topic: the SCOTUS will fuck this up 5-4 or 6-3, it’s just a question of how they’ll fuck it up.

YMMV by which industry you are working in. For my industry, there is usually an imbalance of power in negotiations between my side and the opposing side for prime assets. "Just walk away from the table" isn't an option because I'm trying to secure rights that several other parties are competing over. It becomes a Game Theory exercise of who will pay the price to entry and who will eat the bad contract. Sometimes the price is so high and the terms so bad that nobody will accept (and that bar keeps getting lower and lower, setting precedents that make my job even harder). Sometimes the only way forward is to endure 6 months of haggling over the minutia, including a specific word being used here or there. Therefore, it becomes my job to find a way to make the language as acceptable as possible without running them off and I find myself going back and forth with opposing counsel over what should be obvious language. If I don't, there are two primary negative outcomes: 1. I hold firm and a competitor eats the bad contract. Bad for me from an optics standpoint, even if the competitor falls flat on their face. 2. I eat the bad contract and the liability bomb goes off in the future. Bad for me, bad for the company.