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

[Francisco 2.0 32387]

20 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

You still have to put in some work. Although, now you simply have to walk up and grab them by the pussy.

They let you do it.

 

No, no.  You have it wrong.  You have to be a star as well.

 

 

[Lurch 5922]

47 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Ron Filipkowski declares Trump “meltdown” more often than CNN declares “breaking news”

[tx 3 putt 76870]

26 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

You still have to put in some work. Although, now you simply have to walk up and grab them by the pussy.

They let you do it.

no pussy grabbing here, I have CLASS

[Upgrayedd 5810]

53 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I claim money worth at $1.8 billion 

surly women throw your panties at me 

Both of them?

[Rimbo 25911]

29 minutes ago, Lurch said:

Ron Filipkowski declares Trump “meltdown” more often than CNN declares “breaking news”

I mean... is he wrong?

[TwiceHorn 31438]

2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

It seems to me like the hypothetical existence of a "federal defense" is a weak basis for pissing on the pretense of federalism. Are the states sovereigns or not? If so, then state crimes should be tried in state courts before state judges following state court procedures.

I understand that the 161 overt acts are not, in and of themselves, criminal. And it's not like Meadows performed all 161 of them or that his guilt depends on whether any one of those acts did or didn't happen. Which to me would lead to the conclusion that it's irrelevant whether Meadows was wearing his "official duties" hat at the time of most of those 161 acts.

I might agree that the "federal defense" matters if it had a direct connection to a fact consequential to proving Meadows's guilt. That's a much smaller universe of facts than the 161 overt arts, but I can't think of any legitimate argument that trying to overturn the results of the election has a relationship with official duty.

I guess.  Check out this case, which is the precursor of the Supremacy Clause immunity defense.  The facts are fucking wild. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/135/1/

But, as a matter of course we don't let state courts rule on questions arising under federal law, except the Constitution.

The justification for this removal statute is that a federal employee/officer discharging their duty would have an immunity defense and that defense, arising under federal law, should be heard in a federal court.

And, really and truly, this kind of statute is here to protect federal (read Biden administration) officials from prosecution and harassment from politically motivated prosecutors (read DeSantis, Abbott, Trump, and their minions).  And, while none of us believe that is what is going on here, it sure as shit might going the other way.  See, e.g. post 12117.

Edited August 30, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30185]

25 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

no pussy grabbing here, I have CLASS

<tx 3 putt> Vagina seizure? Sure.  

Bur never a pussy grab. </tx 3 putt>

[safe sex 11697]

I'm pretty sure there's like close to double digits of us on Surly tyvm

[hookemATL 11702]

7 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I'm pretty sure there's like close to double digits of us on Surly tyvm

[Sawbonz 27540]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's pretty simple.  Willis alleged 161 predicate acts.  A whole lot of them are not in and of themselves criminal.  See, for example, Act 6. wherein Meadows is alleged to have texted Scott Perry to set up a meeting with the Speaker of the PA legislature.  

That act is not criminal.  It is also pretty firmly within the duties of a Chief of Staff (it may also be political in nature, ultimately).  So Judge Jones is asking if one or some of the acts are a federal official doing a federal job, does that mean removal?

Remember, too, that this isn't a defense, it's just a process to see whether this gets tried in federal or stays in state court.  It''s not the same as an immunity defense (but it is related).

Let’s try this again. If one of the 161 counts was an action that falls within the course of his duties, and one of the 161 counts was shooting Brad in the face, is that murder charge getting kicked to the federal court?

[tx 3 putt 76870]

16 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I'm pretty sure there's like close to double digits of us on Surly tyvm

Always take your shot 

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

No, no.  You have it wrong.  You have to be a star as well.

 

 

Stars don't get much brighter than @tx 3 putt  Show some respect.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9323]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Holy shit this transcript. Yeah, 479 pages long and only 15 minutes in he's totally off the rails about the deals he could have done as POTUS but didn't (although" Biden's doing them now, and George Washington did them" hundreds of years ago), how he owns the "Mona Lisas" of real estate and his properties are worth billions.

But here's the money shot (pun intended, I guess).

 

[Gil Bang 25919]

I like how he was dealing directly with the head guy at Hilton, but  doesn't remember who it was.  And he doesn't remember the "great guy, lawyer with a great reputation" that was in control of  his trust. 

[Js1 85276]

18 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I like how he was dealing directly with the head guy at Hilton, but  doesn't remember who it was.  And he doesn't remember the "great guy, lawyer with a great reputation" that was in control of  his trust. 

[dcbc 14465]

1 hour ago, Grade of D as in David said:

They let you do it.

For $137,000

[TwiceHorn 31438]

58 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Let’s try this again. If one of the 161 counts was an action that falls within the course of his duties, and one of the 161 counts was shooting Brad in the face, is that murder charge getting kicked to the federal court?

You have made an absurd hypothetical.  Shooting Brad in the face is not within the duties of the White House Chief of Staff.

And there would be no need to allege a RICO conspiracy, or really any kind of conspiracy at all, to make that indictment.  And no need to allege in the indictment non-criminal acts.

Also, it seems you are conflating the 161 predicate acts, many of which are completely lawful, but overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy with the actual counts of the indictment that allege a crime.  Almost all of the factual allegations against Meadows are in the 161 predicate acts and not the counts.

Meadows, aside from the predicate acts, is charged with two counts, one of which (Count 1) is being part of the RICO enterprise, which relies on the aggregate of his acts and the other of which (Count 28) is solicitation of violation of oath of a public officer by Raffensperger, which doesn't allege anything other than he was on the call with Trump and arranged the call.

So, both the predicate acts and the alleged crime itself were at least arguably in the discharge of his duties as White House Chief of Staff.   The best argument against that, in my opinion, is that they were political actions made specifically not part of his office under the Hatch Act.  That got no play in the hearing but plenty of play in the briefing.

I'm one of the first to remind people that questions the judge poses from the bench are not a good indicator of outcome.  This is different, though.  He's specifically asking for briefing on an issue and that, more often than not, tends to show that the judge thinks that issue may be dispositive.

If the judge thought he could dispense with it by saying all of Meadows' actions were political and covered by the Hatch Act,and thus not within the discharge of his duties,  there's no need to question whether all, or some, or just one of the alleged acts is a sufficient basis to remove it.

Apparently, the 11th Circuit has a test for this that is different from the Second Circuit, where Trump's Manhattan motion was filed and denied.  And, under the 11th Circuit standard, the showing necessary for removal is a "low bar."  Everyone involved seems to acknowledge that.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[dcbc 14465]

29 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Holy shit this transcript. Yeah, 479 pages long and only 15 minutes in he's totally off the rails about the deals he could have done as POTUS but didn't (although" Biden's doing them now, and George Washington did them" hundreds of years ago), how he owns the "Mona Lisas" of real estate and his properties are worth billions.

But here's the money shot (pun intended, I guess).

 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

1 hour ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Holy shit this transcript. Yeah, 479 pages long and only 15 minutes in he's totally off the rails about the deals he could have done as POTUS but didn't (although" Biden's doing them now, and George Washington did them" hundreds of years ago), how he owns the "Mona Lisas" of real estate and his properties are worth billions.

But here's the money shot (pun intended, I guess).

 

Only 479 pages?  Shit, I'd expect that transcript to be 3-4 volumes of word salad and just trying to get him to focus and answer the goddamn question.  I suppose invoking the 5th cuts down on transcript volume significantly.

ETA:  Goddamn.  One of the first questions asked, at pages 27-28 elicited a four page wall of self-aggrandizing text.  Christalmighty.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31438]

3 hours ago, SilasCoade said:

Is it right to phrase this as the Chief of Staff acts as an agent of the President? And if so, is it also right to recognize that not everything the President engages in during his/her time in office is done under the auspices of the office of the President? If the sitting president is in fact able to act not as the President but as a citizen or as a candidate, then clearly the Chief of Staff would also be able to act as Chief of Staff or as a private citizen. If POTUS asked the Chief of Staff to arrange a get away car for his planned liquor store robbery, would that be under the Chief of Staff's purview? This argument seems ridiculous on its face.

Well, in my opinion, one of the best arguments is that what Meadows and Trump were doing was political in nature and excluded from the legitimate duties of Meadow's office by the Hatch Act.  A corollary of that being that federal officials have no authority over any state election matters.

But, there's no question Meadows was White House Chief of Staff and he was doing these things acting as such, however you characterize the acts themselves.

This is not a particularly easy question that you can just draw some bright is/is not line on.  I know how I'd like it to go, and how I think it should go, but my interest in the outcome heavily biases that and I recognize that.  More people would do well to do the same.

[Sawbonz 27540]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You have made an absurd hypothetical.  Shooting Brad in the face is not within the duties of the White House Chief of Staff.

And there would be no need to allege a RICO conspiracy, or really any kind of conspiracy at all, to make that indictment.  And no need to allege in the indictment non-criminal acts.

Meadows, aside from the predicate acts, is charged with two counts, one of which (Count 1) is being part of the RICO enterprise, which relies on the aggregate of his acts and the other of which (Count 28) is solicitation of violation of oath of a public officer by Raffensperger, which doesn't allege anything other than he was on the call with Trump and arranged the call.

So, both the predicate acts and the alleged crime itself were at least arguably in the discharge of his duties as White House Chief of Staff.   The best argument against that, in my opinion, is that they were political actions made specifically not part of his office under the Hatch Act.  That got no play in the hearing but plenty of play in the briefing.

I'm one of the first to remind people that questions the judge poses from the bench are not a good indicator of outcome.  This is different, though.  He's specifically asking for briefing on an issue and that, more often than not, tends to show that the judge thinks that issue may be dispositive.

If the judge thought he could dispense with it by saying all of Meadows' actions were political and covered by the Hatch Act,and thus not within the discharge of his duties,  there's no need to question whether all, or some, or just one of the alleged acts is a sufficient basis to remove it.

Apparently, the 11th Circuit has a test for this that is different from the Second Circuit, where Trump's Manhattan motion was filed and denied.  And, under the 11th Circuit standard, the showing necessary for removal is a "low bar."  Everyone involved seems to acknowledge that.

Of course my example is absurd. I’m using an example that no one could conceivably think is defensible as a legitimate act. I would argue that a crime say of helping the president to extort a state official into election fraud likewise falls outside the scope of his federal duties. I guess we will see

[TwiceHorn 31438]

3 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

I saw some reportage of this and it kind of worries me because it seems like it's kind of "fraud in the air."  There doesn't seem to be any proof that any specific party (a bank, an insurer) relied on false financial statements to their detriment.  Of course, if we had proof of that, we'd probably have a federal bank fraud indictment as well.

On the other hand, Trump's response seems to be "I paid off all the loans," which is mostly irrelevant, at least in the context of civil fraud or criminal bank fraud.

[Born to Run 6569]

Only 479 pages?  Shit, I'd expect that transcript to be 3-4 volumes of word salad and just trying to get him to focus and answer the goddamn question.  I suppose invoking the 5th cuts down on transcript volume significantly.

This motherfucker can't help himself with the hyperbole and dishonesty. Even in a deposition. Yes the Trump brand is hotter and bigger than Apple or Nike or Coke. Lotta people are saying.

Gross and Gauche all day everyday.

[RomaVicta 29902]

Every accusation....

 

A statement like this ten years ago would have got you in real trouble.

[Biff Tannen 45665]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Every accusation....

 

A statement like this ten years ago would have got you in real trouble.

THIS TIME I REALLY MEAN IT!!!11!!1

WHAAAARRGAAARBBBBBLLL!!!!!!!!

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

[chainsaw 9857]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I guess.  Check out this case, which is the precursor of the Supremacy Clause immunity defense.  The facts are fucking wild. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/135/1/

But, as a matter of course we don't let state courts rule on questions arising under federal law, except the Constitution.

The justification for this removal statute is that a federal employee/officer discharging their duty would have an immunity defense and that defense, arising under federal law, should be heard in a federal court.

And, really and truly, this kind of statute is here to protect federal (read Biden administration) officials from prosecution and harassment from politically motivated prosecutors (read DeSantis, Abbott, Trump, and their minions).  And, while none of us believe that is what is going on here, it sure as shit might going the other way.  See, e.g. post 12117.

Wild facts for sure, but the reasoning makes sense there. The case was about the interpretation of the "Take care" clause and it wasn't a frivolous argument considering there was an active plot against a sitting supreme court justice. So yeah, in the event of a legitimate conflict between California's interest in penalizing murder and the President's right to "take care," sure the conflict is resolved in favor of the sovereign that enjoys "supremacy."

But I wouldn't consider a bodyguard and Mark Meadows on the same footing, when it comes to "taking care that the laws are faithfully executed." So maybe Meadows has to rely on some other clause or federal law but what clause of the constitution or federal statute says that conspiring to do fake electors and to solicit state officials to do corruption are within the scope of official duties in the same way that protecting a federal official from credible threats is within the scope of official duties?

 

[TwiceHorn 31438]

10 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Wild facts for sure, but the reasoning makes sense there. The case was about the interpretation of the "Take care" clause and it wasn't a frivolous argument considering there was an active plot against a sitting supreme court justice. So yeah, in the event of a legitimate conflict between California's interest in penalizing murder and the President's right to "take care," sure the conflict is resolved in favor of the sovereign that enjoys "supremacy."

But I wouldn't consider a bodyguard and Mark Meadows on the same footing, when it comes to "taking care that the laws are faithfully executed." So maybe Meadows has to rely on some other clause or federal law but what clause of the constitution or federal statute says that conspiring to do fake electors and to solicit state officials to do corruption are within the scope of official duties in the same way that protecting a federal official from credible threats is within the scope of official duties?

 

Well, apart from that, he was a US Marshal, doing his job.  You kind of want to accept that he was just doing his job.  But even if there had been evidence that he was malicious or premeditated in his action, he still would have been habeas corpused out of the Cali justice system.  And his motivations and potential criminality would go untried and untested anywhere.

So this removal statute was basically enacted to avoid the extreme remedy of just habeas corpusing him out of state court with no trial to be had anywhere.  Instead it just takes place in federal court.

These statutes are of general application to federal employees and officers.  If they were acting within the scope of their jobs AND they have a federal defense to present (usually immunity of some form), they get to have their trial in federal court.

There is an argument that neither Trump nor Meadows, but especially Trump, isn't an officer within the meaning of the removal statute, but no one has pressed it very hard.

There's also arguments that neither Trump nor Meadows were really acting in their official capacity, but instead in some personal capacity related to the campaign or other political goals.  Again, I personally think that should be the winning argument.  But articulating a line between official duties and unofficial duties can be very hard to do.

[chainsaw 9857]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, apart from that, he was a US Marshal, doing his job.  You kind of want to accept that he was just doing his job.  But even if there had been evidence that he was malicious or premeditated in his action, he still would have been habeas corpused out of the Cali justice system.  And his motivations and potential criminality would go untried and untested anywhere.

So this removal statute was basically enacted to avoid the extreme remedy of just habeas corpusing him out of state court with no trial to be had anywhere.  Instead it just takes place in federal court.

These statutes are of general application to federal employees and officers.  If they were acting within the scope of their jobs AND they have a federal defense to present (usually immunity of some form), they get to have their trial in federal court.

There is an argument that neither Trump nor Meadows, but especially Trump, isn't an officer within the meaning of the removal statute, but no one has pressed it very hard.

There's also arguments that neither Trump nor Meadows were really acting in their official capacity, but instead in some personal capacity related to the campaign or other political goals.  Again, I personally think that should be the winning argument.  But articulating a line between official duties and unofficial duties can be very hard to do.

And the Hatch Act makes politics categorically outside the scope of any federal job description, which I understand was a big part of Georgia's argument.

[SilasCoade 2622]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, there's no question Meadows was White House Chief of Staff and he was doing these things acting as such, however you characterize the acts themselves.

I just don't see how organizing a meeting explicitly to defraud the American people could fall within the scope of Chief of Staff duties any more than arranging a get away car for a liquor store robbery would be. Knowingly aiding and abetting a crime simply cannot be a duty of a US federal government official. Not that it doesn't happen, but if it does and they get caught, the "just doing my job" defense simply cannot be applied. And I do understand that the issue being raised is not about guilt/innocence but about the proper jurisdiction/venue what have you. But the same logic applies. If this was done with the intent of committing or abetting a crime, which is what is alleged, then it cannot be considered part of his official duties. It just can't.

[Pato del Muerto 52485]

Were these things applied for the watergate burglars?  Official duties by order of potus?

[TwiceHorn 31438]

43 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

I just don't see how organizing a meeting explicitly to defraud the American people could fall within the scope of Chief of Staff duties any more than arranging a get away car for a liquor store robbery would be. Knowingly aiding and abetting a crime simply cannot be a duty of a US federal government official. Not that it doesn't happen, but if it does and they get caught, the "just doing my job" defense simply cannot be applied. And I do understand that the issue being raised is not about guilt/innocence but about the proper jurisdiction/venue what have you. But the same logic applies. If this was done with the intent of committing or abetting a crime, which is what is alleged, then it cannot be considered part of his official duties. It just can't.

It's not actually a crime until someone is convicted of it.  Until then, it's just an allegation.  Just as it's part of my official duty to set up meetings for POTUS is an allegation.  Your analysis turns that kind of on its head.  

 

14 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Were these things applied for the watergate burglars?  Official duties by order of potus?

Well, they were all tried in federal courts, so no.  The statute applies to officers and those acting under them, which I think still means federal employees that are less than officers.  So, direction without employment is going to be a no go.

[Sawbonz 27540]

57 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

I just don't see how organizing a meeting explicitly to defraud the American people could fall within the scope of Chief of Staff duties any more than arranging a get away car for a liquor store robbery would be. Knowingly aiding and abetting a crime simply cannot be a duty of a US federal government official. Not that it doesn't happen, but if it does and they get caught, the "just doing my job" defense simply cannot be applied. And I do understand that the issue being raised is not about guilt/innocence but about the proper jurisdiction/venue what have you. But the same logic applies. If this was done with the intent of committing or abetting a crime, which is what is alleged, then it cannot be considered part of his official duties. It just can't.

The problem here is you are applying logic, not lawyering

[TwiceHorn 31438]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

The problem here is you are applying logic, not lawyering

The problem is that there is the assumption of guilt that underlies all of this.  

In the court of law, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  So, it's easy to allege and prove that actions were taken as part of an official duty.  Whether they are subsequently proven to be a criminal offense is a separate question to be answered at a later date.

Everyone here is "IT'S A CRIME, it can't be an official duty."  Well, sorry, it's not.  It doesn't work that way.  You got it backwards.

[Sawbonz 27540]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem is that there is the assumption of guilt that underlies all of this.  

In the court of law, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  So, it's easy to allege and prove that actions were taken as part of an official duty.  Whether they are subsequently proven to be a criminal offense is a separate question to be answered at a later date.

Everyone here is "IT'S A CRIME, it can't be an official duty."  Well, sorry, it's not.  It doesn't work that way.  You got it backwards.

that’s a lot of words to say you agree with me

[TwiceHorn 31438]

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

that’s a lot of words to say you agree with me

Except I don't.  

People want to ignore things like the presumption of innocence, due process, and the right to counsel and a jury trial when they dislike the defendant enough.  Happens all the time on these pages, and not just in relation to Trump people.

[chainsaw 9857]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem is that there is the assumption of guilt that underlies all of this.  

In the court of law, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  So, it's easy to allege and prove that actions were taken as part of an official duty.  Whether they are subsequently proven to be a criminal offense is a separate question to be answered at a later date.

Everyone here is "IT'S A CRIME, it can't be an official duty."  Well, sorry, it's not.  It doesn't work that way.  You got it backwards.

The substance of the allegations, whether presumed true or not and whether he's presumed innocent or not, is what matters isn't it? The question as I understand it is whether the alleged acts were performed within the scope of official duties such that immunity is available.

I don't believe the answer to that question depends entirely on the Meadow's subjective beliefs no matter how sincere they might have been. The federal position Meadows filled was heading up the EOP, which had defined powers and duties just like any other executive agency. Perhaps they aren't defined with as much exactitude as we wish they were, but is there any serious argument that activities which, if true, would violate the Hatch Act, are among those powers and duties?

Meadows has not been indicted for violating the Hatch Act, by the way. He has been indicted for violating Georgia law. So I'm not sure the presumption of innocence applies with respect to analyzing uncharged conduct or whether that uncharged conduct falls within the scope of his official duties.

[Sawbonz 27540]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except I don't.  

People want to ignore things like the presumption of innocence, due process, and the right to counsel and a jury trial when they dislike the defendant enough.  Happens all the time on these pages, and not just in relation to Trump people.

So you agree that shooting the state official in the face during a meeting about “election fraud” in that state would be grounds for removal to the federal court? Because of presumption of innocence and the fact that he was attending the meeting in his official rule as WH chief of staff?

[TwiceHorn 31438]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

The substance of the allegations, whether presumed true or not and whether he's presumed innocent or not, is what matters isn't it? The question as I understand it is whether the alleged acts were performed within the scope of official duties such that immunity is available.

I don't believe the answer to that question depends entirely on the Meadow's subjective beliefs no matter how sincere they might have been. The federal position Meadows filled was heading up the EOP, which had defined powers and duties just like any other executive agency. Perhaps they aren't defined with as much exactitude as we wish they were, but is there any serious argument that activities which, if true, would violate the Hatch Act, are among those powers and duties?

Meadows has not been indicted for violating the Hatch Act, by the way. He has been indicted for violating Georgia law. So I'm not sure the presumption of innocence applies with respect to analyzing uncharged conduct or whether that uncharged conduct falls within the scope of his official duties.

We're not talking about immunity yet, we're talking about removal.

I agree that the Hatch Act spin is persuasive.  I just don't think it's necessarily dispositive.  I hope it is.  But I don't know.

Other people are arguing, "but these are criminal acts, Twice, they can't possibly be official duties."  That puts the cart before the horse.  The whole point of the proceeding is to determine whether what Meadows did constituted a crime, until a plea or trial and conviction, he's innocent.  If there's a colorable claim that he was acting within his official duties, he may get to have that trial in federal court.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

8 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So you agree that shooting the state official in the face during a meeting about “election fraud” in that state would be grounds for removal to the federal court? Because of presumption of innocence and the fact that he was attending the meeting in his official rule as WH chief of staff?

That has nothing to do with it.

Whether criminal or not, you can't argue that shooting someone in the face is a duty of the White House Chief of Staff.  It's not the fact that it is or isn't a crime, it's the fact that that is nowhere noway considered a duty of that office.

In their most neutral characterization, Meadows arranged a phone call and participated in a phone call for POTUS.  Those are pretty clearly duties of WH Chief of Staff.  When you start arguing that they were criminal acts, that's not a fact, that is a matter that is subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the whole damn reason we have indictments and trials.

You can go a lot less far and argue that these were political or campaign actions that have nothing to do with carrying out the duties of the president, or the WH CoS and that's going to get you a lot further.

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27540]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

That has nothing to do with it.

Whether criminal or not, you can't argue that shooting someone in the face is a duty of the White House Chief of Staff.  It's not the fact that it is or isn't a crime, it's the fact that that is nowhere noway considered a duty of that office.

Why not, if you can argue that extorting a state official to commit election fraud is a duty of the White House chief of staff?

[chainsaw 9857]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

We're not talking about immunity yet, we're talking about removal.

I agree that the Hatch Act spin is persuasive.  I just don't think it's necessarily dispositive.  I hope it is.  But I don't know.

Other people are arguing, "but these are criminal acts, Twice, they can't possibly be official duties."  That puts the cart before the horse.  The whole point of the proceeding is to determine whether what Meadows did constituted a crime, until a plea or trial and conviction, he's innocent.  If there's a colorable claim that he was acting within his official duties, he may get to have that trial in federal court.

I'm not sure I agree about putting the cart before the horse.

Guilt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. We aren't depriving Meadows of his presumption that he didn't do the things he's accused of doing.

What we're doing is saying, if he had done those things, they would not have been part of his official duties because they are acts that violate a federal law that embodies a clear intent by Congress to treat campaigning and political electioneering as categorically nsfw. An intent to erect a wall between a federal employee's political activities, which they are (usually) free to engage in when they're off the clock, and the federal employee's official activities.

Because the thought experiment wherein we assume Meadows had done the things he's accused of results in a conclusion that those things wouldn't have been part of his official duties, Supremacy Clause immunity wouldn't be available to him. Note that this thought experiment did not divest him of his presumption of innocence.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Why not, if you can argue that extorting a state official to commit election fraud is a duty of the White House chief of staff?

Because that hasn't been proven and will not be proven until the trial of this matter.  The judge in the removal action is not going to entertain arguments of guilt.

He will entertain different characterizations of Meadows' actions as being outside the scope of his official duties.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

What we're doing is saying, if he had done those things, they would not have been part of his official duties because they are acts that violate a federal law that embodies a clear intent by Congress to treat campaigning and political electioneering as categorically nsfw. An intent to erect a wall between a federal employee's political activities, which they are (usually) free to engage in when they're off the clock, and the federal employee's official activities.

 

I said I agree with you on that.

But Sawbonz and Silas Coade are basically arguing "He's guilty, it can't possibly be within the scope of his office." And that's just not the way this works, largely because of the presumption of innocence.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27540]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because that hasn't been proven and will not be proven until the trial of this matter.  The judge in the removal action is not going to entertain arguments of guilt.

He will entertain different characterizations of Meadows' actions as being outside the scope of his official duties.

So again not using logic, but lawyering 

In my shooting him in the face example that hasn’t been proven either. Presumption of innocence right?

 

you do realize presumption of innocence (or guilt) is begging the question?

Edited August 31, 2023 by Sawbonz

[TwiceHorn 31438]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

So again not using logic, but lawyering 

Might want to check on your definition of logic there, doc.

An initial condition of the situation is Meadows = innocent.  Until trial of the matter, and conviction, that logical proposition is basically inviolate.

To argue that he's guilty so he can't remove the case to federal court violates that initial condition.

You can make other arguments, like his actions were political and not "presidential," that don't violate that initial condition.

Your argument violates the initial condition.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27540]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Might want to check on your definition of logic there, doc.

An initial condition of the situation is Meadows = innocent.  Until trial of the matter, and conviction, that logical proposition is basically inviolate.

To argue that he's guilty so he can't remove the case to federal court violates that initial condition.

I’m very well versed in logic. Lawyers often not so much

[StassneyHorn 6573]

Shut the fuck up

[TwiceHorn 31438]

On to a slightly different topic, that In Re Neagle case is the basis for "Supremacy Clause Immunity" that is supposedly going to be the basis for Trump to claim immunity from prosecution for any acts undertaken in office.

This is a slightly different form of immunity than the one he has under the DOJ/OLC policy against indicting or prosecuting a sitting President.  That immunity, based on intolerable interference with the carrying out of the office, presumably ends when POTUS leaves office.

The removal issue is not an immunity issue, but the analysis is fairly similar.

Of course, the net result of all this could be that a President is effectively above the law, both while in office and out of office for acts carried out in office.  That has to be an intolerable result.

So it looks like, at least for purposes of Trump, the courts are going to have to develop some pretty fine analysis of what acts carried out while in office are granted immunity and what acts are not.  One way to attack it is that once out of office, immunity is lost entirely, but I think that may be too blunt a solution, because there are legitimate interests underlying the immunity.

ETA:  Here is a more modern formulation of Supremacy Clause Immunity from the 11th Circuit https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/1470642.html Another really byzantine case, but the relevant part is under section III of the opinion.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Born to Run 6569]

Except I don't.  
People want to ignore things like the presumption of innocence, due process, and the right to counsel and a jury trial when they dislike the defendant enough.  Happens all the time on these pages, and not just in relation to Trump people.

I can't say it enough: I appreciate you and you are more often than not, 100% correct.
Which makes me want to hate you even more. it's like colon blow, you hate to hear if but ya need it.