Jaff's stupid shit

[JAFF]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-23/index.html

In a hearing Friday, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan set the tone for how she will preside over the 2020 election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.

Chutkan kicked off the hearing – the first in the case before her and one that took place in her courtroom at DC federal courthouse – noting that while Trump’s rights as a criminal defendant would be protected, his First Amendment right to free speech was “not absolute.”

The hearing focused on what limits would be placed on how the former president can handle the evidence prosecutors will be turning over to him.

“In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules,” she said.
The judge closed the hearing with a promise that the case would advance like any normal proceeding in the criminal justice system, but warned that the more “inflammatory” statements were made by a party, the quicker she would need to move toward a trial to preserve a fair jury.

“It is a bedrock principle of the judicial process in this country,” she said, while quoting precedent, “that legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the use of the meeting hall, the radio and the newspaper.”

“This case is no exception,” she said.

Over the course of the proceedings, she expressed some skepticism to the arguments made by the office of special counsel Jack Smith, siding with Trump on at least a few matters related to the protective order over evidence that was the subject of Friday’s hearing. Addressing a submission from the government that she refused to let be filed under seal, she also emphasized a need for public transparency into the docket.

The hearing, roughly an hour and 40 minutes long, was the first in the case before Chutkan. She has already shown a habit of responding quickly and tersely on the docket to debates between the parties over scheduling. An Obama appointee and former public defender who has overseen several cases regarding the events of January 6, 2021, Chutkan has been outspoken about the harm the US Capitol attack caused to American democracy.

Chutkan later issued a protective order barring Trump from publicly disclosing sensitive information in the case.

Trump pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election last week, and the judge cautioned lawyers for Trump, who did not attend the hearing, about any public statements by their client that could possibly intimidate of witnesses.

That is why a judge can limit someones speech.

[JAFF]

LOL

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...776702484&ei=7

Two conservative legal scholars, members of the Federalist Society in good standing, have just published an audacious argument: that Donald Trump is constitutionally prohibited from running for president, and that state election officials have not only the authority but the legal obligation to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

Kroger® Frozen 100% Apple Juice Concentrate 12 Fl Oz
Kroger® Frozen 100% Apple Juice Concentrate 12 Fl Oz
Ad
Kroger
The legal paper, authored by University of Chicago professor William Baude and University of St. Thomas professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, centers on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a provision that limits people from returning to public office if they have since “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort” to those who have. Baude and Paulsen argue that this clearly covers Trump’s behavior between November 2020 and January 2021.

“The most politically explosive application of Section Three to the events of January 6, is at the same time the most straightforward,” Baude and Paulsen write. “Former President Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from again being President (or holding any other covered office) because of his role in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 election and the events leading to the January 6 attack.”

The consequences of this argument are astonishing. On Baude and Paulsen’s read, Section 3 is “self-executing” — meaning it does not require an act of Congress to enter force and binds those public officials in the position to act on its dictates. Basically, if a single official anywhere in the US electoral system finds their constitutional analysis compelling, Baude and Paulsen urge them to act on it.

“No official should shrink from these duties. It would be wrong — indeed, arguably itself a breach of one’s constitutional oath of office — to abandon one’s responsibilities of faithful interpretation, application, and enforcement of Section Three,” they write.

As a matter of law, I find their arguments quite compelling. If you look at Section 3 in light of the historical evidence and how restrictions on eligibility for office work elsewhere in the Constitution, it’s hard to disagree with Baude and Paulen’s application of its text to Trump.

But as a matter of politics, encouraging state election officials to go rogue and kick Trump off the ballot is a recipe for disaster. And that disconnect, between what the law says and the practical barriers to implementing it, speaks to some deep problems in American democracy that led to Trump’s insurrection in the first place.

The (very strong) argument that Trump is ineligible for office

Baude and Paulsen’s paper, set to be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, focusing on plain-language readings on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the way its key terms were used in political discussion around the time of enactment.

To get what they’re trying to do, it’s worth reading the text of Section 3 in full:

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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Using historical and dictionary sources, Baude and Paulsen establish clear definitions for key terms. “Insurrection” and “rebellion,” in their view, “cover pretty much the entire terrain of large-scale unlawful resistance to government authority.” To have “engaged in” such conduct, they claim, means being “actively involved in the planning or execution of intentional acts of insurrection or rebellion” or “knowingly provided active, meaningful, voluntary, direct support for, material assistance to, or specific encouragement of such actions.”

If this interpretation is correct, then the legal case against Trump is fairly straightforward — all established by facts in public reporting, evidence from the January 6 committee, and the recent federal indictment.

In this well-known story, Trump was “actively involved” in an extralegal scheme to send fake electors to the Congress, and urged the vice president to unlawfully accept these fake electors over the real ones and crown Trump president. In service of his scheme, he provided “direct support for” and “specific encouragement” of the mob that ransacked the Capitol on January 6 in his speech, his tweets, private statements, and refusal to take actions (like calling in the National Guard) that could have stopped the mob.

“The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Baude and Paulsen write. “If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close.”

Normally, this kind of argument feels like a purely abstract exercise. Maybe there’s a strong case that Trump running for president is unconstitutional, but who’s actually going to stop him?

The answer, according to Baude and Paulsen, is literally anybody in a legal position to do so.

[JAFF]

House Republicans are furious about Hunter Biden special counsel

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...3dc834f0&ei=15

Republicans in Congress railed against Attorney General Merrick Garland's decision to appoint David Weiss as special counsel to oversee the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden.

Special counsels are not required to keep Congress updated on the status of their work, leading to fears that the move would effectively halt congressional probes of the president's son.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy warned that the special counsel should not be used to "whitewash" the Biden family,

WASHINGTON — After more than two years of demanding that the Justice Department appoint a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, Republicans in Congress finally got their wish on Friday. And they were furious.

Reactions from the GOP began pouring in within minutes of Attorney General Merrick Garland's announcement on Friday of a special counsel to oversee the criminal investigation of President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

"If Weiss negotiated the sweetheart deal that couldn't get approved, how can he be trusted as a Special Counsel?" House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tweeted shortly after the announcement.

McCarthy said the decision to appoint David Weiss, a federal prosecutor in Delaware who was assigned by former President Donald Trump to lead the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, "cannot be used to obstruct congressional investigations or whitewash the Biden family corruption."

Special counsels occupy a unique position within the legal system. They traditionally operate outside of the Justice Department's chain of command and the congressional oversight that accompanies it. Special counsels are required to produce final reports on the results of their investigations for the attorney general, but they are not required to keep Congress or the Justice Department updated on the status of their work.

The appointment of the special counsel came as Republicans in Congress ramp up political attacks and investigations of the Biden family ahead of the 2024 election. Republicans argued that a special counsel probe would effectively draw a curtain around evidence they are seeking.

The plea agreement called for Biden to plead guilty to two counts of failing to pay his taxes in return for prosecutors recommending a sentence of probation and the dismissal of a separate gun charge in two years. The deal was scrapped earlier this month after a judge determined the agreements contained "some atypical provisions."

"The fix is in," said a PAC backing former President Donald Trump, Make America Great Again Inc.

"David Weiss cut Hunter Biden an unprecedented plea deal that attempted to give Joe Biden's corrupt son blanket immunity," MAGA Inc. Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

"Now, Merrick Garland expects us to trust Weiss to be the Special Counsel that finally brings Hunter Biden to justice," said Leavitt.

A White House spokesperson referred CNBC to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee jointly looking into the federal probe of the younger Biden's taxes, also accused the DOJ of a "Biden family coverup."

"Let's be clear what today's move is really about," Comer said in a statement. "The Biden Justice Department is trying to stonewall congressional oversight as we have presented evidence to the American people."

A spokesman for Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the House Judiciary Committee chairman who has taken the lead on investigating the federal probe of Hunter Biden, said Weiss "can't be trusted."

"This is just a new way to whitewash the Biden family's corruption," said Russell Dye, a spokesman for Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the House Judiciary Committee chairman who has taken the lead on investigating the federal probe of Hunter Biden.

Dye said the committee still expects the Justice Department to fully cooperate with Republicans' investigation into Hunter Biden's plea deal, "including not interfering with the 11 transcribed interviews" that have been requested.

Moreover, Weiss' previous offer to appear before the committee this fall is still presumed to be valid, said Dye. As of Friday, the panel had not received anything from DOJ "indicating it is no longer willing to do so."

[Lov2fish]

Originally Posted by JAFF

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...-23/index.html



That is why a judge can limit someones speech.

Just cause the fucker says it doesn't make it so.

[Lov2fish]

This has merit and it may but there is law applied first. He has to be convicted of insurrection first. Right now he has the same constitutional protection as anyone pre-trial. Kudos to those guys for actually understanding most of what they read. Right now he is accused of insurrection and not adjudicated.

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Lov2fish

Just cause the fucker says it doesn't make it so.

Perjury is a crime. Not protected by free speech. Slander, while not a crime, is defamation and can lead to a lawsuit, not protected by free speech.

[bigalbert]

So you would agree then that all those Dem congressmen and senators should be charged and muzzled for spewing the hatred against Trump and be held responsible for burning down the cities neighborhoods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigalbert]

We are on dangerous ground. Ultimately what it boils down to is the end game for Satan and his liberal army. Silence the good news.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by bigalbert

So you would agree then that all those Dem congressmen and senators should be charged and muzzled for spewing the hatred against Trump and be held responsible for burning down the cities neighborhoods


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you miss the part where Trump started a riot to overturn the election?

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639...eachment-trial

Trump is the only person who has called for violence.

[omahacolt]

Originally Posted by Lov2fish

Everyone's first amendment rights are absolute. The constitution is absolute, period. The document was created to restrain government from infringing on citizens. It was never for government to grant you shit. People that believe the shit liberal judges spew out are fucking morons and deserve everything that comes their way. The dumbing down of this country is nearly complete.

you have the right to free speech. but there are consequences to what you say.
legally, there are things you aren't allowed to say. you know this. i don't know why this is so hard.