Except she’s splitting hairs about the meaning of words, bending over backwards to rationalize a misinterpretation of the intent of the framers in an effort to place Trump in a particular category where the law supposedly doesn’t apply to him. Whether she had doubts or not, she made her decision, and provided Trump a gift-wrapped defense that he’ll be using moving forward.
6 Likes
8 Likes
This leads to the ridiculous conclusion that the president cannot be held liable under 14A for participating in an insurrection, leaving the nation wide open to overthrow. What, everybody’s supposed to stand around and grin as it happens, and say, “Heh, he’s the president! Oh, well!” and chuckle about it?
I’m no lawyer, but I think that when you reason your way through a piece of law and come to a ridiculous conclusion, you figured something seriously wrong.
17 Likes
Yeah, I was wondering about how the “question of fact vs question of law” will affect this when we get to the appeals court.
5 Likes
How is it that “officer” conveniently has different meanings but “support” (conveniently) only exactly means “support”?
6 Likes
There is a school of thought that the President is, indeed, above the law… It’s bullshit, but there are some right wing legal scholars who seriously push this ideology…
21 Likes
nixon really actualy fucking said that?!?
6 Likes
Much like his fraud trial. The fraud is now a question of fact, the only thing still up for debate is the penalty.
4 Likes
To his detriment.
2 Likes
He did. In an interview with David Frost in 1977…
It might not surprise you to know that there is great deal of overlap between people who got their start in the Nixon administration and those who supported Trump (such as Roger Stone).
22 Likes
10 Likes
Most of whom are lined up for senior positions in the Justice Dept. if Project 2025 is put into action. Federalist Society legal scholars weren’t loyal enough for him, so they’re moving on to people from the Heritage Foundation.
As you often say, people don’t take the consequences of his “winning” in 2024 seriously enough.
8 Likes
the judge’s decision isn’t about what the framers thought. it’s about 14th amendment ( eta: written 1868 ) it reads:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
since they didn’t specifically say “president” ( nor vice-president ) – and they could have – then the question remains is the president considered an “officer of the united states”
there are times when judges have made decisions to favor ■■■■■ or conservative policies. i don’t think this is that. i think this is truly about what the amendment intended.
( eta: and people have been arguing about the clause for a long time before ■■■■■ )
3 Likes
But the original oath also explicitly says “Office of the President”. Are they seriously trying to say someone holding an office isn’t an officer?
7 Likes
yes. he violated his oath. and that was affirmed by the judge.
in this context, yes.
the short reason being why did they say things like – “executive or judicial officer of any state” – but not “executive or judicial officer of the united states” when they had separate bits about both above. or, why say specifically “elector of pres” but not pres and vp?
there’s case law and historical context the judge writes about on both sides of the argument. and, i see the general point even if i wish the decision had been different.
6 Likes
I’m aware it’s about the 14 th Amendment. I use “framers” as shorthand for whoever created a part of the Constitution, whether Amendment or not. Maybe not technically true, but whatever, IRDGAF, my meaning was clear.
Seems to me like you’re splitting the same kinds of hairs that the judge did. I’ve said my piece. No need to continue going around in circles, I’m done.
1 Like
Next up for the defense attorneys…
Best of one’s ability is very subjective and our defendant’s abilities are suspect as he is but an ailing old man whose brain has been ravaged by time and syphilis (probably).
10 Likes
No support, eh? But he does now have a truss to support his dropping clangers! 
4 Likes
That Trump was ever elected once as President, or that he’s the leading contender for a major party for a third time?
7 Likes
Ah, cool. So, Biden also never swore to support the Constitution, then. Which means he can do whatever, and MAGAs will be totally cool with it. Also, I guess Harris can just ignore any votes she doesn’t like and just say Biden won. Because that’s totally a cool and legal plan that anyone can do.
/s
/but would totally laugh my butt off if this happened
12 Likes
