The Trump Card...

[danthewolf00]

An Academic Item of Interest

"Two conservative law professors argue that Donald Trump is ineligible to serve as president again due to a section of the Constitution that prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection from holding office.

"William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas explain their conclusion in an article set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. The constitutional scholars, both active in the conservative Federalist Society, studied the question for more than a year, according to The New York Times.

“'When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,' Baude told the Times, adding that they engaged in the research to settle 'an important constitutional question.'

"The answer, according to Baude: 'Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.'

"The provision they studied is Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which states that any person who took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,' is prohibited from holding any government office.

"The ban can be lifted only by a two-thirds vote by each House of Congress, according to the provision." (Source)

Abstract

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation.

Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications.

Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or expost facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment.

Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted over-throw of the 2020 presidential election.

And that is saying trump is convicted of a crime with out being charged with a crime....oh wait Democrats never mind.

 

[ATeam]

And that is saying trump is convicted of a crime with out being charged with a crime....oh wait Democrats never mind.

No, if you read the paper, you'll find it does not say that at all.

Also note that Democrats did not write this paper. It is the product of two conservative constitutional scholars who are members of the conservative Federalist Society; an organization that successfully lobbied to get numerous conservative judges appointed to the bench.

 

[muttly]

His conduct: He held a speech not actually at the Capitol and said to go “ peacefully and patriotically”.

 

[ATeam]

His conduct: He held a speech not actually at the Capitol and said to go “ peacefully and patriotically”.

Irrelevant. The paper discusses in detail why Section Three applies.

 

[muttly]

WarRoom — Home of ultraMAGA on GETTR : Alan Dershowitz: I Don't Think There's A Plausible Case For Denying Donald Trump The Ability To Run For President

Alan Dershowitz: I Don't Think There's A Plausible Case For Denying Donald Trump The Ability To Run For President

gettr.com

 

[Moot]

If by some crazy chance he wins next year, it will be the last time we elect a president, Trump and his worshippers will make sure to create a system where they will never have to worry about losing power.

Right on Miner, right on! Trump has already revealed his plan to QAnon to create just such a system. Much of it is already in place. First and foremost is to clear out all the non-partisan hacks in the Department of Justice. Once done, he will weaponize the DOJ to attack any and all opponents of his Master Plan.
Trump has an army of QAnon stooges training in the art of ballot harvesting, voter intimidation, voting machine tampering, social media dis-information and a dossier on Gavin Nuisance linking him to China. The dossier also contains doctored photos of him urinating on Nancy Pelosi in a Beijing hotel room. Hunter Biden can be seen in the background watching the spectacle.
Trump is also a majority stock holder and board member in the Dominion Voting Systems Corporation. Other board members include: Lula da Silva, Volodymyr Zelensky, Tucker Carlson and Miguel Diaz-Canel.

 

[Moot]

My wife and I will do well in either scenario; (a) Trump wins and converts America into an authoritarian state, or (b) Trump loses and democracy prevails.

My wife and I are highly educated white people who own a corporation. We are well equipped to prosper and feel safe in either America. But we prefer democracy because we believe no one should be above the law; and all US citizens should have the equal right to vote, and through that, have an equal chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If by some crazy chance he wins next year, it will be the last time we elect a president, Trump and his worshippers will make sure to create a system where they will never have to worry losing power.

Being white, married to a women and owners of a corporation will only get you so far in Trumptopia. You may own a corporation. Maybe even larger than the Trump Corp. But he's the new CEO of America. When he nationalizes all U.S. based corporations yours will be one of the first taken over. I suggest you register your corporation in Cuba or Haiti. Trump is morbidly obese. Do you think he wants fit, healthy people in his country? Trump will become the epitome of the perfect, healthy American. With Chris Christie standing next to him as his V.P., Trump will not only look more energetic and healthier but even svelte!

 

[muttly]

If not taken over, at least on day one of the new King Trump monarchy, he’ll likely command a new “fat tax” on all gym corporations. After all, every knows that exercising just makes people want to eat more.

 

[ATeam]

Just Curious

I'm not on Truth Social. Since yesterday's hearing in Judge Chutkan's court, what, if anything, has Trump said on Truth Social, or anywhere else, about Judge Chutkan, the Trump case in her court, Jack Smith, Mike Pence (witness), the DOJ, or related matters?

How long do you think it will be before he can restrain himself no longer and violate the rules the judge laid down for Trump to follow?

If it has not happened yet, it will happen very soon that Trump will view the discovery materials and thereby learn who the witnesses are against him. He will see they are all Republicans and many of them were some of his "best people." Trump will also see from the transcripts exactly what these people told the grand jury under oath. And he will see how strong the evidence is against him and how weak his defense is.

At that point, his instinct will be to lash out in public, but something is different this time. This time, he is a criminal defendant in a court run by a judge who has laid down the law and strongly proscribed Trump from speaking out against the witnesses. Trump knows he faces consequential sanctions if he violates the judge's protective order and other instructions.

I'm thinking that's going to be an impossibly stressful situation for Trump. He'll see dozens of people testified against him and he cannot strike back in his usual fashion on Truth Social or anywhere else. The witness list and their testimony will not become public until the trial is underway.

Will Trump violate the order anyway? If not what else might a highly frustrated and muzzled Trump do?

 

[muttly]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

 

[Pilgrim]

And that is saying trump is convicted of a crime with out being charged with a crime....oh wait Democrats never mind.

There are plenty of Never Trump conservatives - especially in academic circles - that hate him and will say or do anything to keep him out of office. Guys like this can pontificate all they want, but it's just background noise. However, people like this can say anything they want that's detrimental to Trump and the media will amplify it.

 

[ATeam]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

That's Waters and Cain. My question was about Trump. What has he said since the judge's order and instructions were given?

 

[muttly]

That's Waters and Cain. My question was about Trump. What has he said since the judge's order and instructions were given?

That was from his truth social page. Nothing I’ve seen except that video with his heading that said LAWFARE.

 

[muttly]

I take it he can still criticize the judge and prosecutor.

 

[Ragman]

And that is saying trump is convicted of a crime with out being charged with a crime....oh wait Democrats never mind.

#the nonsense continues

 

[ATeam]

I take it he can still criticize the judge and prosecutor.

I don't know the answer to your question. The judge was very clear regarding witnesses and jurors. Her statements were more general regarding other aspects of the proceedings.

The judge did say this: “Even arguably ambiguous statements from parties or their counsel, if they can be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the process.”

She also said, “I caution you and your client to take special care in your public statements about this case. I will take whatever measures are necessary to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings.”

And there is this: "Chutkan sought to remind Trump’s lawyers about this on Friday, saying she will be watching his statements and 'scrutinizing them very carefully.'"

Since the judge will be watching Trump's public statements, and "scrutinizing them very carefully," and since she will be the one who decides what "reasonably interpreted" means, Trump would be well advised to take her advice and proceed with "special care."

Could a Trump statement like this one be "reasonably interpreted" to prejudice potential jurors?

"Deranged Jack Smith is going before his number one draft pick, the Judge of his 'dreams' (WHO MUST BE RECUSED!), in an attempt to take away my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS — This, despite the fact that he, the DOJ, and his many Thug prosecutors, are illegally leaking, everything and anything, to the Fake News Media!!!"

Trump said this before the judge issued the order so he's off the hook for that. But what happens if he makes a similar statement going forward?

This is not a routine matter for the judge. Her personal safety is at risk because of what Trump has previously said. She now has a security detail everywhere she goes. That is a loss of freedom for her personally.

That being the case, I don't think she'll take any inflammatory statements lightly. But none of us will know that in advance. Trump will have to say something first that tests the limits and triggers the judge's response.

This could go either way. Trump could be really careful or really stupid.

This is not a good situation for Trump to be in. If he is stupid, he risks the corrective actions of the judge. If he is careful, he risks disappointing his base who look to him for his bravado and bold talk. They won't like it much if the liberal press starts crowing about how a black, female, liberal judge doused Trump's rhetorical fire and thereby neutralized his ability to intimidate witnesses, jurors and the court.

Link to the Protective Order

 

[muttly]

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

 

[Pilgrim]

Look for Trump's hatchet men to do the talking for him - especially if the prosecution side starts leaking like they always do.

 

[ATeam]

Georgia Grand Jury Expected to Indict Trump Next Week

All indications are Fulton County DA Fani Willis will present her investigation results to the grand jury next week. An indictment of Trump and others is expected. After years of speculation, we'll finally learn what the Georgia case involves, what the charges are, and what the evidence is.

 

[ATeam]

Look for Trump's hatchet men to do the talking for him - especially if the prosecution side starts leaking like they always do.

Per Google Bard: "Judge Tanya Chutkan can sanction someone who is not on Trump's legal team. In her role as a federal judge, she has the authority to impose sanctions on anyone who violates the rules of the court, including witnesses, lawyers, and even members of the public. This includes TV networks that broadcast interviews with witnesses or lawyers who are subject to a protective order."

I don't know what would have to transpire for Chutkan to impose sanctions on Trump's "hatchet men," as you call them, or what those sanctions might be. But she has the power to do so.

This is a criminal felony trial in federal court. No one gets a free pass to interfere with the proceedings. No one has ever had a free pass to interfere with federal court proceedings.