Below is my column in the New York Post on the second release of the “Twitter Files.” The new material exposes the company’s system of censorship and suppression of disfavored views. The documents shatter prior statements of Twitter, including statements made to Congress. As discussed below, there could be legal as well as political ramifications as the House moves forward with the long-delayed investigation of these social media companies.
For years, the “Trust” professionals have insisted that the public should “trust us, we’re Twitter.” Now the public has direct evidence that the company not only engaged in raw, biased censorship but misled them on how Twitter was manipulating the discussion of political issues. Ernest Hemingway said that “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.” That trust in Twitter was clearly misplaced.
Here is the column:
“1984” author George Orwell warned that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” That line has never been more relevant than in the aftermath of the second release of Twitter documents this week.
Many liberals had denied the social-media giant was engaging in censorship by using the more pleasant term “content modification.” Now, documents show Twitter executives burying “disfavored” views as “visibility filtering” and “amplification” limits.
Calling executives the “Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust” (Vijaya Gadde) and the “Global Head of Trust & Safety” (Yoel Roth) doesn’t alter their status as some of the greatest censors in history.
Yet the license for this massive system clearly came from Twitter’s very top. Shadow banning and “visibility filtering” are consistent with the policies of ex-CEO Parag Agrawal, who pledged the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the Internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
So we now know that Twitter was not only banning dissenting voices on subjects ranging from COVID to climate change but was throttling or suppressing the traffic for disfavored writers.
Among those targeted was Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who wrote about how COVID lockdowns would harm children. He and others have been vindicated in flagging those worries, but Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist” to prevent his tweets from trending. It’s a telling list because it reflects an acknowledgment that such tweets would trend with users if the company didn’t suppress them.
Some of us have been raising concerns over Twitter’s massive censorship system for years, including what I called the emergence of a “shadow state” where corporations carry out censorship the Constitution bars the government from doing.
What’s striking is leading Democrats have been open about precisely this type of corporate manipulation of political speech on social media. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called upon these companies to use enlightened algorithms to protect users from their own bad reading choices.
Even President Joe Biden called for such regulation of speech and discussions by wise editors. Without such censorship and manipulation, Biden asked, “How do people know the truth?”
It is still early to determine possible legal implications of these files, but there are some areas likely to be of immediate concern for counsel.
First, Elon Musk has suggested that some material may have been intentionally hidden or destroyed despite inquiries from Congress. Twitter was told to expect a congressional investigation into these areas.
It’s not clear if this was material allegedly deleted as part of a regular process or a specific effort to destroy evidence of censorship or throttling. Such obstruction cases, however, can be difficult to bring absent clear evidence. In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen’s conviction for its destruction of documents under a standard record-management system.
Second, destruction of documents could also prove relevant as part of an investigation into whether false statements were given under oath. Twitter executives denied such secret suppression efforts both in public and before Congress. Indeed, a recent federal filing revealed a 2021 email between Twitter executives and Carol Crawford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s digital media chief. Crawford wanted to censor “unapproved opinions” on social media; Twitter replied that “with our CEO testifying before Congress this week [it] is tricky.”
At that hearing, social-media companies were asked about my prior testimony on private censorship in circumventing the First Amendment. In response, Dorsey insisted that “we don’t have a censoring department.” Dorsey also expressly denied under oath that there was “shadow banning” based on political ideology.
Likewise, in 2018, Gadde and Head of Product Kayvon Beykpour expressly declared, “We do not shadow ban. And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
It turns out you don’t need a “department” if the entire company was acting as a massive censorship and suppression machine. Moreover, one “department” Dorsey did not mention was the Strategic Response Team – Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET, that operated above what journalist Bari Weiss described as “official ticketing.” That group reportedly included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust Vijaya Gadde, Global Head of Trust & Safety Yoel Roth, subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal and others.
Third, there’s the growing question of censorship by surrogate. The new documents suggest the effort to control political speech went far beyond the banning or suspending of particular figures. Those highly publicized controversies like banning LibsofTikTok now appear to be the tip of a censorship iceberg with secret efforts to blacklist, throttle and suppress disfavored viewpoints.
There were even “search blacklists” to make it difficult for people to link to disfavored views. Those blacklisted may revive lawsuits alleging Twitter was acting as an agent of the government in manipulating public debates and discussions.
Of course, legal ramifications will continue to be blunted by a media and administration that have overwhelmingly supported censorship. Liberal writers and officials have surrendered much in the last few years in supporting censorship and pushing blacklists of conservative figures, including Supreme Court justices.
Musk has forced citizens to take sides on the free-speech fight. He has both the public and free speech on his side. Not only are users signing up in record numbers, but a recent poll shows a majority of Americans “support Elon Musk’s ongoing efforts to change Twitter to a more free and transparent platform.”
The public is simply not buying the liberal narrative. What media figures once called “a canard” and a “conspiracy theory” is being exposed to full public view.
All the Orwellian euphemisms and cheery titles will no longer disguise Twitter’s raw censorship. Once empowered by Agrawal to determine “who can be heard,” Twitter executives showed how censorship can become an insatiable appetite for speech controls. Sitting in the San Francisco headquarters, the “Trust” officials found an array of conservative views unworthy to be heard. The “filtering” of free speech quickly became a choice on what views are worthy of attention.
After all, if you cannot trust “Trust” professionals, who can you trust?
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
George Orwell’s “1984” was written as a warning but it appears Democrats read it as an instruction manual.
“The best books… are those that tell you what you know already.
― George Orwell, 1984
Re censoring the Potus, Donald Trump, before he was banned:
“The files make clear that the FBI flagged specific content for censorship and that Twitter executives met not only with the bureau, but also with teams from Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence as the war against “misinformation” escalated it in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election.”
https://justthenews.com/accountability/cancel-culture/twitter-files-unmask-censorship-collaboration-feds-earlier-effort?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
“The files make clear that . . .”
So more evidence that the FBI, et al., politicize law enforcement. That is called a one-party police state.
Wake up! Before it’s too late.
Actually, by their TOS, Trump should have been banned long before. What it actually shows is that they made special rules for Trump that benefitted him for a long time, allowing him to stay on the platform after an average person would already have been banned.
“after an average person would already have been banned.”
Anonymous the Stupid should start reading the TOS instead of relying on the talking points from the left-wing media.
Not only have I read the TOS, I’ve quoted from it before. You are so hate-filled that you will deny reality in order to invent insults.
We know how you read. You leave out the parts that demonstrate the lies. That is not an attempt at reading for content. It is reading only to prove a point.
I copied some of the rules. Deal with why they were applied in a one sided way.
S. Meyer, you didn’t read the TOS. If you copied the rules you would know anonymous is right.
They gave Trump a lot of room and let him get away with a lot. Trump finally pushed it too far. It’s his fault he got kicked out. You break the rules you lose.
You like ATS didn’t read the rule with understanding of them and the law. You are a fool, far worse than ATS, for ATS know when his foolish arguments become ridiculous. You have no idea.
S. Meyer,
“ You like ATS didn’t read the rule with understanding of them and the law.”
You have no idea what I have read or not. None. I have read the TOS multiple times and know exactly what they mean. YOU have not. Just like the many others who stupidly agree to terms and conditions of multiple apps and services YOU didn’t read squat. That is why you don’t mention exactly what it says despite saying you “copied” it. That doesn’t say squat. It doesn’t prove that you read ti or know what it says.
All you end up with is hurling insults and calling names because YOU are too lazy to do the work and the research into the actual rules twitter has publicly available. YOU didn’t read it and you don’t want to read ti because it will contradict your argument. So instead of doing a little research for yourself you go into a rant insulting those who actually did the research and understand the situation.
I can only garner what you have done from what you say on the blog. If you said you read the TOS then I won’t disagree, but I will say you didn’t understand them and should read them again.
I already posted portions of the information Twitter provides which is relevant. Each point was short and in written in language easy to understand. You didn’t understand the points which agrees with my assessment of you that you are stupid.
You can read each point individually and post them singularly with your interpretation, and we can discuss them. I will no longer spoon feed you (stopped a long time ago), so you will have to put in some effort if discussion is what you are after.
Here is an example of the reasons I treat you as a fool.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
S. Meyer,
“ I already posted portions of the information Twitter provides which is relevant. Each point was short and in written in language easy to understand. You didn’t understand the points which agrees with my assessment of you that you are stupid.”
You didn’t post anything. Liar. You have made no reference to exactly what the TOS says that supports your argument. All you’ve said is you copied stuff. You’re a liar S. Meyer. Back up your claim with real evidence.
“All you’ve said is you copied stuff. You’re a liar S. Meyer. Back up your claim with real evidence.
Once again we see the idiot Svelaz making an A$$ out of himself. Here is where I posted the stuff from Twitter.
“https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/09/trust-but-verify-new-documents-show-how-trust-executives-misled-congress-and-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-2244803”
This problem of yours isn’t new. You keep saying the same things and are proven wrong. You said I didn’t copy the FDA reports either. I saved that post because I have reproduced in numerous times to show you are a liar. Here it is again.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
You have absolutely no self respect or regard for the truth.
“ Once again we see the idiot Svelaz making an A$$ out of himself. Here is where I posted the stuff from Twitter.”
The “link” you posted doesn’t work which proves once again you are making stuff up. S. Meyer is a liar.
“The “link” you posted doesn’t work which proves once again you are making stuff up. S. Meyer is a liar.”
You’re stupid. Quotation marks surrounded the link. My fault for their existence. I don’t lie. Lying is your dominant trait.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/12/09/trust-but-verify-new-documents-show-how-trust-executives-misled-congress-and-the-public/comment-page-1/#comment-2244803
“I copied some of the rules.”
The issue (which proves fraud) is not what is in the ToS. It is what was *not* in the ToS: That they shadowbanned, throttled, suspended, and expelled opinions and users whose ideas they did not like.
And then those execs lied to the public and congress about their suppression actions.
Do you understand the difference between shadowbanning and deamplification? You seem not to, based on your usage.
And the TOS explicitly says “We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you. … We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason …”
Have you ever read the entire TOS?
You’ve provided zero evidence that they removed tweets because they contained “ideas they did not like” or that they “lied to the public and congress,” and your word is worthless. If you have actual evidence of the latter, contact your member of Congress and ask that they be referred for an 18 U.S. Code § 1001 violation.
The files make only one thing clear. They were having debates about what to do. All the FBI, HSI and everyone else was doing was pointing out potential election security risks. it also shows they gave Trump a LOT of latitude when it came to posting tweets that were in violation of their policies. They gave him special treatment for a long time. When he finally pushed it too far they were well within their right to kick him out.
“They were having debates about what to do.”
Stop being ignorant and read what was written on Twitter. The debates to date demonstrate they knew what they were doing was wrong.
“All the FBI, HSI and everyone else was doing was pointing out potential election security risks. “
That is stupid.
“When he finally pushed it too far they were well within their right”
They shadow Banned Trump. You are an idiot.
S. Meyer,
They WERE having debates about what to do. That is exactly what the files show. Are you illiterate?
“ All the FBI, HSI and everyone else was doing was pointing out potential election security risks. “
That is stupid.”
No, It’’s not, You can’t refute that and it’s driving you nuts. Because it’s true.
You can’t discern conspiracy theory from reality. You latch on to the first thing you feel it’s suspicious and go on a runaway train of assumptions and rumors while slowly creating it into a reality that is true. That is how conspiracy theories rot your brain and evidently yours has been a putrid mess for a while. It’s not surprising.
“ When he finally pushed it too far they were well within their right”
They shadow Banned Trump. You are an idiot.”
You don’t get it do you. When trump BROKE their rules for the last time they were well within their right to ban him even shadow ban him if they wanted to. It was THEIR rules. Breaking their rules HAS consequences. It was Trump’s fault that he got kicked out, not twittes.
I have already responded to you on these subjects as have others such as John, Tit, Iowan, etc. You proved yourself a fool. When I was more responsive you proved yourself a liar.
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
You will have to put in effort to resurrect your name. Resurrections come with a price. You have to admit your failings and convert from a dishonest person to an honest one.
“They shadow Banned Trump. You are an idiot.”
It’s in the news, but why should I tell you? You are too stupid to look it up.
Bigger than Watergate, more consequential than hanging chads.
You just can’t have top U.S. national security intelligence officials + team Biden sowing seeds of disinformation on a private company that owns/controls over 70% of the ‘social media’ marketplace and not print the retraction.
*the FBI is investigating
“trust us, we’re Twitter.”
It’s actual credo was: Might makes right. We are the Mighty. Therefore, whatever we do is right.
Great article, JT. Thank you!
Those who on this blog site keep asking ‘so what?’ or ‘so what is new here?’ seem to be unwilling to see Professor Turley’s Houdini Elephant, Jennie. It is intuitively obvious that since its inception, Twitter has become a ‘go to’ source for news for millions of people – it was not so before Twitter. These millions of people absorb what Twitter allows to be read — and it undeniably has a material impact in shaping their thoughts and their opinions about things in society, in economics, in lifestyle, and of course in politics.
So yes — it is not true that we all already knew of Twitter’s overt, and covert, manipulation, and now that it’s becoming more clear that those in government found a way to use Twitter to shape opinions, and therefore shape voting, it’s time to wake up —
One of the tweets shows the FBI reporting communications by Basham and one other person regarding their views of the potential for fraud in mail-in ballots. Why is this the business of the FBI?
So what is new today ?
Kattie Hobbs threatened to indict Cochise county election board if the did not certify the election.
Isn’t that what a grand jury in GA is investigating Trump for except
Trump asked, he did not threaten
Hobbs is a state official threatening others in the state that she actually has authority over, and she might end up governor where she definitely would have authority over them.
The Trump thing – not a crime. The Hobbs thing – yeah actually a crime.
3 lawsuits have already been filed challenging the AZ 2022 election – One of those is on its second try, because the judge said you can not challenge the election until it is certified – which is false, but now moot.
AZ voters are already working on a petition to recall Hobbs, unfortunately they can not do so until she has been in office for 6months.
Republicans still control the AZ legislature – so you can expect thorough investigation of the 2022 election
Kattie Hobbs just certified her own Election. A more screwed up election by far than 2020. There is really no remedy for AZ other than a new election with Hobbs removed from administering. We already know that Maricopa county mixed uncounted ballots, spoiled ballots and already counted ballots together on election day in many locations – this can not be fixed.
Oh, and while there will likely be alot more from the twitter files – there is already a request from Hobbs in 2021 to censor posts about the AZ 2020 election. That is CLEARLY a government official violating the first amendment.
John B. Say,
Wrong on all counts.
“ Kattie Hobbs threatened to indict Cochise county election board if the did not certify the election.
Isn’t that what a grand jury in GA is investigating Trump for except
Trump asked, he did not threaten”
No, she sued the county election board because two board officials who were claiming the voting machines were not certified were refusing to certify. The U.S. elections assistance commission and state elections officials stated that the machines were correctly certified. Furthermore the two board member sough to hire lawyers to argue their case in court and no lawyer wanted to take their case. That said something about the legitimacy of their claims.
“ GOP supervisors voted against certification after a trio of conspiracy theorists claimed the county’s vote machines were not properly certified.
Those allegations were refuted by the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, which oversees the certification process, and state election officials.”
“ Trump asked, he did not threaten
Hobbs is a state official threatening others in the state that she actually has authority over, and she might end up governor where she definitely would have authority over them.”
Hobbs IS the Secretary of State in Arizona she had the authority to sue for compliance AND state law required the board certify the vote by a certain date. It’s notable that she is not the only SOC that presided over their own election in Arizona. This is not unprecedented situation.
“ The Trump thing – not a crime. The Hobbs thing – yeah actually a crime.”
Wrong. Trump is being investigated for demanding votes be changed and pressuring Georgia election officials to change the vote. It IS a crime in Georgia and that is why he is being criminally investigated there. Hobbs is the SOC in Arizona which literally is her JOB to make sure the board of electrons are following the law. The Cochise county board was NOT following the law.
“ 3 lawsuits have already been filed challenging the AZ 2022 election – One of those is on its second try, because the judge said you can not challenge the election until it is certified – which is false, but now moot.”
Wrong. Arizona law specifically states that you cannot challenge the election until it is certified. This is from the official court dismissal.
“ A.R.S. § 16-673 states that such an election contest shall be filed “within five days after completion of the canvass of the election and declaration of the result thereof by the secretary of state.” As Plaintiff conceded in his Complaint, no candidate has been “declared elected.” Compl. at 14. This is because the statewide canvass for the General Election has not yet occurred. However, in his brief and during the hearings in this case, Plaintiff emphasized that he did not bring this matter as an election contest under A.R.S. §§ 16-672 or -674. Rather, Plaintiff has sought declaratory and injunctive relief under A.R.S. § 12-1831.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Barnett-Dismissal-OCRD.pdf
All the allegations being made have already been debunked or are not going to make it thru court. Her allegations are not supported by evidence or the law.
Hobbs did not certify her own election. She accepted the certification of the canvasses form all counties which were correct.
Wrong. Trump is being investigated for demanding votes be changed and pressuring Georgia election officials to change the vote.
You need a cite for that. I’m really tired of leftist replacing facts with lies. Smarter trolls add qualifying language to their lies.
Iowan2,
“ Donald Trump was threatening Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger when he asked him to help “find” enough votes to overturn his loss in Georgia to Democratic President Joe Biden, Raffensperger writes in a new book.”
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-joe-biden-arts-and-entertainment-elections-georgia-2b27f4c92919556bf6548117648693b7
Trump threatened the Georgia SOC with criminal liability if he didn’t “recalculate” the votes.
“Trump threatened the Georgia SOC with criminal liability if he didn’t “recalculate” the votes.
Svelaz is a liar.
I cited proof from the SOC himself. You have nothing to rebut that.
Trump asked for a recount. That is not criminal but then again I am dealing with a fool. Reread what you wrote.
He did more than that. He was asking to “find more votes” and to “recalculate” the votes. He was pressuring the SOC to change the vote because he was spouting off these wild and unfounded reasons that were already shot down in court. He had no evidence.
“find more votes”
That is not a request for fraud. Trump knew there was fraud and 2000 mules proved it as have a lot of reports to come out since. You don’t know much of anything. Your quote wasn’t even Trump’s words.
The quote was directly from Trump. That is why he is being criminally investigated for coercing and threatening an election official.
That was not the quote.
I followed your link. Its been a while since I’ve done that, and nothing has changed.
You linked to a a review of Rafensberger book by the AP. I suppose you could cut and past comments from WAPO that would be on par with using this as your source. But you have to work to find something less meaningful than your link.
Even Rafesnberger admitts he “perceived” a threat. Never identifies the the threat. Maybe he “perceived” Trump wasn’t going to invite him to his New Years Eve bash.
You cover a lot of ground to get from “help find votes”. all the over to “recalculate” You need to request much better talking points from your handler. The ones your using suck.
Iowan2,
Rafensberger’s quote is coming from his own book. He perceived the threat and just the fact that he perceived it was enough to assert that he was indeed threatened. Trump was insinuating that he was going to be criminally liable if he didn’t do what trump was suggesting. It’s still a threat if the person receiving it perceives it as such.
Svelaz, Hobbs threatened to indict them. that is not merely sueing.
I do not care why the Cochise country EB was not certifying – though un certified voting machines sounds like a reasonable reason to me.
You get sucked up into idiotic nonsense. It does nto matter if there reasons for failing to certify are completely made up and bogus – you may not threaten them.
As to the “facts” you are wrong about the certification process. And this has been a major problem in many places.
Ultimately it is a correctable problem – you count the votes by hand and then the certification of equipment does nto matter.
But the FACT is that the vast majority of voting equipment does NOT meet the requirements put out by the federal government as part of the HAV law way back in 2002 – in fact they are not even close.
This AGAIN relates to potential election fraud. The by law standards for certification required a less than 1:10000 error rate. I higher error rate is not evidence of fraud. but high error rates require manual intervention which IS a source of fraud.
Regardless as is typical you do not know what you are talking about.
I would further note that though Cochise county did not have significant problems Maricopa which is the largest county and half of AZ had enormous problems that effected anywhere from 150,000 to 700,000 voters. Nor is this the first election in which Maricopa has had massive problems.
You rant about “certification” – the ODB Printers were tested and certified prior to the election, yet there were significant problems with them in 62% of Maricopa county precincts – this was not only publicly admitted but made the news. As a result almost 100K ballots in Maricopa county had to be counted by hand. One of many reasons that Maricopa country took forever to report its ballot result.
But that hand count has massive problems because voters who could not get there ballots to scan had their ballots mixed with spoiled ballots and already counted ballots before they were sent to be hand counted. You can not separate spoiled ballots and already counted ballots once they are mixed. This is part of the reasons the chain of custody information – that is routinely botched at major cities is such a huge deal. Without chain of custody you can not know what ballots were counted and which were not, you can not know that batches were never counted, or counted twice.
“ Svelaz, Hobbs threatened to indict them. that is not merely sueing.”
Nope.. wrong again.
Hobbs threatening to sue is not indicting them. An indictment is issue by a grand jury, not the SOC. This proves your claim is pure BS. You don’t even quote here as saying that.
Threatening to sue is to bring the election board before a court and let a judge make a determination on whether they are acting unlawfully or not. They were.
“ I do not care why the Cochise country EB was not certifying – though un certified voting machines sounds like a reasonable reason to me.”
You should because that is why they were refusing to certify the election in Cochise county. Their claims were refuted by the state elections office AND the U.S elections assistance commission. Your whole argument on why she was suing them telos on that one tidbit that you “don’t care about”. it’’s pretty stupid an nonsensical to ignore it while making the accusation that Hobbs was “threatening” them with something she can’t do. You really have no clue what you are talking about.
“ As to the “facts” you are wrong about the certification process. And this has been a major problem in many places.
Ultimately it is a correctable problem – you count the votes by hand and then the certification of equipment does nto matter.”
It wasn’t an issue in Cochise county. Multiple lawyers REFUSED TO REPRESENT THE BOARD BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE IN THE WRONG. That was a really big clue as to why they didn’t succeed, I repeat, MULTIPLE LAWYERS REFUSED TO REPRESENT THEM BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE LAW ON THEIR SIDE.
“ You rant about “certification” – the ODB Printers were tested and certified prior to the election, yet there were significant problems with them in 62% of Maricopa county precincts – this was not only publicly admitted but made the news. As a result almost 100K ballots in Maricopa county had to be counted by hand.”
No, YOU were ranting about that, not I.
The printer problems were resolved by using backup protocols which worked as intended. No voter was disenfranchised or their vote discounted because of it.
You provide zero evidence that ballots were mixed with spoiled ballots. Zero. Show me where you got that claim. I bet you are just paraphrasing from some right-wing site making the claim without proof either. You’re making a lot of assumptions without anything to back it up. Show your evidence of your claims.
This is an email from Hobbs’s deputy. It includes multiple threats including a criminal referral.
https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Screenshot-142-768×397.png
It includes multiple references to the law and what the board is REQUIRED to do by a certain deadline, a specific date. As per the law.
The board was being unlawful which subject it to criminal charges if they continue to illegally withhold the certification.
The EB excuses about the certification of the voting machines were not even credible because they HAD to assert BEFORE the election by law that they were properly certified. The EB did that. To claim that they were not properly certified is not only highly dubious, but also very unlikely because of the fact that they had to make sure prior to the election BY LAW.
The EB was being unlawful and according to the law they were subject to criminal charges if they continued to refuse to certify. They had no valid excuse to delay the certification. That’s why multiple lawyers refused to represent them.
If your claims are correct – then Hobbs would have gone to court and easily gotten an order to have the EB certify.
She did not.
Obviously Hobb’s has less confidence in your arguments than you do.
Probably because AGAIN.
The law can not give someone a choice and then pretend it is not.
The only proper read of the law you keep citing is:
Certify by X date, or not at all.
The not at all is not written, it is implied by the fact that certification is a choice.
You already agreed that was the case.
You agreed that some fact patterns would allow an EB to not certify.
You had to agree to that because there are OBVIOUS cases where certification is either impossible or clearly wrong.
The EB get to decide if the facts support certification. If there is not reasonable suspicion that the election is invalid – that is a low bar.
That is also why election have to be conducted with very low numbers of errors. Despite your claims otherwise.
It is possible that YOUR factual allegations are correct – I doubt it. You have never been a trustworthy reporter of the facts.
If you are correct – a court would quickly order the election certified.
But that did not happen,
Because Dobb’s had no confidence the court would agree with her
Partly because courts do not deal with alleged facts and alleged law, but actual facts.
I do not universlaly trust the courts to get things right.
Even the supreme court gets it wrong at times.
But I presume that people who do not go to court to get something that they believe they are lawfully entitled to,
did not go to court – because they did not believe the court would give them what they want.
“ If your claims are correct – then Hobbs would have gone to court and easily gotten an order to have the EB certify.
She did not.”
She DID go to court. That is how the EB was forced to certify the election in Cochise county.
“ Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), now the state’s governor-elect, sued Cochise County earlier this week after two GOP members on the board voted to delay certification over an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about the certification of voting machines and missed the state’s Monday deadline.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Casey McGinley on Thursday ordered the board of supervisors to certify the election results by 5 p.m. that day.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3758916-arizonas-cochise-county-certifies-election-following-court-order/amp/
Obviously you are wrong.
She issued her threat prior to going to court.
Still extortion.
Still not wrong.
You do not get to tell me what I must care about.
BTW you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about the law – as you are about the law and constitutional regarding congressional certification.
Certification is a choice. If certification was mandatory it would be automatic and unnecessary.
The law can compel the Cochise EB to make a decision by a specific time, but if the have the power to make a decision, they are not obligated to make it a specific way.
The Cochise EB can be civilly sued by those who believe they chose wrong – just as Hobbs can be sued over her election handling.
You get constantly wrapped up in irrelevant law.
You can spout all the legal nonsense from left wing nut legal scholars you want. Where there is doubts about the integrity of an election – certifying is the ILLEGAL choice – ALWAYS.
The law can not for example say – You must certify the election – when as an example you personally observed thousands of ballots being destroyed. You are actually legally obligated to NOT certify and election where there are legitimate doubts – and there is no possible way the law can specify all the possible legitimate doubts that might exist.
“ Certification is a choice. If certification was mandatory it would be automatic and unnecessary.
The law can compel the Cochise EB to make a decision by a specific time, but if the have the power to make a decision, they are not obligated to make it a specific way.”
Wrong again,
Certification is legally required. It’s in election statute. It’s mandatory by law. You obviously are being willfully ignorant.
Now you admit the law can compel the EB to certify by a certain date. Your claim that it was false is wrong.
They ARE obligated by law to certify it by a deadline.
“ The Cochise EB can be civilly sued by those who believe they chose wrong – just as Hobbs can be sued over her election handling.
You get constantly wrapped up in irrelevant law.”
Correct. They can get sued and they can also be criminally liable if they continue to unlawfully withhold certification.
That’s not irrelevant law. It’s THE law they are bound to.
“ The law can not for example say – You must certify the election – when as an example you personally observed thousands of ballots being destroyed. ”
That’s not what happened in Arizona. Now you’re jumping to other cases that are irrelevant to what we are discussing about, the Arizona case.
Legitimate doubts still have to be backed up by credible evidence.
“Certification is legally required.”
Obviously false. lets assume that a tornado hit while the county was counting ballots and most everything regarding the election was destroyed.
The EB has no idea who the winner is – YOU are saying they MUST certify.
As I have told you repeatedly – they Law can not give an official a choice and then pretend it is not a choice.
The statute you constantly cite requires certifcaiton by a specific date – or not at all.
It can not require certication.
“It’s in election statute.”
That you are obviously misreading.
“It’s mandatory by law.”
Can’t be. The law can not mandate a physical impossibility
it also can not make something a choice and then take that choice away.
There is absolutely no need to require an EB to certify if certification is mandatory.
The law can just say certification is automatic.
But it does not. Since it does not, it is a choice, and if you can certify, you can also refuse to certify.
This is not the first time you have made this FUNDIMENTAL legal and logical error.
You do it over and over.
“You obviously are being willfully ignorant.”
look in the mirror.
“Now you admit the law can compel the EB to certify by a certain date.”
Correct – certify or Don’t, but if you do it must be by some date.
No law can give you the power to do something without the power to not do it.
“They ARE obligated by law to certify it by a deadline.”
Yes, and if they do not – then that counties election is not certified.
“ The Cochise EB can be civilly sued by those who believe they chose wrong – just as Hobbs can be sued over her election handling.
You get constantly wrapped up in irrelevant law.”
Correct. They can get sued”
” and they can also be criminally liable if they continue to unlawfully withhold certification.”
Probably not – and certainly not on the facts – even the facts as you have alleged them.
“That’s not irrelevant law. It’s THE law they are bound to.”
Nope, and that is self evident.
Hobb;s does have the power to go to court and try to get a court to order the EB to certify.
It is possible that she could even get the Court to certify for the EB.
She did not do so. Instead she engaged in extortion a crime.
If you are right about the law – then any hearing would be trivially short followed by an immediate court order.
It is reasonable to assume that when people do not go to court to get what some claim they are obviously legally entitled to
and instead escalate – that the person who failed to go to court, was not likely to win.
Hobb’s chose not to got to court, but instead to engage in extortion.
It is probable that is because she thought she would lose.
NARA failed to go to court to get Trump documents.
It is probable that is because NARA thought they would lose.
DOJ failed to go to court to enforce a subpeona for Trump documents.
It is probable that is because DOJ thought they would lose.
“That’s not what happened in Arizona.”
You just lost the argument. You have conceded that certification is not manditory.
That the FACTS are critical.
That means that only the courts can either compel or override the decision of the EB.
You have agreed that there exists at least 1 fact pattern in which the EB can chose not to certify.
You have ceded that Certification is not mandatory,
“Now you’re jumping to other cases that are irrelevant to what we are discussing about, the Arizona case.
Legitimate doubts still have to be backed up by credible evidence.”
That is what courts are for. That is why EB’s have choices, and why SoS’s can go to court to get a court order.
But can not engage in criminal extortion.
John, The Cochise EB already tabulated the results. They had the results. Their complaint was that the voting machines were not properly certified which was not true.
Hobbs legally threatened to sue. And she did. As you admit she CAN sue. The EB went to court and a judge ruled against them based on what the law said. The EB could not prove that the machines were not certified correctly. They had no evidence. The court correctly, citing the relevant law, ordered the EB to certify by a certain time because their actions were unlawful. You said it yourself “legitimate doubts must be backed by credible evidence”, the EB did NOT have credible evidence to present to the court. That is why they lost the argument and were legally ordered to certify or face criminal prosecution for unlawfully withholding the certification.
This is not complicated. Yet you are making it more complicated than it is so it would fit into your twisted logic.
Still dodging the issues.
You spray your posts with irrelevant assertions.
And pretend they are meaningful.
As you noted McGinley order certification.
That is within his power to do.
It is fairly evident from your own sources that he failed to conduct anything approaching legitimate inquiry.
But to challenge McGinley the Cochise EB would have had to risk going to jail for contempt.
They chose not to do so.
I am also trying to figure out how Hobb’s got a Pima county judge for a Cochise county case.
That stinks. But again the EB would have to risk jail for contempt to challenge it.
Further nothing you provided actually cites the order.
We have narative from a reporter saying essentially that the Judge did not like the EB’s arguments.
There is no legal finding provided.
So your link does not actually support anything you claim
It is possible after a properly conducted hearing – which this sounds nothing like for a judge to decide that the claims of the EB are not sufficient to refuse to certify. But there is no evidence beyond the narative of the reporter that happened.
But lets presume that actually was the case.
It does not appear that the judge decided as you claim that the law unconditionally requires certification.
If does not appear that the judge decided that because the machines were certified before the election that they must automatically be presumed to have no problems.
Absent an actual written decision or a transcript – and I could not find either on the pima county court website.
We have nothing but some reporters claims.
And you do this all the time. You conflate a reporters opinion about something as an actual quote or fact.
As best as I can tell the judge made the common judicial error of substituting his judgement for that of an actor in a case.
He does not have the power to do that – but again – you have to go to jail for contempt – possibly for a long time to win that.
The other alternative is that he found that the EB’s claim did not meet the constitutional standard necessary for further inquiry.
I would have to have alot of facts that are not available to establish that was a legitimate decision.
But with the correct fact pattern it is possible
An EB can not refuse to certify for no reason.
It also can not refuse to certify for a good reason, if that reason subsequently proves incorrect.
It also can not refuse to certify for good reason, if that reason requires further investigation, and it fails to investigate.
Regardless, the hearing was a farce, the EB was not properly allowed to defend itself.
The judge has absolutely no authority to compel the EB to certify before the deadline.
Doing so is a clear abuse of power. That is the equivalent of denying the EB any right to appeal.
No appeals court will hear the issue after the EB has certified – the issue will be moot.
You accuse the Cochise EB of political games – but that is precisely what Hobb’s and this court are doing.
And there is the completely separate problem that Maricopa county voted to certify and CLEARLY they can not.
They have no idea what the actual vote tally is, and they screwed up so badly they never will be able to tell.
It is not knowable how many votes were supressed because voters got frustrated with ODBP problems and left without voting.
We hear rants from the left about “voter supression” – and here we have an ACTUAL case of voter supression – and what do we get from you – Zip, zilch nada.
It is not possible to know how many unscanable ballots were mixed with actually spoiled ballots, it is not possible to know how many unscanable ballots were mixed with already counted ballots.
Absent some way of proving the number was less than 500 – the AZ AG election is invalid.
Absent some way of proving that number is less that 13000 – the AZ gov election is invalid
Absent some way of proving that the number is less than 110000 – the AZ senate election is invalid.
And that is problems merely related to the ODBP.
There is the possibility that investigation will prove that the ODBP’s were sabatoged. That is election fraud.
Of course with Maricopa country playing the games they have universally played any evidence has probably already been destroyed.
There are a large collation of other problems in Maricopa county.
And this is the 2nd election in a row that Maricopa County stinks to high heaven.
The recall effort for Hobb’s is already under way. You can bet it will be filed 6months +1 day after she takes office.
And finally – once again – Democrats have undermined trust in elections.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/most_voters_share_gop_concerns_about_botched_arizona_election
Facts refute claims – not state election officials.
This is a common error you make.
You constantly cite the words of people as proof of something.
The only reason to cite someone’s words is to prove they actually said something.
I have proved that Hobbs deputy acting in an official capacity threatened the Cochise EB with criminal prosecution.
That is a crime.
The AZ State SoS can not “refute” whatever doubts the Cochise EB has with words.
They must provide FACTS.
Given that all you provided was a claim that the AZ SoS offered words – you did not even provide the words,
your argument fails.
“ I have proved that Hobbs deputy acting in an official capacity threatened the Cochise EB with criminal prosecution.
That is a crime.”
That’s not a crime. That’s citing the law. You didn’t cite what statute makes it a crime for a state official to threaten criminal prosecution for an unlawful action by the EB.
“ The AZ State SoS can not “refute” whatever doubts the Cochise EB has with words.
They must provide FACTS.”
They DID provide facts. They had no credible excuse to withhold certification. That voting machines were not properly certified does not hold up because they HAD TO ENSURE THEY WERE CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION BY STATE LAW. The EB signed off on it prior to the election as the law requires. THAT is why the claims are not credible. That’s why lawyers refused to represent the two board members msking that claim.
I provided the court ruling dismissal that proved them wrong which included the relevant laws being violated.
““ I have proved that Hobbs deputy acting in an official capacity threatened the Cochise EB with criminal prosecution.
That is a crime.”
That’s not a crime. That’s citing the law. ”
No it is a crime.
First she did not merely cite the law, 2nd citing a criminal law that she can not possibly know applies – and almost certainly does not, in the context of a civil matter that if she has any power at all with regard, she must go to CIVIL court, is not criminal.
“You didn’t cite what statute makes it a crime for a state official to threaten criminal prosecution for an unlawful action by the EB.”
There is no exception for state officials – please read the law – I provided the ENTIRE law.
“They DID provide facts.”
Nope.
“They had no credible excuse to withhold certification.”
That is not even an oppinion – that is a guess on your part – even Hobb’s deputy did not claim that. \
” That voting machines were not properly certified does not hold up because they HAD TO ENSURE THEY WERE CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION BY STATE LAW. The EB signed off on it prior to the election as the law requires. THAT is why the claims are not credible. That’s why lawyers refused to represent the two board members msking that claim.”
All of the above is nonsense – it would not be relevant if you proved any of it. And you have not proved any of it.
And you have no idea what logic is – the above is illogic – a string of non sequiturs.
It does not follow from an alleged requirement of the law that election equipment must be certified that it is.
Most equipment throughout the country either isn’t or should not have been because it does not meet the federal standard in 2002 HAV.
It does not follow from your allegation that the equipment is certified that it actually is certified, or that it should be.
If does not follow from your allegation that the EB did sign off that they actually did.
It does not follow from the allegations that the EB did sign off, that they are not subseuently free to conclude there is a problems.
It dos not follow from your allegation regarding lawyers – really pretty much anything.
“I provided the court ruling dismissal that proved them wrong which included the relevant laws being violated.”
Nope.
No county EB sued themselves – therefore NO dismisal would be relevant. Whatever you cited is obviously a tangent.
Hobbs was free to go to civil court and seek an order requiring these EB’s to certify. She did not,
She likely would lose, because the legal standard to elect not to certify and election is likely reasonable suspicion.
They had that.
“ Most equipment throughout the country either isn’t or should not have been because it does not meet the federal standard in 2002 HAV.”
The equipment meets AZ standards. AZ is the one in charge of THEIR standards for election certification. Remember it’s states that have the power to set their own standards according to the U.S. constitution.
You are just moving the goalposts posts here.
“ Hobbs was free to go to civil court and seek an order requiring these EB’s to certify. She did not,
She likely would lose, because the legal standard to elect not to certify and election is likely reasonable suspicion.”
She DID go to court and she did win the case in court.
“ Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), now the state’s governor-elect, sued Cochise County earlier this week after two GOP members on the board voted to delay certification over an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about the certification of voting machines and missed the state’s Monday deadline.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Casey McGinley on Thursday ordered the board of supervisors to certify the election results by 5 p.m. that day.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3758916-arizonas-cochise-county-certifies-election-following-court-order/amp/
How long are you going to keep embarrassing yourself?
Can you quit spraying nonsense about elections – You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not know what you are talking about
I would like to say about election – but really about anything.
NO AZ law does not allow AZ to do whatever it pleases. AZ Law cited below allows only equipment that complies with the federal 2002 HAV act.
That requires certification by the EAC labs meeting standards determined by NIST.
I have separably noted that very little US election equipment actually meets the NIST requirements. This came out in GA in 2020 where more than 1% of ballots were kicked for maunal adjudication – the NIST requires a rate of 1:10000 or greater.
But hey, why should we comply with the law. I would note this is not a red/blue problem. It is more a laziness and incompetence problem on the part of sate SOS’s. 85% of the equipment used in NH in 2020 predated HAVE and had well known problems with folds in ballots.
This was ingored because ballots are not normally folded – until suddenly in 2020 you get mailin ballots
I separately noted that when mechanical voting machines were removed as a result of HAV nearly all were found to have been illegally modified – despite having been tested and certified for years.
The FACT is that certifying voting equipment in the US is a farce.
The only good news is that most of the uncertified – or certified by compliant equipment is unlikely to be altering election results.
That does not change the fact that it is either not actually certified, or if it is, it does not actually meet the certification requirements.
Cochise CO is not going to get anywhere claiming it does not meet the certification requirements – the failure of EAC labs to properly test equipment they certify might be meaningful in a broader challenge. But it is outside the legitimate domain of a county EB absent evidence of failure during the election. But if the specific equipment, software and firmware are not on EAC’s certified list – the EB can legitimately refuse to certify.
Your claims are obviously stupid AZ law requires that election equipment must comply with Federal law.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00442.htm
B. Machines or devices used at any election for federal, state or county offices may only be certified for use in this state and may only be used in this state if they comply with the help America vote act of 2002 and if those machines or devices have been tested and approved by a laboratory that is accredited pursuant to the help America vote act of 2002.
BTW What Cochise county actually did that pissed Hobbs off was to delay certification until after they had reviewed the ACTUAL equipment that they had to ascertain that it was actually certified by the acredited Election Assistance Commission labs that the federal law that the AZ law cites requires.
This should be a simple yes/no binary.
Do you have evidence that the cochise EB either did not check the EAC certification, or that it did found the equipment was certified and then ignored that ?
Something other that narrative by a reporter.
I am not embarrased.
You should be.
You keep citing media naratives as if they are fact.
Have you learned nothing from the past 6 years ?
from the Twitter files ?
Let me make it easy for you, the odds of getting the truth on anything even remotely political from the MSM or SM are near zero.
You said AZ election law essentially allows the SOS to do as she pleases.
That is false.
All AZ election equipment must be certified by a 2002 HAV federally approved lab, meeting NIST set standards for voting machines.
Cochise county voted to verify that was actually true of their equipment before certifying.
If that was actually true – there should be no problem.
If it was not then Kattie Hobbs F’d up.
It appears that Maricopa county has continued all the same errors it made in 2020 – including missing chain of custody for hundreds of thousands of ballots. including repeating all the violations of election law listed in the AZ AG’s final report on the 2020 election.
This is one of the problems with failing to impose a consequence for violating the law – the violations just continue.
“ You constantly cite the words of people as proof of something.”
YOU said Hobbs threatened the EB board with indictment.
By your own evidence that’s still a lie. Her deputy stated the course of action they could take if the EB continued to illegally withhold certification.
You said she made that threat. She didn’t. Her deputy did. If you’re going to argue that direct citations are important and then provide evidence that YOUR claim is indeed false that makes you a dishonest individual. You want literal evidence, but you can’t provide it for your own claim.
You should not be accusing anyone of lying.
It is self evident you have no idea what a lie is.
It is not lying to provide evidence that falls just barely short of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I do not need sufficient evidence to convict Hobb’s to claim she committed a crime.
I need sufficient evidence to accuse Hobb’s – I have provided more than enough to get a search warrant for the SOS’s emails.
Reasonable suspicion is the standard to investigate – BTW it is also the standard for EB members to refuse to certify.
There is reasonable suspicion of problems with Election equipment – the disaster in Maricopa county is sufficient to assume similar possibilities elsewhere in the state.
There is reasonable suspicion that Hobb’s extorted various country EB’s. Her Deputy’s letter is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of extortion,
there is probable cause that she acted at Hobb’s direction.
Conversely there is NOT reasonable suspicion that various AZ EB’s are not acting legitimately.
So the only person LYING is you.
You say X is illegal – without a clue what you are talking about, and Y is legal when the AZ law as well as the slightest understanding of what extortion and blackmail would make clear you are wrong.
You are clueless about the law,
you are clueless about the constitution
and you are clueless about morality.
You demonstrate this over and over – in every post you make.
In this thread alone – I have caught you in numerous bald faced lies.
You still have not corrected a single one.
And you continue to make claims that have been repeatedly PROVEN incorrect.
You are not credible, you are not moral – these are judgements you earn by your own words.
You had the ability to check the BS you have sprayed before spraying it.
“ It is not lying to provide evidence that falls just barely short of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I do not need sufficient evidence to convict Hobb’s to claim she committed a crime.
I need sufficient evidence to accuse Hobb’s – I have provided more than enough to get a search warrant for the SOS’s emails.”
Wrong.
You’re the one who doesn’t understand how the law works.
You are using extortion laws to make the claim that Hobbs or her deputy are committing a crime by threatening legal action on an EB that is acting unlawfully. They are going thru the courts by suing which is legal and according to the law.
“ Citing state law, McGinley noted it is “clear” that the board was “duty bound” to certify the results and submit them to the secretary of state by Monday given that no results were missing from the county’s totals.
McGinley said the board “exceeded its lawful authority in delaying the canvass for a reason that was not permitted by the statute.”
Crosby and Judd, the Republican county supervisors, had claimed they wanted to delay the certification out of concerns about the county’s election equipment, which state officials have confirmed were tested and properly certified.”
…” During Thursday’s hearing, however, an attorney representing the challengers of another lawsuit — brought against the board by the nonprofit Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and a Cochise County voter — suggested those were arguments made in bad faith by Crosby and Judd. The attorney referenced comments Judd had made to The New York Times on Monday that the claims about voting machine problems were “the only thing we have to stand on” as a cover for delaying certification in order to protest the local certification of results in Arizona’s Maricopa County.”
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/01/1140086777/midterm-elections-cochise-county-arizona-ruling
Obviously they were intending to delay the certification as means protesting. That is NOT a legal reason to hold off on the certification. Which means they made up the excuse that the machines were not property certified.
THAT is why your argument is pure BS.
They admitted in court that their goal was to delay the certification. Which is exactly what I have even saying all along. YOU have been making BS claims that the SOC was committing a crime by threatening them with legal action despite they fact that extortion laws in Arizona do NOT apply. You were just grasping at straws trying to justify a “crime” that did not have basis in fact. At all.
They were acting unlawfully and the SOC legally and lawfully issued a threat of legal action. Nothing you have said is true or correct. I have supported all of my claims. YOU have been dancing around and moving the goalposts constantly trying to justify your flawed argument and false claims. Citing extortion laws as justification for that claim would never pass as an argument in court. You would be laughed out of court for even posing that argument.
It’s on record that the only reason they chose not to certify the election in Cochise county was because they were protesting the certification process in Maricopa county. That is NOT a valid reason to withhold the certification in their county. They made the excuse that their voting machines were not properly certified as a means to protest what another county was doing. It was an illegal withholding of the certification process. They had no issues counting their votes and they were already tabulated. The LAW required them to certify the election by certain deadline and they refused because they were doing so as a form of protest.
“ If the official canvass of any county has not been received on the fourth Monday following the general election, the canvass shall be postponed from day to day, not to exceed thirty days from the date of the election, until canvasses from all counties are received.”
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00648.htm
Their intent was to protest an action another county was making. That is NOT their job and NOT what the law allows.
Svelaz,
it is pointless to discuss anything with you – you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass.
I provided you with the actual AZ law.
I have provided actual examples to you that refute your idiotic claims.
Lets try another hypothetical
You are pulled over by a police office for drunk driving. You are actually drunk.
The officer tells you that he will charge you with drunk driving unless you vote for him for city counsel.
You seem to believe that is not a crime.
At the same time you seem to beleive that
If a police officer hears you an a bar bragging about driving drunk in the neighboring county,
and the officer calls the cheif in that county and asks him to look into your drunk driving problem.
That the police officer committed a crime – which crime would that be.
You keep fixating on intent.
We have been over this before – intent as you use it is not a crime, nor an element of any crime.
Criminal intent – mens rea, means that you knew what you were doing was wrong.
It does not mean that you did something that pisses off people you do not like.
If an act is legal – whether done by a republican or a democrat – claims about why the person did it are irrelevant.
If an act is ACTUALLY illegal – whether done by a republican or a democrat – claims about why the person did it are irrelevant.
Jurries like to know why people committed a crime, it is easier for people to believe circumstantial evidence of a crime when there is a clear reason for the crime. But while most crimes require that the actor did so deliberately knowing what they were doing was wrong, it does not matter whether the purpose for the crime was good or bad.
If I murder someone who I beleive to be sexually assaulting children – that is still murder, even though my intent – either to punish an abuser or to stop the abuser is good.
Conversely if I slam on my brakes at a red light in the hope that the idiot behind me who flipped me the bird will slam into my car and get arrested.
That is stupid, that is a bad intent, but it is not a crime.
I am never going to care WHY you think someone did something.
Not only is it irrelevant. But it is self evident that you are crappy at judging the intent of others.
You can use your ouija board to decide who you will vote for.
It is irrelevant with respect to whether an act is a crime or whether it is legal.
It is also irrelevant whether the actor is republican or democrat.
Your posts are a mess, they are filled with bad law, and bad logic, factual errors, and downright lies from end to end.
“You are using extortion laws to make the claim that Hobbs or her deputy are committing a crime by threatening legal action on an EB that is acting unlawfully.”
It would be nice if you could write a coherent sentence. I would suggest that rather than paraphrase me that you should quote me.
I am responsible for what I wrote and how I wrote it. Not the mangled way you rewrote it.
The differences are important.
There are circumstances were threatening legal action might be extortion – generally they are not, and that is not what is discussed.
I do not care that Hobb’s deputy threatened to sue the Cochise County EB – that was legitimately in her purview.
She accused the EB of a crime if they did not provide something of value – in this case something of personal value.
That is extortion. I provided the law. Extortion is not magically legal just because you are in government – or even criminal law enforcement – which Hobbs is not. It is a crime for a police officer to threaten to charge you with a crime that you actually committed if you do not give him something of value.
Bribery and extortion are mirrors. If I offer a public servant something of value if they do not charge me with a crime I committed – that is bribery.
If the officer threatens to charge me with a crime if I do not provide something of value – that is extortion.
There are several other forms of extortion most of those are not applicable. Though there is also a section about threats against a public official that might apply, the EB are public officials.
I am glad that Hobb’s eventually went to court. She was free to threaten that. She was free to actually do that.
It is difficult to tell what actually happened in court as the articles you link are bereft of relevant facts and full of irrelevant ones.
Though you have forced me to look into this further.
Contra your claim the EB’s motion to delay certification was perfectly legitimate. Their motion specified that they were seeking to determine if the tabulators used in Cochise County were certified by EAC as the AZ law requires. I cited the AZ law on this.
I am not certain whether the federal 2002 HAV is a mandatory election requirement for state or is merely conditional for federal funding. I suspect the latter – though the constitution does actually give some power over federal elections to congress. Regardless, AZ changed there law to require compliance with 2002 HAV – specifically requiring EAC lab certified equipment meeting NIST standards.
I am going to skip the NIST standards – because there is lots of evidence that EAC labs have been certifying equipment that does not meet the NIST standards, that is irrelevant here as they law would not allow the Cochise County EB to substitute its judgement regarding NIST compliance for that of EAC labs.
The core question is whether the Cochise County Tabulators with there current software and firmware versions are EAC labs certified.
Cochise County tabled certification until Nov 28 in order to determine that.
I have found no record that a determination that the equipment was EAC labs certified by the Nov. 28 deadline.
The Cochise County EB can refuse to certify with sufficient basis, and that basis is small.
They can delay to investigate – but they must actually investigate.
If they found the Tabulators were actually certified – then absent another issue, they must certify.
If they found the tabulators were not certified – then they would have to start a hand recount, because while the tabulators must be certified, it is not required to use tabulators to certify an election. It is required to count the votes in a legally valid way. UnCertified tabulators is not legally valid. Properly done hand counts ALWAYS are.
Nothing in your article on the hearing addresses any of that. This is why I want a transcript and/or an order.
A judge can order the Cochise EB to certify by the deadline – but only if there are no reasons sufficient to refuse to certify.
The judge can order the EB to not slow walk certification. If the Tabulators are EAC certified, he can order the EB to certify by the deadline – if there are no other problems. If they are not he can order the EB to hand recount and certify when that is complete.
But he can not order them to ignore a valid reason to not certify, only to resolve that if possible by the deadline.
But we do not know the actual facts.
And your idiotic rants that all this is some conspiracy theory is a phony distraction.
The tabulators must be certified or the ballots must be recounted by hand, or alternately Hobb’s could provide actually certified tabulators.
With respect to your claims about lawyers, the county solicitor was actually legally bound to represent the EB – and he should be fired for failing to do so. He was legally required to argue the law in its most favorable light for the EB. But no lawyer anywhere can be required present facts to a court that they KNOW to be false. As an example if the Solicitor knows the Tabulators are EAC certified he can not present evidence they are not. If he knows the Tabulators are not certified, and the EB is not hand counting the vote he can not say they are.
There is a completely different problem in Maricopa county where the almost 300K ballots with no chain of custody, the improper mixing of ballots, appears to make it impossible to count the election at all. If already counted ballots were mixed with uncounted ballots – the Maricopa resutls are wrong, but a recount would correct that. But if spoiled ballots were mixed in that is not likely correctable.
Further ballots without a proper chain of custody could not be counted on election day, and can not be counted in a recount.
Maricopa county never should have certified.
But again we do not actually know what went on in this hearing.
What we do know is irrelevant and stupid spin from you and the reporter.
And if the actual events at the hearing were as described by the reporter, and nothing else.
Then the judge erred.
I know that you just want to make up the law as you go.
And unfortunately the left and to a lessor extent some on the right have contaminated so many judges and lawyers,
that making up the law as you go, is closer to the norm – even in court.
“Obviously they were intending to delay the certification as means protesting.”
Not obvious and not relevant.
“That is NOT a legal reason to hold off on the certification.”
It is not, it is also not relevant.
The only thing that IS relevant is whether they have a legitimate reason.
your guesses as to their intent are irrelevant.
Your presumption that their intent is obvious is irrelevant.
” Which means they made up the excuse that the machines were not property certified.”
Non sequitur
“THAT is why your argument is pure BS.”
Read above – your reasoning is bogus and irrelevant.
You get sucked into tangents over speculations regardin intent which is irrelevant.
“They admitted in court that their goal was to delay the certification. ”
I doubt that and it is certainly not in any evidence.
“Which is exactly what I have even saying all along.”
Correct, you are constantly saying lots of both irrelevant and likely incorrect things.
“YOU have been making BS claims that the SOC was committing a crime by threatening them with legal action despite they fact that extortion laws in Arizona do NOT apply.”
Not what I said, please use MY words, and yes – extortion law do apply in AZ – I cited AZ’s extortion law from multiple sources.
I have explained it.
“You were just grasping at straws trying to justify a “crime” that did not have basis in fact. At all.”
The extortion issue is independent. Again as typical you are incapable to sound reasoning.
There is more than sufficient evidence to investigate extortion. There is probably enough to convict.
Removing one clause from the email would have made it legal.
Further we do not know what else is out there. Purportedly there were many emails – not just this one.
And several outlets claim there are communications threatening to indict.
“They were acting unlawfully and the SOC legally and lawfully issued a threat of legal action.”
Again you mangle the facts. There is no evidence they were acting illegally.
You continue to confuse – I do not like what they are doing with illegal.
Hobb’s was free to challenge their actions in court – which after committing a crime herself she actually did.
The court is free to look at the facts and the law and order the EB to do what is possible, if that is possible.
To complete the investigation they started. to recount the election with a certified tabulator if one is available or to recount the election by hand.
But he is not free to order them to certify an election counted with an uncertified tabulator – if that is the case. Nor can he order certification over legitimate concerns about error or fraud. But he can order those concerns to be investigated, and if resolved to certify.
We know that he order the EB to certify. From what little we have in YOUR media links, we do not have evidence to know that he did so legitimately.
But as is typical – you presume that irrelevant ranting by the media, or a stupid and inaplicable rant is actual fact,
And you do so in a way that means that if things are True as you claim them – then the court acted improperly.
“Nothing you have said is true or correct.”
Everything I have said is true and correct.
“I have supported all of my claims.”
Todate you have supported none of your claims
I have had to provide most of the law on this. You have made lots of stupid claims about right wing conspiracy theories, and nonsense that the AZ election law absolutely requires certification no matter what – which has been absurd fromt he start.
You have offered long rants about alleged, unproven motives – when motives have nothing to do with the relevant law.
“YOU have been dancing around and moving the goalposts constantly trying to justify your flawed argument and false claims.”
I have not changed my position on anything.
“Citing extortion laws as justification for that claim would never pass as an argument in court. You would be laughed out of court for even posing that argument.”
Again – stick to what I have actually said. Hobb’s actual extortion is completely independent of the court case regarding Cochise EB.
Just as your idiotic nonsense about motives and conspiracy theories has no place in that courtroom, nor does Hobb’s extortion.
And I have not claimed otherwise.
Hobb’s motives – she is desparate to become governor and is intent on forcing the issue regardless of the law or election problems,
has absolutely no bussiness in the Cochise EB lawsuit. The questions there are simple.
What is the basis for delaying certification ? It appears that is to verify the EAC certification of the tabulators. Has that been done ?
Are the tabulators Certified ? If not what is being done to legally count the ballots ? Is there any reason the election can not be certified by the deadline ? Is there any reason it can not be certified at all ?
There is no place for What are your motives ? There is no place for What bad things has Hobb’s done ?
“It’s on record that the only reason they chose not to certify the election in Cochise county was because they were protesting the certification process in Maricopa county.”
If it is on the record you would have that record. Regardless AGAIN, no ones motives – not the Cochise EB not Hobb’s are relevant.
It is the law and their ACTIONS that are relevant.
“That is NOT a valid reason to withhold the certification in their county.”
It is not, it is also not on the record, it is just nonsense narative from a reporter, or ouija board readings from you.
It is also not relevant.
You will note that I have wasted paragraphs repeating over and over – your claims, even actual motives ARE NOT RELEVANT.
The possibiliy that the Tabulators are not certified is a valid reason.
It is also a reason that can be resolved, and that when resolved can be acted on.
But it still is a valid reason.
“They made the excuse that their voting machines were not properly certified as a means to protest what another county was doing.”
Again more irrelevant nonsense from your ouija board.
“It was an illegal withholding of the certification process.”
Nope.
“They had no issues counting their votes and they were already tabulated.”
Again YOUR narrative, not an established fact.
The EB provided a valid reason for delay. Not one for infinite delay.
“The LAW required them to certify the election by certain deadline”
False, we have been through that already. The law can not order you to do the impossible,
it also can not order you to turn a blind eye to error or fraud.
“and they refused because they were doing so as a form of protest.”
Back to ouija board and irrelevant nonsense about motives.
““ If the official canvass of any county has not been received on the fourth Monday following the general election, the canvass shall be postponed from day to day, not to exceed thirty days from the date of the election, until canvasses from all counties are received.””
So ? You continue to try to create an absolute commandment when there is none. Worse for you they only “shall” in your citation, is “shall be postponed”
“Their intent was to protest an action another county was making. That is NOT their job”
Correct, and not relevant.
” and NOT what the law allows.”
Inaccurate, the law does not care about motives. The law allows for legitimate delay, legitimate inquiry, the expeditious resolution of problems where possible and an absolute refusal to certify if there is no resolution to problems.
The intentions of those administering the law are irrelevant.
Hobb’s undeniable motive was to win the governor’s race. She should have recused because of that.
But she did not. The consequence is that in everything that is challenged were there is doubt about her actions those actions should be presumed to be in her self interest.
But Hobb’s motives do not change the law.
Just as your guesses at to the Cochise EB’s motives do not change the law.
“YOU said Hobbs threatened the EB board with indictment.
By your own evidence that’s still a lie.”
Nope.
” Her deputy stated the course of action they could take if the EB continued to illegally withhold certification.”
Yes, her deputed stated an ILLEGAL course of action – EXTORTION
I provided the statute.
“You said she made that threat. She didn’t. Her deputy did.”
NO her deputy made ONE of many threats that were made.
There is more than enough here to open a criminal incestigation into Hobb’s conduct.
I would note that Hobb’s is the SOS her Deputy presumptively acts at her direction.
Do you have proof that the Deputy was acting entirely on her own ?
“If you’re going to argue that direct citations are important and then provide evidence that YOUR claim is indeed false that makes you a dishonest individual. You want literal evidence, but you can’t provide it for your own claim.”
What I provided – whether you like that or not is MORE than sufficient to justify a criminal investigation of Hobb’s for extortion.
As I have addressed before – the standards to investigate, search, indict, prosecute, convict are set by the constitution.
Not by Hobb’s, not be you.
You made lots of claims about various EB members. Most of those claims are irrelevant and and YOU provided no evidence.
“ As I have addressed before – the standards to investigate, search, indict, prosecute, convict are set by the constitution.
Not by Hobb’s, not be you.”
Provided the exact article in the AZ constitution where it specifically addresses the criteria to investigate for the election. If you are citing a general article for investigation you are not being honest with what you are implying. The law requires specific reasons and Hobbs as SOC can issue legal threats when a government body is unlawfully refusing to comply with the law.
“ YOU said Hobbs threatened the EB board with indictment.
By your own evidence that’s still a lie.”
Nope.
” Her deputy stated the course of action they could take if the EB continued to illegally withhold certification.”
Yes, her deputed stated an ILLEGAL course of action – EXTORTION
I provided the statute.”
LOL! John Hobbs isn’t a deputy. You use literal meanings all the time. You rely on literal interpretations until it becomes an inconvenience. Your claim still remains false because Hobbs herself didn’t make the threat. Per YOUR literal view of everything you are wrong.
The legal threat was not extortion. It doesn’t meet the legal definition in AZ law. The statute defines it as a threat of theft of property thru threats. Certification is not property or theft.
The EB is acting unlawfully by withholding the certification over a spurious claim that voting machines were not properly certified long after they had multiple opportunities to raise the issue BEFORE the election. Their evidence was insufficient to support the claim given the records and the EB’s own acceptance of the machines meaning they confirmed the certification of the machines proper to using them as per the law. It was a very poor and easily debunked excuse. They lost in court and they were acting unlawfully. That is why a legal threat was not a crime.
It’s quite evident that you have no understanding of how law works. You want it to work a certain way only when it benefits your argument or disagreement not how it actually works.
“Provided the exact article in the AZ constitution where it specifically addresses the criteria to investigate for the election. If you are citing a general article for investigation you are not being honest with what you are implying.”
The law regarding the requiremnts for every escalating step of law enforcement is defined in great detail by the surpreme court of the united states. AZ can impose more rigid standard. it can NOT relax the standard imposed by SCOTUS.
These apply to ALL law enforcement activities in the US – in DC, in AZ everywhere. The apply to all allegations – all investigations, election fraud, car theft. drug dealing. There is not “election investigation law or criteria”.
Again you are wrong.
There is no AZ election specific law on investigations. I highly doubt there is an AZ general law on investigations.
The law on law eneforement actions is defined by the US constitution and the caselaw established by SCOTUS over the course of 250 years, and that resting on hundreds of years of british common law.
“The law requires specific reasons”
Then you could cite that law. You have not, you just make things up as you go.
“Hobbs as SOC can issue legal threats when a government body is unlawfully refusing to comply with the law.”
Nope, if that was true you could cite actual law that says so.
There are so many ways that is false.
As I noted almost all threats to accuse someone of a crime if they do not give you something of value are extortion – which is a felony.
There is no exception for the SOS. There is no exception for a government body – that is actually ludicrously stupid.
Individuals commit crimes. Government bodies unconstitutionally violate rights.
You can not put a government body in jail. You can not charge them with a crime. You can sue them for violating your rights.
You can charge individuals with crimes. SOMETIMES you can charge them for crimes with respect to their acts as government officials.
As a rule of thumb – which you are abysmal at if a law – particularly a criminal law reads broadly, it is either unconstitutional, or must be read narrowly.
again this should not be something that you think of as conservative or liberal.
It is simple logic. The more broadly you read the law the more you criminalize until you have criminalized everything.
Svelaz – it is also obvious that you are wrong about everything in AZ for very simple reasons.
The election in AZ was clearly F’d up.
You and I can debate the scale of that Fup. But it should be obvious that we do not decide the scale of a problem based on what Kattie Hobbs says or what Kari Lake says or what some election commissioner sitting in the middle of the mess says.
The utterances of all of these people are assertions, not facts.
They do not become FACTS until they have been investigated.
That has NOT occurred. And we do not allow those in government to investigate themselves.
Except the core problem is that when YOU are part of anything – nothing I have said above holds.
In Svelaz world – what anyone says that favors your prefered outcome is true What anyone says that opposes your prefered outcome is false.
You claim that the cochise EB’s can not refuse to cetify because they have doubts about the election equipment.
If that claim were actually true even if the tabulators produced counts that were far higher than the total population of cochise country – the EB would have to certify – because the law says they must certify and because since the participated in the certification of the tabulators they are barred from claiming problems now.
That is not how the world works.
You are mangling the law to force it to be – it does not matter what might go wrong, there is no remedy.
and you do not appear to be capable of understanding that is obviously error.
If the law was that way there would never be a way to correct any problem with an election.
“MULTIPLE LAWYERS REFUSED TO REPRESENT THEM BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE LAW ON THEIR SIDE.”
First if True – which I can trivially prove false, that would be irrelevant.
Lawyers almost NEVER refuse cases because the law is not on their potential clients side.
They refuse cases because the have no time.
Because they have no expertise
Because they are concerned about publicity.
Because they are being threatened – nearly every republican election law firm in the country has been threatened by Bar associations for taking cases challenging democrats in elections. This has been the biggest problem trying to persue investigations into the 2020 ballot harvesting that TTV found. Every single Republican Prosecutor in the State of GA was told they would face disbarment if they opened an investigation of ballot harvesting in GA. Making this threat clear was the reason for going after Gulliani and Powell – because Contra left wing nuts, it is NOT an ethics violation for a lawyer to be wrong about either the facts or the law. It happens all the time. In fact it happens atleast 50% of the time.
Because in every single case the losing lawyer was either wrong about the facts or the law – or the judge and jury were.
Regardless, lawyers frequently take cases in which “the law is not on their side”.
This is one of the most stupid arguments in the world.
Whenever you can not get a lawyer to take your case – the problem is NEVER with your case, or that the law is not on your side.
Often it is because the lawyer does not want the enemies that taking this case would create.
Gerry Spence – on of the Great US criminal defense lawyers wrote that one of his great regrets in life was NOT taking the Terry Nichols case.
Alan Derschowitz is one of the greatest modern lawyers specifically because he was willing to take cases no one else would touch – and because he frequently won them.
I can not stop you from making this argument.
But it just makes you look stupid everytime you make it.
If Trump or Republicans or the Cochise EB are having trouble getting lawyers it is either because there are very few election lawyers,
or because modern democrat lawyers are NOT like Derschowitz and Bailey and Spence – willing to defend to the best of their ability people they do not like or agree with, or because democrats have used bar associations and judges to threaten republican lawyers.
Regardless, there is not a GOOD reason that republicans can not get lawyers.
My wife is a criminal appellate lawyer. Most of her clients are reprehensible people who have done abhorrent acts.
She still defends them. she does not take only the cases she likes the law, she does not take only the cases where clients are innocent.
Changing topics
60% of her cases are sex crimes, 50% of those are peodphiles, 25% of those are teachers. There is no evidence that peodophiles are more likely to be gay or Trans. But there is plenty of evidence that peodophiles will claim to be gay or trans if that allows them access to children.
If you normalize the discussion of sex with children by teachers – you will have a gold rush of peodophiles heading for the teaching profession, and you will have a generation of children who are sexually abused or more – because nearly all peodophiles were themselves victims of sexual abuse as kids.
Lawyers can choose not to represent for whatever reason they want. No lawyer is obligated to take a case.
The lawyers that refused to represent the EB in Arizona had every reason to refuse given the flimsiness of their case. It was their choice.
Trump can’t get decent lawyers because he’s a horrible client. He puts them and their careers in legal jeopardy every time. Even the best and brightest law firms have rightly refused to represent trump. Because he’s an idiot and loves to shoot his mouth off when he’s better off shutting up.
“ There is no evidence that peodophiles are more likely to be gay or Trans. But there is plenty of evidence that peodophiles will claim to be gay or trans if that allows them access to children.
If you normalize the discussion of sex with children by teachers – you will have a gold rush of peodophiles heading for the teaching profession, and you will have a generation of children who are sexually abused or more – because nearly all peodophiles were themselves victims of sexual abuse as kids.”
Wow, that’s some really messed up logic.
There’s also plenty of evidence pedophiles claim to be priests so they can have access to children in unrestricted and unsupervised environments. Does that mean all priests are pedophiles? No. But it must be assumed they are.
Talking to kids about sex is not a crime. Sex education involves talking to kids about sex. Even when it involves explicit descriptions. Comprehensive sex education also benefits kids because they can understand when others are really trying to abuse them. Those who are “protected” from such discussions are more vulnerable than those that are not. Something to think about.
“Lawyers can choose not to represent for whatever reason they want. No lawyer is obligated to take a case.”
Getting the truth out of you is like pulling teeth.
“The lawyers that refused to represent the EB in Arizona had every reason to refuse given the flimsiness of their case. ”
non sequitur. Further no ethical lawyer will ever state that they refused a case for reasons that prejudice the party that sought their representation.
You can malign people who are not your clients. You can not ethically malign people who asked for your services and you declined.
“It was their choice.”
“Trump can’t get decent lawyers because he’s a horrible client.”
non sequitur – and again no evidence.
” He puts them and their careers in legal jeopardy every time.”
Again non sequitur – also false. You are litterally making a claim that is not even possible.
You can represent a maffia don, you can argue law that you know is wrong. you can cast doubt on obvious facts – and NEVER face legal jeophardy as a lawyer. In fact with very few exceptions you may be legally obligated to do that.
In senate confirmation hearings over and over prospective Biden appointees have been grilled by Republican senators over legal articles, they have written, briefs they have written clients they have represented.
UNIVERSALLY, they have CORRECTLY stated that you can not presume their legal position on an issue from work they did for a client.
There is absolutely no legal jeopardy that Can EVER arise based on the Clients you represent or even the legal claims you choose to argue.
Where we have seen the Bar or judges claim otherwise – THEY not those they sought to punish were violating centuries old legal cannons.
“Even the best and brightest law firms have rightly refused to represent trump.”
Trump has been and continues to be represented by excellent law firms.
He has won far far far more cases than he has lost. And todate the few losses have been inconsequential.
Trump ultimately lost the case to provide the house his tax returns, and then Bennett of Mazzars Trump’s accountant confirmed under oath that Trump lost substantial amounts of money on his tax returns for every single year that the House requested.
BTW that is also another reason the idiotic case in NY should have been thrown out. You can not engage in criminal tax evasion – if you do not owe taxes.
“Because he’s an idiot and loves to shoot his mouth off when he’s better off shutting up.”
Which he is free to do.
I would note that just like with Covid – most things in the world involve MANY factors.
Contra our public health experts thwarting Covid was not the ONLY objective in 2020.
Not killing the economy, not destroying our education system, not increasing deaths from other causes were all factors to consider in EVERY decision. And yet they were not.
When Trump faces some court challenge – his risk in court is ONE issue that he must be concerned about.
It is the ONE issue that his Lawyers are concerned about. It is NOT the only issue Trump cares about.
Trump unleashed all kinds of attacks on Mueller his team. As a legal strategy that was Horrible.
Trump was repeatedly advised not to by excellent lawyers. It is generally unwise to personally attack someone with the ability to charge you with a crime.
But Trump knew something YOU still do not know – that he was not guilty of anything. He KNEW that the only way Mueller could ever come up with anything was to bend or break the law. And Trump had the resources to catch him – if he did.
Further to function as president, and to have any hope of re-election he had to not merely be innocent, he had to BEHAVE innocent.
Innocent people rail against an injust system when they are falsely accused.
Guilty people follow the advice of their lawyers.
Even the MAL case that you are so sure you understand.
Most lawyers would have advised Trump not to file it.
The best place to challenge a Warrant is once an indictment has been made – the rights of the accused are clear, and the burden of proof is on the government. There is lots of case law that favors Trump in the criminal context.
The 11th got the case wrong – fundimentally because their incorrect legal conclusion is that their decision does not prohibit Trump from challenging anything later in a criminal trial.
They are Wrong – because all searches and seizures do not result in criminal trials. The fact that Trump can raise every claim he made with Cannon in a criminal court later and win much of it, does not alter the fact that he has the right to go to court NOW to protect his 4th amendment rights.
But again – no criminal lawyer would advise that. The civil litigation was a minefield for Trump and his lawyers.
It was very dangerous because in most instances the burden of proof was on Trump, and because DOJ and Dearry were actively trying to goad Trump into admissions that would make it easier to prosecute or handcuff his defense later.
As an example there was no chance that Trump was going to agressively litigate the claim that the documents marked classified had been declassified by him. In a civil Trial – he MUST prove that. But in a criminal proceeding the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the documents are classified.
Regardless, my point is Trump’s civil case was fundimentally NOT about the law. It was about making DOJ/FBI/Biden look politically out of control – and Trump has succeeded at that.
Regardless, Law and courts are just a tool. For most of us, when there is legal jeopardy the ONLY thing that matters is that legal jeopardy.
That is not true in most Trump cases.
“Wow, that’s some really messed up logic.”
No it is not logic it is fact.
Our criminal law in my state certainly and in most if not all states in this country makes almost all sexual activity with children criminal – with some changes as the child ages.
There are no exceptions for teachers, or ministers or even parents. And people go to jail every day for things we see left wing nut teachers on TikTok claiming they do in their classes.
You have two choices:
Do not interact with children in ways that are criminal.
Change the law.
Shoudl you successfully do the latter I can assure you that actual peophiles will flood the teaching profession (there are already a disproportionate number as it is) and you will end up with mass sexual abuse of kids – even very young kids on a scale you have never seen.
And worse – you will have created a problem that will follow you for generations.
The most potent tool we have to prevent the sexual abuse of children – particularly young children is the FACT that pretty much all children KNOW that sexual interactions with adults are WRONG and often such things eventually – sometimes years later get reported.
Destroy that and you will have a free for all.
“There’s also plenty of evidence pedophiles claim to be priests”
No there are plenty of peodophiles that seek to be priests or ministers or teachers or boy scout leaders or anything that gains them access to children.
“so they can have access to children in unrestricted and unsupervised environments. Does that mean all priests are pedophiles?”
No but it means that we have to be incredibly careful about the relationship we allow priests to have with children or actual peodophiles will take advantage.
“No. But it must be assumed they are.”
False. The correct assumption that is what the law makes is not that all priests are pedophiles, but that nearly all sexual interation with kids by adults is criminal. And we are especially concerned where classes of people have unusual access to kids.
“Talking to kids about sex is not a crime.”
Unless you are the kids parent (and sometimes then), or unless the kid is reporting abuse to you, or unless you are in a formal sex education class, then in most circumstances actually it is a crime. If you doubt that find a 4yr old in a grocery store and start discussing felatio with them and see how long it takes before you are jailed – and likely raped yourself.
“Sex education involves talking to kids about sex.”
Inside a formal class confined to what it is actually critically important for kids to know.
Before Puberty about all a kid needs to know is that adults trying to engage them about sex are WRONG.
That it is the ADULT that is wrong, and that they should report that to another adult.
“Even when it involves explicit descriptions.”
Nope. Even as kids enter puberty there is not alot they need to know.
Avoid sex until you are adult.
How to avoid pregnancy if you will not avoid sex
How to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
That is pretty much it.
“Comprehensive sex education also benefits kids because they can understand when others are really trying to abuse them.”
Nope. First of all only a moron thinks you can comprehensively educate a 4yr old.
REALITY requires that the means to prevent the sexual abuse of children must be SIMPLE.
Adults are not permitted to engage in anything sexual with kids. When they do the adult is wrong and find an adult that is safe to report that too.
THAT IS ALL that is needed.
THAT IS ALL that is possible for many kids.
“Those who are “protected” from such discussions are more vulnerable than those that are not.”
False.
“Something to think about.”
I have – you have not.
almost 40 years ago my wife was abucted on Sunday as she walked to the church where she was the organist. She was sexually assaulted in horrible ways for 3 hours before she was released. For more than a decade this damaged her life – and mine to a lessor extent.
During that time we learned far more than you will even know about sexual assault – both of adults and children. And about the lifelong damage that results. Almost everyone who comitts a “sex crime” was the victim of sexual abuse as a child.
Today my wife is one of the top criminal appellate lawyers in our state. about 60% of her clients are sex offenders. Nearly everyone was abused as a child.
This is a subject that YOU know nothing about.
This is a subject that the idiot 20 somethings in pink hair with nose rings teaching our children know NOTHING about.
Few of them are pedophiles, But some are. Pedophiles have been disportionately represented in all professsions involving close contact with kids – including teachers.
Further Kids are abysmal reporters of sex crimes. Many instances of abuse go unreported. Many false claims of abuse result in prosecutions and convictions. The witnesses to child sex abuse are nearly always only the children. Even 14yr olds make absymal witnesses, 4yr olds are nearly useless. We do not convict people we should and we convict people we should not.
Your claim that somehow providing children with more information will improve that is ludicrously stupid.
We have large numbers of false claims as well as large numbers of unreported abuse among teens and adults who have and can understand the information you wish to impart.
What works – or more accurately works as best as possible is near black and white rules for kids. Adults should not initiate conversations with kids about sex, and sexual education in school does not start until puberty approaches and is confined to what is critical for kids.
At whatever age – if kids wish to address things like sexual identity – they can do so with parents or with the myriads of resources on the internet.
Regardless, for the most part none of that is necescary at all until you are older.
There is SOME evidence that people know they are gay by 4 or 5. SO WHAT ?
If you knew you were straight at 5 does that mean you should start having sex ?
There is nothing younger kids NEED to know about sex aside from to watch out for adults who want to discus sex with them.
What little – and it should actually be little Sex education we give Teens is specifically because too many of them are going to engage in sex before they are ready. They STILL should be taught to stay away from adults.
There are myriads of statistics that confer that your future success in life increases they longer you wait before becoming sexually active.
We are not supposed to be teaching kids to do what they want. But to do what is best for them.
Beyond that as has ALWAYS been the duty of PARENTS, it is our job to as best as possible protect them from the bad decisions that they will make as kids. It is a PARENTS job to make sure that children do not make life altering decisions until they are adults, and that if they do while not without consequence – we learn from consequences, that the life long damage is mitigated.
“ Further Kids are abysmal reporters of sex crimes.”
Yes they are, because they don’t know what is actually wrong or right when it comes to sex abuse. If they were taught in school about such differences they would be more aware of why something would be wrong.
Teaching them about the realities of what gender and sexual identity are today and the the simple fact that it does exists is not “grooming” or “sexualizing” children. It’s sex education. It’s comprehensive sex education and it should be required in school. The more kids learn the facts instead of learning it from ignorant friends and family. They would be better off knowing that what they see out of school is normal and part of a changing society. Kids are always going to be curious and will always be asking their teachers about it.
Conservatives have this aversion to teaching kids basic sex education and acknowledging the basic fact that things such as homosexuals and transgendered individuals exist is all that they need to know, but conservatives and republicans are losing their minds and scaring others by making false claim about what they are teaching kids regarding those realities. They are deliberately demonizing a subset of people because they don’t like what they are and are deliberately wanting to erase their existence from our cultural norms. They WANT to go back to when things were “normal”. You can’t. Cultures and society changes all the time. This is why it’s better to educate kids or young adults about the realities of life outside of school and have some semblance of understanding it.
It’s not about some radical LGBTQ agenda. Nobody really explains that, but it sure helps make it as scary as possible for parents and politicians who stand to gain by scaring voters into voting for them.
You are up to your neck in $hit and do not seem to be smart enough to crawl out.
You are again talking about something you are clueless about.
Yes, you can fix the problems with kids reporting sex crimes – with about 10 years of moral education and maturity.
You will not solve the problem more simply.
First, 4 year olds have a tenuous connection to reality.
They beleive in magic. It is an attribute that is endearing, but one that means they are near useless as witnesses or in protecting themselves.
They have an inherent trust in adults and dependence on them.
They do not know right from wrong, and a programmed to please the adult closest to them.
They are trivially manipulated.
They are not adults, they are not even teens, and all the education in the world will not make up for the fact that it will be 25 years before they will have a fully developed adult brain.
One of the reasons that you can not push sexual identity on 4 yr olds is because the closest will get them to buy more anything.
As I said above – they beleive in magic – and adults thing it is adorable, until some idiot teacher has convinced them they are not a boy,
which they beleive just as much as they do that Santa is real, and that they can fly.
“If they were taught in school about such differences they would be more aware of why something would be wrong.”
Not at that age.
“Teaching them about the realities of what gender and sexual identity are today”
Would be as rational as teaching them particle physics or the cosmology of Narnia.
Children are not minature adults whose heads are empty vesels that you can fill as you wish.
“the simple fact that it does exists is not “grooming””
Correct, But it is EXACTLY the same thing that an actual peodophile would do with a child,
and whether it si a peodophile doing it or someone who is not, it will ACTUALY make them MORE not less vulnerable.
“or “sexualizing” children.”
It is exactly that.
“It’s sex education.”
It might as well be particle physics.
” It’s comprehensive sex education and it should be required in school.”
You might as well start teaching them how to solve mathematical equations.
You are destroying your own argument.
In 1st grade we teach children to add – we do not teach them quadratic equations. Comprehensive sex education is probably not possible until half way through HS – and by then unnecessary.
“The more kids learn the facts instead of learning it from ignorant friends and family. ”
More of this nonsense about fake experts. Teachers are HOPEFULLY good at teaching.
The vast majority of them are not especially good at anything else.
Precisely why should anyone trust a 22 yr old with purple hair and a nose rung who is still finding herself and not figured out her own sexualtiy to teach kids ?
I would note that I said HOPEFULLY teachers can teach – most of them cant. That is BTW true of most professions.
Paretto distribution applies universally to pretty much all skills. 20% of teachers have 80% of the ability.
But we do not have enough great teachers, great engineers, great artists, great doctors,
We have to muddle by with what we have. A major part of that is NOT expecting all that much out of your average teacher.
We already know from experience with cyber charters that the average single parent with some help over the internet can do substantially better at educating their child than the average teacher.
I am not mostly trying to insult teachers – just deflate your idiotic notions that we can start “comprehensive sex education” anytime before HS and expect anything good to come of it.
Kids are not ready and very few teachers are capable if they actually were. Teachers are not some broad class of experts in ANYTHING,
they are just the resource we have to teach our kids. Rather than your magical thinking
Join the real world and consider what is actually possible – with normal children and ordinary teachers.
It is not that much. I would note that in far too many instance we have not taught kids to read by the time they graduate from HS.
And you are deluded enough to beleive the same teachers and kids are going to manage “comprehensive sex education” ?
Your smoking dope.
All you are doing is painting a bullseye on kids for pedophiles.
And the results will be disasterous.
You do not seem to get – the ordinary adult is remarkably tolerant of the left foisting marxist garbage that they really know wont work on them.
The left is very good at guilting people, particularly those under 30.
But all you have to do is start pushing the same stuff onto the same adults children and Momma Bear comes out.
You can persuade a 25yr old that they are drowning in privileged and some kind of subconscious racist.
But say the same nonsense about their child and the claws come out.
We suddenly become rational when it is our kids.
As adults we can pretend to want litteral equality, we can pretend our own self interest is evil – when it is actually the most potent force for good in the universe.
Bu no parent on earth wants their child to be “equal” to other kids.
Every parent wants their kid to have ever possible advantage that they are able to get for them.
“They would be better off knowing that what they see out of school is normal and part of a changing society.”
They would be better off knowing particle fourier transforms too, but that is not going to happen.
You really as so disconnected from th real world that you can not grasp how magical your thinking is.
” Kids are always going to be curious and will always be asking their teachers about it.”
They are, and you will have more than enough work keeping them from jumping off the garage roof because they think they can fly.
Sex and sexuality is NOT a consequential need until much later in life.
“Conservatives”
Not a conservative.
” have this aversion to teaching kids basic sex education and acknowledging the basic fact that things such as homosexuals and transgendered individuals exist is all that they need to know”
False and irrelevant. This is not about “conservatives” – and you do not seem to grasp this.
It is about YOU. YOU are the one seeking to make radical changes to education that will predictably have very bad consequences.
Even if everything you say about conservatives were true. That would be irrelevant – that is a word you should think about pretty much everytime you open your mouth. Is what I want to say relevant ? If it is about the motives of others – then it is both irrelevant and mind reading that you are not good at. It is not relevant whether in some hypothetical world your theories about teaching children might accomplish your claims.
In the real world they will not, because they can not. But they will draw peodophiles to teaching like never before – and it is already one of the top professions for peodphiles.
“but conservatives and republicans are losing their minds and scaring others by making false claim about what they are teaching kids regarding those realities.”
The claims are not false. Check the criminal docket at local court house for the number of sex offenders.
Go visit “children and youth” or whatever the equivalent is in your community and find out how many kids they are dealing with that are victims of sexual abuse. Then look into the actual perpitrators – nearly all are victims themselves.
The certain cost of your sexuallizing kids is unforgiveable.
The cultural norm of childhood is NOT sexual – whenever it is that is a giant red flag that sexual abuse is going on.
The cultural norm of childhood is not gay or straight, or trans.
You note culture changes all the time – you are correct. Adult sexuality is radically different today than 50 years ago.
Though for the most part despite the radically differences, the actual effect is consequential for a very small number of people.
A super majority of people are heterosexual. Not only is that True – but the survival of the species requires it. It is actually a biological imperative. Our culture today celebrates LGBTQ – so long as you do not move to sexualizing children were OK with that.
I watch lots of action movies – I like them, they are an unreal escape. 2 decades ago there were no female action heros. Today it is rare that all the action heros in a movie are not women. I am perfectly fine with that. I can suspend disbeleif and watch a 5-4 110lb woman pulverize a room full of 6-2 200lb jarheads. It is not reality. But that’s OK, entertainment is not reality. The same BTW is true of culture.
As you said – culture constantly changes. More than half the world is in population decline. World population will peak at 11B people in a decade or so, and then start declining. China is already in full reverse – they are agressingly pushing people to have 3 and 4 kids. They have a massive demographic disaster coming. Since 1970 China forcibly aborted 380M babies – that is more than the entire US population. They are in deep trouble. How do you think a totalitarian culture that was willing to force often very late abortions on 380M women who nearly all did not want that, is going to respond to population decline ?
Most of the world is not LGBTQ freindly. Only the west is an much of it is not all that freindly. How long do you think todays culture is going to last as the pressures to have children increase ?
You made the point that cultures change – absolutely they do. I do not have a problem with the current culture – FOR ADULTS.
But if you think it is static or approriate for kids your nuts.
I will also note – atleast one factor in the 2022 election was fear that conservatives were going to take away abortion and birth control and …..
I too am afraid those will go away – not soon, but as population decline problems become more severe. But it is not going to be the right driving it. It will be the left.
You appear to be too close to grasp this – but the entire left is incredibly homogeous and about conformity and incredibly prone to convert bad ideas into religious dogma. Watch Greta Thunberg and you will see Jerry Falwell in a different era.
In the 60’s when the purpoted threat was population growth it was the left selling forced population control – acually read books like the population Bomb. We have the same fascist nonsense with climate change and with your LGBTQ culture. When the threat become population decline – and that threat is emerging in the west faster than much of the rest of the world
WATCH CULTURE CHANGE.
Finally – as YOU claim – culture changes. So why is it that we are inflicting todays culture on tomorows adults ?
Should we teach children about 8 tracks and casset tapes ?
Good response, John. There were some important truths.
Too many on the left do not understand they have gone too far.
The left won the culture wars and then went bat$hit crazy.
I supported gay rights and stood besides gay friends as they sought to get out from under repression.
After they actually acheived equal rights the same people I defended from their oppressors quickly shifted to become oppressors themselves.
Why in gods name would any sane gay person want to waste their time FORCING people that hate them to make cakes, or build web sites for them ?
I am actually glad of the fight – I listened to the 303 Creative oral arguments, and it seemed pretty trivial to me – public accomidation law MUST go.
But this nonsense over sexualizing school kids is just completely insane.
Sex is not kid friendly. Rainbow flags and drag queen story time do not change that.
Straight, gay, trans, it does not mater.
We already have enough nonsense with scout leaders, priests, ministers abusing kids – in what world is a good idea to billboard on Times Sq
I am not really a pedophile I am just trans.
I have been shocked by my wifes work as a Public Defender. The volume of sex crimes – many involving kids and teachers is far beyond what I ever beleived.
I have serious problems with the way our criminal justice system deals with sex crimes – BADLY. Go into an alley and urinate and if you get caught, you could have to register as a sex offender for life.
There are an enormous number of things that get caught in the dragnet of sex crimes that are far more minor then we make them or should not even be crimes at all. But fixing that would not change the fact that there is a far greater amount of sexual abuse of often young children going on that I would have ever guessed, and it F’s people up for life. Victims become offenders.
This is one of MANY problems we do not have effective answers to – a complaint I make regarding the left all the time.
We have an enormous amount of problems that can not be solved by good intentions and other peoples money.
Most can not be solved at all, they can at best be improved a little.
Sex crimes involving younger children are the most difficult to deal with. Young kids make LOUSY witnesses. It is often really difficult to tell whether something actually happened. But the fact that you can not know in each specific instance whether there is a crime, does not mean that we can not know there is a huge problem.
We have the same problem with child sex crimes as we do with #metoo – on steroids. There are people who are raped and abused who are silent, even forced into silence, and there are people who will lie, and it is very hard to tell the difference.
The beleive all women camp is no more rational than do not beleive any.
Take that add kids who just can not communicate well and HONESTLY are not real good on the difference between real and imagined, and whose REAL fundimental moral foundation is please the adults I am with and you have an impossible world.
So why in gods name would you want to pour napalm all over it.
You want to stop bullying gay kids – just stop bullying.
There is ZERO reason for anything sex related in a school prior to the earliest students hitting puberty.
If a student younger than that comes to a teacher – that is a HUGE RED FLAG. I would note that only works if schools do not deal with sex at those ages. Once you do finding clues to abuse becomes 1000 times harder.
At Puberty the role of schools is still limited. Schools are not there to teach us how to get good at sex or explore our preferences any more than they have a role in educating us on the choices of cars we should buy.
Regardless the insanity going on here is liklely to trigger a huge backlash.
We already have huge problems in other areas.
We need real immigration reform – there is no chance in hell of that.
The right justifiably will not trust democrats to enforce the law if it is changed,
And the left does not give a $hit about the law they are just going to do as they please when they have power.
We need real criminal justice reform. I believe that the circumstances arround the most recent spike in crime will probably allow us to solve a big question of the past 3 decades – What worked and what did not.
We shoudl look at the data and I think we can find useful answers.
My VIEWS – which need to be verified by DATA.
Specific types of “aggressive policing” worked – Stop and Frisk as practiced By Gulliani worked. Bloomberg took it too far.
Qualified immunity must go.
Getting rid of bad cops has got to be a priority
But with very rare exceptions – fire them – do not prosecuted them, especially not where the issues is whether they were overly agressively doing their job.
There is another problem – which the left is not going to like – but law enforcement in poor areas and that in middle class and affluent areas should not be the same. Poor communities need much more agressive policing than more afluent ones. And that is going to read statistically as racist.
We are incarcerating way too many people. And we are incarcerating them for far too long.
At the same time long sentences for specific types of crimes do work.
The vast majority of violent crime is by people under 35. Those who commit violent crime after 35 are never going to stop.
I am addressing some specifics.
But my argument is more general – we are doing many things right. We are doing some things wrong. We have made many changes that are good and some that are bad.
We can keep the good, toss the bad, look at the data and re-evalate.
Instead we are politically bifurcated into one came that wants capital punishment for shop lifters, and another that will not prosecute people for stealing less than $1000.
It is near certain that the right is going to prevail, and that may be better than the bat$hit crazy left, but it is not the answer.
John, people need to reflect on the rapid growth from conception to age 25+. You did a good job, but I don’t think Svelaz understands.
” Stop and Frisk as practiced By Gulliani worked. Bloomberg took it too far.”
The program is stop, question, and frisk, where most interventions stopped in the question phase. I believe there probably were abuses, but abuse occurs everywhere.
I don’t know that Bloomberg took it too far. In fact, I think the numbers were falling. His rhetoric, at one point, was too extreme. It saved many inner city lives and made the streets safer for everyone. I believe most mothers with good children liked that program.
“Qualified immunity must go.”
QI needs discussion. Chauvin was a bad cop, but qualified immunity didn’t save him from being overcharged. The same for many others. The result is detrimental to police departments.
” Poor communities need much more agressive policing ”
Under Giuliani, the police department focused on where the crime was. It had excellent results, and many large cities copied the program.
Incarceration needs to be studied, especially with the young and first offenders. Too many learn crime from their fellow inmates. However, we must incarcerate violent felons.
Incarceration for drug use generally isn’t a good idea, but users steal to feed their habits. If we wish to diminish drug use, we need to start at the right place. We could begin with Joe Biden.
The difference between Bloomberg and Guliani on Stop & Frisk is that Bloomberg took office with a policy that was working that he could not take credit for. With declining rates of violence that he could not take credit for.
Guiliani put in place a program that was effective and constitutional – the Guliani program required the police to monitor, and develop reasonable suspicion before they engaged in Stop & Frisk. This is more work, but it was constitutional and effective.
Bloomberg eliminated the monitoring to develop reasonable suspicion and the result was Stops increased by more than a factor of 3.
But it also meant more people got stopped that should not have been stopped, and that more people started viewing it as police harrassment,
it decreased the trust of people in these communities for the police, and though crime continued to decline – there was no improvement in the rate of decline. Further Bloomberg’s approach resulted in more constitutional challenges and eventually the whole police faced sufficient political and judicial backlash that it was stopped.
We had a holy war in the summer of 2020 over minority policing. Republicans can blame George Floyd or other false or poor naratives on the left. But the FACT still is that there was large scale negative response to minority policing throughout the country – and George Floyd was just the symbol that anger got wrapped arround, and Dereck Chauvin was the unsucessful effort to appease that anger.
Put differently 2020 was not about George Floyd. It was a way out of proportion over reaction to real problems in policing.
In the midst of the Riots – the majority of the minority community wanted MORE police not less. But it is a MISTAKE to miss that policing had gone too far. We were seeing something similar to the difference between Guliani’s STF and Bloombergs.
Get things right and you target the actual criminals, get them wrong and you piss off the courts, you piss off lots of minorities – particularly younger ones who are NOT the problem, but without standards like reasonable suspicion – look like the problem and get targeted too.
You can not get these things perfect.
But I keep repeatedly trying to point out to people that majority support is NOT ENOUGH.
Only 1/3 of colonists wanted independence from britian. Less than 1/2 of those wanted it strongly – about 15% of the country resulted in a successful war of independence.
You can have 60% of the black community happy with policing – even wanting more, but if there are enough people who are not criminals who are being targeted because you went a bit too far – you get what we had in the summer of 2020.
Absolutely, Activists and an assortment of other leftists capitalized, even fanned the rage. But they did not create it.
Guliani. not Bloomberg.
Nor is this limited to minority policing in the cities.
Rassmusen claims 59% of those polled consistently for the past 2 years beleive the 2020 election was either likely or certainly stolen.
Those on the left can rant – Well that is rassmussen – so lets assume it is HALF that number.
That is still more than the was required for the american revolution.
There is a reason that Pelosi fortified the crap out of the capitol after J6. While I beleive she deliberately acted to provoke violence – and probably got less than she hoped for. I think she desparately wanted half a dozen of so capitol police killed.
At the same time she ALSO knew she was sitting on a powder keg.
We are learning from the twitter files – that long before the election Twitter – and therefore all SM was actively thwarting efforts by conservatives to organize, and have continued to do so up through Musk taking over.
There is a little that has gotten out about the response of SM to the early 2020 Covid protests. Armed conservative went to state capitals to protest lockdowns and no one was hurt.
That could not be allowed to happen. If conservatives ever figure out how to publicly protest – the Left is DEAD.
Look at the trucker protest in Canada – I watched bits of the Emergency Act Hearings – and it is clear that Trudeau forced invoking the emergencies act specifically in the hopes of provoking violence from protestors. Trudeau’s government had tried everything to shut these protests down. The protestors were peacefull and law abiding. One thing that shocked me was that they actually went out and got permits for the temporary electric etc. that they did. The truck protestors took every conceivable step to deprive the Trudeau government of an excuse to escalate. Every single thing that was portrayed as a problem – the blocking of bridges, too much noise, was being resovoled and had been resolved peacefully before Trudeau invoked the emergencies act.
AGAIN the left HAD to stop successful protests by the right.
The right does not protest. When they do – government is in deep schiff.
“Bloomberg eliminated the monitoring to develop reasonable suspicion ”
Yes. People are not as aware of statistics, and their eyes close as they hear them read. What they do remember are a bunch of things Bloomberg said.
“the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them”
Giuliani knew what he was doing, but Bloomberg did not. Giuliani was aware of stop, question, and frisk, ending the act before frisking.
Bloomberg’s stop, as interpreted above, is to throw them against the wall, eliminate the questions, and frisk. He was a bit too authoritarian.
Bloomberg’s actions embarrassed the police and inflamed the public.
We do not disagree, stop, question, and frisk is constitutional and helpful.
(I am unsure of your numbers because, with the question portion eliminated, the comparison is between two different things.)
“But it is a MISTAKE to miss that policing had gone too far. ”
That claim is useless because it is subjective, dependent on circumstances, and varies too much. Bettering ourselves is always an option. I think Giuliani’s efforts were excellent.
As in my other post – Chauvin and Floyd are just symbols. Chauvin should have been fired, not jailed. Floyd is not a martyr – he is also not some great villian either, he was a guy who was trying to get his life together, failed and was slowly going to hell. Something bad was happening to him no matter what.
The event is just the flashpoint – not the driver.
WI BTW goes far beyond police. The big deal about getting rid of QI is that it will drive government to reign in abuses throughout the system – by imposing a cost. Without QI the police and other government officials will have to get insurance. Inevitably government will pay for that insurance – just as employers pay for insurance for employees. Insurers will raise rates in places where there are lots of problems – so government will be financially forced to get rid of the bad apples.
QI allows government to duck the cost of bad actors. The cost is born by their victims.
Eliminating QI will weaken the protections of unions for bad members.
Most forget that Government still has absolute immunity – and in most cases so do police.
QI is ONLY in play when someones constitutional right s were ACTUALLY violated.
We are confused because QI is currently used as the first hurdle – it stops good lawsuits and it stops bad ones.
But without QI – the bad ones will not go very far anyway. Getting rid of QI will not disrupt anythign but the few really bad apples in government.
Beleive me – getting rid of QI will NOT result in a massive flood of successful lawsuits.
But it will result in firing bad apples.
It will also slightly increase the cost of government – through insurance costs.
But all that is doing is moving the cost where it belongs. Currently it is on the victims of government malfeasance.
You know I do not support a prior regulation of markets.
That does not mean I want unregulated markets.
I want the markets regulated by torts, and contracts, not by government experts.
I want government regulated the same way.
Unregulated government is worse than unregulated markets by far.
“Floyd is not a martyr – he is also not some great villian either,”
Plain and simply, he was a violent crook who died at his own hand though that is disputable. He was the best cause for leftist violence at the time. That demonstrates how pitiful and dangerous the left is. In the end, the left caused more damage to black people than anyone else. The left uses people as cannon fodder.
QI: Creating risk when a person does his job creates tremendous problems. In this case, the difference in opinion might be definitional.
“QI is ONLY in play when someones constitutional right s were ACTUALLY violated.”
That is very blurry.
“getting rid of QI will NOT result in a massive flood of successful lawsuits.
But it will result in firing bad apples.”
That is a conclusion reached without thinking of the person in the field. Look at the medical profession and malpractice. The attempts to prevent malpractice can lead to suboptimal care.
Floyd seems to have gotten beyond his violent past.
But he had returned to his drug problem and non-violent crime to support it.
He was caught passing a bogus $20.
He was high and highly agitated and out of control at the time.
The police gave him a long time to colm down before putting him into the Police Car.
When they did that he was out of control in the back and was likely to harm himself or damage the vehicle.
So he was removed from the vehicle and paramedics were called – because he was out of control.
He was also arrested with a person likely his drug dealer.
And it appears that while in the police care he consumed his drug stash as well as possibly that of the dealer to avoid getting caught in possession.
In otherwords he deliberately overdosed.
Nor is this the first time Floyd has done that.
On a prior occasion he cased himself a heart attack
Which is what killed him this time.
The drugs in his system were certain to kill him.
The prosecution was a farce. They needed a scape goat, and it was required that Chauvin be convicted.
There was absolutely no possible way for Chauvin’s actions to have caused what happened to Floyd.
The claim is that Chauvin’s knee cut off circulation to Floyds brain.
But the arteries are on the side of your kneck not the back.
Further there are two. Constricting one will cause you to pass out.
It will not kill you.
But hey, we can make things up as they go,
and the jury clearly was out for blood.
Just to be clear I am not defending Chauvin – beyond the fact that he did not kill Floyd.
The testimony of officers revealed that Chauvin’s conduct was within policy – but at the fringe.
Regardless, Chauvin was convicted because the government wanted a scape goat, the jury was out for blood, and the prosecution witnesses were willing to say something that really was not possible was. Regardless, Possible is not the standard.
Floyd was not the cause of anything. He was just the flashpoint.
“He was the best cause for leftist violence at the time.”
John, you made an error in your comment. He was the best cause…to rally around…for leftist violence AT THE TIME.
That means he wasn’t the cause, just the flashpoint.
There is NEVER a circumstance were a person is just doing their job that QI applies.
QI is a defense against allegations that you were not only NOT doing your job, but that you were violating another persons rights under color of authority.
The current judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity is that you can not sue a government official even when they have obviously violated your constitutional rights unless the violation was egregious and there is prior case law that found the very specific circumstances of this case to be a violation of a victims rights. In all cases of first impression there is an unrebutable assumption that the government official did not know they were not allowed to violate your rights. Oh and the prior caselaw must be in your federal circuit.
This makes it nearly impossible to sue a government official for violating your rights. You can never get a prior case, if all cases are dismissed, and the courts always find the fact pattern is not close enough.
You hear alot about QI – because it is so broad and so hard to overcome that it is always the FIRST line of defense for those in government.
If you completely obliterated qualified immunity – all the lawsuits you are worried about would lose for real reasons.
But the few with actual merit could proceed.
Again there is absolutely no reason for qualified immunity.
The police and government have absolute immunity if they were properly doing their jobs or if no rights are violated or if there is no actual harm.
And even where none of those are true, the courts are going to and should give the police the benefit of all doubts in anything short of an egregious situation.
QI stops almost all claims of rights violations by those in government. It is a sheild that has almost nothing to do with the underlying facts.
It is also an unnecessary shield.
There are plenty of other impediments to the problems you worry about.
“There is NEVER a circumstance were a person is just doing their job that QI applies.”
Would you use the word NEVER for physicians or lawyers employed by the state as well?
Yes
I would note that physicians and lawyers working for the state would not now be subject to QI unless they were state actors.
How does a government employed doctor violate your rights ? That would be the Tuskegee experiment.
A prosecutor could be sued if an only iff they violated your rights – such as by failing to disclose Brady material.
You do not see to grasp the fundimental purpose of QI is to stop LEGITIMATE lawsuits.
You also do not understand that when you eliminate proper ways of regulating something – you get improper ones.
If you can not sue a cop, you can still convict him of a crime.
If you can not fire a teacher – you can convict them of a crime.
“I would note that physicians and lawyers working for the state would not now be subject to QI unless they were state actors.”
Since I said, “physicians or lawyers employed by the state as well?” I am puzzled why you said, “unless they were state actors.” The whole paragraph doesn’t make sense, and I can’t figure out what I am missing.
—
“How does a government employed doctor violate your rights ? That would be the Tuskegee experiment.”
The Tuskegee experiment would be one way, but not the only way. I am sure you can figure out some others.
—
“A prosecutor could be sued if an only iff they violated your rights – such as by failing to disclose Brady material.”
I do not know how this statement moves the discussion forward. Under those circumstances, a prosecutor can be sued, with or without IQ.
—
“You do not see to grasp the fundimental purpose of QI is to stop LEGITIMATE lawsuits.”
Again, you draw the wrong conclusion. I recognize both sides of the argument, do you? That is scary. I believe you know much about QI, but I question your judgment.
—
“You also do not understand that when you eliminate proper ways of regulating something – you get improper ones.”
You are wrong. I am well aware of that, and it is a point in your argument’s favor. A point is a point, not a win.
The point was that physicans and lawyers that exist NOW do not have QI protection and still manage to thrive.
You keep saying that you did not say X or Y – which is correct – but your arguments depend on their being true.
QI only applies to government actors. The free market does perfectly fine without QI – therefore we know that QI is no necescary.
Further QI is not the only special protection that government actors have it is just the most absolute and broad.
Do not get fooled by the name – QI is very near absolute immunity, while governments actual absolute immunity is really more rationally constrained.
But lets presume for the sake of argument that all special barriers were torn down and Government was subject to the same lawsuits as the free market.
Lets assume – atleast initially, that juries did not favor govenrment knowing their taxes would go up for adverse decisions.
So you end up with lots of lawsuits, government loses, insurance costs rise, and taxes rise, and people demand changes of government.
The absolute worst case scenario is less bad that what we have done to ourselves now.
We argue about regulation. But what separates us is that you really do not grasp that the best solutions are SELF regulation. The point is NOT to get rigid rules that govern everything – we have limited govenrment because there are limited places in which we need rigid rules – thou shalt not murder.
In most things we want “self regulation” – dynamically change – crime rises the police become more agressive at the demand of the people, crime falls people hold the police more accountable.
But the process is not just pure cyclic, it is also iteritively improving, through the cycles the police learn what is both effective and does not cause backlash.
It is this process that we want for most everything. QI thwarts that process – actual government regulation thwarts that in the economy,
“The point was that physicans and lawyers that exist NOW do not have QI protection and still manage to thrive.”
John, that is your point, not mine because I am not worried about physician income. I am concerned for the patient’s care and finances.
“You keep saying that you did not say X or Y – which is correct – but your arguments depend on their being true.”
You can say that but haven’t pointed out where or how. You are wrong, but how can I be sure since you haven’t attached words to X or Y, leaving me with empty rhetoric?
“QI only applies to government actors. The free market does perfectly fine without QI – therefore we know that QI is no necescary.”
Statement 1 doesn’t make statement 2 correct. Isn’t this the third time we agree that QI applies to government actors?
“The absolute worst case scenario is less bad that what we have done to ourselves now.”
You are looking at the problem through a distinct pair of eyeglasses, your own.
” the best solutions are SELF regulation.”
The best solution depends on what you focus on.
In Canada, it appears that the best solution for some patients is to kill themselves because the healthcare system costs too much.
We are having a crazy argument because I want limited government as much as you. I don’t know about you, but I recognize I can’t have everything I want, so I try and deal rationally with what is possible.
My examples move the argument by noting that the only things that QI protects are those things like Tuskegee or failure to disclose brady material that we do NOT want protected.
Come up with an example protected by QI that would not either be otherwise protected, or that should not be protected at all.
There are not two sides to the argument. QI does not protect something that is not already protected or that should not be protected.
It is not a doctrine with problems at the edges. it is a doctrine that is just bad to the core.
Standing is a legal doctrine that is necessary but has expanded too far – someone must always have standing.
I understand that you are afraid. But you can not seem to frame your fears as arguments.
You question my judgement – Why ?
Why is this even about my judgement ?
What part of this is a judgement issue ?
I would note that it is not actually my judgement you are questioning, it is self regulation through markets.
And you are questioning that in the least free market situation we have.
“I understand that you are afraid. But you can not seem to frame your fears as arguments.”
There is a difference between concern and being afraid.
Ultimately EVERYTHING is “self regulating”
Sending Chauvin to jail, is just a form of market circumvention of QI and other rigidities in governments efforts to protect itself.
Lets address BLM and the protests that proceeded and followed. Lets ignore the specific changes they wants to the system, and ask whether they are not a clear reflection of the fact that what existed was not working very well.
There are very few “astroturf” protests. Whether it is the american revolution, the french revolution the bolsheivk revolution – Mao in china,
BLM, the Tea Party, J6, …..
Whenever there are protests – there is a REAL problem that needs addressed.
Quite often some group – usually the left coopts the problem – i.e. uses the problem to impose a solution that is part of an agenda that has nothing to do with the problem, and does not solve it. But that does not change the fact that there is a problem.
Life is about problems. Allow systems to self regulate and the problems rarely become large.
Thwart self regulation and some means of self regulation will ALWAYS emerge. The stronger the force constraining the self regulation the larger the backlash.
This is ultimately why the left is doomed. The more they succeed the more opposition they create. The more force they must use to hold back the tide, The more opposition they create.
“That is a conclusion reached without thinking of the person in the field.”
Nope.
I want to make clear – QI does not need to be modified or fixed.
It needs eliminated.
Absolutely there are bogus lawsuits and bad jury decisions.
Eliminating QI will still leave law enforcement with 10times the protection that a doctor has.
Most lawsuits will STILL not get to a trial, they will not make it past absolute immunity – which is greater immunity but only if you are actually doing your job.
You are making a mistake. The same one that is made elsewhere. When the barriers to the correct resolution are too high, people find alternate ways.
It is too hard to fire a police officer.
It is too hard to sue them.
So we charge them with a crime and send them to jail.
The result is fewer police fired or sued, but more going to jail.
We should very very few criminal prosecutions of police for something goes wrong doing the job – obviously bribery and crimes that are not “oops I screwed up” will still be prosecuted.
But we would see more successful lawsuits – though it is rare for juries to give high awards for cases where they know govenrment will have to pay – because juries pay taxes/
And significantly more firing.
And that is what we want.
Better 10 copes lose their jobs, than one goes to prison when their just screwed up on the job.
“QI does not need to be modified or fixed.
It needs eliminated.”
As I said before this is a difficult question that needs considerable thought. There is no clear answer.
The clear answer is get rid of it.
You keep pretending that the world will end and cops will be sued and lose for everything in creation.
It is damn near impossible to sue anyone in government without QI.
Eliminating QI mearely takes it from almost impossible to really hard.
It also creates a weak force for self regulation on government.
This is desirable – not unclear.
“You keep pretending that the world will end and cops will be sued and lose for everything in creation.”
Why do you make statements like that, which are untrue? I do no such thing. However, before getting “rid of it.”, I think carefully. Your assurance is not sufficient.
I provided more that assurance.
You constantly describe QI as if it is something it is not.
All the protections that you seek – and more already exist.
I would note that even the things you are concerned about – Doctors and lawyers ?
Have adequate protections in the free market – proven by the fact that they exist in the free market.
Not sure why you are concerned about lawyers as they are virtually never sued.
“The point was that physicans and lawyers that exist NOW do not have QI protection and still manage to thrive.”
That is your point, not mine because I am not worried about physician income. I am concerned for the patient’s care and finances.
“You keep saying that you did not say X or Y – which is correct – but your arguments depend on their being true.”
You can say that but haven’t pointed out where or how. You are wrong, but how can I be sure since you haven’t attached words to X or Y, leaving me to guess about empty rhetoric?
“QI only applies to government actors. The free market does perfectly fine without QI – therefore we know that QI is no necescary.”
Statement 1 doesn’t make statement 2 correct. Isn’t this the third time we agree that QI applies to government actors?
“The absolute worst case scenario is less bad that what we have done to ourselves now.”
You are looking at the problem through a distinct pair of eyeglasses, your own.
” the best solutions are SELF regulation.”
The best solution depends on your focus.
In Canada, it appears that the best solution for some patients is to kill themselves because the healthcare system costs too much.
We are having a crazy argument because I want limited government as much as you. I don’t know about you, but I recognize I can’t have everything I want, so I try and deal rationally with what is possible.
The default with an election or any allegations of misconduct is that we investigate to the extent the constitution and the law allow.
We do not prosecute or persecute those who persue investigations when we beleive there is nothing to investigate.
The constitution determines when an investigation is justified – not your political preferences – not those of Hobbs.
It is ludicrous – and criminal for Hobbs to issue criminal threats against those who do not trust the integrity of her actions.
Everything involving elections is public – any allegation ALWAYS meets the constitutional burden needed to instigate.
“ We do not prosecute or persecute those who persue investigations when we beleive there is nothing to investigate.
The constitution determines when an investigation is justified – not your political preferences – not those of Hobbs.”
Wrong. Arizona state law determines when an investigation is justified. Hobbs, and AZ courts have cited Arizona state law. The EB was in violation of the law by withholding the certification on a claim that is easily debunked. The EB verified certification per the law prior to the election. This is why their claim did not have merit. It was obvious they were putting up a false claim in order to delay the certification or have an excuse to claim some sort of fraud. These were two members of the EB who are known conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters. They made claims they could have made prior to the election. They chose to make them after so they had an excuse to not certify the winner they did not want.
“ It is ludicrous – and criminal for Hobbs to issue criminal threats against those who do not trust the integrity of her actions.”
No it’s not. It’s literally her job. Issuing LEGAL threats is not criminal when the person/s are engaging in unlawful acts.
Cite the criminal statute that makes it a crime. Cite it. Just saying it is is not evidence that it’s true.
“Arizona state law determines when an investigation is justified.”
WRONG – AGAIN the constitution determines when an investigation is justified.
State laws specify what is a crime. Not when there is sufficient evidence to investigate.
“Hobbs, and AZ courts have cited Arizona state law.”
Obviously incorrectly. BTW that would still be irrelevant if they cited law that actually applied.
“The EB was in violation of the law by withholding the certification on a claim that is easily debunked.”
Wrong and wrong. This is just a stupid claim on your part.
BTW, The Cochise EB refused to certify – they still have not. Yet, Hobb’s has certified the state. That too is illegal.
“The EB verified certification per the law prior to the election.”
Nope
“This is why their claim did not have merit.”
No the claim has no merit for the same core reason you never find a republican claim to have merit and you always find democrat claims to have merit. Because they are republicans not democrats.
Which is why you are not a moral person.
“It was obvious they were putting up a false claim in order to delay the certification or have an excuse to claim some sort of fraud.”
Wrong, and wrong. If what you claim is true – Hobbs still engaged in extortion.
It is courts that decide whether the choice of these officials has merit – not Hobb’s not you.
“These were two members of the EB who are known conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters.”
False and irrelevant. These people were elected to these positions – slandering them does not alter that the CHOICE was theirs.
You can challenge that choice in civil court.
“They made claims they could have made prior to the election.”
False and irrelevant.
“They chose to make them after so they had an excuse to not certify the winner they did not want.
False and irrelevant.
It is incredibly odd that someone such as yourself how has been PROVEN to be immoral, seems to be prepared to morally and legally prejudge the actions of others based on political naratives – not facts.
The decision to Certify rests with the EB. Not you, not Hobb’s. If you do not like the way a public official executes their job – you vote them out or you sue them.
Hobb’s threatened to Sue – but she did not.
Several EB’s in other counties are on the record stating they only Certified under Durress because Hobb’s threatened them with criminal prosecution.
“No it’s not. It’s literally her job.”
No it litterally is NOT her Job. IT is each counties EB’s job to certify the county’s elections – Not Hobb’s.
“Issuing LEGAL threats is not criminal when the person/s are engaging in unlawful acts.”
False – please read the AZ law that I cited – you may not accuse someone else of a crime in order to secure property or services, Even if the allegation is TRUE.
“Cite the criminal statute that makes it a crime. Cite it. Just saying it is is not evidence that it’s true.”
I did. I cited the AZ extortion statute.
I have told you repeatedly I do not make claims when I do not know what I am talking about.
You do. Every single thing you have said about Hobb’s and the law is OBVIOUSLY bogus.
You talk about law constantly – but you NEVER cite the law you talk about – because you are a liar, and you just make things up without any idea what you are talking about.
Accusing someone of a crime in order to obtain property or services from them is EXTORTION and it is a crime.
It is a crime – even if what you are accusing them of is true. There are a few exceptions – that I did not see in the AZ law, but those do not matter as they do not apply.
Certifying an election is a SERVICE, Worse still it is one that personally benefits Hobb’s, Worse still the fact that she is about to become Gov. makes it even easier for her to make good on the threat.
“ BTW, The Cochise EB refused to certify – they still have not. Yet, Hobb’s has certified the state. That too is illegal.”
Nope, wrong…again,
“ The Cochise County, Ariz., board of supervisors certified the county’s election results on Thursday, after a state judge ruled that it was unlawful for two GOP supervisors not to certify the results by the state’s legal deadline.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3758916-arizonas-cochise-county-certifies-election-following-court-order/amp/
“ Arizona state law determines when an investigation is justified.”
WRONG – AGAIN the constitution determines when an investigation is justified.”
Where in the AZ constitution does it say when an investigation is justified? You don’t back up your claim. The constitution does NOT cite specifics about election challenges. All those are in STATE ELECTION STATUTES. Try again.
“ Hobbs, and AZ courts have cited Arizona state law.”
Obviously incorrectly. BTW that would still be irrelevant if they cited law that actually applied.”
Now you’re just being intentionally ignorant. The SOC and the courts applied the laws that ARE relevant to the EB. They do apply. They specifically pointed out exactly which ones. YOU have not provided any law countering what they cited. Just saying it does not make it so. Back up your claim.
“ These were two members of the EB who are known conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters.”
False and irrelevant. These people were elected to these positions – slandering them does not alter that the CHOICE was theirs.
You can challenge that choice in civil court.”
It points to their intent behind the spurious claims. It’s quite relevant and accurate.
“ They made claims they could have made prior to the election.”
False and irrelevant.”
Nope. It’s quite relevant because they had every opportunity to make sure everything was in compliance BEFORE the election. Any issues would have been addressed by then. They chose to raise the issue after, it also means were not doing their job correctly if they just found out the voting machines were not certified correctly. The SOC sets certification standards that the EB has to verify before every election. They have a record of it.
“ The decision to Certify rests with the EB. Not you, not Hobb’s.”
Yes the decision to certify at the county level rests with them. HOWEVER the certification of the states overall election rests with Hobbs. You have been told about this distinction yet you being obtuse keep missing the point.
“ Cite the criminal statute that makes it a crime. Cite it. Just saying it is is not evidence that it’s true.”
I did. I cited the AZ extortion statute.”
Where? I don’t see it on these threads. If you did I must have missed it in the threads.
Under AZ extortion statutes this does NOT apply. The person issuing the threat must be threatening to steal property or engage in threatening harm. The Hobbs threat of criminal prosecution does not meet that definition under AZ law.
You keep ignoring the fact that the Cochise EB was unlawfully withholding certification according to a court of law. Citing extortion law is not only ridiculous but spurious at best. You WANT it to be extortion by twisting the definition into something that even a court would find laughable.
You have NO argument.
“ I have told you repeatedly I do not make claims when I do not know what I am talking about.
You do. Every single thing you have said about Hobb’s and the law is OBVIOUSLY bogus.
You talk about law constantly – but you NEVER cite the law you talk about – because you are a liar, and you just make things up without any idea what you are talking about.”
Nope. It’s you who has no idea what you are talking about. I HAVE cited the law the same ones cited by the court that you arbitrarily dismiss because it contradicted your argument. Accusing me of lying when I have provided you exactly what the law says is just a deflection from the flimsy arguments you are making.
So Hobbs went to court – proving exactly what I said before.
As to the court ruling I would have to read it, but I strongly suspect it is wrong. but I doubt the EB members wanted to challenge it given Hobbs threat – which she should go to jail for.
“ So Hobbs went to court – proving exactly what I said before.
As to the court ruling I would have to read it, but I strongly suspect it is wrong.”
You didn’t read the ruling yet you claimed the court was wrong. I posted the ruling and links to it which cited the laws they EB was breaking and why it’s claims were not credible.
After claiming incessantly that Hobbs didn’t go to court and didn’t’ sue now you admit you were wrong. It means you were making stuff up without getting all the facts.
Hobbs threats were legitimate because as It was pointed out in court the EB members admitted they were delaying the certification as a protest on what was going on in Maricopa county. They made up the excuse that their issue was the certification of their voting machines which the state asserted they were indeed certified. They were committing a crime by intentionally withholding certification.
In fact according to former AZ AG what the Cochise EB was doing was actually a crime and they could still be prosecuted.
“ Some former prosecutors in Arizona have been calling for criminal investigations into Judd and Crosby.
This week, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, joined Richard Romley, a Republican former Maricopa County attorney, in asking for probes by Arizona’s attorney general and the Cochise County attorney. Goddard and Romley say in a letter that the GOP supervisors likely broke at least three of the state’s criminal laws by willfully refusing to perform their legal duty to certify the election results.
Goddard said ultimately voting to certify would reduce the urgency for prosecutors to move forward with an investigation into the supervisors, but it would not take away “the blight of having committed a crime.”
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/01/1140086777/midterm-elections-cochise-county-arizona-ruling
This shows the EB WAS illegally withholding certification and it shows why they faced criminal charges if they persisted in withholding the certification. They were breaking th law. They couldn’t challenge the SOC because the law was NOT on their side. This is why lawyers refused to represent them.
They were unlawfully withholding certification as a protest for what was going on in Maricopa county. That is NOT their job. You don’t need a lawyer that specializes in election law to see that they were not going to succeed with their goal.
You say you posted the ruling but you did not.
You have said that multiple times but you did not.
I am not interested in what a reporter says or what a reporter says others said.
If your first faux link to a “ruling” is correct – then the judge erred.
It was a mistake on my part to pass judgement on a court – or pretty much anything else – based on the idiocy in MSM journalism.
I apologize for making the mistake of believing your sources.
I should have known better.
These are the same idiots who rant “right wing conspiracy theories” about proven facts that are not convenient.
They also engage in the same intellectual dishonesty of fixating on feelings and guesses about the intentions of others, or motives.
If the court did the same – that is egregious error.
Your NPR article claims the judge said “the law is clear” – it is You may not certify an election that was not conducted lawfully, and without error or fraud significant enough to alter the outcome. You may not certify an election that is not worthy of trust.
The Cochise County EB’s most fundimental problem is that unlike Maricopa County – they met those requirements.
“Where in the AZ constitution does it say when an investigation is justified? ”
Federal constitution.
This is a well settled issue of law throughout the country.
The US supreme court has ruled on just about every single aspect of law enforcement.
From exactly what is necescary for a police office to talk to someone on the street, what is necescary to pat them down,
every single incremental step all the way through criminal conviction and appeal.
Why is it you constantly want to contest indisputable facts.
“You don’t back up your claim.”
I did not need to.
Once again you are OBVIOUSLY wrong.
“The constitution does NOT cite specifics about election challenges. All those are in STATE ELECTION STATUTES. Try again.”
You have jumped from what is necessary to investigate to what is necessary for an election challenge.
If you wish to debate yourself – go at it.
“Hobbs, and AZ courts have cited Arizona state law.”
You really do not understand legal process.
You constantly mis cite laws – citing a law incorrectly is meaningless.
A court decisions has power, but that does not make it correct.
Courts are wrong all the time – if that was not true there would never be appeals.
Trial courts are overruled by appelate courts which are overruled by supreme courts, which are overruled by themselves at later dates.
And revised state laws and constitutional amendments sometimes correct errors by supreme courts.
The authoritative reading of the law – what must be obeyed this the ruling of the highest court that has decided a case so far.
That does not make that ruling correct. It merely makes it enforceable.
John, you’re citing FEDERAL constitution which has NOTHING to do with the AZ state laws which ultimately govern how THEIR elections are run. Isnt’ this the whole ISL theory you support is all about?
Really?
You’re jump in around from state to federal law to justify a seriously flawed argument. You’re cherry-picking so your arguments “fits” YOUR definition and not the actual reality of what laws apply.
You’re the one who is mis-citing law here. You have yet the specific article supporting your argument. All you are saying is that the FEDERAL constitution says an investigation is warranted but you don’t cite anything to support exactly what part are you referring to.
AZ laws specifically cite what to do in regards to investigating election disputes and what requirements are needed to initiate them. STATES regulate THEIR own elections they conduct their elections according to THEIR laws and constitutions. The FEDERAL constitution does NOT apply to local elections and how they should conduct them., It gives states the power to do that themselves.
Whether its’ to investigate or challenge is irrelevant. Your reliance on using the U.S. constitution to initiate an investigation is so overly broad that it is simply ridiculous. It’s already been established that the Cochise EB acted illegally and committed a crime by withholding certification. They were doing as a means to protest what was happening with another county’s election process.
The rest of you diatribe about the procession of court appeals is irrelevant. The AZ Supreme Court denied an emergency appeal of the Cochise county EB ruling. SCOTUS has already made it clear that FEDERAL courts should not involve themselves in these kinds of disputes.
You have been wrong all this time and continue to be because you are being deliberately ignorant of the law.
” you’re citing FEDERAL constitution which has NOTHING to do with the AZ state laws which ultimately govern how THEIR elections are run. snt’ this the whole ISL theory you support is all about?”
Really ? All state authority in federal elections comes from …… The FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
GENERALLY the federal constitutions election provisions are:
The rules for elections are made by:
1) Congress
2) State legislatures.
There are subtle differences between the election of the president, senators, and representatives.
Separately as a constitutional principle in those domains where there is overlapping jurisdiction FEDERAL law trumps state law.
REGARDLESS, the AZ Election law incorporates FEDERAL election law.
You are once again off on a tangent;
It appears that you have not read what I provieded very carefully.
I copied AZ Election law. Not Federal Election law.
AZ election law REQUIRES that election equipment MUST comply with the FEDERAL 2002 HAV election law.
The 2002 Federal HAV with respect to voting machines is incorporated into the AZ election law by reference.
It appears you do not understand that.
“SCOTUS has already made it clear that FEDERAL courts should not involve themselves in these kinds of disputes.”
That is completely incorrect.
The election is a FEDERAL election. There is ZERO doubt on the planet that Federal courts have jurisdiction.
The actual question – currently before the court is whether State courts have jurisdiction.
The constitution delegates elections to congress and state legislatures. Everywhere elese in the constitution state legislature is used it is clear that it means specifically the state legislature – as an example the constitution specified that electors are appointed by the state legislature, and senators were originally appointed by the state legislature. Where the constitution meant to delegate a power to the state rather than just the legislature – is specified state – not state legislature.
Why are you fighting over this right now ? It is not currently relevant to anything occurring in AZ.
“Your reliance on using the U.S. constitution to initiate an investigation is so overly broad that it is simply ridiculous.”
Nope, it is literally the foundation of everything related to the enforcement of law and regulation and investigations by government of any kind in the US.
It is also not “overly broad” – it is incredibly detailed and specific as the courts have spent 500+ years working out every nuance.
” It’s already been established that the Cochise EB acted illegally and committed a crime by withholding certification.”
Nope. All that is resolved is that they were ordered to certify and they did.
There is no crime of withholding certification.
“They were doing as a means to protest what was happening with another county’s election process.”
Irrelevant.
It does not matter if they were doing so because they though flying monkeys were coming out of your but.
You will never be able to draw valid conclusions about anything so long as you fixate on motives.
It is likely beyond much doubt that the motives of most of those on the left are laudable.
That is a major part of the appeal of the the left. Because most (not all) have good motives,
when one joins the left you get the warm fuzzy feeling of being with the “good guys”
Matthew puts this nonsense to rest:
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Neither God if you believe in him nor any rational person cares what your motives are.
Christ did not say – those who had good motives receive eternal salvation.
He said those who actually do good things.
He did not say – those who made others do good things, or who passed laws to do good things.
He said those who actually do good things.
Those on the left congratulate themselves for being the good people – yet they are not. Maybe they have good motives – but pretty universally they never actually do good things. They are not actually good people.
They are however quite often used by actually bad people – everyone on the left is not full of good motives. Those who are not, are incredibly good at using those who are.
You end up on the right hand of god, without any regard for your motives.
Ultimately you need not be a christian to recognize that Mathew speaks and immutable truth.
Throughout all your posts you constantly talk about nothing but motives and intentions.
Matthew gives you wise counsel – even without a god, we truely have no way to know the motives of others.
We can not even guess by what they say their motives are.
Ultimately motives are irrelevant.
Just as rants that something is a right wing conspiracy theory.
What matters is Acts, what matters is facts. What matters is truth.
Not emotion, not motives, not spin.
You posts are filled with your speculation as to why someone did something.
that is always irrelevant.
What matters is whether what they did was good or bad.
What matters is the facts – not spin, not flowery language.
What matters is truth, not emotions.
If you focus on acts, facts and truth – it will be much harder to be lead astray by people with actual evil motives.
Because you will know who they are by what they do.
“It points to their intent behind the spurious claims. It’s quite relevant and accurate.”
Nope, intent is only relevant in criminal cases and only after every element of the crime is proven.
NOTHING is ever illegal because of bad intent alone – that contention is just stupid.
Only a moron would beleive that two different people can do the same thing and one is illegal and the other legal merely because your guess as to what is in their minds.
I would further note that criminal intent is NOT the same as YOU think of intent. Criminal intent is not the intent to act in some what you like.
It is not doing an act deliberately.
It is KNOWING that an act is wrong, and doing it anyway.
They were acting on the belief that they were legally able to withhold the certification because of what was happening in Maricopa county. They admitted to the media as it was shown in court records that they were delaying certification as a means to protest. The excuse that this was about voting machine certification was merely BS. This is why the court AND the AZ Supreme Court did not take their side.
Their intent was to delay illegally delay the certification for false reasons. That according to AZ election law is a crime. Prosecutors can show they intended to deliberately delay the certification because of what was happening in another county. They admitted to the media exactly what they were going to do. This was brought up in court when the judge ruled against them and ordered them to comply with the law.
Still all this nonsense about your guesses as to someone else’s motives.
all pointless garbage.
“Nope. It’s quite relevant because they had every opportunity to make sure everything was in compliance BEFORE the election. Any issues would have been addressed by then. They chose to raise the issue after, it also means were not doing their job correctly if they just found out the voting machines were not certified correctly. The SOC sets certification standards that the EB has to verify before every election. They have a record of it.”
Still false and irrelevant.
Also damaging to your own argument – it gets you into deep trouble with the ODBP’s the problems there again Become Hobb’s problem.
Regardless, you know nothing about elections and certification.
Prior to the 2004 election about 30% of the US used mechanical voting machines. These had to be certified at every single election.
When they were retired prior to 2004 as a result of HAV, just about every single mechanical voting machine in the country was examined and found to have gears with teeth filed off and other modifications that resulted in inaccurate election results.
In many instance this was the result of election fraud committed decades before.
Regardless every one of these machines had been certified many many times.
Anyone stupid enough to trust that government defined processes are actually meaningful and robust is a moron.
There is not an SOS in the entire US that has the technical skills needed to determine the procedures to certify any peice of election equipment.
The standards are generally set by the federal government in consultation with the manufacturers of the equipment and their lobbing groups.
Then the actual examination/verification is typically done by people who are blessed by various industry groups.
Then the actual certification is done by the local election heads based on the recommendation of these alleged experts.
After all this complicated process – most of the equipment so blessed does not meet the federal standards.
Oh, and quite often the actual examination/verifcation does not actually take place.
Again back to the ODBP’s.
All of those were required to be certified. i.e. Someone was supposed to test them prior to the election.
Those tests were supposed to be rigorous – not just turning them on and printing a ballot or two.
Would you want to run an election with millions of votes on equipment were every possible failure case had not been tested prior to use ?
Right now there are only allegations.
Regardless what we do know is that on election day just slightly more than 50% of the ODBPs actually worked.
There are only a few possibilities.
They were not properly tested and never should have been certified.
They were properly tested and they were altered after testing – election fraud.
Both cases are serious failure on the part of those administering the election. Right up to and including Hobbs.
Which brings me Back to Cochise – and what ultimately is the error of the AZ court that ordered certification. As well as the obvious logical error of your argument.
It is clear from Maricopa county that Equipment can be certified and fail.
Whether you like it or not that means that your claim that the equipment at Cochise county was certified prior to the election has little meaning.
It is obviously possible for election equipment to be certified and not work.
And that means every part of your argument that “but they certified the equipment before the election” is MEANINGLESS.
It has no bearing on intent – which is meaningless anyway. And it has no bearing on whether election officials must certify an election.
“The standards are generally set by the federal government in consultation with the manufacturers of the equipment and their lobbing groups.”
Generally, BUT there are STATE standards that must also be met because every state has it’s own rules and standards. You know that part about states legislating “the manner, time and place”
Citing a 2004 incident regarding mechanical voting machines which has no relevance to digital ones which are harder to “wear” down and have no such issues as the mechanical ones
“It is clear from Maricopa county that Equipment can be certified and fail.
Whether you like it or not that means that your claim that the equipment at Cochise county was certified prior to the election has little meaning.
It is obviously possible for election equipment to be certified and not work.”
What the law requires is that the machines are certified and they were. It is true that equipment that is certified can fail when it is used. But as in every election there are backups to compensate for that and Cochise county had no issue with counting their votes. They only claimed their machines were not properly certified without offering proof in court. What this really was was an attempt to delay the certification in protest of what was going on in Maricopa county. That was illegal.
Those machines were tested prior to the election. According to the law they were supposed to be tested 48hrs prior to the election. None of the EB members who illegally refused to certify the election said the machines did not pass the required tests. They had no issues counting their votes. All they had was a vague claim that their machines were not properly certified. That claim is highly suspicious due to the fact that the two EB members admitted to the media that they were refusing to certify as form of protest over what was going on in Maricopa county. THAT is illegal and a crime if they continued to refuse.
Ironically if they succeeded they would have given another seat to the democrats in the senate. Because their illegal refusal to certify would have disenfranchised thousands of voters.
You’re on the losing end of this argument. I has already been established that they were unlawfully withholding certification under false reasons. They were trump supporters who believed they could withhold certification while being ignorant of the law. This is why multiple lawyers refused to represent them. They had no case and the law was NOT on their side. They were criminally liable if they continued to refuse and that is all according to AZ law.
I provided AZ law. Please read it.
It is not that complex, but you will quickly realize as you do that you are “full of schiff”
AZ incorporated the federal 2002 HAV standards for election equipment into their law.
No election equipment in AZ can be certified without being EAC lab certified.
It was perfectly within AZ law for Cochise EB to decide to verify that was true.
This is not a complex issue, though you insist on making it one.
Testing is an independent issue and not relevant to anything going on in Cochise county.
But very relevant to the mess in Maricopa County.
The fact that nowhere else in the state had the problems that Maricopa county had TWICE,
should be telling.
Your ranting – througout your posts regarding “motives”
is irrelevant.
I have addressed it repeatedly.
You are in most instances wrong.
In all instances motives do not matter.
“Where?”
In a reply to you
Again
https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/criminal-defense-law/is-blackmail-illegal-arizona/
According to A.R.S 13-1804, a person can be charged with extortion by knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain property or services by a threat to do in the future any of the following:
1 Cause physical injury to anyone by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or cause death or serious physical injury to anyone
2 Cause damage to property
3 Engage in other conduct constituting an offense
4 Accuse anyone of a crime or bring criminal charges against anyone
5 Expose a secret or an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject anyone to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to hurt the person’s credit or business.
6 Take or withhold action as a public servant or;
7 Cause a public servant to take or withhold action
8 Cause anyone to part with any property
Blackmail by means of physical harm is a class two felony, any other form is a class four felony.
“I don’t see it on these threads. If you did I must have missed it in the threads.”
Learn to use google.
“Under AZ extortion statutes this does NOT apply. The person issuing the threat must be threatening to steal property or engage in threatening harm. The Hobbs threat of criminal prosecution does not meet that definition under AZ law.”
False see above – a threat to accuse someone of a crime or bring criminal charges unless they provide property or services is extortion.
“You keep ignoring the fact that the Cochise EB was unlawfully withholding certification according to a court of law. ”
Neither true nor relevant. They were ordered to certify – that is not the same.
Further that WAS AFTER the threat – order of events matter.
It is not a defense to a charge of extortion that the crime you are accusing someone of is true.
If I say
Give me your car or I will accuse you of murder,
and you actually committed murder, I STILL commited the crime of extortion.
“Citing extortion law is not only ridiculous but spurious at best. You WANT it to be extortion by twisting the definition into something that even a court would find laughable.”
No twisting at all. Not only is this black letter extortion it probably is in every state in the country.
John, you’re not paying attention.
“Accuse anyone of a crime or bring criminal charges against anyone”
Hobbs was correctly pointing out that they could be liable for criminal prosecution because AZ election law specifically makes it a crime to withhold certification unless they meet certain legal reasons. None of which the EB provided met those requirements.
Hobbs or her deputy were legally in the right to threaten legal action because the EB was illegally withholding certification. They were breaking the law.
The court pointed out exactly why it was illegal and why their rationale on why they were withholding did NOT meet requirements under AZ law.
You’re relying on one part of the law that literally means accusing somebody of a crime that has NOT committed one. The EB was illegally withholding the certification and face criminal charges if they did not do their job. This is all in the law. The AZ Supreme Court did not take up their emergency appeal precisely because what they were doing was ILLEGAL.
A state official in charge of making sure the law is followed CAN sue to force the offending official to comply. Threatening criminal charges BECAUSE it IS a crime under AZ law to withhold an election certification.
“John, you’re not paying attention.”
I have dismantled your posts word by word,
I pay more attention to what you write than you do.
I put more time and effort in to tearing it apart and analyzing it by far than you do.
YOUR not paying attention.
Read the AZ law on extortion – you remain wrong.
It is self evident you have not read what I wrote – which is fine.
But then do pretend you are able to tell me what I have said
I am not defending your mangling of my remarks.
I try to be careful to say what I mean.
On rare occaisions I am less precise than necescary – though this is a blog comment not a legal brief.
The same degree of precision is not required.
Regardless, your restatements of my remarks substantially alters their meaning.
Either you have not read them carefully,
your reading comprehension is poor or
you are deliberately distorting them.
Regardless, I have addressed this issue over and over.
You remain wrong about the substantive issues
Reread my prior responses.
Repeating the same errors just makes you look foolish.
“Nope. It’s you who has no idea what you are talking about. I HAVE cited the law”
Nope.
“the same ones cited by the court that you arbitrarily dismiss because it contradicted your argument.”
You did not even cite a case that was on point to the argument.
You tried to cite the dismisal of the AZ AG election lawsuit as relevant to the Cochise EB certification.
“Accusing me of lying”
I have accused you of lying – because you lie over and over all the time.
“I have provided you exactly what the law says”
Nope, you make claims about the law, you do not actual quote real law.
I do not care that you make claims.
I care that they are obviously wrong.
With respect to the court ruling that you claim to cite – you do not cite a ruling, you cite a news article with quotes from people,
That article links to another article with more quotes and spin purportedly from the hearing.
There are claims regarding the judge and what he ruled, but exactly what he ruled as well as the legal basis for that ruling are not provided.
Court orders are things that are in writing issued by the court – not articles in the hill
There is no way to determine the judges legal basis without seeing the actual order or an actual transcript of the hearing.
You provided neither.
Frankly the reporting on the hearing was a fiasco.
The hearing was rushed, the defendants were not allowed a lawyer,
the court appears to have made up its mind ahead of time.
The court then supplimented its ruling with a clearly illegal order requiring the board to certify BEFORE the deadline and at a meeting other than the regularly scheduled meeting.
It is common for judges to grant themselves more authority than they have – this being a perfect example.
Given that the meglomania of courts is only checked by other courts – there is no check.
We have seen nonsense like this all the time. Stone’s judge -= Jackson – you know the one who also ruled that an ex president gets to decide what is personal and what is an official record – decided that Stone was not allowed to talk about his case outside the court.
That is a clear violation of the first amendment. Judges can gag the prosecutor – the prosecutor is a state actor and there is no state right to free speech – there is no such thing as a state right, only state powers. They can not actually gag the defense attorney outside of court. Though a judge can tell a defense attorney that remarks made outside of court could result in some corrective measures in court. But the court has ZERO authority over the constitutional conduct of a person outside the court. Being accused of a crime does not take away your constitutional rights.
Being convicted can.
Regardless, none of the articles cites actual AZ law, all you have is a bunch of words that might be the judges. but more likely are the reporters or plantifs, and an obviously megalomaniac judge.
The judge ordered them to certify early – that is outside his authority. He essentially ordered them to do so quietly – also outside his authority.
and nothing in your article references actual AZ law.
The cochise EB is obligated to follow the court order – whether it is lawful or not or be held in contempt.
But the order itself is contemptible.
As best as I can tell the judge reach conclusions that required findings of fact – without having a hearing on the facts.
and reached conclusions of law – while only allowing one side to brief the law.
Seems like the perfect example of how democrats do everything.
He is not even from Cochise county so I am not sure how he even has jurisdiction.
Sounds like judge shopping to me.
John, the Cochise EB was unlawfully withholding certification. Multiple lawyers refused to represent them because they cited the fact that what the EB was doing was ILLEGAlL. The law was NOT on their side. It was THAT obvious. The fact that they did not have a lawyer present during court is THEIR fault. Not the court’s .
They were warned that their claim that the voting machines were not properly certified did not hold up to scrutiny. They ignored that and ended up looking like idiots before the court.
Blaming the judge is not an argument. The facts of the case are very clear. The two members of the EB were making false claims that their voting machines were not properly certified when it reality they were deliberately delaying the certification as a form of protest. The lawyers, state officials, the judge presiding, and the AZ Supreme Court all agreed the EB was illegally withholding certification. No amount for excuses you put out can replace the fact that they were indeed being unlawful.
The AZ election was a mess only because of idiot conspiracy theorists and their false beliefs. Beliefs they could not prove in court and the current lawsuit filed by Lake will not succeed. This is pretty cut and dry. You are wrong and very wrong. Nothing you have provided is even legally defensible.
Please remove all the spin, emotion, adjectives, nonsense about motives and other irrelevances and repost and I will address what is left of your remarks – if anything is still left.
Regardless, I have addressed every fallacious claim you have made many more times than once.
Most of your remark is wrong, you have been proven wrong.
I do not need to do it again – refer to my prior posts.
That is one long winded response.
“ Trump can’t get decent lawyers because he’s a horrible client.”
non sequitur – and again no evidence.
” He puts them and their careers in legal jeopardy every time.”
Again non sequitur – also false. You are litterally making a claim that is not even possible.”
It’s actually possible. Trump lawyers have been sanctioned by judges for making motions that are dishonest at the behest of Trump. Law firms have literally stated that Trump is a bad client that refuses to listen to their advice. He puts their careers in jeopardy by forcing them to make motions or arguments that CAN be career ending or destroy credibility. Rudy Giuliani is already facing disbarment and sanctions because of the BS he was peddling at the behest of Trump.
Legal threats by Hobbs office are not crimes. You WANT it t be because you think it’s wrong because you have no idea how the law works. Citing extortion laws just makes you look stupid.
Can you please fix the way that you quote replies.
Your posts are becoming indecipherable.
I am not going to pend 10 minutes trying to sort out whatever stupid claim you are repeating again
in the midst of mangled quoting.
“It’s actually possible.”
Nope.
“Trump lawyers have been sanctioned by judges for making motions that are dishonest at the behest of Trump.”
You have not provided evidence. Your claim as you write it is obvious error.
If a motion is actually “dishonest” then it is a crime.
Judges frequently abuse their authority and assume for themselves authority they do not have.
That occurs on both the right and the left. All that is is evidence of megalomania on the part of judges.
Nearly all judges suffer from megalomania.
“Law firms have literally stated that Trump is a bad client that refuses to listen to their advice.”
Of course they have.
We have been through this argument before – you obviously lost.
It is a false generalization fallacy.
You presume that the only objective that Trump or anyone else has in a legal conflict is that legal conflict.
In my life I have won legal conflicts that I would have been better off losing.
Do you win if you spend thousands of hours in a conflict that at the end has taken years of your life you will not get back ?
This was the Huge problem with Covid – aside from actually getting the math and science wrong,
The experts provided advice that was confined completely to their area of expertise.
Faucci has testified that he has no expertise in the economic costs of his recommendations, or the impact on children’s education.
Presuming that his advise was perfect with respect to how to reduce the number of covid deaths.
That advise could STILL be very bad advice.
In the US and most of the rest of the west the excess deaths from 2020 through the present are 3 times the covid deaths.
If magically our health policies had saved every single person who died from covid – there still would be twice the number of deaths that trends would predict. During covid more people died than should have, people died of things that were not covid who would not have died otherwise.
SOME of these are from increases in suicides. as an example. Regardless. covid deaths only account for 1/3 of the increase in excess deaths.
Except in sweden which did not follow the “experts” advice (actually they followed the swedish equivalent of Faucci’s advice someone whose actual credentials are far better). In sweden all excess deaths are from covid and covid deaths are slightly below western norms.
Sweden ended up with 1/3 the excess deaths of the rest of the west.
What is the point – Every factor is not Covid. Every factor is not the best legal choice.
This is again something that someone of moderate intelligence should understand.
But you don’t.
You are actually trying to convert making good choices into making bad choices because on a SINGLE criteria they are not perfect.
“He puts their careers in jeopardy by forcing them to make motions or arguments that CAN be career ending or destroy credibility.”
Not so long as courts constrain themselves to their legitimate domain.
We have been through this before – this is not only a stupid argument it is a dangerous one to law.
It is not very far from someone accused of a crime should not have a defense.
In every single court case 50% of the lawyers are always wrong.
If a motion or argument ends your legal career – 9 times out of ten, the problems is with the judge not the argument.
A judge is entitled to rule against you for a claim he feels is wrong. He can not punish you for making an argument he does not like.
“Rudy Giuliani is already facing disbarment and sanctions because of the BS he was peddling at the behest of Trump.”
The Guiliani case is dead – Guilliani won.
BTW the same happened in pretty much all these cases.
Prosecutors went after lots of people with some alleged connection to trump.
The cases quietly died.
“Legal threats by Hobbs office are not crimes.”
Wrong, I gave you AZ law (same law every state).
“You WANT it t be because you think it’s wrong because you have no idea how the law works.”
I do not want anything. The law is what it is.
It clearly is NOT what you claim.
Nor would any person with a brain actually want it to be.
It is very rare to prosecute a public official for pretty much any crime – because those in government tend to protect each other.
But there is no special exception for the SOS.
“Citing extortion laws just makes you look stupid.”
Nope
Belows is a synopsis of federal extortion law with cites,
This does not apply in this case – because Hobb’s is not a federal employee and she did not threaten an accusation of a federal crime.
But the point is that in all extortion law everywhere threatening to accuse or prosecute someone for a crime in order to get something of value is criminal extortion – with exceptions that do not apply.
“Federal statutes make many particular kinds of extortion or blackmail illegal. For example, extortion by officials of the federal government is a crime (18 U.S.C. § 872). It is blackmail to demand or receive a valuable thing by offering not to inform against anyone who has violated federal law (18 U.S.C. § 873). It is also prohibited to mail or transmit in interstate commerce certain threats with the intent to extort, including threats to accuse of a crime or to injure person, property, or reputation (18 U.S.C. §§ 875–877). ”
It is possible that Hobbs did violate the federal law by transmitting a threat.
But the odds of DOJ prosecuting are Zero.
The AZ AG has affadavits as well as admissions and records from Maricopa county that back up EVERY claim I have made.
The printers failed – they were allegedly tested the day before and worked – if true that strongly suggests fraud.
Door 3 Ballots were sometimes counted, sometimes not. Sometimes mixed. That is FACT. What is not known is the scale of the problem,
We know the printer problems resulted in some voters being unable to vote – i.e disenfranchised. An AZ court ordered the polling places to close as scheduled regardless of people waiting to vote.
I would note that the AZ AG’s race was won by less than 500 votes therefore even if these problems were small – they STILL with near certainty effected the outcome. The AZ Governor’s races is within 13K votes. which would require more than small problems, the AZ Senate race is within 100K votes – there are many allegations of problems that range from 150K-700K.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/21/arizona-ag-demands-maricopa-officials-answer-for-reportedly-mixing-counted-and-uncounted-ballots/
“ The AZ AG has affadavits as well as admissions and records from Maricopa county that back up EVERY claim I have made.
The printers failed – they were allegedly tested the day before and worked – if true that strongly suggests fraud.”
Nope. Wrong again. Printers failing after being tested doesn’t mean they weren’t supposed to fail after being tested. Things can fail after being tested. It just suggests the printers worked when they were tested. The failure didn’t prevent voters from casting their votes by other available methods. There ARE backup protocols and they were used. It is not an automatic suggestion of fraud. You expect every hiccup or anomaly to be fraud because you’re conditioned to believe that. You think every election should be absolute perfection. There’s no such thing.
“ An AZ court ordered the polling places to close as scheduled regardless of people waiting to vote.”
The printer problem didn’t disenfranchise voters.
“ Thomas Liddy, the division chief for the Civil Services Division of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and a Republican, said in the letter that “no voter was disenfranchised because of the difficulty the county experienced with some of its printers.” Liddy was responding to a demand for information from the Arizona attorney general’s office about what that office described as “myriad problems that occurred in relation to Maricopa County’s administration of the 2022 General Election.” Arizona’s Attorney General Mark Brnovich is also a Republican.”
As for the mixing of the ballots it seems they were taken to a tabulation center where they would be tabulated by machines that were functioning properly.
Some people were spoiling their own votes to be able to vote on a readable ballot but the process was deemed too much of a hassle for some and gave up. That’s on them not the election officials.
They were taking about 1700 ballots not a whole lot but not enough to make a statistically significant change in outcome. They did eventually count the ballots.
Every election is going to have problems. That’s not absolute proof of fraud.
” Printers failing after being tested doesn’t mean they weren’t supposed to fail after being tested.”
Correct, it means they were likely tampered with.
You do not seem to grasp there is not a way out here.
The printers failed – large scale. They did so in a way that disenfranchised voters.
Further there is evidence that the printer failure resulted in a cscade failure with unscannable ballots that needed to be hand counted mixed with spoiled ballots, and already counted ballots.
“Things can fail after being tested.”
Right – somewhere between 60-100 printers failed in the same way 24hrs after testing ?
While there are alot of possible explanations – the most likely are fraud, and those that are not fraud are gross incompetence.
At this time I can not prove the printers were tested the day before – that is just what some election officials have claimed to the AG’s office.
If they are wrong ? Changes little – the printers were either tampered with or they were incompetently dealt with.
It is the Job of the Maricopa EB to assure that election equipment works. It is the job of the SoS to make sure the EB does their job.
This is either deliberate fraud or gross incompetence.
Either way it disenfranchised voters.
“The failure didn’t prevent voters from casting their votes by other available methods.”
Actually it did. A voter must “login” to get a ballot printed by the ODBP. Once they do so they can not vote anywhere else in the state, or by any other means.
The ODBP prints them the correct ballot for the specific voter. One of the purposes is to allow voters to vote at any voting location in the state rather than their actual precinct.
Regardless, once that ballot is printed, the voter must use that Ballot.
If that ballot can not be scanned – then it must be hand counted.
And as I noted we have hundreds of statements and afadavits that the ODBP ballots were improperly handled after they failied to scan.
Some were put into the spoiled bin, some in the correct bin, but mixed with spoiled ballots, or with ballots that had already been counted.
Some of the ballots that had to be handcounted were properly delivered to be hand counted, but many were not.
“There ARE backup protocols and they were used.”
Also false. For many aspects of securely voting there are and can not be “backup protocols”.
Ballots are like currency – they must be carefully tracked. As noted above voters must login to be able to use the ODBP. Once they do that they will not be given another ballot – otherwise they could be able to vote twice.
In theory they can logout of the system and go to their correct precinct to vote. But logining out was not working and voters who used the ODBP failed to vote and then went to their home precinct where they did not need the ODBP were either told they could not vote or only allowed to vote provisionall. Further many gave up.
What you have is REAL voter suppression – and it does not matter whether it was by Fraud or by incompetence – it is Hobb’s and the Maricopa EB that are responsible.
“It is not an automatic suggestion of fraud.”
No, but it is a strong indicia of Fraud.
Furthert the alternative is gross incompetence.
“You expect every hiccup”
No I expect every hiccup to be a serious problem with the election.
All the assorted election details and procedures need to be followed religiously and very near perfectly – for multiple reasons.
We rightly do not trust the results from error ridden elections – there need be no fraud at all, and we still can have error that is easily sufficient to have altered the election outcome.
Further the vast majority of election processes that we rigidly adhere to are present to prevent fraud.
The reason that Ballots are legally required to be printed by the state in a fashion much like how currency is printed, is so that they are difficult to counterfeit. The whole ODBP concept is another voter conveinience that opens up the opportuinty for Fraud. ODBP’s are sust fancy laser printers. The moment you print a ballot using a laser printer you make it possible for anybody anywhere to print a ballot using a laser printer – rather than an offset press with special paper.
It means that it is not possible for auditors to tell counterfeit ballots from state issued ballots.
This was a major problem in Maricopa County AZ in 2020 – in that case some precincts ran out of state printed ballots and photocopied blanks.
We require the number of ballots counted to match the number of voters who voted – because that is another check that no on “injected” ballots – as LBJ infamously did to win his first senate contest in TX.
We require matching every mailin ballot mailed to each mailin ballot received (something mostly not done) again so that ballots can not be injected
When you allow significant errors, all that means is that you have eliminated all the means you have to prevent fraud.
You seem to beleive that Fraud will not happen because it is illegal.
Yet, even George Floyd was actually arrested for trying to pass a counterfeit $20 produced by a color printer.
The US government intercepts about $75M in counterfeit bills each year – that is a small percent of those produced.
Ballots are atleast as valuable as a $20. We know that in the 19th century voters were being paid as much as $3 to sign and deposit a prefilled out ballot. Today that is equivalent to $300. We know that in Detroit the going rate for ballot trafficers was $300 for each legitimate ballot they illegally acquired.
Everyone bt you seems to grasp that enormous amounts of power and money are at stake in an election.
It is ludicrously naive to beleive that when you allow error to disrupt the processes that secure an election, that you will not end up with lots of fraud.
So NO Svelaz there are not “backup protocols”.
You have a choice – you can have ease of voting and no ability to prevent or even detect most fraud.
Or you can have a secure election with very little fraud, and that REQUIRES processes procedures and protocols that make voting harder, and that mean when something goes wrong – your vote is not going to get counted.
You can not have – numerous ways to vote, ease of voting, and protection from election fraud all concurrently.
“anomaly to be fraud because you’re conditioned to believe that.”
Grow up. You are the one idiotically condictioned to beleive there is no election fraud.
Just like aparently there is no crime. no problem with border security. …
If you do not run elections so that election fraud is difficult, and with a high likelyhood will be discovered – you will get Fraud.
Just like if Walmart leaves there door opened after closing people will clean out the store.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country would not comitt a crime even if there was no law enforcement and no chance they would get caught. All the crime is committed by the small portion of people who do not obey the law on their own.
It does not matter if we are talking about armed robbery, shoplifting or election fraud – that is all committed by a small number of people who
will not follow the law. A large portion of those will obey the law – if it is likely they will get caught and punished. There is a small remainder that will break the law – even if they know they will get caught and punished.
This is reality. Everyone who is not a complete moron knows that some people will break the law no matter what.
Some people will shoplift. Some people will committ election fraud.
The purpose of all the “protocols” that you do not care are massively ignored and violated, is primarily to prevent that group who will not committ crimes like fraud if it is likely they will get caught. But in the end there are still people who will committ crimes like fraud NO MATTER WHAT,
The only one of us “conditioned” – is you – who does not accept the reality of the fact that – some people commit crimes.
We go to a great deal of trouble to thwart that and still do not succeed in doing more than reducing it.
Election fraud is very real. It occurs in every single election everywhere all the time.
When those running an election have the best processes to prevent and detect fraud in place – and those processes nearly all come at the expense of ease of voting, the frequency and scale of fraud will be small.
When we do not have those processes or where errors neutralize those processes we will get more fraud.
Mostly I do not beleive that democrats are inherently more prone to fraud than republicans.
However the left has destroyed the foundations of morality and holds that the ends justifies the means as a principle.
We can see from the twitter files – and from YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS.
You are constantly arguing that Twitter is ALLOWED to do as they did – that it is legal. You completely disregard the fact that it is immoral.
Above I said the vast majority of people will obey the law no matter what. They do so because those people are moral.
Once you lose the foundations of morality – almost no one will obey the law no matter what.
Undermine morality and the only factor determining the level of crime is the ability of law enforcement to stop crime.
And that is actually quite low.
Separately – like all crimes, Election fraud will be most common where it is easiest and most effective.
Republicans vote primarily in rural and suburban areas. Everyone knows everyone else, and the number of ballots handled by each precinct is very small. As a consequence of the differences in geographic distribution of democrats and republicans, republican election fraud is much less common. I would note that in the 19th century when Republicans controlled the cities, republican election fraud was more common.
“You think every election should be absolute perfection. There’s no such thing.”
Of course there is. Have you ever heard of 6 sigma ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma
While Wikipedia calls 6 sigma a manufacturing process – that is incorrect, it is one of several often concurrently implemented processes to reduce errors in a complex system. It applies to ALL systems – including voting.
A business must have processes to assure that it has an error rate below 3.4 per million to meet ISO 13053 – Six Sigma
Pretty much every business in the US that processes a million of anything has implimented 6 sigma and meets that error rate nearly all the time.
If you do not – you lose ISO certification and other manufactures will not buy from you.
I would note that 6 sigma reflects you claim that perfection is unacheivable – that is correct.
The 6 sigma standard is based the point at which the additional costs to reduce errors balances the costs associated with errors.
Businesses strive to achieve 6 sigma specifically because the costs of decreasing the error rate are lower than the cost of errors.
“The printer problem didn’t disenfranchise voters.”
Of course it did.
“ Thomas Liddy, ….”
Why do I want to hear from the people who were suppose to conduct a trustworty election and failed, idiotic claims that what did not happen clearly did.
And investigation does not mean accept what the people who F’d up say. It means actually go in and look at what really happened.
“As for the mixing of the ballots it seems they were taken to a tabulation center where they would be tabulated by machines that were functioning properly.”
This is a stupid claim. First – you can not fix mixed ballots. It is not possible – it is irrelevant where they were taken. Machines – working or otherwise can not tell a ballot that was spoiled, from a ballot that was unable to scan, from a ballot that was already counted.
Further That is NOT what happened regardless – and everyone knows that – something close to 100K ballots in Maricopa county had to be counted by HAND. They did not count them by hand because tabulators were working. They counted them by hand because the machines could not count them.
I would note that the big deal is NOT that ballots had to be counted by hand – I have no problem with hand counting 100% of ballots.
Or more optimally – count all ballots by machine and then verify the machine counts by randomly selecting batches of ballots and hand counting them and comparing them to the machine count. Something almost no state does, but not a business in the world would not do.
The problem is that the failure of the ODBP system created a cascade failure where there is no possible way that Mr. Liddy can truthfully say what he said.
We do not know how many people did not get to vote – because the ODBP problems slowed down in person voting and the courts refused to extend the voting deadline. We do not know how many people voted via ODBP chose to spoil a ballot that would not scan and gave up.
We do not know how many people voted via ODBP spoiled their ballot and tried to go to their home precinct and were not allowed to vote.
We do not know how many actually spoiled ballots were mixed with ODBP problem ballots.
We do not know how many already scaned and counted ballots were mixed with ODBP error ballots and counted again.
What we do KNOW is that the ODBP error and subsequent problems means that it is not possible to know if the results are correct.
It also means it is not possible to correct the problem by recount. The mixing of various ballot types means we no longer have the “chain of custody” to know whether a ballot picked out of a batch is actually a spoiled ballot or not.
You do not seem to grasp the scale of the mess made here.
And worse still the Republican AG candidate lost by less than 500 votes.
While it is possible that the errors in Maricopa county were large enough to flip the senate election – there are claims that between 150K and 700K voters were turned away or did not go to the polls because of the problem. It is unlikely that Masters won the Senate had the vote gone properly. Lake lost the Governor’s race by less than 15K votes – that is a far more plausible claim. It is near certain – after the disaster that so many people would vote against Hobbs that Lake would easily win now. Hobbs proved every claim of Lake true.
But it is absolutely certain that the problems were far larger than sufficient to flip the AZ AG race. And there is no way to ever no that they did not.
Lets assume for a second that this is all just massive incompetence.
Most of us are not OK with the possibility that the AZ election results are the consequence of the incompetence of the winners.
and that they would have lost a competently conducted election.
It is perfectly legitimate to distrust the results of an election where there is no fraud but high levels of error.
It is even more so, when the error may itself be fraud.
“Some people were spoiling their own votes to be able to vote on a readable ballot but the process was deemed too much of a hassle for some and gave up. That’s on them not the election officials.”
Nope. You do not support literacy tests.
“They were taking about 1700 ballots not a whole lot but not enough to make a statistically significant change in outcome. They did eventually count the ballots.”
Nope – this is already well documents – AZ had to count a but under 100K ballots by hand because of ODBP problems.
We have no idea how many people did not get in to precincts because of ODBP problems.
We have no idea how many people gave up.
We have no idea what the scale of the mixing problem was – and there is absolutely no way to tell once the ballots were mixed.
And the AZ AG’s race was determined by less than 500 ballots.
And again – you can not fix this by recount.
There is only one way to fix this – and that is a new election.
Preferably one without Hobb’s and without the Maricopa County EB
“Every election is going to have problems.”
When the error rate is 3.4/1000000 – a rate that is acheivable in many other areas – then talk to me.
What do you think the Fed’s error rate is handling money ?
Would you continue to use a bank with an error rate this high ?
Would you use a pharmacy that screwed up this much ?
I would remind you that the Cyber Ninja’s report on Maricopa county found that 980,000 out of 2.1M ballots had some kind of problem that was not supposed to occur. That is almost a 50% error rate.
“That’s not absolute proof of fraud.”
It is not – but error makes fraud possible and undetectable.
and regardless error undermines trust in elections.
And an election with high error rates is not an election.
From some of the reporting I can find – not only have hundreds of witnesses come forward, but there is several videos of ballot mixing and other election problems in Maricopa County.
Regardless, there is an open AZ AG investigation.
The AZ AG republican candidate lost the election by less than 500 votes.
Why would we expect the incoming democrat in January to continue an investigation that could easily cost him his election ?
Why would you think the investigation would stop? Witnesses and video? They have state laws regarding changes. I’m sure they will do what the law says. That’s a wait and see situation.
Why would the investigations stop ? Seriously ?
Why would the narrowly winning AZ AG candidate continue investigations that would lead to his LOSING office ?
Regardless, we have seen this over and over – Investigations into misconduct or fraud or election problems that as they start to become productive are stalled or die as democrat judges or democrat prosecutors or republican lawyers threatened by the bar withdraw.
In GA a private lawsuit that had just started to receive ballot scanns from Fulton county and had found 500+ instances where a ballot was scanned more than than once after reviewing only a few percent of Fulton county ballot scanns – that lawsuit was thrown out when the Democrat Marc Elias legal team intervened and persuaded the democrat judge to reverse his prior decision that the plantifs had standing – which they clearly did. It is not possible to continue that investigation anymore – the ballot scanns for 2022 have been destroyed.
That is just one of many instances where investigations into democrat malfeasance – most commonly election related have died as they were appearing to be productive.
The FBI used exactly the same geofencing process – getting cell phone location data from google and apple to identify J6 protestors as TTV used to identify over 2000 people engaged in ballot harvesting in 2020.
Yet there is no FBI or any other investigation into massive democratic Ballot harvesting in 2020.
There are hundreds of instances where the same person is caught on video in the middle of the night depositing half a dozen or more ballots at a time into more than one drop box in one night. And there would be even more except that PA destroyed all its ballot box video and other states did not have video on unattended ballot boxes. Numerous republican prosecutors have said they will not touch 2020 election fraud cases because their state bar association has threatened to disbar any attorney that challenges an election.
I do not know what the results of actually investigating every allegation of malfeasance would be.
But I do know that when someone seeks to thwart that investigation so rigrously as is being done – THEY are the problem
“They have state laws regarding changes.”
Nope, you know better, there is no requirement to continue an investigation.
” I’m sure they will do what the law says.”
The law says nothing – when have we seen democrats investigate anyone that was not a republican.
Democrats do not even investigate criminals.
“That’s a wait and see situation.”
Nope, anything the current AG does not complete by Jan, will die.
Is the AZ AG’s demand letter to the Maricopa county election Board along with evidence of allegations “some right wing site”
You have claimed elsewhere that the Hunter Biden laptop is old news. Everyone knows about it.
Why does everyone know about it ? There was little reporting at all on MSNBC, CNN, WaPo NYT … What little there was called it “russina disinformation” The story was blocked on all social media and if you tried to post it, You were blocked.
If you know about the Hunter Biden laptop the ONLY way you would know anything is from those “right wing” media cites you rant about.
Whether you like it or not the only place in this country you can go for the truth about anything the left deems offends them – is on Right wing media.
You have argued repeatedly that it is OK for Twitter etc to censor however they wish.
Lets accept your claim.
That means that on many issues the only place you will be able to go to get the truth is right wing media, or Parler or Truth or Gab
You can not concurrently support broad censorship while at the same time defaming those places that will publish the truth that you censor.
“ You have claimed elsewhere that the Hunter Biden laptop is old news. Everyone knows about it.
Why does everyone know about it ? There was little reporting at all on MSNBC, CNN, WaPo NYT … What little there was called it “russina disinformation” The story was blocked on all social media and if you tried to post it, You were blocked.”
Nope. Every news organization reported on the Hunter Biden laptop. That “little” reporting is how everyone knows about it. At the time it WAS deemed Russian disinformation because it was during the time Trump was trying to deflect from his attempt to extort the Ukrainian president.
You can not even get your own facts straight.
Trump’s faux impeachment was long over before the Hunter Biden Laptop story surfaced.
By your own admission – the only reporting by the media on the hunter Biden laptop was a LIE
That is your idea of the media informing people ? Lying to them ?
All you are doing is STRENGTHENING the case for free speech.
The way that we assure that the TRUTH actually gets out is to allow ALL claims to be made.
We test what is true in the open in public not in ministries of truth in government or social media
We do that because as the twitter files demonstrate – when we do not – we get it wrong,
we get it wrong about the biden laptop, we get it wrong about covid, lockdowns, masks, kids in school, ….
Next, your error confuses the accurate reporting by John Solomon who provided hundreds of documents – including emails from Hunter Biden exposing Biden corruption in Ukraine PRIOR to Trump Faux impeachment I,
So YOU, the Media, the left, Democrats, social media have been WRONG and supressed the hunter Biden laptop story AND you were WRONG and Supressed John Solomon’s EVIDENCE prior to the faux impeachment.
This addresses a tiny portion of the Biden Ukraine story – long before the Hunter Biden Laptop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYg5vtUG0fo
Collins makes an excellent point several minutes in
Joe Biden is either lying or he is the only person in govenrment were there was an actual quid pro quo.
Svelaz, you should know by now, that I do not make claims I can not back up.
I TRY to make distinctions between what has been reported and what is proven.
I provided an email from Hobbs assistant to Cochise EB threatening them with criminal prosecution.
That is PROVEN. That is a primary source.
There are also purportedly video’s of ballot mixing – I have not seen those. But it has been reported, and the AZ AG’s office has made that claim to Maricopa county. There are also election officials in Maricopa county on the record claiming ballot mixing.
There are also hundreds of reports made to the AZ AG’s office – many on election night.
I have not looked – but I am sure there is a story on Fox or Brietbart.
But more importantly the AZ AG has sent letters to Maricopa EB demanding preservation of records and responses to allegations.
The AZ AG has made both SPECIFIC allegations and more general ones.
They have written that they have witnesses and evidence.
The AZ AG is not a right wing media site.
“ Svelaz, you should know by now, that I do not make claims I can not back up.”
Your claim was that Hobbs threatened the EB with indictment.
You backed it up with
“ I provided an email from Hobbs assistant to Cochise EB threatening them with criminal prosecution.
That is PROVEN. That is a primary source.”
It wasn’t Hobbs that made the threat. Your claim didn’t say “the Hobbs assistant to Cochise EB Your claim is still false and inaccurate.
Threatening criminal prosecution is not a crime. If you claim you do not make claims without backing them up then back the claim that it’s indeed a crime by citing the criminal statute that makes it a crime.
It was made by hobb’s deputy. It was extortion, you may not use a criminal threat in a civil issue.
Numerous other sources have confirmed a threat to indict by Hobb’s.
Some reporter saying something has always been sufficient for you.
I think half a dozen news outlets saying indict is sufficient for me
The email is more than sufficient for further discovery
And I am not interested in your idiotic nit picking.
It is ok for you to make outlandish claims based on nothing
and then support them – if you ever bother to support them with thin gruel that some reporter says some unamed source says something vaguely similar to your claim
Sorry, it if fair game to use an actual email from Hobb’s office explicitly criminally threatening the Cochise County EB.
Yes, threatening criminal prosecution to secure something else is almost always extortion/blackmail and that is a crime.
In this case there is no crime.
But even where there is a real crime it is criminal extortion as an example to say “give me your car, or I will report you for drug dealing”
extortion: Illegal use of one’s official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
“Extortion may include threats of harm to a person or his property, threats to accuse him of a crime, or threats to reveal embarrassing information. Some forms of threat are occasionally singled out for separate statutory treatment under the designation “blackmail.””
The law on extortion covers almost all threats to accuse or prosecute someone for a crime in order to secure something of value.
There are a few very specific exceptions that do not apply here.
“If you do not return my car, I will charge you with stealing it” as an example.
AZ Criminal code see 5
13-1804. Theft by extortion; classification
A. A person commits theft by extortion by knowingly obtaining or seeking to obtain property or services by means of a threat to do in the future any of the following:
1. Cause physical injury to anyone by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or cause death or serious physical injury to anyone.
2. Cause physical injury to anyone except as provided in paragraph 1 of this subsection.
3. Cause damage to property.
4. Engage in other conduct constituting an offense.
5. Accuse anyone of a crime or bring criminal charges against anyone.
6. Expose a secret or an asserted fact in a social media message as defined in section 16-901 or in any other manner, whether true or false, tending to subject anyone to hatred, contempt or ridicule or to impair the person’s credit or business unless the threat is based on a plausible claim of right to the property or services obtained or sought to be obtained.
7. Take or withhold action as a public servant or cause a public servant to take or withhold action.
8. Cause anyone to part with any property.
9. Take or withhold action regarding an alleged claim of easement or other right of access to an adjoining property if both of the following occur:
(a) The claimant’s property interest is the result of a tax lien purchase or foreclosure pursuant to title 42, chapter 18.
(b) The fair market value of the claimant’s property is equal to or less than the amount paid by the claimant for the purchase of the tax lien or foreclosure, including taxes paid after the lien purchase and any costs and attorney fees paid in connection with the lien foreclosure. For the purposes of this subdivision, “fair market value” means the fair market value as defined in section 33-814, subsection A as of the date of the theft.
B. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection A, paragraph 5, 6 or 7 of this section if a reasonable person would believe that the property or services were obtained or sought to be obtained by the threat of a reasonable accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other invocation of official action.
C. Theft by extortion is a class 4 felony, except that theft by extortion under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 2 felony.
“If you claim you do not make claims without backing them up then back the claim that it’s indeed a crime by citing the criminal statute that makes it a crime.”
I do not owe you something because you have demanded it.
But in the faint hope of getting you to think before you post, I have provided the AZ Criminal code section on extortion in another post.
You may not threaten to charge another person with a crime to secure property or a service, except where it is an actual crime to withhold that property or service. i.e. “return my car or I will report it stolen”
https://dailycaller.com/2022/12/01/katie-hobbs-threatened-county-arrest-prosecution/
https://twitter.com/arjunswritings/status/1600531153286758400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1600531153286758400%7Ctwgr%5Eb1bc864fbad199ee90181ca6a8f332e034649502%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2022%2F12%2F07%2Farizona-governor-elect-twitter-censor-information-critical-herself%2F
State law can not require an election board to certify an election by a specific date. Think about it for a few minutes.
That would be ordering by law the automatic certification of every election no matter how fraudulent.
The state law specifies the deadline – but failure to meet the deadline would merely mean the state can not certify.
You can not order or threaten an EB to get them to certify. That would be a crime.
You claim she sued. That she can do. But she also threatened to indict. That she can not.
Frankly there is the entirely separate problem that Hobbs has a massive conflict of interest – she really can’t do ANYTHING.
She should have recused herself from the election a year ago, and allowed her assistant to take over.
You and the Judge do not know how to read the AZ law.
“ State law can not require an election board to certify an election by a specific date.”
In Arizona it does. A deadline always lands on a specific date.
“ The state law specifies the deadline – but failure to meet the deadline would merely mean the state can not certify.”
The law says “shall”. A deadline always lands on a specific date. Failure to meet the deadline means they did not certify when they were supposed to. Hobbs can sue to make sure they certify the election according to the law.
“” You can not order or threaten an EB to get them to certify. That would be a crime.
You claim she sued. That she can do. But she also threatened to indict. That she can not.”
She can order the EB to get them to certify when they are being unlawful. They were falsely claiming that the voting machines were no certified. If that is true why didn’t they bring it up when they were checking the certification of the machines just prior to the election which is what they MUST do. Obviously there were trying to delay the election to Lake could make her baseless claims.
She DID sue. She clearly threatened to sue and she was well within her power to do so. You have ZERO proof that the threatened to indict. Only a grand jury can indict. Show proof of her claim that she threatened to indict.
“ Frankly there is the entirely separate problem that Hobbs has a massive conflict of interest – she really can’t do ANYTHING.
She should have recused herself from the election a year ago, and allowed her assistant to take over.”
She was not legally obligated to recuse herself. She should have, BUT she was not required to. Previous SOC’s in Arizona did not recuse themselves when they were on the ballot either.
He office was not running the polls and was not tabulating the results in each county. All her office was required to do is tabulate the results of all counties that certified their elections and all she had to do was certify the totals. He position is largely ministerial she has no control over how the counties run their elections. All her office does is makes sure the rules are followed which is exactly what she did.
“ You and the Judge do not know how to read the AZ law.”
YOU didn’t read the law itself I did, the judge did. He even put the law on the dismissal for everyone to see. It seems YOU are the one who doesn’t know how to read the law.
“In Arizona it does. A deadline always lands on a specific date.
“ The state law specifies the deadline – but failure to meet the deadline would merely mean the state can not certify.”
The law says “shall”.”
Yes, it SHALL occur by the specified data or not at all.
The law can not create a choice, and then remove choice.
Either Cretification is automatic, or it is a decision that the EB can make.
This is trivial.
It is also evidence you do not know how to read law.
“Failure to meet the deadline means they did not certify when they were supposed to.”
No it means they did not certify. PERIOD
There is no supposed to.
If certification is not a choice – than the EB need not do anything at all.
” Hobbs can sue to make sure they certify the election according to the law.”
Hobbs can sue, but my guess is that without a court order prior to the deadline the issue is moot.
She can not force an EB to certify after the deadline – “that is the law”
“She can order the EB to get them to certify when they are being unlawful. ”
They aren’t there were given a choice – certify or don’t and a deadline for that choice.
“They were falsely claiming that the voting machines were no certified.”
I have no idea what they were claiming – and I would not beleive anything you say without proof ever.
I would be completely shocked if most of the AZ voting machines are certified.
We learned in 2020 than almost none anywhere actually where.
“If that is true why didn’t they bring it up when they were checking the certification of the machines just prior to the election which is what they MUST do.” Again claims out of nowhere from you. I do not know what is true.
I also know that you do not know what is true.
The differences is I do not make claims that I can not prove.
You do all the time, and are rarely correct.
I do not know why Cochise EB refused to certify. What I know is they are not obligated to, but they are likely civily liable if they do not have sufficient a reason. Hover the standard for not certifying is going to be low. Certification should err on the side of integrity.
“Obviously there were trying to delay the election to Lake could make her baseless claims.”
Bizzare argument – Lake was not allowed to file a lawsuit until after the election was certified. That is legal error, but it is what happened.
So delaying certifaction BLOCKED Lake
“She DID sue.”
No.
“She clearly threatened to sue and she was well within her power to do so. You have ZERO proof that the threatened to indict. Only a grand jury can indict. Show proof of her claim that she threatened to indict.”
I proved her office threatened to criminally prosecute – that is outside her offices power – except that she will be governor soon, and the state police answer to her.
“She was not legally obligated to recuse herself. She should have, BUT she was not required to. Previous SOC’s in Arizona did not recuse themselves when they were on the ballot either.”
Something we agree on.
BTW that was a mistake on her part, because it makes it easier for proof of error to be treated as proof of malfeasance.
“Her office was not running the polls and was not tabulating the results in each county.”
Correct, but they supervise the entire election, they provide binding guidance, they are responsible to verify the certification of equipment.
They have oversight over everything
“All her office was required to do is tabulate the results of all counties that certified their elections and all she had to do was certify the totals.”
Her responsibilities are much larger than that.
“He position is largely ministerial she has no control over how the counties run their elections. All her office does is makes sure the rules are followed which is exactly what she did.”
False. Her office makes the rules – and I would note YES she is responsible to make sure the rules are followed – like making sure ballots are not mixed. Making sure certified equipment is used. Making sure it is tested.
“It seems YOU are the one who doesn’t know how to read the law.”
You inability to read law is demonstrated here every day.
I would suggest that you let go of your idiotic nonsense that things you do not like have been debunked.
The Trump claim of misconducted by the Biden’s in Ukraine that resulted in his first impeachement was a “debunked right wing conspiracy theory”
Until it wasn’t.
The Hunter Biden laptop was debunked by 51 IC experts – until it wasn’t.
The claim that Social media was shadow banning conservatives was debunked until it was not.
and on and on and on.
When someone on the left like you says that something is “debunked” – that is a giant red flag for rational people that strongly suggests the claim that is debunked is actually true.
Most americans may not know the details of the AZ election – but they KNOW that it was a mess.
You can not “debunk” what people have seen with their own eyes.
“ I would suggest that you let go of your idiotic nonsense that things you do not like have been debunked.”
It seems you are the one who does not like that your nonsense has been dunked multiple times. Like S. Meyer, you have fallen into that morass of conspiracy theories and political rumor milling and made it into your personal reality. That is how conspiracy theories rot your brain.
” Like S. Meyer, you have fallen into that morass of conspiracy theories and political rumor milling and made it into your personal reality.”
Said by an idiot who has been wrong on almost everything. He even contradicts himself. Every day we see how wrong you were about Twitter while you play catchup only to have to play again tomorrow.
I don’t think we will find a low intellect on this blog than Svelaz.
If anything I have said has been debunked you could cite it.
I have cited dozens of things that you have claimed were debunked that were ultimately truth.
I am sure you can find a list of atleast half a dozen in one of my posts on this topic.
One of the reasons that no one provides cites to you all the time, is because
we cite facts we claim. You fade away, and then 10 posts later you raise the same previously falsified claims.
I do not owe you ANY cites. I owe the blog honestly if I wish to earn credibility.
But NO ONE owes you citing the same things over and over and over again, because after some claim of yours has been proven false or some claim against you has proven true, within a few posts you will be back pushing the same repeatedly disproving nonsense.
Either you have an abysmal memory or you are a liar.
Hobbs is not the first SOS to manage her own election – in fact the same thing happened in NM – and just like AZ the SOS in NM made a demand of election officials that violated the law and therefore was a crime.
There is no absolute requirement that an SOS recuse themselves from an election that they participate in.
But if they do not, they had better pray that there are no problems and they had better pray that the election is not close.
Because should there be allegations of fraud or misconduct their motives in every single one of their actions WILL be subject to scrutiny and will NOT be entitled to the same presumption of neutrality.
The ODBP problem is likely to be enormous – Those are directly or indirectly Hobb’s responsibility.
There are conflicting reports regarding the equipment. One report claims they were all tested the day before the election.
Another that the were not tested at all. The details matter only in trying to determine whether there was fraud or malfeasance.
As the AZ AD said in his press conference yesterday – the AR AG does not certify elections – and would not have certified this one.
That is the role of the SOS and then he quoted JFK those who ride the lion often find themselves inside the lion.
“ Hobbs is not the first SOS to manage her own election – in fact the same thing happened in NM – and just like AZ the SOS in NM made a demand of election officials that violated the law and therefore was a crime.”
It may be a crime in New Mexico, but it certainly wasn’t in Arizona.
What state statute specially makes it a crime for the SOS to threaten to sue an election board to certify? You have not shown where she said the threatened to indict the EB. What is the evidence for that claim?
The claims of machines not being certified were made because the county EB, two members who are known conspiracy theorists were more than likely trying to help their preferred candidate instead of doing their job. That is why no lawyer would touch their case because they KNEW they were had no basis for their claim. The machines, by law were required to be tested and verified just prior to the election. If they were not properly certified THAT board would have noticed it at that time. NOT after the election. THAT is more suspicions about the motives of the two EB members than of Hobbs.
So yes, details matter. Context matters too and all you have provided is hearsay without evidence of what was really said. Especially with your claim about Hobbs threatening to indict the EB.
Svelaz – please re-read this post.
You are obviously wrong – about everything.
Threatening Criminal prosecution for something that is not a crime, or even for something that is a crime in order to get something unrelated to the criminal threat is extortion/blackmail – and that is a crime in ever state and the federal government.
Pay me what you owe me or I will report it as theft – is not extortion.
Pay me what you owe me or I will report you for tax evasion is extortion.
Further there is no crime of failure to certify. Any threat of criminal prosecution by Hobbs office for failure to perform a task that is outside her jurisdiction is extortion. The decision to certify a county is that Counties alone. They can be civilly sued, but the burden of proof will be high.
“The claims of machines not being certified were made because the county EB, two members who are known conspiracy theorists were more than likely trying to help their preferred candidate instead of doing their job.”
It is amazing how many (all) of those right wing conspiracy theories have proven true.
I would suggest removing “right wing conspiracy theory” from your vocabulary – because most everyone now equates that with TRUE.
“The machines, by law were required to be tested and verified just prior to the election NOT after the election.”
True, and pretty much never done.
The Cyber Ninja’s audit of Maricopa county found that NONE of the Maricopa equipment met the certification requirements.
It was all 2 years out of date in security updates and could be hacked inside of 2 minutes by a script kiddie.
I would advise you to avoid questions about the certification and security of voting equipment. It is something I am probably more knowledgeable about that most of the Experts. I have been dealing with election integrity issues since shortly after 2000 and am very familiar with all the literature on all the different electronic voting equipment and their problems.
There is a substantial amount of voting equipment in this country today that runs windows XP. Much of that claims to be certified.
None of it is, or ever can be. Microsoft ceased providing security updates to Windows XP years ago. A windows XP machine connected to the internet without a firewall will be hacked inside of 15minutes. With a good firewall it will take longer. Any windows XP machine that is on a network can be hacked by anyone who knows how on that network within 2 minutes.
“If they were not properly certified THAT board would have noticed it at that time.”
Like Maricopa tested there printers before the election, and yet they did not work during the election ?
“THAT is more suspicions about the motives of the two EB members”
Your guesses as to someone else’s motives are irrelevant.
Hobb’s placed herself in a position where her own interests and election integrity are arguably at odds.
Unless you have evidence that the EB election officials will financially benefit if Hobb’s loses. You do not have self interest.
“So yes, details matter.”
Only relevant details and you are a master of missing what is relevant and fixating on the irrelevant.
” Context matters too”
Some does some does not, and again you fixate on what does not, and not what does.
Hobb’s personally benefits from a specific outcome that her role as SoS can influence.
THAT is why everything she does is subject to extra scrutiny and loses any benefit or the doubt.
All the rot you are spewing about the Cochise EB is meaningless – without some evidence of DIRECT self interest.
You do not have that.
It is entirely possible they are partisan hacks. It is also possible the Maricopa EB is partisan hacks.
The only actual evidence that we have is TWICE in a row. Maricopa has botched elections.
“all you have provided is hearsay without evidence of what was really said.”
Letter from Hobbs assistant is not hearsay.
I would also suggest that you learn what hearsay is.
I saw XXX is not hearsay.
I heard XXX is not hearsay if it is admitted to prove that XXX was said. It is hearsay if admitted to prove XXX is true.
Statements against interests are admissible hearsay.
“Especially with your claim about Hobbs threatening to indict the EB.”
Letter threatening to criminally prosecute was provided.
You have a point regarding lawyers – but it is actually a Bad point for you.
Until the last decade there have not been law firms of lawyers that specialize in election law.
In 2000 the Democrats decided that they had lost FL because they were outlawyered.
Subsequently they chose to build a body of democrat election lawyers,
which they have done. And of course if you build something – it ends up getting used.
The result is that democrats have been massively litigious in elections in the past 2 decades.
As I noted before PA passed its voter ID law more than a decade ago. The US Supreme court found Voter ID laws constitutional more than a decade ago. Yet Voter ID was litigated in PA in every single election cycle, and court injunctions prohibited PA from using Voter ID – which was enacted into law over a decade ago and determined constitutional over a decade ago.
Everyone of these democratic lawsuits failed – but not until after the election, and the effect was PA’s voter ID laws never were in effect for an election.
Put sikmply democrats have gotten very good at election lawfare.
And like PA , that is NOT about being right about the law, it is just about causing problems, stalling, delaying.
And sometimes they get lucky. In PA they successfully got the PA supreme court to completely rewrite ACT 77
and now PA has election law that comes from a court – not legislators, not the PA congress.
This BTW is the driving force behind the ISL case in SCOTUS right now – and though the case is not about PA, it is about the courts replacing the legislature with themselves.
And countrary to your claims – you can go on youtube and listen to oral arguments and the democrats are doing badly.
Predicting SCOTUS based on oral arguments is a crap shoot.
The biggest thing that democrats have going for than in this lawsuit is that a 4:3 democrat State supreme court is now 5:2 republican.
It is possible that SCOTUS could decide the issue is moot. That is the BEST that democrats will get – SCOTUS deciding not to decide because they do not need to decide.
Regardless, there are already 3 certain votes for ISL on the court. And two of the “unknown” votes clerked for justices in 2000 that were part of the 4 justice ISL concurrance in Bush V. Gore.
And Contra YOUR idiocy – the originalists have already won their case. No state court ruled on a federal election prior to the end of the civil war. That case went to SCOTUS and SCOTUS split 4:4
Further the notes of the constitutional convention show that the language used in the constitution was chosen deliberately.
And finally both the electors for president and state senators were chose by the Legislature alone prior to amending the constitution.
I support ISL – because that is what the words in the constitution say – and we should follow the words of the constitution.
At the same time ISL is a temporary workarround, it is NOT a solution to the problem that courts have become politicized and that courts are unconstituionally violating separation of powers.
ISL is also flawed because it eliminates checks and balances. The correct answer to the problem is to find a means of disciplining courts that go beyond judicial review and into legislating from the bench.
But there is not a remedy for that before the court.
“ You have a point regarding lawyers – but it is actually a Bad point for you.
Until the last decade there have not been law firms of lawyers that specialize in election law.”
Nope wrong again. It we are not talking about the last decade. We are talking about what happened in Arizona. The rest of your post is just a long winding rant about past grievances about the left and democrats. It’s merely a distraction.
What makes you think those lawyers were not specializing on election law? What evidence do you have that they weren’t?
They sought lawyers who obviously would know about election law. The fact that they all refused except one out of state lawyer shows that those more knowledgable about AZ election law KNEW the EB members were being unlawful. That was a big clue, should have been a big clue to those EB members.
You actually want to argue about this ?
This is stupid.
The GOP openly admits they have BOTCHED dealing with election law.
Democrats have been providing Law firms with copious funding to develop election law specialists.
Election law is a specialty field and worse still prior to the recent lawfare tactics of the left there was never enough work in it for lawyers to specialize. NONE of the lawyers in Bush vs. Gore were election law specialists. They were world class lawyers, both right and left, but the were NOT election lawyers. Such a specialty did not exist.
Democrats CHOSE to fund lawfirms to develop election law divisions, and then they committed to giving them cases because no specialty will last long without litigation. As from the field of Dreams – “if you build it, they will come” – if you establish election law divisions in key law firms, they will get used – nobody funds a specialty to sit on the bench. That drove the democrats to engage in election lawfare – which they have been fairly successful at, which is part of what drove this case.
Scotus has actually been killing off federal court challenges – using the “political questions doctrine” – basically keeping federal courts out of election issues that do not actually have a valid federal constitutional basis.
As an example – federal courts are generally blocked from redistricting cases anymore – there is no objective way to create congressional districts, so judicial review can never actually be over a constitutional issue, and congress has not made any law on redistricting.
As a result democrats moved litigation to state courts. Several state courts have been stupid enough not to follow SCOTUS’s lead and stay out of what are political issues. Therefore we see stupid election law fights in state courts.
The best resolution of the problem would be for SCOTUS’s political questions doctrine to be adopted by state supreme courts.
I.e. keep the courts OUT of political conflicts. But States have not learned that on their own and SCOTUS does not have the power to impose that on the states – for EXACTLY the reasons that You and Katyal state.
It is absolutely true that SCOTUS has never gotten between State courts and state constitutions – and likely never will.
That is squarely outside the federal govenrments domain.
Anyway up until now – Republicans have NOT followed Democrats and funded lawfirms to develop election law specialties and groups.
All of that is fact. My judgement on How democrats have USED the election law groups they have funded is completely independent of the FACT that democrats have done so.
Today there are large numbers of democrat election lawyers. There are few if any republican election lawyers. There are republican lawyers who bone up on election law when they are given cases. But no dedicated republican election lawyers.
Republicans are currently working to change that.
This is all FACT.
And again you clearly have no clue how lawyers take cases.
And as is typical of those on the left, you try to impute emotional or political meaning to decisions that have nothing to do with either.
There is absolutely no difficulty getting a lawyer to take a case they will lose.
It happens over 50% of the time.
If you had one working brain cell that would be obvious.
I am always surprised at the arguments you make, and at your inability to note their obvious flaws and disconnection from reality.
As an example Katyal is a brilliant lawyer – and parts of what you claimed he argued are correct.
But they are not relevant.
State constitutions and state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over exclusively state law.
Federal elections are clearly not exclusively state matters.
I would note that – though we have stretched the constitution to accomplish this, there are myriads of issues where states and the federal govenrment have concurrent jurisdiction.
Drugs would be an obvious answer.
Where federal and state law conflict – which prevails ? Federal law.
If a state legalized marijuana in its constitution – would that prohibit the federal government from regulating marijuana, or litigating it in federal courts ? Would the federal government be bound to abide by state supreme court decisions on drugs within that state ?
Absolutely not.
Not only do federal courts and the federal constitution trump state courts where the federal government has legitimate jurisdiction – but federal law trumps state constitutions in any domain that is shared.
Elections are FEDERAL first, and delegated to the state legislature 2nd.
Inside the federal domain the supreme court owes not one iota of deference to state supreme courts.
An alternative to ISL that SCOTUS is free to adopt is the allow federal courts to take any and all election related challenges and completely ignore state law and constitutions – because it is a FEDERAL election. Just as SCOTUS completely ignores state courts, laws and constitutions regarding drugs.
Katyal is actually incorrect that SCOTUS have never overruled a state supreme court over state constitution or law.
What they have done is completely ignore state courts and state law and state constitutions inside the federal domain.
Election law for federal elections is inarguably a federal domain, in which the constitution has delegated some power to STATE LEGISLATURES.
Inarguably it is entirely subject to federal judicial review – without regard to state laws and constitution.
I would note that ISL is correct – because it is what the constitution says. Inarguably.
But it is just a bandaid on the actual problem. The problem is that democrats – at the federal and state level have burned separation of powers to the ground.
This case would not have ever happened but for democrats courts failure to follow their own laws and constitutions.
SCOTUS does not have the power top compel the PA SCOTUS to follow its own laws and constitution.
But it does have the power to restore the constitutional power over elections only to the legislature within a state.
Again this is a bandaid. It is a temporary fix. In the real world I want nearly everything a legislature does reveiwable by the courts.
But both state and federal courts have execed their legitimate authority, and scotus can not fix that for state courts.
But it can remove their power entirely.
“ This BTW is the driving force behind the ISL case in SCOTUS right now – and though the case is not about PA, it is about the courts replacing the legislature with themselves.
And countrary to your claims – you can go on youtube and listen to oral arguments and the democrats are doing badly.”
Nope.
I read and heard the entirety of the arguments on the ISL case.
Mr. Katyal made argued brilliantly. He used originalism and textualism in his argument and at one point you could tell Justice Alito was trying hard to poke holes in his argument and he was not successful. Katyal made the point that no SCOTUS has ever in 233 years ruled a state Supreme Court was wrong on interpreting their own state constitution. Yet here they were trying to do just that. He even demonstrated the fact that the theory was not only logically flawed but totally unsupported by the intent of the founders themselves.
The plaintiff could not explain why the courts after so many years cannot suddenly not review a legislature’s election rules against their own constitution. The flaw rests on the meaning of “legislature” and “regulation”. I can’t remember what he said exactly I will need to bring up the transcript again. But basically the theory fails even the originalist and textual interpretation.
The constitution grants the power to the states and the states constitution gives the power to the state legislature on how they should operate and the courts have the power to interpret the constitution, NOT the legislature which is what they want to claim thru this theory.
“I read and heard the entirety of the arguments on the ISL case.”
Obviously not.
I have already provided the originalist case.
It is also well made in the WSJ article as well as several Amicus briefs
If this hangs solely on originalism ISL will easily win.
I can not help what you beleive ragarding what others argued.
“Mr. Katyal made argued brilliantly.”
I am sure he did, he is an excellent lawyer.
But he can not change the facts.
Regardless, you are the last person who I would trust to report on an exchange about the law.
You areincapable of separating your personal biases from reality or the law.
You are the idiot who keeps trying to argue that PA Scotus followed the law and constitution in the PA 2020 election case.
Even the majority in PA Scotus admitted that they went beyond the law and constitution.
“Katyal made the point that no SCOTUS has ever in 233 years ruled a state Supreme Court was wrong on interpreting their own state constitution.”
True, but not relevant. The constitution says that Federal elections are the domain of congress and state legislatures.
This is not a state issue. This is not a state election – Katyal is absolutely correct – that the state constitution and state supreme court decisions are outside the domain of Scotus. But that is not the quesiton here.
The question is whether federal elections are inside the domain of states, the US constitution says they are not.
I would note that everywhere in the constitution on elections that it says state legislature, it also says Congress. Federal elections are FEDERAL.
There is ZERO doubt that all parts of a FEDERAL election are subject to FEDERAL judicial review. That FEDERAL elections are within the domain of the federal courts – including SCOTUS is indisputable. The question is whether the state courts and constitution have ANY authority over FEDERAL elections at all.
The ACTUAL constitutional history is no state court EVER ruld on a FEDERAL election prior to the end of the civil war. There was a single case, in one state relative to mailin ballots for union soldiers, the case went to the Supreme court which split 4:4,
There was no further state court cases on FEDERAL elections prior to I beleive the 60’s.
“Yet here they were trying to do just that.”
Nope.
“He even demonstrated the fact that the theory was not only logically flawed but totally unsupported by the intent of the founders themselves.”
False, there are letters and notes from the founders, the issue was addressed during the constitutional convention, nor is this the only place in the constitution were power regarding FEDERAL elections was delegated to state legislatures. The other two – the appointment of senators, and the selection of presidential electors were changed by ammendment to the US constitution.
When our founders said “state” they meant – the legislature, governor and courts. When they said legislature – they meant EXACTLY that Legislature. No one ever suggested that prior to the 17th amendment that you could challenge the legislatures appointment of a senator in the state courts.
“The plaintiff could not explain why the courts after so many years cannot suddenly not review a legislature’s election rules against their own constitution.”
Except that I have above. You have the FACTS wrong, you have the constitutional history wrong. Katyal’s argument is brilliant – but it is also a shell game. SCOTUS accepting ISL will not subject state constitutions to federal judicial review.
It will not change any constitutional delegation of power to the states.
All it will do is RESTORE the constitutional delegation of SHARED power between congress and state legislatures that has been being abridged by state courts since the 1960s’
“The flaw rests on the meaning of “legislature” and “regulation”. I can’t remember what he said exactly I will need to bring up the transcript again.”
Because he and you are WRONG. Every other place in th constitution that the constitution say legislature – they mean legislature. And when we did not like the fact that some power was given the legislature – we amended the constitution.
I would further note that you can not substitute “regulation” for legislature in the election clauses. You will get nonsense.
“But basically the theory fails even the originalist and textual interpretation.”
This is increasingly typical of left wing nuts.
Botch originalism and claim what you are arguing is originalism.
Lets start with the word legislature. The rules of statutory interpretation – common law rules familiar to our founders REQUIRE you to take any word in a stature as its PLAIN meaning – unless, the word is defined in the statute, or the plain meaning results in an impossible reading, or you have legislative or other historical information from the ratification that offers a different plain meaning.
That is not true in this case.
“the constitution grants the power to the states and the states constitution gives the power to the state legislature on how they should operate and the courts have the power to interpret the constitution”
All true. Also not applicable. This is about a FEDERAL election. There is zero doubt that every single thing you say is absolutely true about state elections. But the election of presidents and congressmen are FEDERAL – not state. The constitution delegated very specific powers to congress and state legislatures – not to the state. It did so with regards to the election of representatives, senators, and the president.
As originally written only state legislatures could elect senators, – there was no involvment of the governor or the state courts.
The 17th amendment changed the election of senators, to popular vote, and it allowed the legislature to delegate to the governor the power to temporarily fill a vacant senate seat until a special election could be called. Regardless, the original power was exclusively that of the legislature.
And it was that way for 140years, and it was changed by constitutional amendment.
“NOT the legislature which is what they want to claim thru this theory.”
Not a “theory” the plain language of the constitution as has been applied for almost all of US history.
Svelaz;
Your responses never fail to surprise
You would jail the mailman for delivering your mail – if he was a republican
while claiming the burglar who stole your TV was just doing their job if they were a democrat.
Trump had no power or authority in Georgia, and he made no threat – much less one he could enforce.
Anything Trump said to Raffensberger is therefore merely speech.
Had Trump actually threatened GA election officials, had he made demands that were actually illegal,
That would still just be speech. Because speech is not an act unless, you have the authority or power to command.
When a Mafia Don asks a soldier to whack someone – that is a crime.
If your neighbor asks you to steal a car – that is not.
Hobbs is the SoS of AZ, She made a demand and put the authority of her office behind that threat.
And contra your claims, the law can not command that you certify an election, if it did certification would be meaningless.
It can provide a deadline. Miss the deadline and the election is not certified.
The law can not create a choice, and then pretend there is no choice.
We have been through this before. The certification of the 2020 or any other election by congress is not ceremonial.
If congress does not certify, the constitution directs the congress to appoint the next president.
Certification is a choice. Therefore the president, protestors, lawyers have the right to ask, even demand that congress make that choice differently than you would prefer.
Certification of the election in AZ is a choice, the Cochise county EB had a timelimit to certify OR NOT!
Hobbs Commanded them to do so and threatened them if they did not, and she made that threat with the power of her office.
That is a crime.
It is irrelevant whether you think that certification was warranted – the CHOICE to certify Cochise county was given to the Cochise EB by law. If Hobbs had the power to certify Cochise on her own, she would have done so. If she had the power to certify without Cochise certifying, she would have done so. She used the power of her office to threaten the Cochise EB to deprive them of the choice the law gave them.
There is no one here who can doubt that whatever the problem is, whatever the claim, your argument is going to be that the republicans are wrong and the democrats are right.
That will be your argument, even it it requires ignoring that the moment before you argued exactly the opposite when the party roles are reversed. Your guiding principle that you follow always is republicans bad, democrats good.
And you can ALWAYS be counted on to force the issue.
To do so you will ignore the relevant facts and fixate on irelvancy.
I can hear you now – “Its Thursday, the democrats did that on Thursday, on Thursdays it is legal”
Regardless, it always makes me smile to see how you will pretzel logic
AGAIN – I provided proof that Hobbs office issued threats of criminal prosecution in order to extort Cochise EB to do her will.
That is a crime.
If there is one email – there is more.
“The U.S. elections assistance commission and state elections officials stated that the machines were correctly certified. ”
We are supposed to believe the foxes guarding the hen house ?
Most of the voting equipmnt in the US either is not or should not be certified.
Further – it is SELF EVIDENT that the euipment did not work – over 100,000 ballots in Maricopa county had to be tediously counted by hand.
If the equipment involved was certified it should not have been – yet YOU claim that the EAC and the state verified the equipment.
Apparently certified does not mean works or is suitable for the purpose.
I have zero problems with the Cochise EB saying that an election were equipment (or other) failures that required 100K ballots to be counted by hand – should not be certified.
I would note that:
Your claim that eac and the state verified the equipment is an own goal. That is a FAILURE not something you should be proud of.
The failure in AZ is either the result of massive incompetence, or fraud.
It matter little which.
You claim that there was no mixing of ballots – numerous election workers, voters and apparently videos claim otherwise.
But who are we to beleive – the people who claim that equipment that failed massively was verified ?
Or the people screwed over by equipment that inarguably failed.
You do not seem to grasp that the inarguable truth of large scale incompetence and failure,
makes additional claims of incompetence and failure plausible.
Hobbs did not recuse – she was free to do that.
But that comes at a cost – heightened suspicion that when she one a disastrously administered election, that malfeasance rather than incompetence was the cause.
@John Say
My comments lately seem to simply be deteriorating into rants rather than salience, so I will just say thanks for sharing. It is impossible to not suspect her when she refused debates and refused to recuse herself, and magically she won when the legislature didn’t shift much in the *mid-terms*.
She wasn’t required to recuse herself nor debate.
“ Hobbs is not directly administering the 2022 Arizona elections, according to multiple current and former Arizona election officials. “The secretary of state does not conduct the elections in Arizona,” Bennett stresses. “The individual 15 counties conduct the elections.” But Hobbs is still involved in the process before and after the votes are cast.”
Former SOC Bennett also presided over his own election.
“ Bennett understands this issue better than most. He was secretary of state in 2013 when he lost a primary race for governor. While he delegated the certification of election machines ahead of Election Day to one of his deputies, he later accepted and certified his own loss. ”
https://time.com/6227705/katie-hobbs-role-election-chief-arizona-governors-race/
He didn’t have to recuse himself either so Hobbs was not obligated to recuse herself but if she chose to she could.
“She wasn’t required to recuse herself”
Correct but by continuing in an official role where her own official acts may benefit her, she loses the presumption that those actions are not motivated by personal gain.
“Bennett understands this issue better than most.”
Why ? Having had the same role and made the same choices as Hobbs is NOT evidence of understanding.
I do not know whether your comments from Bennet are correct, for the most part they are tangential.
But holding a position does not make you an expert on ethics.
Behaving ethically does. Bennett did not. Certifying your own loss is never a conflict of interest,
Acting unethically is not the same as acting corruptly, but it is a step in that direction.
When you act unethically but inside the law, the default presumption when unclear outcomes favor you, is that those who would act unethically, would also act corruptly.
For every mistake republicans make for every tactical or strategic error they make, for every problem they have, the one ace they have in the hole is Democrats.
I am completely shocked that this country was not sufficiently fed up with the disasterous policies of this administration.
I follow Biden on Twitter and get these constant tweets
“Gas prices are back to where they were in Jan 2021.”
Let me rephrase: After F’ing up for 22 months I have finally fixed enough of my own mistakes to bring gas prices back to where they were under Trump.
That forgetting that at one point I was paying 2.29 for gas under Trump
Regardless, Biden and democrats have been a disaster – that was predictable.
The next two years are highly unlikely to be an improvement
I thought people would be fed up by now.
But if they are not – eventually they will be.
In 2024 we get to pick between 4 more years of mean Trump tweets and 4 more years of Biden.
Only the brain dead think that is a difficult choice.
“So we now know …”
This is a silly column. Twitter’s policy was public. There is nothing newly revealed. And Musk has a similar policy:
“New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter. You won’t find the tweet unless you specifically seek it out, which is no different from rest of Internet.”
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673339826212864
“Twitter’s policy was public.”
Really? I must’ve missed the Twitter public announcement:
If we, or our Masters, do not like your opinions, we will blacklist, shadowban, suspend you. Or as the ultimate punishment for your dissent: Cancel your account and make you disappear.
P.S. We perpetrate this fraud for your own good.
It’s their explicit policy and has been publicly known for years that “In some situations, your Tweet may not be seen by everyone, as outlined below:
“1. Abusive and spammy behavior. When abuse or manipulation of our service is reported or detected, we may take action to limit the reach of a person’s Tweets. Learn more about actions we take, including temporary and permanent account suspensions, and limiting account functionality. …”
https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/tweet-visibility
So you did, indeed, miss their public announcement. Don’t blame them for your failure.
“. . . your Tweet may not be seen by everyone . . .”
Leave it to the dishonest and deceitful to interpret the language in that public announcement as: We shadowban, blacklist, cancel — if you dissent from Establishment opinions.
A man is caught committing arson. The Left’s response is: What you are complaining about? He told you that he carries a lighter.
Or: Nothing to see here. Everyone already knew he was an arsonist. Besides, arson is commonplace.
Or: But, but — look over there. Shoplifters!
Or (the real howler): He can do whatever he damn well pleases. It’s his lighter.
Such is the corruption of a company, and a party, that lacks a moral compass.
You don’t even understand the language you’re using. Shadow banning results in a tweet not being seen by anyone other than the person who posted it. It’s quite distinct from deamplification.
And yes, they’re explicit in their TOS that they ban people. After all this time, have you never read their TOS?
Start reading the TOS and how they applied them in only one direction.
“After all this time, have you never read their TOS?”
When you’re an Apologist for fascism, here’s what you do: You evade the distinction between what was *written* in the ToS, and the dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent *actions* of those executives.
And then you evade the fact that those executives lied to their customers, investors, and congress about their suppression *actions*.
When it’s a battle between what a man says and what he does, go with his actions.
Name an action that they carried out that their TOS doesn’t allow. Be specific about what the action was and how it’s contrary to the TOS.
Quote any lie you’re claiming they said.
Your evidenceless claims are worthless.
As I just pointed out elsewhere, IF you have evidence that they lied to Congress, THEN you should contact one of your members of Congress (or some other member of Congress whose views are more consistent with yours), provide the evidence, and suggest that whoever lied be referred for an 18 U.S. Code § 1001 violation.
The flip side of all this partisan censorship is what Twitter doesn’t censor, like this foreign head of state who advocates “Death to Israel!”
https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitter-execs-refused-request-to-remove-ayatollah-khamenei-tweets/
First time poster. I think.
And I just don’t get it.
Twitter misled the public?
So what?
And they broke their own rules?
So what?
They cashed out for $44 billion.
Isn’t that the purpose of the whole endeavor?
@Jharp
Nice try, but your trollhood is *embarrassingly* obvious. Not even worth a counterpoint.
Taibbi is now tweeting the next instalment. Many items noting meetings with FBI.
The FBI, DHS, and the DNI. It is no longer possible to claim the 1st amendment does not apply. Not with all the govt interference. This batch also details, not a single instance of Trump White House making a single contact. There were earlier clams by twitter of such communication, but none was found.
And they were still “visibility filtering” Trump a week before the 2020 election! I’m not a fan but that’s just plain wrong!
Taibbi already said that the Trump WH made requests to Twitter and Twitter honored them: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752
That he isn’t posting them doesn’t mean he didn’t find them.
Correct – and we should see those requests too.
I do not care whether it was the Trump wh or the Biden WH – it is a violation of the first amendment.
That said Taibbi also said there was a significant difference in the number of requests between Trump and Biden.
And Finally – we need to see the actual requests, because the Trump WH CAN as government request even DEMAND that SM block a tweet that actually violates the law. i.e. Child Porn, and actual credible threats of violence.
We need to know exactly what anyone in government sought to block.
If Trump sought to block content that was protected under the first amendment – there should be consequences.
Just as their should for the FBI or Biden WH.
It is not contrary to the 1st Amendment for the government to make a request.
If you cannot tell the difference between asking and legally compelling, your discernment skills are lacking.
Tell us how this statement seems legal to you.
“The files make clear that the FBI flagged specific content for censorship and that Twitter executives met not only with the bureau, but also with teams from Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence as the war against “misinformation” escalated it in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election.”
Tell me what the FBI, DHS, and DNI actually said to Twitter, and I’ll tell you whether what they actually said is legal.
So you admit you don’t know what they said, but others do. Yet you say what they did was legal. You contradict yourself all the time. The rest of the article tells more, so you can start there. Then you can reread the reports of what the CDC told Twitter.
Nobody knows what they said. Those who claim they know are making stuff up because there is no transcript or actual record of what they said during those meetings.
show us the transcript or actual record that supports your claim
what a loser
We know enough of what they said to know ATS contradicts himself and that you are ignorant.
Read the Tweets.
“If you cannot tell the difference between asking and legally compelling . . .”
If you cannot tell the difference between men with guns and a customer with a dollar, perhaps you should ask a store owner. He’s more in contact with reality than you are.
We don’t have to ask, as we already have the statements of the Twitter execs. Glad to know that you believe that the Twitter execs are well in touch with reality. They didn’t refer to it as government demands or that they considered the requests to be at gunpoint.
Thanks to law professor Steve Vladeck, I’m now aware of a relevant case involving Twitter and an accusation of illegal government conspiracy to silence a user, Roger O’Handley, who “brought suit against Twitter, as well as three other sets of defendants with whom he contends Twitter conspired: State defendants (Dr. Shirley Weber, in her official capacity as California Secretary of State, Jenna Dresner, Akilah Jones, Sam Mahood, Paula Valle, and former Secretary of State Alex Padilla); a private contractor, SKDKnickerbocker (“SKDK”); and the National Association of Secretaries of State (“NASS”).” The case was dismissed. Among other things, the judge ruled that “Twitter’s actions are not attributable to the State.”
If you’d like to read the ruling: https://casetext.com/case/ohandley-v-padilla
Of course, given our history of exchanges, I doubt that you want to dig in on legal rulings that disagree with you.
Vladeck also says “Guess we need a primer on the state action doctrine, and how even if the requests come from *current* government officials, that doesn’t turn them into state action until and unless they are effectively coercive. … Coercion is not my word; it’s SCOTUS’s. And even under the broadest understanding of state action, that still doesn’t cover coordinated discussions between government and industry absent some reason to think the industry feels an obligation to act as the government wants it to.
Asked “Do You believe Twitter executives meeting with the FBI, and/or requests by the Trump administration while he was in office in 2020, either way, constitutes state action?,” he responds “Meeting with the government and entertaining voluntary requests from it don’t meet any definition of “state action.””
“It is not contrary to the 1st Amendment for the government to make a request.”
If that request is to violate the first amendment rights of others – then it is a violation.
If that request is not necescary and proper to accomplish and enumerated power of the constituion – then no that government speech is not permissible.
“If you cannot tell the difference between asking and legally compelling, your discernment skills are lacking.”
I can tell the difference between an elephant and a hypopotamus. Yet both will crush you if they sit on you.
Asking and compelling are not the same.
They are both first amendment rights.
Threatening to kill someone and actually killing them are not the same – both are crimes.
Government may not accomplish through other means what it can not do directly.
That is core to ALL constitutional law on rights.
That is as an example the core holding in citizens united.
I would further note we are dealing with political speech which is by far the most protected form of speech.
It is the speech government may not itself engage in, and may not in anyway restrict.
You’re wrong. If you care about understanding why you’re wrong, you might read Steve Vladeck’s discussion of it (he’s a law professor at UT Austin), citing relevant caselaw — see my December 10, 6:03 PM comment quoting him and linking to a key ruling that he cites. You can either continue to believe something false, or you can educate yourself, learning why you’re wrong and changing your mind.
ATS, the last time you brought up Steve Vladak you lost.To you, evidence exists in the title of someone’s name. To others, evidence is fact.
I should add the last time Vladek was claiming Trump should be convicted of espionage. Let us place him at the table with Lawrence Tribe. Both sound like they are going through their second childhoods.
You’re a liar.
Vladeck makes two references to violating the Espionage Act (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/09/02/declassified-mar-a-lago-national-security/), but nowhere claims “Trump should be convicted of espionage.” Vladeck understands the difference. Either you do not understand the difference, or you understand and are choosing to lie about it.
If you want to learn the difference, here’s one place to start:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/espionage
Notice that the crime of espionage involves 18 U.S. Code § 794, which Vladeck doesn’t mention and Trump has not been alleged to have violated. I’ll leave it to you to look up the Espionage Act.
You’re a liar, which is why you don’t link to the exchange you now pretend occurred.
“You’re a liar, which is why you don’t link to the exchange you now pretend occurred.”
You can just as easily link as I can. In fact, you can do so easier because you might remember any postings you intentionally deleted along with the postings and links that followed.
You created your anonymous name, anonymous pretend friends, and your intentional deletions. Live with it, for no one can trust you or anything you say.
“You’re wrong.”
Then YOU should be able to make that argument.
You have not even in your response made it clear what I am wrong about
For all I know we are debating whether the moon is made of green cheese.
Vladeck is a member of the thoroughly discredited Lawfare group.
Regardless, I do not play this idiot game of see my post somewhere some time about something.
If you think I am wrong – make an argument.
If you think Mr. Vladeck is worth reading – link to a brief or oped of his on the issue.
Next, unless you are a complete moron, then you know that I am very well educated,
including specifically in the law and constitutional law.
I am perfectly happy to listen to good arguments demonstrating that I am wrong about something.
But you expose yourself as a moron when you claim I am uneducated about something.
Finally, on almost anything that is not obviously true or false, we almost never reach the truth by relying on an Single Source.
The truth is not determined by consensus, but it is very rare that only a single person knows it.
After you have provided a link to something by Mr. Vladeck – which I will read until he obviously goes off the rails
I would suggest you find more similar sources.
Regardless, I have made my arguments – with facts, logic, reason.
I have not appealed to experts or authority – though many experts have influenced my arguments.
Still my arguments are MINE – I rare defend them with appeals to authority.
I defend them with facts, logic and reason.
You have not addressed that AT ALL.
I stupidly went and look up your post.
Your and Valdeck’s as well as the courts error are trivial.
All acts of the state are coercive. The entire purpose of the state and law is coercion and the use of force.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Government is not there to suggest. All suggestions by government are orders.
There is never a need for government to suggest – there are 330M people in this country perfectly capable of suggesting anything
ALWAYS implied in every suggestion of government is the threat of force.
Where force is not needed – Government is not needed – and not wanted.
Government is there to keep us from killing each other – not to suggest how we should fold our laundry.
Further anytime government is merely making a suggestion it is CLEARLY acting outside the domain of government.
The ONLY purpose of government is the use of force.
We do not need government EVER to solve problems that do not require FORCE.
The court you cited did not suggest to the plantifs that their case was without merit,
it ORDERed their case dismissed FORCE.
Government does not suggest you pay your taxes,
that you refrain from murder,
that you meet obligations of contract,
that you drive under the speed limit.
There is absolutely nothing legitimate govenrment does that is not backed up by force.
If as this court says Government merely suggested – than government exceeded its authority.
“In some contexts, attempts by government actors to influence private action by threat of future regulation
can be considered coercive. Some scholars have used the term “jawboning” to refer to informal pressure
or persuasion by regulators, including Members of Congress, to influence or encourage self-regulation by
private entities. Jawboning techniques may present constitutional issues when the government’s informal
attempts to encourage or threaten regulation involve matters concerning speech. Specifically, jawboning
or other government pressure may convert a private party’s conduct into state action subject to the First
Amendment if the pressure is so significant that the private party’s act is no longer considered an
“independent decision.””
We have members of congress (of both parties) threatening SM with regulation if they do not change their ways.
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered government jawboning of private media
companies in Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc. In that case, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman had attempted to pressure broadcast networks into
adopting a “family viewing policy” intended to reduce sex and violence in television programming. The
chairman attempted to encourage the networks to adopt such a policy without formal FCC action, as the
policy itself was likely to pose First Amendment issues if implemented by the government. The
chairman’s jawboning techniques included meetings with industry representatives to discuss policy
proposals, telephone conversations with network executives, and––important to the analysis––public
speeches in which the chairman “exhorted the industry to undertake its own action but indicated that
unless some action were taken, the government might well be forced to become formally involved with
the problem.” A trial court held that the private television broadcast networks violated the First
Amendment by implementing the “family viewing policy” under this substantial government pressure.
The court said that the broadcasters would not have been subject to the First Amendment if they had
arrived at their decision independently, but that under the circumstances the networks had essentially
served in a “surrogate role in achieving the implementation of government policy.” On appeal, the Ninth
Circuit reversed this decision on other grounds. Although the appeals court did not reach the merits of the
First Amendment issue, it mentioned that the jawboning techniques used by the FCC chairman presented
“serious issues involving the Constitution.””
Sounds EXACTLY like what the FBI was doing with Twitter.
“in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Association,
discussed in more detail in another Legal Sidebar, the Supreme Court said that certain statutory schemes
can provide sufficiently “clear indices of the Government’s encouragement, endorsement, and
participation” in private action to implicate the Constitution. Specifically, in that case, the Supreme Court
concluded that private railroads would be acting as government agents when they tested employees for
drugs and alcohol. Although federal regulations did not mandate the tests, the Court explained that they
“made plain” the government’s “strong preference for testing” by preempting state regulation on the
issue, providing that railroads could not divest themselves of testing authority, requiring railway
employees to submit to tests if the railroads decided to institute them under specified conditions, and
entitling the government to receive certain testing results. According to the Court, these clear signs of
government encouragement, endorsement, and participation sufficed to implicate the Constitution.”
I would note that though todate the courts have ruled against 1st amendment challenges to SM censorship, they have pretty universally done so because the activities currently demonstrated by the twitter files were not demonstrated.
You can not use past case law that reached YOUR favored conclusion that specifically note that evidence that now exists was absent, as a basis for concluding they will reach the same conclusion with it.
Aside from the argument that I have made that is absolutely correct but will not be adopted wholesale by the supreme court – though it has adopted it more narrowly in many cases – such as schools.
There is a more compelling reason – with respect to the supreme court – where this issue is inevitably going to reach.
That reason is that it is crystal clear at this point that the circumstances we have had up to the moment Musk took over twitter is incredibly dangerous.
There is little doubt at this time that SM and MSM censorship of a True story changed the outcome of an election.
Most of us have grasped that SM efforts to supress “misinformation” about Covid (and more generally), ended up supressing the TRUTH
to the harm of all.
There is no consequential difference in effect between the power (and harm) excercised by the MSM and SM and that of government censorship.
Every single argument against govenrment censorship – whether made by the supreme court in the past, or by John Stuart Mill or other philosophers of government, applies to social media censorship as well.
And we were already seeing that impact with lower courts.
You, Mr. Valdick, whatever other legal scholars you might wish to cite are living in a fairy tale if you think that the massive impact of SM and MSM censorship is going to have no impact on SCOTUS.
I have no idea what SCOTUS will do. It is possible but unlikely that the will just leave laws like those in TX and FL that bar SM censorship of political speech intact. I doubt they will do that – because they might also lead to leaving NY laws barring hate speach intact.
But I would bet very heavily that a case will reach SCOTUS soon that will case them to Act to limit SM censorship.
As I noted – they are unlikely to do so in the way I would say that the constitution compels.
But if you think they are going to leave the mess that has been exposed intact, I beleive you are very mistaken.
I cited other cases to you, Those do not say what I want. But they do atleast partly contradict what you claim.
SCOTUS may not be ready to assert that ALL government speech is coercive.
But it could trivially decide that ALL speech by law enforcement is coercive – I am not sure that it has not done so already.
Alternately it could decide that S230 immunity is unconstitutional, or that it does not apply to actions by SM that are themselves speech.
I do not know what SCOTUS will do. I do know that while they will not do what I have asserted and the constitution as well has logic and philosophy demand – broad censorship is not just dangerous – it is actually destructive, it is certain they will do something.
As I noted lower courts are already starting to act. The tide turned before the twitter files. But those cut the leggs out of any hope that there will be a reversal.
It is near certain that we are at the end of the begining of the eventual end of broad social media censorship – particularly of “misinformation” and of politics.
I would note that you should actually pay attention to the twitter files.
Even Mt. Vlaeck’s own case would now fail – as many at twitter made clear – though their shared the political views of those int he biden whitehouse – they did not see the WH as asking, but Telling them what to do and who to censor.
They were EXPECTED do to as asked. Further in a surprisingly large number of instances they were not comfortable with the censorship they were being asked to perform. They were actively struggling to justify what they were doing.
Put differently – they did not want to do some of what they were doing. and felt it was wrong and would not have done so if they felt they were actually free to do as they wished.
Unfortunately that was not always the case. It probably was not even mostly the case. But it was true far more frequently than I would have expected.
It is also proof of my original claim – Government does not and can not ask. Government ALWAYS coerces.
That the courts only party recognize that is an error by the courts.
The twitter files make that error clear. If twitter was only being “asked”, they would not have said they were doing what the WH expected of them. If twitter was only being asked – twitter would have been able to say no when they were not comfortable, when they were being asked to violate their own policies.
When you “ask” people to do something thousands of times, and they always say yes – even when it is clear that but for the where the request came from they would have said no – that is proof of coercion.
I would note that in many cases SCOTUS has taken much less as proof of government coercion.
You and Mr. Vladeck lose this debate based on YOUR OWN criteria.
In the real world nothing is ever just a request. There are always consequences to doing what is asked, or refusing.
In the free market that is allowed, further consequences are bidirectional – imposing consequences on those who refuse to do as you ask potentially has consequences for you.
That is not true when government “asks”. The only time there are no consequences for refusing what govenrment asks – is when government does not ask.
“You’re a liar.”
Anonymous the Stupid, I am not a liar. You are, though you try to cover your tracks with an anonymous name, anonymous pretend friends, and by your spiteful deletions of rash comments made so no one can search for them. For those reasons, I will not try.
Therefore, we must rely on my memory, as yours is untrustworthy, and when I rely on my memory, I provide you with the benefit of the doubt even though it is undeserved. Further, I have only what you bring to the table as I am not about to research a discussion from long ago.
In that discussion, you were doing your usual deflection switching from one topic to another. Your arguments were failing, so you appealed to the authority of Steve Vladek. Such appeals by you are typical of you because your opinions are so weak.
Vladek engaged in a bit of mind-reading (Trump) and perhaps hyperbole there and elsewhere. I cannot remember where. That is common with those on the left whenever the name Trump enters a discussion. He appeared to agree with the three reasons listed on the warrant for an invasion of a private citizen’s home when it wasn’t warranted, was political, and should have been litigated in court.
One of those reasons was espionage. If Vladek agreed with the warrant, he concurred with the warrant’s inclusion of espionage as part of the claim. I think his legal thinking is wrong if he is an honorable American. If not, he is another run-of-the-mill leftist law professor who should sit at a table with Lawrence Tribe.
[ I replied under John Say’s name because I cannot trust that you will not have your post and therefore my post deleted. One can’t trust you for anything. ]
Neither Vladeck, nor I nor almost anyone else can evaluate the validity of the MAL warrant.
Why ?
Because what little we have of the affadavit of probable cause does not even come close to probable cause.
I can not claim the warrant is unjustified – becuase it is possible that in the redacted portion of the warrant is credible evidence that Trump was providing nuclear secrets to the Saudi’s. I think that is highly improbable – but I can not know what is in what is redacted.
Conversely anyone claiming the warrant is justified – can not do so based ont he warrant itself – that is the most obvious circular reasoning and logical error. If that were true ALL warrants that claimed a crime – and all warrants must claim a crime – would be valid by defintion. That is nonsense. The justification for a warrant is NEVER in the warrant itself, it is in the information provided in the affadavit of probable cause as well as the credibility of that information. What we have been provided so far does not justify anything. Just as I can not automatically presume what I do not know is sufficient, no one else can claim what they do not know is sufficient.
In a different moment, with a different FBI and DOJ we might give the FBI the benefit of the doubt.
But we are past the collusion delusion. We Know that this FBI, in many cases the same agents, and the same lawyers at DOJ lied to the FISA court – 4 separate times – including 2 requests by Mueller as SC, and offered an affadavit that did not actually provide probable cause, where the “evidence” was fraudulent, and those providing it knew it.
Further we know that fraud was committed specifically to “get Trump”.
Absolutely nothing has changed in this warrant. This Warrant was not requested by the FL FBI field office, the one that would normally handle this case. It was requested by the DC Field office – the same one that was out to “get Trump” in 2016-2020, and now has a President and AG supporting their efforts to do so.
The default position today is to NOT trust the FBI – especially This office, and especially in matters even remotely connected to Trump.
Changing that default position requires removing those who have already made clear their politics drives their use of govenrment power,
and it requires the FBI actively working to rebuild their credibility.
The Whitmer Kidnapping entrappment did Nother to rebuild credibility. The lies about FBI agents involved in J6 does nothing, the FBI targeting of parents as domestic terrorists does nothing. The FBI ignoring intimidation of supreme court justices – even after an assassination attempt does nothing, the FBI ignoring over 100 attacks on prolife clinics including arson does nothing, the FBI swatting non-violent protestors at abortion clinics does nothing.
This is only part of a long list of reasons to doubt the credibility of the FBI.
Therefore without seeing some part of the affadavit of probable cause that is demonstrably sufficient to reach probable cause that a crime was committed AND that the warrant will produce evidence of that crime – the warrant is presumptively invalid.
I have written about this repeatedly. No one is entitled to credibility and trust – not me, not Vladeck, not the FBI, not the courts, not Svelaz, not anonymous. Credibility is something you earn, or you destroy. It is not something you are entitled to.
Taibbi was told the Trump WH made requests. But this trunche, Taibbi has not found any such requests. Or contact for that matter. They are using Slack communications to track internal discussions. No Slack communications concerning Trump WH have been found.
Ah, the passive voice. Who told Taibbi “the Trump WH made requests”?
Who told Taibbi “the Trump WH made requests”?
Someone at twitter. You go ahead and square Tiabbi’s two tweets. The first stating both sides made requests, the second, referencing his flrst tweet, and documenting, the evidence to support the statement has not been found. Those are the facts we know.
Sounds like the first was a reporter, reporting what he learned in interviews, the second, documenting the lack of evidence to the current point of his investigation.
“Someone at twitter”
Where did Taibbi say that?
For the first, I assume that you’re referring to this one:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752
Taibbi did not claim that he was told this by someone. He stated it as a fact, not as an allegation by someone else.
Now your turn. Link to the second tweet you have in mind and let’s see what he actually said. Also link to the tweet where you claim that he said “Someone at twitter [told me ‘the Trump WH made requests’].”
What you leave out is WHAT Taibbi stated as fact. You do that all the time to promote your lies. Are you doing that now?
Taibbi did not claim that he was told this by someone. He stated it as a fact,
I can’t read his mind, I’m not a leftist with magical mind reading skills. I agree Tiabbi posted both R and D made requests. I do notice he never mentions evidence.
His second tweet states “we have found no evidence of the Trump WH making any requests…the may exist, we have not found them.”
So Tiabbi’s most current posting clear documents the lack of evidence.
I will leave to your magic mind reading, but I will stick with the most current evidence, contradicting his earlier claim.
“His second tweet states “we have found no evidence of the Trump WH making any requests…the may exist, we have not found them.””
You seem to be making up that quote.
You don’t link to the tweet you’re referring to.
A Google search on the quoted text “we have found no evidence of the Trump WH making any requests” returns “Your search – “we have found no evidence of the Trump WH making any requests” – did not match any documents.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=“we+have+found+no+evidence+of+the+Trump+WH+making+any+requests”
A Twitter search the phrase “we have found no evidence of the Trump WH making any requests” returns nothing but Trump’s account — https://twitter.com/search?q=we%20have%20found%20no%20evidence%20of%20the%20Trump%20WH%20making%20any%20requests&src=typed_query
Taibbi was reviewing a particular channel relating to elections. He found no communications on it from the Trump side.
He explicitly stated that “10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.”
Why on earth would he say that if he didn’t find any requests from the Trump WH??
Part of trickery is not defining one’s terms. Requests could be for corrections of known facts or they could be to skew the news in favor of one party.
“Many items noting meetings with FBI.”
Apparently you didn’t get the memo: The FBI is just your friendly neighbor, stopping by for a pleasant chat.
“No, your entire comment is wrong. First, Musk is now operating Twitter as a free speech platform, whereas before it was a Democratic Party only platform.”
LOL! the RNC, republican lawmakers, conservative organizations, etc. they were all on twitter prior to Elon taking over. They didn’t censor speech. Only speech or posts that violated THEIR rules which every one of those people who signed up agreed to abide by. Elon also has the same right. His own TOS is required to be agreed to before anyone can get an account.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. censored speech, almost entirely truthful speech by conservatives … the list is long and has been known for years. Multiple doctors, politicians, administration members, publications were censored – all who were right (and Right) but those on the Left were ignorant of the truth. Liberals and Democrats have been wearing masks not only over their faces but their eyes. as you illustrate so aptly.
So Svelaz, please explain to me how The Babylon Bee violated Twitters policy. How exactly did the Babylon Bee break the Twitter rules. There were doctors who were banned from speaking on Twitter about how children were being harmed by the lockdowns. How were these doctors violating Twitters policies. You say that people who signed up on Twitter agreed to there policies. The problem is that Twitter kept moving the goal posts for some but not for others. Please answer my questions Mr. fair guy.
“They didn’t censor speech. Only speech or posts that violated THEIR rules “
How did the Great Barrington Declaration (Jay Bhattacharya) violate their rules?
They didn’t censor speech. Only speech or posts that violated THEIR rules
You really need to shut up about what you don’t know. Tonights evidence shows twitter management is a twist over violating their own rules. But they went ahead anyway….at the insistence of the Govt.
Old Title: Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust
New Title: Trustee
Darren, I guess they blew it on the “Trust” part.
It is now clear that:
1) Twitter actively tried to rig elections. Musk has admitted that Twitter would keep tweets from certain candidates (guess which side) from being seen.
2) Like the Hitler Youth, eager young Twitter employees, sure of their righteousness and eager to “change the world” decided to throw people off Twitter altogether – often where NO violation of the terms of service existed. They simply did not like your political opinions, and refused to let other citizens see those opinions. Because you know, free speech is the most dangerous thing in the world – IF you are a member of the Hitler youth, and free speech will expose you are a member of the Hitler Youth.
Literally millions of people have been wrongfully terminated for violating the Twitter terms of service, when in fact, they had not violated the TOS at all. It is time for a MASSIVE class action lawsuit to warn BigTech that their attempts to rig elections and shut down public debate cannot be tolerated.
I got suspended permanently in 2017 and it was never clear what I had done and they only supplied a vague explanation in defense. On Monday I decided to submit an appeal and was reinstated within hours. I suggested that I never should have been suspended and politely requested someone take a second look and was released from the Twitter gulag.
The question for me is: Having caught big tech and government lying repeatedly how many more times do they get to lie before people stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Rumor has it that James Baker is the great great grandson of Mata Hari. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mata-hari-executed.
Thank God for Elon Musk. And thank you Dr. Turley!
The overall problem of this century (so far) is that the technology is moving faster than the laws and faster than constitutional due process.
Congress and government agencies are forcefully coercing private companies to violate the constitutional rights of Americans.
If a social media company is being prodded by the government to violate the 1st and 4th Amendments these are constitutional violations requiring strong checks & balances by the courts.
For example: the “third party doctrine” for 20th Century wiretap rulings were intended for the non-internet age. Today government agencies easily subvert 4th Amendment legal “restraints” on government authority simply by purchasing our data (with our own tax dollars) to bypass the 4th Amendment law.
Recently it was reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF.org) that fitness watches (that count how far you walk everyday) are NOT currently covered under federal HIPAA privacy laws. This means that a private insurance company, potential employer or anyone can purchase your health information. Congress has yet to catch up to the technology.
EFF also reported that your child’s laptop computer’s data may also be for sale to anyone. School laptops have cameras, can reveal the location of your home. If your child searches for personal information, that data is for sale also. In some school districts, there are school officials being paid to spy on children’s activity outside school (paid with our tax dollars).
EFF has done great reporting on a brand new threat to any American “Warrantless Geofence Searches”. For example: if a crime occurs near a shopping mall, school, gym, grocery store, etc. Some police departments are capturing the cell-phone numbers of everyone within a radius of where the crime occurred. Potentially thousands of innocent “suspects” that may be investigated. Most smart criminals probably leave the cell-phone at home.
The 4th Amendment is NOT a preemption doctrine. The 4th Amendment requires “probable cause” evidence of a “past” crime that has already happened. It also requires evidence of a particular person or item to be searched or seized. Most important, it requires the police officer or prosecutor to testify truthfully with a healthy risk of legal penalty for the official.
In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has made some progress but not faster than the technology. The “surveillance personal-mapping results” clause of the “Carpenter v. US” ruling said that if warrantless-surveillance lasting more than 2 weeks results in a personal map (dossier) of any person that the surveillance itself is a “search” government by the 4th Amendment. Although the ruling was primarily about cell-phones, this clause applies to all forms of surveillance that create that “personal-mapping result”.
Twitter is already protected by Section 230 of the Communications Act. It would be unconstitutional for Congress or any agency to coerce Elon Musk to censor in violation of the First Amendment.
“We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” — JFK, February 26, 1962: Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America.
How times have changed in a short 60 years.
Anyway, after having been caulked up for a number of years, JFK’s “free flow of information” has let loose and become a tsunami in recent weeks, due to ongoing preliminary discovery in the Missouri v Biden censorship lawsuit and Elon Musk’s ongoing attempts to clean house at Twitter.
But along with the “free flow of information” there is an accompanying tsunami of hypocrisy and FAKE outrage which I’d like to point out, coming from people and organizations peddling themselves as “free speech advocates” of one stripe or another — “conservative,” “libertarian,” etc. The FACT is that there’s not a single website at which I’ve ever posted even a single comment that hasn’t blocked or banned comments and/or commenters just as have those at Twitter being targeted for outrage today.
The Fox website, the NY Post, Townhall, the Federalist, The Gateway Pundit, The Conservative Treehouse, RedState, THIS WEBSITE, and many others that are condemning censorship and putting themselves forward as advocates of free speech (LOL) have ALL blocked comments and/or banned commenters — but you’d never guess that from their vociferous protestations over social media censorship.
As Hamlet said to Gertrude, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Of course, the “liberal” websites have censored and banned comments and commenters, too — including the NY Times, Mother Jones, ABC News, etc. but that’s a different subject, because at the moment they aren’t pretending to be the “free speech advocates” that the “conservatives” and “libertarians” are claiming to be. They are more or less government media at this point — the Pravda propaganda tool of the democrat Politburo.
As for the Fox website — aka the RINO Fox website: It even engages in the infamous shadow-banning, which is to say making comments invisible to others while the commenter can see his or her comments and therefore assumes that others can see them, too. This isn’t the same practice as removing a comment, because when Fox does that, it replaces the removed comment with a statement saying that “this comment violated our policy,” so that the commenter and everyone else knows what happened. Shadow banning is much more insidious, as is banning commenter while pretending not to, such that others think that that commenter just decided to stop commenting.
In summary: One thing most people have in common — most people that aren’t politicians, media personalities, or lawyers, that is — is a distaste for hypocrisy, and I really wish a few pretend “free speech advocates” would stop giving AUTHENTIC free speech advocates a bad name.
Kudos, Mr. De Minimus – that’s an impressive bit of writing. And of course apt.
Thanks, but apart from a couple of typos, which I don’t really mind that much, I botched the Hamlet quote — which REALLY bugs me — because it wasn’t Hamlet speaking to Gertrude — it was Gertrude speaking to Hamlet.
I guess I need to add one more to my longtime Three rules to Live By:
1. Never buy a used car from a guy named Slick.
2. Never trust anyone who says “Trust me.”
3. NEVER get legal or science information from a journalist, politician, or political website.
4. Never try to quote Shakespeare from memory when you’ve been awake for more than 24 hours.
Wow I see the swamp water swilling extremophile communist democrats have swarmed this post.. however, I have a lifetime ban on Twitter because as a jew, I commented on a tweet Rasheed Talib made about vile jews. My comment was that I didn’t believe it was jews that taught their children to put on a backpack full of explosives and blow up a bus full if Palestinians like the Palestinians do their children with the jews.
Obviously the social media’s are the voice of the communist democrat propaganda party..