Conservative Case Emerges to Disqualify Trump for Role on Jan. 6

[Bob Juch]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/t ... =url-share

The above link is to a "gift article," so it will get you through the paywall.

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “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.”

Follow the link for the full article.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/10/us/t ... =url-share

The above link is to a "gift article," so it will get you through the paywall.

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning.

The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

“When we started out, neither of us was sure what the answer was,” Professor Baude said. “People were talking about this provision of the Constitution. We thought: ‘We’re constitutional scholars, and this is an important constitutional question. We ought to figure out what’s really going on here.’ And the more we dug into it, the more we realized that we had something to add.”

He summarized the article’s conclusion: “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.”

Follow the link for the full article.

Good luck with that one.

Who says J6 was an insurrection, and why does their opinion become fact? I'll bet you haven't heard this, and even now that I've given it to you to ponder, I'm sure you won't even let one word sink into that well-protected place in your brain where your hatred of trump lives.

[silverscreenselect]

Who says J6 was an insurrection, and why does their opinion become fact?

Whatever court hears the case will determine whether J6 was an insurrection, and their opinion becomes fact when it is rendered. I do think this potential case is a long shot in this environment.

[BackInTex]

Who says J6 was an insurrection, and why does their opinion become fact?

Whatever court hears the case will determine whether J6 was an insurrection, and their opinion becomes fact when it is rendered. I do think this potential will case is a long shot in this environment.

Dred Scott disagrees with your assessment of a court’s opinion becoming fact. It’s still only an opinion. And often wrong.

[Bob78164]

Whatever court hears the case will determine whether J6 was an insurrection, and their opinion becomes fact when it is rendered. I do think this potential case is a long shot in this environment.

The decision was already made by the New Mexico judge who used the Disqualification Clause to remove from office an Otero County Commissioner who participated in the January 6 insurrection. —Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Whatever court hears the case will determine whether J6 was an insurrection, and their opinion becomes fact when it is rendered. I do think this potential case is a long shot in this environment.

The decision was already made by the New Mexico judge who used the Disqualification Clause to remove from office an Otero County Commissioner who participated in the January 6 insurrection. —Bob

Well, that question is resolved now, isn't it? While we still refer to judges as a xxxx-appointed judge.

If it was an insurrection, it was the most poorly organized insurrection in history. No one was armed and the only person who died as a direct result was an unarmed woman. And the person who killed her got somewhat different treatment than other law enforcement officers in the same situation.

Of course, bobby, you will give not one moment of your time to hear what the head of the Capitol Police that day has to say, much less give it a second of thought, because you are allergic to anything outside your bubble. Everything outside your bubble is a conspiracy theory, regardless of the huge amount of physical, documentary evidence, the crowd of NAMED people who have testified under oath and the weight of common sense. After all, you have the word of the politicians who don't have anything to protect and their proven MSM tool. None of your guys would ever lie to you, even though even YOU know they do so at every turn. It depends on what your definition of 'is' is, right?

[silverscreenselect]

the crowd of NAMED people who have testified under oath

Let me see if I have this crowd of people correctly:

Two IRS whistleblowers with grudges against their boss for not being promoted who disagreed with the US attorney in charge of the case about how much of a case their actually was. (Their main claim is that US Atty Weiss said he couldn't pursue the claims further because he wasn't a special counsel. That point is now moot.)

Hunter Biden's former business partner who denied Joe Biden discussed business with any foreign interests or accepted bribes and essentially painted Hunter as a cheap hustler trying to cash in on his father's name.

An Indicted illegal arms dealer who jumped bail and is currently a fugitive from justice who never actually "testified under oath" but has made a number of claims in video recordings he sent to the Republican investigators from wherever he is hiding.

Two FBI agents who had their security clearances revoked for their activities during and after January 6 (to put th is in perspective, only 32 out of 80,000 FBI agents have had their clearances revoked for any reason)

Ron Johnson, Chuck Grassley, and Tulsi Gabbard

Have I missed anybody?

You pass around the same nonsense; you ignore the testimony of hundreds of witnesses and mountains of documentary evidence in favor of a handful of disgruntled crackpots, half of whom either don't actually testify or don't testify to what you claim they do. Fortunately for you, the Republicans don't have to prove this nonsense in any court. If they did, they would suffer the same fate that John Durham did when his four-year investigation ended with two not guilty verdicts after about 30 minutes deliberation.

If it was an insurrection, it was the most poorly organized insurrection in history.

Considering the caliber of people who buy into Donald Trump's nonsense, are you surprised that this was the best they could do?

[flockofseagulls104]

the crowd of NAMED people who have testified under oath

Let me see if I have this crowd of people correctly:

Two IRS whistleblowers with grudges against their boss for not being promoted who disagreed with the US attorney in charge of the case about how much of a case their actually was. (Their main claim is that US Atty Weiss said he couldn't pursue the claims further because he wasn't a special counsel. That point is now moot.)

Hunter Biden's former business partner who denied Joe Biden discussed business with any foreign interests or accepted bribes and essentially painted Hunter as a cheap hustler trying to cash in on his father's name.

An Indicted illegal arms dealer who jumped bail and is currently a fugitive from justice who never actually "testified under oath" but has made a number of claims in video recordings he sent to the Republican investigators from wherever he is hiding.

Two FBI agents who had their security clearances revoked for their activities during and after January 6 (to put th is in perspective, only 32 out of 80,000 FBI agents have had their clearances revoked for any reason)

Ron Johnson, Chuck Grassley, and Tulsi Gabbard

Have I missed anybody?

You pass around the same nonsense; you ignore the testimony of hundreds of witnesses and mountains of documentary evidence in favor of a handful of disgruntled crackpots, half of whom either don't actually testify or don't testify to what you claim they do. Fortunately for you, the Republicans don't have to prove this nonsense in any court. If they did, they would suffer the same fate that John Durham did when his four-year investigation ended with two not guilty verdicts after about 30 minutes deliberation.

Why, then, are they not being prosecuted for perjury?
I guess they don't have plausable denial like the 51 traitors do. They made the mistake of saying what they knew under penalty of law. Too bad the Big Man wasn't under oath when he said he never discussed business with Hunter until evidence emerged that he did. Then he changed to 'he wasn't in business with Hunter'.

And too bad we don't have jerks like Jack Smith and all the DAs that are ignoring crime in their own jurisdictions, who have the luxury of making up 'crimes' based on hearsay and third person opinions. They don't care whether their cases are invalid right from the start. That is not their objective. They don't care if they win or not. The whole strategy is to tie up a political opponent in a quagmire of legal battles to take away time from campaigning and drain him of resources. If you can get a biased judge (like Smith has) to railroad him into jail, that is even better. That is the new way they've come up with to rig the election. They have no covid this time, and they know an army of citizens are much more aware of what they did in the past and are watching. They are desperate, but people know what they are doing. Yes, people know.

And why haven't you said one word about the bank records?

[silverscreenselect]

And why haven't you said one word about the bank records?

Bank records that show what? That Hunter got a lot of money from foreign interests for promoting himself, as Archer put it "the illusion of access to his father." There's no evidence that Joe got any of this money or that Joe did anything to promote his son's interests. When you have that, then you can come back and talk.

And you need to brush up on the meaning of "treason" and "traitor."

[flockofseagulls104]

And why haven't you said one word about the bank records?

Bank records that show what? That Hunter got a lot of money from foreign interests for promoting himself, as Archer put it "the illusion of access to his father." There's no evidence that Joe got any of this money or that Joe did anything to promote his son's interests. When you have that, then you can come back and talk.

And you need to brush up on the meaning of "treason" and "traitor."

Haha, you haven't even looked at the bank records, have you?

And, sheesh, you don't even give me time to proofread my post before you do your kneejerk. Shows how much thought you put into your responses.

[silverscreenselect]

Haha, you haven't even looked at the bank records, have you?

Please point out any record that shows a payment to Joe Biden or any member of the Biden family other than Hunter and I'll be glad to discuss that with you.

[flockofseagulls104]

Haha, you haven't even looked at the bank records, have you?

Please point out any record that shows a payment to Joe Biden or any member of the Biden family other than Hunter and I'll be glad to discuss that with you.

Look at page 13 of the 2nd memorandum just at first glance.



The recipients of the money after the Bladon Enterprises deposits included EEIG (James
Gilliar), Hunter Biden, Hallie Biden, Owasco P.C., RSTP24 II, LLC, and an unknown Biden
bank account. The Committee continues to investigate why Hallie Biden, a reported school
counselor,25 would receive any payments after the Bladon Enterprises deposit was made into
the Robinson Walker, LLC bank account.

[flockofseagulls104]

Haha, you haven't even looked at the bank records, have you?

Please point out any record that shows a payment to Joe Biden or any member of the Biden family other than Hunter and I'll be glad to discuss that with you.

Look at page 13 of the 2nd memorandum just at first glance.



The recipients of the money after the Bladon Enterprises deposits included EEIG (James
Gilliar), Hunter Biden, Hallie Biden, Owasco P.C., RSTP24 II, LLC, and an unknown Biden
bank account. The Committee continues to investigate why Hallie Biden, a reported school
counselor,25 would receive any payments after the Bladon Enterprises deposit was made into
the Robinson Walker, LLC bank account.

And you won't discuss. I know you better than that.

[tlynn78]

Please point out any record that shows a payment to Joe Biden or any member of the Biden family other than Hunter and I'll be glad to discuss that with you.

Look at page 13 of the 2nd memorandum just at first glance.



The recipients of the money after the Bladon Enterprises deposits included EEIG (James
Gilliar), Hunter Biden, Hallie Biden, Owasco P.C., RSTP24 II, LLC, and an unknown Biden
bank account. The Committee continues to investigate why Hallie Biden, a reported school
counselor,25 would receive any payments after the Bladon Enterprises deposit was made into
the Robinson Walker, LLC bank account.

And you won't discuss. I know you better than that.

Nope. Those pesky facts.

[silverscreenselect]

Look at page 13 of the 2nd memorandum just at first glance.



The recipients of the money after the Bladon Enterprises deposits included EEIG (James
Gilliar), Hunter Biden, Hallie Biden, Owasco P.C., RSTP24 II, LLC, and an unknown Biden
bank account. The Committee continues to investigate why Hallie Biden, a reported school
counselor,25 would receive any payments after the Bladon Enterprises deposit was made into
the Robinson Walker, LLC bank account.

And you won't discuss. I know you better than that.
[/quote]

I was unaware of that, so I checked. Hallie (Beau Biden's widow) received a total of $35,000. She seems to be a person with a rather checkered history of her own, including stints in rehab. More to the point:

President Joe Biden's daughter-in-law received $25,000 from a Chinese company through a conduit, a new House Oversight Committee memo has revealed, raising questions about the extent of the Biden family's involvement in Hunter Biden's business dealings. Following a recent subpoena for bank records, the committee majority staff claimed that a family associate, John Robinson Walker, received a $3 million wire from Chinese company State Energy HK Limited in March 2017. Over the following three months, bank records show a series of disbursements were made from Walker's account to Biden family members, including payments totaling $35,000 for Hallie Biden, the memo said. It is not clear where the additional $10,000 came from.

Hallie Biden—the widow of Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer in 2015—became Hunter's lover between 2016 and 2019, around the time the payments were being made.

https://www.newsweek.com/hallie-biden-p ... ht-1788434

So Hallie was Hunter's girlfriend and got $35,000, a nice payment for a girlfriend and kind of sleazy but in keeping with Hunter's history.

[flockofseagulls104]

Look at page 13 of the 2nd memorandum just at first glance.



The recipients of the money after the Bladon Enterprises deposits included EEIG (James
Gilliar), Hunter Biden, Hallie Biden, Owasco P.C., RSTP24 II, LLC, and an unknown Biden
bank account. The Committee continues to investigate why Hallie Biden, a reported school
counselor,25 would receive any payments after the Bladon Enterprises deposit was made into
the Robinson Walker, LLC bank account.

And you won't discuss. I know you better than that.

I was unaware of that, so I checked. Hallie (Beau Biden's widow) received a total of $35,000. She seems to be a person with a rather checkered history of her own, including stints in rehab. More to the point:

President Joe Biden's daughter-in-law received $25,000 from a Chinese company through a conduit, a new House Oversight Committee memo has revealed, raising questions about the extent of the Biden family's involvement in Hunter Biden's business dealings. Following a recent subpoena for bank records, the committee majority staff claimed that a family associate, John Robinson Walker, received a $3 million wire from Chinese company State Energy HK Limited in March 2017. Over the following three months, bank records show a series of disbursements were made from Walker's account to Biden family members, including payments totaling $35,000 for Hallie Biden, the memo said. It is not clear where the additional $10,000 came from.

Hallie Biden—the widow of Beau Biden, who died of brain cancer in 2015—became Hunter's lover between 2016 and 2019, around the time the payments were being made.

https://www.newsweek.com/hallie-biden-p ... ht-1788434

So Hallie was Hunter's girlfriend and got $35,000, a nice payment for a girlfriend and kind of sleazy but in keeping with Hunter's history.
[/quote]
How about Uncle Jimmy and Unknown Biden?

[BackInTex]

Botton line, there was way less evidence Trump colluded with Russia, yet we had a full impeachment trial for that. The fact that there is so much smoke with the Hunter Biden laptap and bank payments, yet "others" dismissis it is telling.

[wbtravis007]

Botton line, there was way less evidence Trump colluded with Russia, yet we had a full impeachment trial for that. The fact that there is so much smoke with the Hunter Biden laptap and bank payments, yet "others" dismissis it is telling.

Wrong again, Maude.

[Weyoun]

Botton line, there was way less evidence Trump colluded with Russia, yet we had a full impeachment trial for that. The fact that there is so much smoke with the Hunter Biden laptap and bank payments, yet "others" dismissis it is telling.

I thought the impeachment was because he was holding up funding to the Ukraine so he could pressure them to help with domestic political matters?

God, man, at least get the countries involved right.

[flockofseagulls104]

Botton line, there was way less evidence Trump colluded with Russia, yet we had a full impeachment trial for that. The fact that there is so much smoke with the Hunter Biden laptap and bank payments, yet "others" dismissis it is telling.

I thought the impeachment was because he was holding up funding to the Ukraine so he could pressure them to help with domestic political matters?

God, man, at least get the countries involved right.

Oh, you mean like Biden bragged about? That impeachment is yet to come.

And BTW, it was changed by someone to just Ukraine some time ago. Not 'The Ukraine'. I guess by the same people to changed all the other country and city names. By the way, according to someone who knows, it's not KEEV, it's KI-EV.

[kroxquo]

Botton line, there was way less evidence Trump colluded with Russia, yet we had a full impeachment trial for that. The fact that there is so much smoke with the Hunter Biden laptap and bank payments, yet "others" dismissis it is telling.

I thought the impeachment was because he was holding up funding to the Ukraine so he could pressure them to help with domestic political matters?

God, man, at least get the countries involved right.

Oh, you mean like Biden bragged about? That impeachment is yet to come.

And BTW, it was changed by someone to just Ukraine some time ago. Not 'The Ukraine'. I guess by the same people to changed all the other country and city names. By the way, according to someone who knows, it's not KEEV, it's KI-EV.

According to a guy with whom I went to high school and whom I am still friends with - former US Ambassador to NATO and former US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Kurt Volker - who is fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian, KI-EV is the Russian pronunciation and KEEV is the Ukrainian pronunciation. The "The" was dropped because Russians refer to it as "The Ukraine" because it implies that it should be a territory of Russia and not an independent territory.