Trump and the Jan 6 investigation

[Eternal_Freedom]

On the plus side, this is a judicial ruling that says Trump incited the insurrection. Methinks that Jack Smith fellow will like that precedent.

[Highlord Laan]

Once again, the greasy rich motherfucker gets preferential treatment. I wonder how much the judge made for the ruling.

[bobalot]

Once again, the greasy rich motherfucker gets preferential treatment. I wonder how much the judge made for the ruling.

"This guy is is an insurrectionist but I don't want to be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life"

[Ralin]

How is the presidency NOT?

Because the presidency is SPECIAL.

[Ralin]

Because it isn't SPECIFICALLY NAMED, obviously.

Counterpoint: How easy would it have been to specifically name the presidency if that was intended? The presidency doesn't seem anymore obvious than being a senator or representative but those are explicitly called out. Given that the presidency is ~special~ in that its an entire branch of the government in its own right the omission does stand out.

This seems very much like one of those 'they didn't make a rule because it never occurred to them that a situation this stupid could possibly come about' things that have been cropping up a lot in recent years.

[Gandalf]

Once again, the greasy rich motherfucker gets preferential treatment. I wonder how much the judge made for the ruling.

Or they're just ideologically on side.

[LadyTevar]

Because they bought his BS semantics argument that the law bars anyone who hat taken an oath to "Support" the constitution while his oath was to "Defend" it. Two completely different oaths don't you know.
They all refuse to hold him accountable until someone higher up the chain does it for them.

Yep. No One Wants to Open That Door.

Counterpoint: How easy would it have been to specifically name the presidency if that was intended? The presidency doesn't seem anymore obvious than being a senator or representative but those are explicitly called out. Given that the presidency is ~special~ in that its an entire branch of the government in its own right the omission does stand out.

This seems very much like one of those 'they didn't make a rule because it never occurred to them that a situation this stupid could possibly come about' things that have been cropping up a lot in recent years.

Correct.
And the Senators and Representatives are SPECIFICIALLY MENTIONED for one Very Good Reason -- Many of the Southern Traitors HAD BEEN ONE OR THE OTHER. That about "Military Oaths"? Because Robert E Lee et al were US MILITARY OFFICERS FIRST. Fuck, Lee himself was a teacher at West Point, iirc. Many of his students followed him when he left.

So. Why was the President not listed in that? Because the President didn't Revolt, the Senators, Representatives, and Civil/Military Officers Revolted.

On the plus side, this is a judicial ruling that says Trump incited the insurrection. Methinks that Jack Smith fellow will like that precedent.

OMG... I was so angry over the Judge not wanting to open the door, I didn't realize the implications there.
YES. The Judge did say he incited it. I wonder if that's the Judge being a weasel and cracking a window so someone CAN bust the door wide open.

[Raw Shark]

On the plus side, this is a judicial ruling that says Trump incited the insurrection. Methinks that Jack Smith fellow will like that precedent.

OMG... I was so angry over the Judge not wanting to open the door, I didn't realize the implications there.
YES. The Judge did say he incited it. I wonder if that's the Judge being a weasel and cracking a window so someone CAN bust the door wide open.

That was my take on it; she is not in his corner but punted the actual decision. It's probably going to the Supreme Court either way.

[Solauren]

By bucking the lawsuits over 'can Trump legally run for president' up to the Supreme Court, it lets the State level charges against him more forward.
That makes locking him out of the ballet that much tighter.

"He committed election fraud, and then tried to have the election turned over, and we have a conviction', has alt more legal standing then 'he might have encouraged idiots'

[Rogue 9]

What the Colorado ruling does is make a finding of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. This means he's screwed, because findings of fact are almost never overturned on appeal; findings of law (such as "the 14th Amendment doesn't name the Presidency) are.

[LadyTevar]

What the Colorado ruling does is make a finding of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. This means he's screwed, because findings of fact are almost never overturned on appeal; findings of law (such as "the 14th Amendment doesn't name the Presidency) are.

If you have a lawyer who can argue "The President wasn't listed in that because the President wasn't one of those who revolted at the time", and also "The President swore an oath to serve, just as the Senators and Representatives do", this might get pushed through.

The problem is finding a judge who has the balls to make the call.

[Lost Soal]

What the Colorado ruling does is make a finding of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. This means he's screwed, because findings of fact are almost never overturned on appeal; findings of law (such as "the 14th Amendment doesn't name the Presidency) are.

If you have a lawyer who can argue "The President wasn't listed in that because the President wasn't one of those who revolted at the time", and also "The President swore an oath to serve, just as the Senators and Representatives do", this might get pushed through.

The problem is finding a judge who has the balls to make the call.

That's the technical BS he's skating on though, the President doesn't swear to "support", which is the wording of the Amendment, they swear to “preserve, protect and defend” and in case you haven't noticed, Judges are apparently chosen based on how much they will nit-pick specific wording to absurd extremes.

[LadyTevar]

That's the technical BS he's skating on though, the President doesn't swear to "support", which is the wording of the Amendment, they swear to “preserve, protect and defend” and in case you haven't noticed, Judges are apparently chosen based on how much they will nit-pick specific wording to absurd extremes.

I went back to grab the wording from where I posted it last page, and Yes. It does say "who took and oath to Support the Constitution".

But, let's look at OATHS, shall we? After all, the Constitution provided those:

The OATH OF OFFICE FOR THE PRESIDENT, as per the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

NOW... What's the Oath of Office for a Senator or Representative?

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

So... What's the difference between "SUPPORT & DEFEND" and "PRESERVE, PROTECT, & DEFEND"?

[Lost Soal]

According to the judge

Here, after considering the arguments on both sides, the Court is persuaded that “officers of the United States” did not include the President of the United States. While the Court agrees that there are persuasive arguments on both sides, the Court holds that the absence of the President from the list of positions to which the Amendment applies combined with the fact that Section Three specifies that the disqualifying oath is one to “support” the Constitution whereas the Presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, 19 it appears to the Court that for whatever reason the drafters of Section Three did not intend to include a person who
had only taken the Presidential Oath.
19 The Court agrees with Petitioners that an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution encompasses the same duties as an oath to support the Constitution. The Court, however, agrees with Intervenors that given there were two oaths in the Constitution at the time, the fact that Section Three references the oath that applies to Article VI, Clause 3 officers suggests that that is the class of officers to whom Section Three applies.

[Lost Soal]

Put simply, one oath has the word Support, the other doesn't and that is quite literally all the Judge cares about for distinguishing the two.

[Highlord Laan]

Put simply, one oath has the word Support, the other doesn't and that is quite literally all the Judge cares about for distinguishing the two.

AKA: She's another robed trumpie making sure her lord and master has an easier time of it.

[Ralin]

Put simply, one oath has the word Support, the other doesn't and that is quite literally all the Judge cares about for distinguishing the two.

AKA: She's another robed trumpie making sure her lord and master has an easier time of it.

AKA: That's literally what the Constitution says and you don't like that she didn't ignore it to go fuck Trump.

[Highlord Laan]

Put simply, one oath has the word Support, the other doesn't and that is quite literally all the Judge cares about for distinguishing the two.

AKA: She's another robed trumpie making sure her lord and master has an easier time of it.

AKA: That's literally what the Constitution says and you don't like that she didn't ignore it to go fuck Trump.

Literalists and originalists are fascists under a different name. If you want everything to be as written and only as written, stay in a fucking junior high classroom where you belong. You mindless moderate shit.

[Ralin]

Literalists and originalists are fascists under a different name. If you want everything to be as written and only as written, stay in a fucking junior high classroom where you belong. You mindless moderate shit.

I know you are pretty far down this internet tough guy rabbit hole of yours, but do you seriously not grasp how stupid you sound saying that its fascist for a judge to follow the text of a legal document?

Again, this is an amendment that is very specific in listing which high level public officials it applies to and the president is not one of them. This is not a complicated concept. If it was supposed to apply to the highest and special-est office in the entire government they would have mentioned it by name.

So. Why was the President not listed in that? Because the President didn't Revolt, the Senators, Representatives, and Civil/Military Officers Revolted.

That doesn't follow at all. If only senators had rebelled and not representatives would they have omitted representatives because they behaved well that particular time? If the Vice-President had turned Confederate would they have listed the VP and still left out the president? Because that just seems silly. That's not the sort of attitude you take to writing an actual constitutional amendment. It's not like they were butting up against a word count limit.

[Lost Soal]

The lawyers in their appeal intend to point out that according to this interpretation people guilty of causing an insurrection are barred from running for any elected office except President, which is such an absurd notion that it cannot be correct, as well as the contradictory notions that the President is not an Officer of the US except he is an officer when it comes to protections under the Westfall Act (can't be sued for acts of office).

[Ralin]

The lawyers in their appeal intend to point out that according to this interpretation people guilty of causing an insurrection are barred from running for any elected office except President, which is such an absurd notion that it cannot be correct, as well as the contradictory notions that the President is not an Officer of the US except he is an officer when it comes to protections under the Westfall Act (can't be sued for acts of office).

The first one does indeed sound pretty dumb and the latter does sound more valid. Hopefully it pans out, because being dumb doesn't make something not the law.

[LadyTevar]

Literalists and originalists are fascists under a different name. If you want everything to be as written and only as written, stay in a fucking junior high classroom where you belong. You mindless moderate shit.

I know you are pretty far down this internet tough guy rabbit hole of yours, but do you seriously not grasp how stupid you sound saying that its fascist for a judge to follow the text of a legal document?

Again, this is an amendment that is very specific in listing which high level public officials it applies to and the president is not one of them. This is not a complicated concept. If it was supposed to apply to the highest and special-est office in the entire government they would have mentioned it by name.

So. Why was the President not listed in that? Because the President didn't Revolt, the Senators, Representatives, and Civil/Military Officers Revolted.

That doesn't follow at all. If only senators had rebelled and not representatives would they have omitted representatives because they behaved well that particular time? If the Vice-President had turned Confederate would they have listed the VP and still left out the president? Because that just seems silly. That's not the sort of attitude you take to writing an actual constitutional amendment. It's not like they were butting up against a word count limit.

Ralin? Do you remember WHEN this Amendment was written?
Post-US Civil War.
This amendment was written to bar any and all Confederates from getting back into power within the US Government. It was written with the Attitude of "You assholes started a war and lost it, do you THINK you're getting anywhere near power again?"
So, those who wrote this in post-1865 were punishing The Southern Politicians... and the office of the President was left out because they never expected any one Southern Politician of that generation to get up the popularity to try for that office. They were right.

Also, if you remember, it takes 2/3s of the US States ratifying an Amendment to make it offical. Thus -- This little bit of "Fuck You Southern Politicians" was popular enough it was ratified by 1868... 3 years after the end of the US Civil War.

So your statement about "It's not the attitude" is incorrect. It was EXACTLY the Attitude of the winning side, and an attitude shared by a majority of the US Population at the time, that those who were involved in the Confederate States of America were traitors who done fucked up and didn't deserve to be anywhere near power anymore.
And, if you look, the next several presidents were all from UNION States, including General Ulysses Grant himself, because they hoped he'd keep punishing The South for their sins.

[Ralin]

Ralin? Do you remember WHEN this Amendment was written?
Post-US Civil War.
This amendment was written to bar any and all Confederates from getting back into power within the US Government. It was written with the Attitude of "You assholes started a war and lost it, do you THINK you're getting anywhere near power again?"
So, those who wrote this in post-1865 were punishing The Southern Politicians... and the office of the President was left out because they never expected any one Southern Politician of that generation to get up the popularity to try for that office. They were right.

Also, if you remember, it takes 2/3s of the US States ratifying an Amendment to make it offical. Thus -- This little bit of "Fuck You Southern Politicians" was popular enough it was ratified by 1868... 3 years after the end of the US Civil War.

So your statement about "It's not the attitude" is incorrect. It was EXACTLY the Attitude of the winning side, and an attitude shared by a majority of the US Population at the time, that those who were involved in the Confederate States of America were traitors who done fucked up and didn't deserve to be anywhere near power anymore.
And, if you look, the next several presidents were all from UNION States, including General Ulysses Grant himself, because they hoped he'd keep punishing The South for their sins.

All of these things are true. None of them make the point you're trying to use them to support.

[Gandalf]

So this is what, the thousandth example of the US's laws being godawfully inadequate?

Should they have used broader language as opposed to a bunch of specific titles? Yes. Did they? No.

[Ralin]

So this is what, the thousandth example of the US's laws being godawfully inadequate?

Should they have used broader language as opposed to a bunch of specific titles? Yes. Did they? No.

Somewhere between a third and half of the electorate isn't supposed to become devoted followers of a failed insurrectionist. It's hard to legislate around that.