None of this will matter when we fucking invade Greenland, which I guess the Drumpfenfuhrer refused to rule out today, and NATO fucking nukes us in retaliation, so yeah, anyway guess what, Jan 6 2021 was a successful coup.
Interesting. The way the Top Secret docs are intermingled with Sir's back issues of TV Guide featuring 'The Apprentice' on the cover and random issues of Reader's Digest with "Laughter is the Best Medicine" sections defaced with ketchup smears.
I believe that under the Supreme Court decision on the Insurrection and the election and their interpretation that trump could not be removed from the ballot as a candidate, and trump winning the election by certification is entirely separate from eligibility to serve. Now trump falls under the 14th amendment section 3 and is ineligible to serve as President, it is now that the issue of the 14th Amendment is ripe and there is standing by the House, the Senate, the DoJ, the States to file motions and court cases to block from serving under the 14th amendment section 3. Of Chief Justice Roberts swears in trump knowing trump is disqualified from serving under the 14th amendment section 3, Roberts will be violating the Constitution and siding an insurrectionist. Now is the time for the Democrats to raise the 14th amendment section 3 in the House and Senate.
"Democrats to raise the 14th amendment section 3 in the House and Senate"
I'll go along with that, but there are two major roadblocks from holding the Fulvous Flatulence to account under 14A, Sec 3:
1 Mooseballs Mussolini has not been tried and convicted of "engag[ing] in insurrection or rebellion." As you well know, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, so no trial/conviction means no application of the 14A, Sec 3;
2 It might take only a simple majority in the House and Senate to impose removal or disqualification, but since the RINOs control both Houses it's highly unlikely that a motion to enforce the 14A would pass in both Houses (and you can bet the ranch that all of the Dems would vote in favor of removal). The "grassroots" MAGAdroids have too much clout, and will very likely primary out any Repub who goes along with the effort to kick the Amber Ardipithecus ramidus' sorry ass from office.
1. The amendment does not require a conviction. Your argument is invalid on that point.
2. IF the Democrats can get it to the floor the GOP could, legally, vote to override the 14th amendment and seat Trump. They would but the point is there would be a record of who stood where and that is worth doing. Not that I think the Democrats have the balls for it.
So, by extension, the ability for Congress to interfere with any Amendment is not possible -- including the *22nd* Amendment. I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, or lawyer of any sort, so I could be wrong, but common logic says this is a likely reading.
Plus, only the SCOTUS can directly overrule an Amendment if it is deemed unconstitutional:
"When Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court about an interpretation of the Constitution, the only direct way to override that interpretation is for two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, which then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is a difficult task that hasn’t been done in over 30 years. But sometimes Congress can achieve the same goals without amending the Constitution.
This involves Congress enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through one of its enumerated powers. The key powers given to Congress by the Constitution are the ability to regulate commerce and attach conditions to money given to states, as well as the ability to enforce the so-called Reconstruction Amendments that sought to enshrine greater equality in the wake of the Civil War." https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/07/30/can-congress-overturn-supreme-court-rulings
* I have serious doubts that the Roberts Court would declare the 22A as unconstitutional;
* Please note that the only way Congress can override an amendment is through usage of powers granted to it by the Constitution; predominantly regulating commerce and conditioning funds given to individual states.
Section 3, also known as the "disqualification clause," which bars anyone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding federal office, including a Senate seat, unless Congress removes the disability with a two-thirds vote in each House. Granted it does not specify the Presidency but logically "federal office" would suffice. Granted the 2/3 part is a bit sticky and would explain why the GOP would never allow it to be brought to the floor. It does raise to my mind why the Democratic Caucus didn't do it in the Senate. I suspect I know the answer but maintaining the norms is not a valid response in these times.
I've already conceded regarding the 14A, I was wrong and I admit it.
OTOH, you have still failed to address the question of a third term and the 22A. The 14A mentions nothing about being term-limited out of office. Plus, the 14A is the only amendment that I can find that includes language about overriding itself, and that is only in Sec 3. Again, as I said previously, I might be wrong and would welcome any links showing differently.
Where in anyone's responses other than your own was the 22nd raised? The issue under discussion by everyone else was the 14th. You tangentially raised the 22nd but that is moot. I know DJT and his flunkies have raised the issue but right now he is not at the end of his 2nd term. We have a long way to go and likely much more significant fuckery to get through before that happens.
"It’s been nearly four years since a certain failed gameshow host and former/future president stole our nation’s national secrets and spirited them away to his Mar-a-Lago plastic surgery museum"
And for nearly four years now the American people (IMO, since I speak only for myself) have been subjected to a political shitshow, for no other reason than to stroke the narcissistic Fulvous Flatulence's easily bruised ego; the clitoris has ~8000 nerve endings and it doesn't even come close to the sensitivities of Mooseballs Mussolini.
Besides, the incoming Felon-in-Chief didn't "[steal] our nation’s national secrets and spirited them away" since the Mango Malignancy, with his deep understanding of American laws and regulations, insists the PRA says that these docs were his to do with as he pleased, right up to flashing a compartmentalized top secret document to an unvetted civilian on a golf course. All this despite his completely wrong interpretation of the Act (which the Amber Ardipithecus ramidus intentionally misinterpreted):
"The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents, and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations.
Specifically, the PRA:
> Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
> Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
> Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
Given all that, *everything* generated for or by POTUS to conduct the country's day to day business is deemed "presidential" and not "private," thus subject to the correct reading of the PRA. Any way one cares to slice it, the Sociopathic Marigold Swamp Monster is in direct violation of the PRA.
And for the sake of piling on: no document, video, audio recording... labeled "Secret" or above is subject to the PRA, and in no way can an ex-POTUS retain such docs....
-----
"Smith and the Justice Department requested a dismissal, deciding it was not their policy to hold Trump accountable for shit any more"
Sorry, but not quite correct. Jack Smith requested dismissal without prejudice in both of his cases, which means that if the Desert Sand Demi-Demon is still walking G-dess' green earth in four years, charges that relate to either the docs case or his failed autogolpe can be reinstated.
-----
"But Special Counsels do exist, and are still required by Justice Department regulations to produce reports with their findings and charging decisions."
Isn't it interesting that the RINOs insist that Special Prosecutors have no status when it comes to holding a RINO -- any RINO up to and including the Pumpkin Pestilence -- to account for illegal actions, but an SP is a real thing when it comes time to persecute... I mean prosecute... anyone with a D after their name (or has a father who is both a D and POTUS)? It's an honest to G-dess Push me-Pull you situation.
-----
"So now Nauta and De Oliveira’s lawyers are emergency BEGGING BEGGING BEGGING Aileen Cannon to not let Jack Smith’s final report be turned over to AG Merrick Garland, so he can figure out if he wants to release it to Congress, the public, or not at all"
We've been to this dance before, and just recently. "Judge" Cannon is doing everything (all wrong in my no legal degree opinion) she can to protect her Lord, Savior, and benefactor: the Peach[tree dish] Pustule. OTOH, the House Ethics Committee finally succumbed to public pressure and released their files on Matt Gaetz (the right thing to do, and should have been done as soon as Gaetz was tapped to head the DOJ).
-----
"Anyway, Smith says he’s going to give Garland the report sometime after 1 p.m. today, and it could be released as early as 10 a.m. Friday, if Garland has any ‘nards or dignity left."
My suggestion is that Garland release the report whether or not Cannon issued an injunction against it. Once released, just how does Cannon think the genie will be forced back into the bottle? Or that since Chief Justice Roberts has already noted that the RINOs plan on ignoring any decision by the SCOTUS with which they disagree, why shouldn't the Dems do the same to Judge Aileen's court order?
Carlos De Oliveira, mentioned above as the property manager for TFG does not appear to have either a property manager license or a real estate license in the State of Florida. I'm pretty sure this is felonious behavior. I would imagine the Attorney General of Florida would be interested if that person had not been appointed by Governor Who?
For what it's worth, AG is an elected position here, although the AG is a republican and probably a DeSantis crony.
Although actually seems like those kinds of charges would be brought by the state attorney in his circuit. Which COULD be a dem if Palm Beach. Also an elected position.
Governor WHO? chose the candidate he wanted. I phrased it inelegantly. Pam Bondi was in roughly the same position of appointed/elected.
I sent DBPR in Florida a note about this, and I see no change of course. DBPR just does not wish to make any kind of wave. It is a consummate civil service situation.
An actual phrase that was going around at law school back when Lenny the Leo was creeping around recruiting for his Federalist Socialist Society was “The purpose of government is to protect the rich from the poor.” Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us poor schmucks.
LOL there's Loose Cannon right on cue! All they gotta do is run out the clock for President Klan Robe. We do need a hero to leak it but honestly does it even matter at this point? Americans were more than happy to have this foul criminal get another go at maladministration because he promised to get rid of minorities they don't like. And of course because they were credulous and believed fanfiction.
So according to a Notice Thingy filed by Jack Smith this morning, he is planning on turning over the rep;ort to Garland today at 1:00 pm. He said it's two volumes, one of which pertains to the documents case. So I guess the other one pertains to the insurrection case. Maybe no one filed anything about that one because no co-defendants? Or they were afraid Judge Chutkan would laugh them out of court? Anyway, the Notice Thingy says Garland wouldn't be releasing anything until Friday, if at all. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/680/united-states-v-trump/
Merrick Garland must release both reports now.
Here is a good plan. Have Garland release the document today. Have Biden pardon him. Documents get released. Trump throws a fit
"If Garland has any ‘nards or dignity left."
Narrator: "He has neither."
Buona fortuna!
Given Garland's track record of spinelessness, I'm sure he'll agree.
None of this will matter when we fucking invade Greenland, which I guess the Drumpfenfuhrer refused to rule out today, and NATO fucking nukes us in retaliation, so yeah, anyway guess what, Jan 6 2021 was a successful coup.
Interesting. The way the Top Secret docs are intermingled with Sir's back issues of TV Guide featuring 'The Apprentice' on the cover and random issues of Reader's Digest with "Laughter is the Best Medicine" sections defaced with ketchup smears.
Ol' Handsome Joe should just order Garland to release it. HE'S IMMUNE ANYWAY.
Take it from Garland and release it himself. Final FU to tfg.
It's the absolute least he could do.
I expected more from Biden's lame duck period. It's been disappointing how little he's done to exercise his immunity.
It's not like it will influence anyone one way or the other, so just release the damned thing. Or don't, I suppose.
I believe that under the Supreme Court decision on the Insurrection and the election and their interpretation that trump could not be removed from the ballot as a candidate, and trump winning the election by certification is entirely separate from eligibility to serve. Now trump falls under the 14th amendment section 3 and is ineligible to serve as President, it is now that the issue of the 14th Amendment is ripe and there is standing by the House, the Senate, the DoJ, the States to file motions and court cases to block from serving under the 14th amendment section 3. Of Chief Justice Roberts swears in trump knowing trump is disqualified from serving under the 14th amendment section 3, Roberts will be violating the Constitution and siding an insurrectionist. Now is the time for the Democrats to raise the 14th amendment section 3 in the House and Senate.
Democrats would never! Because NORMS.
Because spinelessness and disarray
"Democrats to raise the 14th amendment section 3 in the House and Senate"
I'll go along with that, but there are two major roadblocks from holding the Fulvous Flatulence to account under 14A, Sec 3:
1 Mooseballs Mussolini has not been tried and convicted of "engag[ing] in insurrection or rebellion." As you well know, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, so no trial/conviction means no application of the 14A, Sec 3;
2 It might take only a simple majority in the House and Senate to impose removal or disqualification, but since the RINOs control both Houses it's highly unlikely that a motion to enforce the 14A would pass in both Houses (and you can bet the ranch that all of the Dems would vote in favor of removal). The "grassroots" MAGAdroids have too much clout, and will very likely primary out any Repub who goes along with the effort to kick the Amber Ardipithecus ramidus' sorry ass from office.
fnord
1. The amendment does not require a conviction. Your argument is invalid on that point.
2. IF the Democrats can get it to the floor the GOP could, legally, vote to override the 14th amendment and seat Trump. They would but the point is there would be a record of who stood where and that is worth doing. Not that I think the Democrats have the balls for it.
1 Ok, I was mistaken about a conviction being required for the 14A Sec 3 to be invoked.
2 Please provide a link to anything to prove your assertion that Congress can override a Constitutional Amendment.
Since the 14th Amendment mentions zip, zero, nada about POTUS' eligibility to run for a third term "[y]our argument is invalid on that point[:]"
"The original writing of the Constitution says that Congress can not interfere with the First Amendment right to speech and the press." https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-1-freedom-speech
So, by extension, the ability for Congress to interfere with any Amendment is not possible -- including the *22nd* Amendment. I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, or lawyer of any sort, so I could be wrong, but common logic says this is a likely reading.
Plus, only the SCOTUS can directly overrule an Amendment if it is deemed unconstitutional:
"When Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court about an interpretation of the Constitution, the only direct way to override that interpretation is for two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, which then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. This is a difficult task that hasn’t been done in over 30 years. But sometimes Congress can achieve the same goals without amending the Constitution.
This involves Congress enacting statutes that extend constitutional principles through one of its enumerated powers. The key powers given to Congress by the Constitution are the ability to regulate commerce and attach conditions to money given to states, as well as the ability to enforce the so-called Reconstruction Amendments that sought to enshrine greater equality in the wake of the Civil War." https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/07/30/can-congress-overturn-supreme-court-rulings
* I have serious doubts that the Roberts Court would declare the 22A as unconstitutional;
* Please note that the only way Congress can override an amendment is through usage of powers granted to it by the Constitution; predominantly regulating commerce and conditioning funds given to individual states.
Batting .500 isn't bad, for either of us.
fnord
Section 3, also known as the "disqualification clause," which bars anyone who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding federal office, including a Senate seat, unless Congress removes the disability with a two-thirds vote in each House. Granted it does not specify the Presidency but logically "federal office" would suffice. Granted the 2/3 part is a bit sticky and would explain why the GOP would never allow it to be brought to the floor. It does raise to my mind why the Democratic Caucus didn't do it in the Senate. I suspect I know the answer but maintaining the norms is not a valid response in these times.
I've already conceded regarding the 14A, I was wrong and I admit it.
OTOH, you have still failed to address the question of a third term and the 22A. The 14A mentions nothing about being term-limited out of office. Plus, the 14A is the only amendment that I can find that includes language about overriding itself, and that is only in Sec 3. Again, as I said previously, I might be wrong and would welcome any links showing differently.
fnord
Where in anyone's responses other than your own was the 22nd raised? The issue under discussion by everyone else was the 14th. You tangentially raised the 22nd but that is moot. I know DJT and his flunkies have raised the issue but right now he is not at the end of his 2nd term. We have a long way to go and likely much more significant fuckery to get through before that happens.
"It’s been nearly four years since a certain failed gameshow host and former/future president stole our nation’s national secrets and spirited them away to his Mar-a-Lago plastic surgery museum"
And for nearly four years now the American people (IMO, since I speak only for myself) have been subjected to a political shitshow, for no other reason than to stroke the narcissistic Fulvous Flatulence's easily bruised ego; the clitoris has ~8000 nerve endings and it doesn't even come close to the sensitivities of Mooseballs Mussolini.
Besides, the incoming Felon-in-Chief didn't "[steal] our nation’s national secrets and spirited them away" since the Mango Malignancy, with his deep understanding of American laws and regulations, insists the PRA says that these docs were his to do with as he pleased, right up to flashing a compartmentalized top secret document to an unvetted civilian on a golf course. All this despite his completely wrong interpretation of the Act (which the Amber Ardipithecus ramidus intentionally misinterpreted):
"The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents, and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations.
Specifically, the PRA:
> Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
> Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
> Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
> Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records." [abridged] https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
Given all that, *everything* generated for or by POTUS to conduct the country's day to day business is deemed "presidential" and not "private," thus subject to the correct reading of the PRA. Any way one cares to slice it, the Sociopathic Marigold Swamp Monster is in direct violation of the PRA.
And for the sake of piling on: no document, video, audio recording... labeled "Secret" or above is subject to the PRA, and in no way can an ex-POTUS retain such docs....
-----
"Smith and the Justice Department requested a dismissal, deciding it was not their policy to hold Trump accountable for shit any more"
Sorry, but not quite correct. Jack Smith requested dismissal without prejudice in both of his cases, which means that if the Desert Sand Demi-Demon is still walking G-dess' green earth in four years, charges that relate to either the docs case or his failed autogolpe can be reinstated.
-----
"But Special Counsels do exist, and are still required by Justice Department regulations to produce reports with their findings and charging decisions."
Isn't it interesting that the RINOs insist that Special Prosecutors have no status when it comes to holding a RINO -- any RINO up to and including the Pumpkin Pestilence -- to account for illegal actions, but an SP is a real thing when it comes time to persecute... I mean prosecute... anyone with a D after their name (or has a father who is both a D and POTUS)? It's an honest to G-dess Push me-Pull you situation.
-----
"So now Nauta and De Oliveira’s lawyers are emergency BEGGING BEGGING BEGGING Aileen Cannon to not let Jack Smith’s final report be turned over to AG Merrick Garland, so he can figure out if he wants to release it to Congress, the public, or not at all"
We've been to this dance before, and just recently. "Judge" Cannon is doing everything (all wrong in my no legal degree opinion) she can to protect her Lord, Savior, and benefactor: the Peach[tree dish] Pustule. OTOH, the House Ethics Committee finally succumbed to public pressure and released their files on Matt Gaetz (the right thing to do, and should have been done as soon as Gaetz was tapped to head the DOJ).
-----
"Anyway, Smith says he’s going to give Garland the report sometime after 1 p.m. today, and it could be released as early as 10 a.m. Friday, if Garland has any ‘nards or dignity left."
My suggestion is that Garland release the report whether or not Cannon issued an injunction against it. Once released, just how does Cannon think the genie will be forced back into the bottle? Or that since Chief Justice Roberts has already noted that the RINOs plan on ignoring any decision by the SCOTUS with which they disagree, why shouldn't the Dems do the same to Judge Aileen's court order?
fnord
Carlos De Oliveira, mentioned above as the property manager for TFG does not appear to have either a property manager license or a real estate license in the State of Florida. I'm pretty sure this is felonious behavior. I would imagine the Attorney General of Florida would be interested if that person had not been appointed by Governor Who?
For what it's worth, AG is an elected position here, although the AG is a republican and probably a DeSantis crony.
Although actually seems like those kinds of charges would be brought by the state attorney in his circuit. Which COULD be a dem if Palm Beach. Also an elected position.
Governor WHO? chose the candidate he wanted. I phrased it inelegantly. Pam Bondi was in roughly the same position of appointed/elected.
I sent DBPR in Florida a note about this, and I see no change of course. DBPR just does not wish to make any kind of wave. It is a consummate civil service situation.
An actual phrase that was going around at law school back when Lenny the Leo was creeping around recruiting for his Federalist Socialist Society was “The purpose of government is to protect the rich from the poor.” Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us poor schmucks.
LOL there's Loose Cannon right on cue! All they gotta do is run out the clock for President Klan Robe. We do need a hero to leak it but honestly does it even matter at this point? Americans were more than happy to have this foul criminal get another go at maladministration because he promised to get rid of minorities they don't like. And of course because they were credulous and believed fanfiction.
No, it doesn't matter at this point. Absolutely nothing matters. This nation is finished.
Garland was never going to make it public anyway.
So according to a Notice Thingy filed by Jack Smith this morning, he is planning on turning over the rep;ort to Garland today at 1:00 pm. He said it's two volumes, one of which pertains to the documents case. So I guess the other one pertains to the insurrection case. Maybe no one filed anything about that one because no co-defendants? Or they were afraid Judge Chutkan would laugh them out of court? Anyway, the Notice Thingy says Garland wouldn't be releasing anything until Friday, if at all. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/680/united-states-v-trump/