Below is my column in the Hill on a controversial criminal case involving a conservative journalist who was arrested after the January 6th riot. The prosecution of Steven Baker exposes the growing tensions in the media over the role of reporters as advocates.
Here is the column:
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones declared recently that “all journalism is activism.” Advocacy journalism is all the rage in journalism schools and on major media platforms.
Given that shift in journalism, one would think that these editors and journalists would love Steven Baker.
Baker was arrested for covering what he viewed as a citizen protest defying the government and demanding justice. He did not hide his support for their cause as he reported on what became a riot.
Baker, however, is a conservative journalist and the protest that he was covering became the Jan. 6th riot. Now, the Biden administration has arrested Baker on four misdemeanor charges linked to his entry into the Capitol on that day.
Baker would later not only supply stories to his main media outlet, Blaze News, but also sell videos to The New York Times and HBO.
Journalists often accompany protesters and even mobs as stories unfold. Indeed, there were many reporters in the crowd that entered the Capitol. But Baker, the conservative journalist, was charged while others were not.
The response from most media figures and groups has been crickets.
The Justice Department leaves little doubt why they pursued Baker. The criminal complaint and an FBI agent’s affidavit repeatedly reference Baker’s support for those who stormed the Capitol. Entering through a broken door like hundreds of others, he walked past Capitol police, who stood by and even directed some protesters. Baker was in the building for only approximately 37 minutes before police led him out.
The government claims that the Texas-based writer “antagonized” police officers when they blocked his effort to get through a door. They quote him as asking “Are you going to use that (gun) on us?”
They also quote him as later stating, in an interview with a local television station, that he was “quite excited to see this going on. Do I approve of what happened today? I approve 100 percent.”
He also pointed out his image in footage while emphasizing that his red hat was not a MAGA hat but a Yorktown, Virginia hat. He would joke about what a shame it was that he did not get his hands on Nancy Pelosi’s computer, given what he might have found.
In any other context, Baker might be the poster boy for the new journalism. “J-schools” now encourage students to leave “neutrality behind” and push “solidarity [as] ‘a commitment to social justice that translates into action.’”
A recent series of interviews with over 75 media leaders by Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.”
But that objectivity seems to depend heavily upon what ideology you are advocating.
For example, NPR employees objected to efforts to maintain a neutral tone in reporting and declared that “civility is a weapon wielded by the powerful.” The NPR leadership went even further to unleash the advocates within journalists, by allowing them to cross over from covering to participating in protests.
The public-subsidized NPR declared that reporters could join political protests when the editors believe the causes advance the “freedom and dignity of human beings.”
Something tells me that NPR editors would not have found Baker’s brand of advocacy to be “dignified.”
NPR recently hired a new CEO, Katherine Maher, who has declared that “white silence is complicity” and has publicly denounced Trump and his supporters. The message seems clear about what kind of protests would be considered advancements of freedom.
Would the government have charged an NPR reporter who accompanied Black Lives Matter rioters in the police station they occupied in Seattle? If not, then what exactly is the dividing line between crime and advocacy journalism? Is it an ideological line?
In the George Floyd riots, at least 126 journalists were arrested or detained in 2020. Virtually all of the charges against them were dropped. Des Moines Register reporter Andrea Sahouri was tried on simple misdemeanors for failure to disperse and interference with official acts. She was acquitted.
The difference is that a long list of journalistic organizations came to her aid. That is not the case for Baker.
Before Baker’s arrest, Washington media was already facing criticisms over double standards. Recently, CBS was embroiled in a controversy after it fired acclaimed investigative journalist Cathrine Herridge, who had clashed with the liberal network over her work on stories unpopular with the Biden White House and many Democratic establishment figures. Not only did they lay Herridge off, but CBS brass even seized her files and forced her union to take legal action before giving them back. The files contained confidential source information.
While this was unfolding, Herridge was in court, fighting to protect her confidential sources. After CBS fired her, she was held in contempt this week for refusing to violate journalistic confidentiality. The same week, despite firing Herridge and seizing her files, CBS President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews was honored at the 33rd annual First Amendment Awards.
Likewise, this week, Julian Assange is facing deportation and prosecution for publishing the Wikileaks files, exposing abuses in the U.S. government. Although legacy media routinely publish classified material from whistleblowers, Assange has embarrassed many in Washington and will have to pay for it.
That brings us back to Baker. He is not charged with property damage or violence. The question is whether, on that day, he was an advocate, a journalist or an advocate journalist.
So, what exactly is journalism? Major media figures have actively erased the distinction between advocates and journalists. It is now subject to the same test that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once used to identify pornography in the case Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964): “I shall not today attempt further to define [it]…But I know it when I see it.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
OT
The Supreme Court got abortion right.
The Supreme Court got Trump eligibility right.
The Supreme Court must now get secession right and begin the process of reversing and correcting the effects of its denial and awarding enormous commensurate REPARATIONS to the Confederate States and the descendants of their populations.
Secession is not prohibited and is reserved to the States.
Lincoln’s denial of secession was the most salient, deleterious, and adverse act against the Constitution and Bill of Rights in American history.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Profesor, please check out, this NYT “piece” about the Supreme Court, and please give us your thoughts:
[Today’s New York Times has a piece by Jesse Wegman on “The Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law” that reflects the kinds of sentiments I’ve heard at conferences, lunch tables, and especially on social media—that it is hard to teach constitutional law today because the Supreme Court is doing such lawless stuff.]
This article is a criticism and/or points of view of the professor of Constitutional Law, WILL BAUDÉ, about that “piece” of the “Black” Lady (because it’s not Gray “it burned”), he titles it:
* Teaching Constitutional Law in a Crisis of Judicial Legitimacy *
The real crisis seems to be in academia, not at the Court
It narrates the feelings (paranoid) of other colleagues who teach Constitutional Law. I really liked Baude’s approach, but I would love to know, what would you say or rather “re-educate” to these woke colleagues.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/26/teaching-constitutional-law-in-a-crisis/
.
Excellent article. I would note that Baude is one of the libertarian/federalists that tried to defend Colorado’s removal of Trump.
I would further note that I know Professor Kramer. He taught at UoP when my wife went to law school there.
He was an excellent professor. I understand that he has had problems coping with the changes in the court.
But those changes are tiny compared to what law schools today are pretending the constitution says.
I would further note that if Prof. Kramer is correct and the Justices were selling a false version of history in Heller – that is correctable.
We are blessed with incredible records of our past.
Whether Heller is perfectly correct regarding the history and tradition of the 2nd amendment as reflected in the opinion.
SCOTUS is very correct int hat Heller lays out a reliable and teachable almost objective standard for reading the constitution.
Heller is the perfect reflection of conservative textualism.
The constitution means what those who wrote it intended at the time they wrote it.
If we do not like that meansing we can change it by amending the constitution.
THAT is how we make it means what we want it to mean today.
The constitution is a living document – its meaning can be changed.
Bujt it is changed by amending it – not by trying to read new things into it.
Time has proven Prof. Kramer wrong. Heller has driven a massive amount of historical research into the way the 2nd amendment was understood by those who wrote it and even more into how those who wrote the 14th amendment intended – because little know to those on the left the 14th amendment was specifically intended to protect the right of negros to own guns.
And the first consequential efforts at gun control – liek so many bad ideas of the left, were to bar negros from owning guns.
The problem with Heller is that the foundation needs to be more broadly incorporated into our understanding of the constitution as a whole – not just the 2nd amendment.
Regardless the modern SCOTUS provided the most clear objective way to teach constitutional law we have ever had.
And it makes it clear to all – right, left and in between how to change the constitution if you do not like it.
In the name of saving democracy, House Democrats are now preparing legislation to try and keep Trump off the ballot.
“Congress will have to try and act,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), “I don’t have a lot of hope that Speaker [Mike] Johnson will allow us to bring enforcement legislation to the floor, but we have to try and do it.”
So, what about all those norms the Democrats were supposed to bring back with the Biden admin? Rule of law? Due process? Democracy?
Speaker Johnson won’t allow it. Jamie Raskin is a hack and has been since his college days. So many thanks are owed to Lee Zeldin for putting the House into GOP hands. He is the one who has actually saved democracy in this country. Democrats in Congress, Colorado, Maine, Illinois, and the MSM want to prevent people from voting for the candidate of their choice. They hate democracy. They should rename their party to the Anti-Democracy Party.
OldManFromKS,
I just finished reading this, Time to Deep-Six the Democrats’ Brand of Democracy https://amgreatness.com/2024/03/01/time-to-deep-six-the-democrats-brand-of-democracy/
when I read you comment.
You might find it interesting.
Thanks for the recommendation Upstate.
Up State.
Congress already has a path to doing this.
Read the 14th Amendment.
Section 5 IIRC…
But it will take 2/3rds of each house.
I guess that’s too high a threshold.
BTW,
I wonder if Raskin has ever done business w a NY Bank.
It would be funny if Jame’s replacement decides to use the same civil law to go after these maroons.
Just kidding. I know that even it if were possible. No self respecting Republican would stoop that low.
-G
Congress would not need a 2/3 majority. They can pass legislation with a simple majority in each house. That’s all 14A.3 requires.
14A.5 requires that.
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Journalism would objectively report that President Trump committed no insurrection and nothing resembling insurrection. And that Jan. 6 was a “peaceful and patriotic” protest of electoral votes being cast from States that had violated their own constitutions and law. Journalism would objectively report that Capitol Police removed barriers, opened doors, and escorted American citizens from the Trump rally into the Capitol, and that only a fraction of those people protesting devolved into unarmed rioters.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated. Lawfully slated.”
“And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”
– President Donald J. Trump, January 6, 2021
So the concurrence by the three liberal justices basically concludes that allowing low-level officials in individual states to essentially decide a national election would “imperil the Framers’ vision of a Federal Government directly responsible to the people.” Concurrence at 3. It would thus be “at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles.” Concurrence at 1.
It’s probably not the same, but it echoes the Hawaii Supreme Court’s holding that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply in that state because it is inconsistent with the “Spirit of Alhoha.” In other words, no closely-reasoned legal analysis, just inconsistency with some vaguely defined spirit. The majority opinion, by contrast, anchors its holding in a specific interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which Section 5 indicates that Section 3 is only enforceable through a legislative enactment by Congress. One may disagree with that judicial interpretation, but it is at least based on the words of the Constitution, not on some vaguely-defined “spirit” or “principle.”
Spirit . . . vision . . . principles . . . In the context of a constitutional legal analysis, how are these not weasel words?
oldmanfromkansas posted:
Spirit . . . vision . . . principles . . . In the context of a constitutional legal analysis, how are these not weasel words?
How about “emanations and penumbras” being a constitutional legal analysis from SCOTUS itself?
I agree with Barrett as well as the concurrance – that SCOTUS should decide no more than is necescary to decide the issue.
I agree that it was NOT necescary to go alot further into details on how the federal government dould enforce the 14AS3
However I disagree with the concurrence that it was not important for SCOTUS to decide that the power to enforce 14AS3 rests with Congress.
It was necescary to decide that – otherwise some idiot in DOJ and some left wing nut shopped federal judge would have done what CO did and we would be going through this mess again.
Thopugh I do not disagree with the majority oppinion, there is alot in it that was not necescary.
But I disgree with the concurrances claim that it was unnecescary to determine that Congress needed to act.
Frankly the Majority might be Wrongish – in that I think Congress COULD empower the states to enforce 14AS3
But they did not.
The importance of noting that power over federal elections rests with CONGRESS is actually important beyond the 14th amendment.
Though there are some differences in the two federal elections clauses – one applies to the president and one to representatives and senators. One shares all federal election powers between congress and state legislators, and the other delegates only specific powers – setting the day of the election to congress.
Regardless, the power of congress over federal elections in one of the reasons that the Moore ISL decision was decided Wrongly.
Because Federal elections are NOT states excercising state powers (state elections are). Federal elections are instances where state legioslatuires and the Federal government excercise FEDERAL power.
regardless, this is a surprising good and pretty clean and solid decision.
Further the nature of even the limited 9-0 majority should send a message to the left wing nut faux constitutional and legal scholars here that Your understanding of the constitution is MADE UP AT OF THIN AIR.
I am thinging specifically of you Dennis – as well as the various ATS’s.
Thank you. Good column.
“Was It Legal To Appoint Jack Smith in the First Place?”
https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/was-it-legal-appoint-jack-smith-the-first-place
What the law and the Constitution “do not allow,” argues the brief, “is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen.”
“Was Special Counsel Jack Smith illegally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and is his prosecution of former Pres. Donald Trump unlawful? That is the intriguing issue raised in an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court by Schaerr Jaffe, LLP, on behalf of former Attorney General Ed Meese and two law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson, in the case of U.S. v. Trump.”
“The amicus brief raises serious and fundamental issues of whether Garland had the constitutional and statutory authority to appoint Smith as special counsel in the first place. Jack Smith, a private citizen, was appointed as a special counsel by Garland to investigate whether anyone violated the law in “efforts to interfere in the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election or the certification of the Electoral College vote held” on Jan. 6, 2021. In August of 2023, a grand jury directed by Smith indicted Trump for conspiring to defraud the U.S., disenfranchising voters, and obstructing an official proceeding on Jan. 6.
“But Meese, Calabresi, and Lawson argue that Garland lacked the power to appoint Smith because the attorney general has no authority to appoint a “private citizen to receive extraordinary criminal law enforcement power under the title of Special Counsel.”
“First, they point out that there is no federal statute establishing an “Office of Special Counsel in DOJ.” Second, even if one ignores the absence of such a specific statute, there is also no statute authorizing the “Attorney General, rather than the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint such a Special Counsel.”
“The special counsel, they note, has more power that any of the 94 U.S. Attorneys who prosecute cases across the country. Their authority is limited to the jurisdictions in which they are appointed. Moreover, U.S. Attorneys are nominated by the president and have to be approved by the Senate under the Appointments Clause in Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution.
“Yet Jack Smith has nationwide authority to pursue his prosecutions, and indeed has indicted Trump in two separate jurisdictions (D.C. and Florida), and was neither nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This, according to the amicus brief, violates basic constitutional requirements.
“The former attorney general and his colleagues acknowledge “there are times when the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate.” But federal “statutes and the Constitution” only allow such appointments through “the use of existing United States Attorneys.” They cite the appointments as special counsels of Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Rosenstein, John Huber, and John Durham, all of whom were Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys at the time of their appointments, as examples of valid and lawful appointments.
“But what the law and the Constitution “do not allow,” argues the brief, “is for the Attorney General to appoint a private citizen, who has never been confirmed by the Senate, as a substitute United States Attorney under the title ‘Special Counsel.’” “Under the Appointments Clause, inferior officers can be appointed by department heads only if Congress so directs by statute,” and there is no such statute giving Attorney General Merrick Garland such authority to appoint an “inferior officer” like the special counsel.”
…
– Hans A. von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation
“Know your enemy.”
– Sun Tzu
____________
And you entertain the incoherent and psychotic screeds of the radical extremist, anti-colonialist, anti-Constitution, anti-American, anathematic, full-blown communist, and direct and mortal enemy, Nikole Hannah-Jones, who must have been deported long ago.
Don’t blame Sista Jones.
Blame your faithless, feckless, bleeding-heart, milquetoast selves, who won’t even stand and defend your nation of freedom and self-reliance under infinitesimal government, created, built, and established by your ancestors and forefathers (i.e. not someone else’s).
I am afraid of the Left too! They have better guns than us! Theirs can shoot 800 rounds per second, and just one bullet from one of their AR-15s can cut a person in two!
@Floyd
😂 That one killed me (no pun intended). It is patently clear none of these dissenting fools has ever shot a gun, and the rest are simply lying through their teeth. That so many seem to believe it – sigh. Take into account how hard it is to even hit somebody, somehere vital with a bullet barring super close range, especially without training or practice – dang. It does not give me high hopes for our military if kids go in believing this crap. The left seem to pretty much be prepared to do anything they can to destroy our 1st and 2nd rights, because they know those are the things standing in their way. They can massage the rest to suit them, our first two amendments – they are a problem to the elite.
Anyone that does not consider the modern DNC a socialist/communist threat tantamount to the struggles of long ago is an unthinking plebe. It is blatantly transparent at this point.
James,
Well said.
I shot Expert in the USMC.
But it was not till I started competing in High Power and reloading that I came to truly understand internal and external ballistics and what it takes to put lead on target.
However, the only thing more dangerous than an professional is a amateur. They tend to get others around them killed.
There is a real difference between playing a video game in their parents basement vs when your target shoots real bullets back.
Personally, between the two, I think the 1stA is the bigger problem of the elite. While they try to spin it as a threat with misinformation, disinformation etc. people who actually think, share ideas, are open to ideas are beyond the control of the elites, and their propaganda outlets on MSM. That is why I support The Free Press and others like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Sharyl Attkisson etc.
Colt Automatic Rifle
Cartridge 5.56×45mm NATO
Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Rate of fire 600–750 round/min
Muzzle velocity 991 m/s (3,251 ft/s; using the M193 round) 945 m/s (3,100 ft/s; using the M855 round)
Relevance?
“800 rounds per second” above?
60 seconds times 800 rounds/second =48,000 rounds. Math, not feelings.
Those bump stocks are amazing…
I have yet to see a rifle with a Bump stock that also has a belt feed.
John Say posted:
I have yet to see a rifle with a Bump stock that also has a belt feed.
I am at the range constantly here in Montana where more people have a second AR15 than they do a second car. I have seen exactly one bump stock since they were introduced years ago. I have never run into anyone also competing in High Power, Service Rifle, etc with a bump stock on their rifle (those using Garands, M14s etc don’t apply).
My conspiracy theory is that ammunition manufacturers actually invented the bump stock to increase the demand for ammunition. With far more misses than actual metal on target per rounds fired, there will be an exponential increase in ammo sales to the pitiful idiots who buy them for anything other than a desire to hear the rifle fire more often.
I fully support the fact that the 2A protects bump stocks, especially when most gun laws on their face are unconstitutional; Heller was just the best compromise that Justice Scalia could successfully get the necessary votes with. He was lucky to get that; I doubt any of the constitutionalist/textualist justices today since his death could negotiate the Heller decision.
But I have never seen anything more likely to make the person firing the rifle miss the target and mostly waste ammunition to no effect than bump stocks.
Even IF they somewhat emulated full automatic fire, there’s a reason that the troops who are on the two way rifle range rarely fight in a TIC with the go-fast selector enabled.
Fun fact: AR15 owners figured out back in the 1960’s that they could “bump fire” their rifles just by hooking their thumb into their pants and belt and shooting from the hip. Now (unless ScrewTube has taken the video down), you too can learn how to do the same thing watching video on ScrewTube.
Will belt loops and belts for those who own semiautomatic AR15s, FNs, etc be the next thing to be banned?
And how did police state fascists taking out a journalist publishing stories about their malfeasance get us to bump stocks?
The M134 Minigun’s fire rate is 3,000 rounds per minute (or 50 rounds per second).
Iowan2,
Relevance?
None.
He thinks he is being cute/funny to Floyd’s obvious sarcasm.
Anyone with a even small degree of common sense and logic knew Floyd was being actually funny, making fun of all those leftists who actually believe the 800 rounds per second, or a AR15 bullet will blow someone in half to include a SC Justice, the current President and others.
Just goes to show you can have a degree, be a SC justice, or president and still not know what the heck you are talking about.
Floyd,
For those of us with not only common sense and critical thinking skills but we also have a sense of humor, appreciate your jokes.
For those without those attributes, they are small pathetic little people leading pathetic lives from their Starbucks offices.
Oh! Look! His Starbucks made comments got deleted!
Thank you Darren for the clean up!
I am someone that thinks 2020 was a stolen election; I am also someone that thinks the acts at the capitol were not the way to win, no different than idiot children throwing powder on the Constitution – it accomplishes nothing. Morons, all of them. But the double standard is there: the people in question went out of their way to dramatize this, just as they have with every other bloody thing since 2016, and nobody with a brain or a heart, that does not steer their life by the dictates of personal grievance, is buying it anymore.
Same said people think the ‘justice’ given to these people, given the acts of 2020, where nothing whatsoever was done, are unforgivable. As a lifelong independent voter, I have zero respect for the credibility of America’s modern left remaining. *Without* our Constitution, people in other Western countries are beginning to do things differently (farmer’s protests, walking back trans nonsense for children, having institutions spanning the medical to the intellectual that still function, even not having to take your shoes off at an airport unless they are big enough to clearly hide something).
If we do not want to just be indebted to the entire world and left in the dust – we have got to get the dems out of everything. That does not automatically equal ‘conservative’. Everything, unless self-proclaimed ‘liberals’ like to find their sanity and their spines again, reject socialism/communism, because currently, they have neither sanity nor spines. Too used to their comfort.
Particularly given the fact that we are headed toward a financial/debt crisis that could easily lead to another depression, worse than the last because there are so many people here now (thanks for the open border, Biden). See how many migrants want to come here after that happens. We could even see ‘migrants’ leaving of their own volition because America has become a waste of time. 🙄 And if we don’t start doing better right now, it will. My wife is currently overseas, and the U.S. dollar ain’t converting well.
What the modern dems have done to this humongous country through fiat is just insane; but again, to be fair, we let it happen because we were ALL too comfortable. We do not ever need to be a caste society, and it is beyond time to show these elites we will not stand for it. Dems love to hem and haw about ‘the children’; do you want your children growing up in a caste society if you are already not one of the chosen ones (in this day and age, likely through the inheritance of other people?).
I would not have gone up there either. First, I would not go to D.C. because of safety concerns – they have lots of 13 year-old hardened criminals, and second, because I hate crowds, and third, I think protests are pretty much useless.
“we have got to get the dems out of everything. That does not automatically equal ‘conservative.’
James, that statement says everything everyone must know. We expect differences in policy, but the Democrats are destroying the ability of government to function. Would the Democrats of the past be as fiscally unreliable as today’s Democrats? No. Did the past Democrat open the border to illegals and criminals? No. Was weaponization of the DOJ, FBI, CIA, CIA, etc., the way Democrats of the past competed in elections?
The Democrat Party died, and we are left with autocratic leftists running the show. They must be defeated, or America will die.
I think very few of those at J6 thought it was a way to “win”.
Protests are not always about winning. They are often meant just ot make clear that significant opposition still exists.
Trump’s efforts to get Congress to stop certificant were a hail mary.
They stood at best a tiny chance.
But they WERE constitutional and legal.
Protestors demanding that – were also fully legal.
Protestors peacefully marching through the capital demanding that – were perfectly legal.
And though as I have said -= they were not going to succeed – that is Not a good enough reason to not do something.
I would further say that though it is not clear how the violence started, even that ultimately can not be enough to balk at future protests.
We can not have people cowering is silence just because either through malfeasance on the left or error on the part of the right or both some parts of the protest become violent.
If we can not protest because of the possibility of violence – then we have given the left the means to assure that no protests from the right will ever occur.
OT: There is an interesting statement in the per curium opinion on the 14(3) case. The Court says that the absence of historical precedent is a telling indication of a serious constitutional problem with the asserted power. Trump made precisely this point in his appeal of the immunity decision, referring to the complete absence of criminal prosecution of a President for his official acts for 230 years, despite ample opportunity.
Yup. As I noted below, the Left’s nine-year persecution of Trump has gone into uncharted territory in many ways. Then they complain that the Court, when it resolves these disputes, has gone into uncharted territory. Waters responded by observing that self-awareness is not their strong suit.
@oldman
It has. I do not know what to call it other than insane. In reflection, I think it’s still a matter of the elites having anxiety that may have to jst be like ‘other people’. The aristocracy never wanted a free society; they wanted the people they considered their lowers to not bother them so much. Throw them a Scooby snack, etc. I have never in my life seen a rich dem treat another as anyone but a charity case or a servant. And I worked at a dem roundtable once.
The left makes the argument that Trump is unusual – while honestly that is NOT really true.
Ignoring the rhetoric and the fact that he actually keeps campaign promises Trump is really pretty conventional as presidents go.
But even if it were true. The assumption that never before seen claims of law and constitution should be presumed suspect is still correct.
I would note that presumption is not absolute – but it puts the burden of proof on those applying the law differently than ever before.
As to the Immunity case – it is a no Brianer than the DC court got it wrong. They proposed a “balancing of interests” as the test for when presidents have immunity and when they do not.
Like the 14As3 question the constraints on presidential immunity has little history. It is beyond despute that it exists.
it is clear that it must be overcome to prosecute.
It is not clear what the process to overcome it is.
I am personally inclined to agree with Trump that impeachment and removal are necescary.
But my position is NOT based on that it naturally must be that way.
Or even that the constitution CLEARLY says that.
Or that our founders clearly intended that.
Because this has really never been addressed before.
My argument is that while the constitution does not STRONGLY say that.
That is the only decision that does not constitute creating something in the constitution that is not there.
I would have no problem with a different standard – but a constitutional amendment would be required.
The Founders provided America with impeachment and conviction as the tools for egregious felonious transgression by a president, which certainly may be presented subsequently as grounds for indictment and prosecution.
If any president or former president should have been indicted and prosecuted, it would have been Bill Clinton, including his wife and “co-president,” Hillary.
To wit,
ARKANSAS CONNECTIONS: A Time Line of the Clinton Years
https://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm
(excerpted)
1985
A relative of Bill Clinton is raped. Wayne Dumond is arrested and imprisoned in the case. While awaiting sentencing, Dumond himself is sexually assaulted and castrated by two masked men. A local sheriff, later sentenced to 160 years for extortion and drug dealing, displays Dumond’s testicles in a jar on his desk under a sign that read, “That’s what happens to people who fool around in my county.” A parole board, upon receiving new evidence of Dumond’s innocence, will vote to release him after 4 1/2 years in prison. Governor Clinton — according to the managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette — stages a “romping, stomping fit” and blocks the release.
When you get whupped Per Curiam — Zero, it’s a bad day for the Dims, their willing apparatchicks in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, and, of course, a great day for their nemeisis Democracy in general.
Have you noticed how none of the Shills here have bothered to try to refute the legal reasoning in the decision? I think they have opted for “pounding on the desk!”
More amazing. Those dolts in Colorado – supposedly four unbiased appellate judges – just missed the boat, the dock and even the water completely.
The deliberate dolts in Colorado and elsewhere must be prosecuted for abuse of power, malicious prosecution et al., and for wasting the nation’s time with pervasive and fraudulent frivolity.
The Colorado Dolts have a good defense. They plead TDS and Stupidity.
This is an incredibly strong and well written opinion, proving that these justices – even the 3 on the left are the cream of the crop and far better than your average left wing nut legal pundit.
Though I agree in effect with Bush V Gore. it is a poorly written opinion rushed.
This was done almost as quickly and is very well done.
It is also surprising – because – honestly what are the chances of this issue ever arrising again ?
Yet this oppinion is written as if it is guidance for the future, not just a solution to a never to be seen again problem.
While Bush V Gore was about a problem that we are still seeing in different forms.
@Floyd
Also known as a temper tantrum. Unfortunately, that makes sense to the modern under 30 on the left (and this still seems to be a conundrum: I’m here to tell you, your kids ain’t smart), who would still wear pull-ups and breast feed if they could. And yes, these people vote. We really, really need to fully comprehend what we are up against this year. Let us not let ‘adult’ become a dirty word, and there is no longer the option to sit it out. If you are somewhere that has been miraculously spared much of this (and there are places) – time to think about the other people around you that need to live, too. A personal grievance will seem like a triviality if we don’t show up in unison. There will very likely be a lost generation who will never know what to do, but we can still make things better in the future.
Floyd, once they are done regurgitating leftist talking points, they move on. I saw that with Sammy when my response to his definition of the coup was one from the leftist NYTimes. That happens with Bob, anonymous and almost any leftist on the blog. ATS sometimes has a point of view, so he is able to go a few rounds like he did with you the other day. But in the end, most of the time, he fails.
This was a surprisingly good decision.
I that the oppinion should have been structured differently.
There should have been a SHORT 9-0 opinion that ONLY stated what all 9 justices agreed on.
That the states have no power to do this.
Then there should have been a separate majority opinion that said only congress can do this.
But that is just to emphasize that the ENTIRE supreme court has said this was STUPID.
I would further note that though this oppinion in several places says ESPECIALY with respect to the president.
The opinion is NOT limited to the president. This oppinion say that states can not do this to ANY federal elected offices.
For a bit I wanted to dispute that they should have said states can not do this period.
But after more thought I agreed with the decision.
While A14S3 does not actually empower states to block “insurrectionists” from state offices.
States DO have the power to decide the qualifications of those who are in the ballot for STATE offices.
Even if they do so baddly.
Jonathan: Deranged, unhinged and whining DJT can’t seem to find the money to post a bond in the $454 million civil fraud judgment– so this was his post on 3/1/24:
“Crooked New York State Judge Arthur Engoron, at the demand of even more Crooked Attorney, Letitia James, despite [the rest in caps] great and very conservative financial statements (with a full disclaimer clause that Engoron refuses to acknowledge!), ruled that I should pay an exorbitant fine despite doing nothing wrong. The only fraud was Engoron’s valuation of Mar-a-Lago for a tiny fraction of what it really worth. No victim, only profits and success. a total miscarriage of justice, companies fleeing New York”.
Now if I were going to reply directly to DJT this is what I would tell him:
Dear Donald: Judge Engoron based his valuation of Mar-a-Lago on your own valuation for tax purposes. You lowered your property tax bill by claiming it is a “commercial property” when everyone knows it is your “residence”. And, Donald, it is too late to complain now. The judgment is in–the train has left the station. Stop your whining. Either come up with the cash to post the bond or AG James is going after your assets. You had your chance to put on your case before Judge Engoron and you failed. To make matters worse your CFO Allen Weisselberg just pled guilty to perjury–lying for you at the trial. Couldn’t come at a worse time if you want to appeal the judgment. Frankly, if I were you I would just pay the judgment. I mean you are a self-proclaimed billionaire. Right? Forget any appeal. It’s a dead loser. Don’t listen to Boris Epstyn! All he wants to do is to continue to bilk you for more attorney fees!
Dennis – it has already been pointed out many times that a tax valuation is not intended to be a fair market price valuation. How would tax assessors even make a FMV valuation? They are not in the business of selling or buying properties.
Edwardmahl,
Thank you for that two sentence take down of some long, factless ranting by Denise.
Agree wholeheartedly. But let’s give Dennis a little slack.
He must be feeling a little bit butt-hurt today, tee-hee…
@Everybody
Yes. I know, old internet etiquette instructed us to ‘not feed the trolls’, but times are different. Refuting with fact and sense is absolutely crucial, especially on a legal blog, and double especially on a Constitutional legal blog. Those halcyon times of we are all just randos posting are gone, it isn’t the wild west anymore – it is people chiming in intentionally trying to distract and obfuscate and undermine, but to a dizzying modern degree. I have never seen anything like it in my online time on this blog, and I’ve been in this space since the beginning. There is almost zero doubt most of the trolls here are working for the weekend.
I actually do doubt that most are federal plants, except for perhaps tangentially (i.e. shells, which younger radicals are too dumb to understand) through stupidity and the promise of a paycheck and fighting a ‘man’ that largely ceased to exit before they were born, and the repercussions of which have never impacted them personally for even a fraction of a second. And no, these people do not have anything better to do. It’s this or work at Starbuck’s with their useless liberal arts Phd, then go home to either their parent’s house or an empty apartment. They can’t afford a house because they have never done anything in their lives to inspire trust, reliability, good will, charity, or solvency. 🤷🏻♂️ Service is a foreign word to them, and quite literally.
“They can’t afford a house because they have never done anything in their lives to inspire trust, reliability, good will, charity, or solvency. 🤷🏻♂️ Service is a foreign word to them, and quite literally.”
James, you are batting 100 today. Many of these young people who do not have money today might never be able to afford a house, and they should remember why. They ignored what they were supporting and, instead, were having ‘a good time’; there likely will be no one to bail them out. We used to have that capacity, and that is how we were able to face WW2 along with the other wars, but the well is dry, and salt water is creeping in.
@S. Meyer:
James, you are batting 100 today. Many of these young people who do not have money today might never be able to afford a house, and they should remember why.
I would remind you and James both that “kids these days” are modelling the theology and rantings of our nation’s senior citizen politician leaders like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, the Clintons, etc. Not to mention their media propagandists like Wolf Blitzer. All well into their 70’s and beyond.
Furthermore, many of those I deployed overseas to the two way rifle range were “kids these days” who were there instead of being in college. Not just the deployments right after 9/11, but the final deployments before Bribery Biden became Quartermaster To The Taliban and deserted Afghanistan.
For or more of the “kids these days” killed in Kabul by a suicide bomber Bloody Biden refused to allow be neutralized by one of our snipers weren’t even born when 9/11 happened. Those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought by a 20 year succession of “kids these days”. There were 20 years of war while people who were mature adults could have joined their local national guard or reserve to support their country at war – only a fraction of mature adults in America did that.
And “kids these days” are the ones up in the oil patch busting their asses, starting apprenticeships out of high school, etc.
We don’t accept the Mainstream Media Marxists attempting to stereotype conservatives and constitutionalists as Biden’s “semi-fascists” while saying Liz Cheney is what an honorable, ethical Republican looks like. We should stop stereotyping our nations’ young people as well – especially when there are signs that they are starting to trend as a demographic to being more conservative than before.
Told Y’all – Tip of the Himalayan Iceberg
The First Domino has Fallen!
New York State Judge Arthur Engoron and Attorney General of New York (NYAG),
Have succeeded to bring the NYC Commercial Real Estate (CRE) crashing down.
-NO BAILOUTS FOR NYC !!!-
Last CRE out of NYC leave the crumbs to the Illegal Migrants and AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)
NYC = Detroit 2.0
–
𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐝𝐨𝐠, 𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝟔𝟓 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐭𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐤 𝐛𝐲 𝐌𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐲’𝐬
“… NYCB’s rapid share price descent began on January 31 when the bank filed an 8K form with the SEC indicating a $260 million net income loss in the fourth quarter; a dividend cut from 17 cents to 5 cents; and a $552 million provision 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 – 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬. …”
By: Pam Martens and Russ Martens ~ March 4, 2024
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/03/watchdog-better-markets-investigates-the-bank-that-has-lost-65-percent-of-its-market-value-in-two-months-and-was-downgraded-to-junk-by-moodys/
Dennis–When are you going to admit that you’re dead wrong and the entire case against Trump in New York State is a fraud perpetrated by Letitia James and her buddy Arty Engoron?
The Mar-a-Lago has been treated foor tax purposes as a commerical property for decades and has been specifically zoned as such. Any tax assessment valuations are irrelevant to any claims about Trump’s personal financial statements. And, in any event, tax assessments in Florida (and elsewhere) are a mere fraction of the fair market value.
Moreover, “fair market value” wasn’t even the standard of value required for the financial statements under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), specifically Accounting Standards Codification 274, “Personal Financial Statement.” Nor was the standard of value “fair value,” which is the standard of value that GAAP requires for corporate financial statements.
The actual standard of value to use under ASC 274 is “estimated current value,” which is much more flexible standard of value than either “fair market value” or “fair value.” “Estimated current value” means that the assets on Trump’s financial statements must be at dollar amounts that they “could be” sold for. GAAP also requires that the assets be valued at the highest and best use, which means the highest values they could be sold for. That means that the burden on James-Engoron was to prove that Trump’s properties “could not” be sold for the amounts stated “at their highest and best value.” But James-Engoron never did that. All they could do was refer to previous, alternative valuations that didn’t establish one way or the other that the properties “couldn’t” be sold for the amounts stated.
That’s legally insufficient to prove a violation of ASC 274. They had to prove the properties could not be sold for the amounts stated, and they failed to do that.
Normally, in any case involving financial statements of any kind where one party asserts that the assets were overvalued, that party must bring in an expert witness in accounting and valuation to opine that the properties were overvalued. But James failed to bring in such an expert and Engoron never asked her to bring one in either o actually prove that Trump’s financial statements violated ASC 274. But, in stark contrast, Trump did bring his own accounting and valuation expert who did opine that the properties could be sold for the amounts stated. (I suspect that James did try to find an accounting-valuation expert to support her case, but couldn’t find an expert who would be willing to risk his/her reputation by lying under oath.)
So, in the end, Trump proved his case and James-Engoron didn’t. Thus, the entire case brought against Trump was fraudulent. That ends the lesson in accounting, valuation, and the law in this case. So, kindly shut up about it, unless you want to finally acknowledge that you were wrong about everything in this case. Okay?
Thank you. I am very knowledgeable in the due dilligence process – which bank apraisals are a part of – note the operative word BANK appraisals. By tradition, by common law and by statutory law – BANKS appraise properties that are to be mortgaged.
I am not nearly so familiar as you are with the standards and law regarding bank appraisals.
I am also sure there are instances in which Trump could be required to value his properties according to the standards you cite – but getting a mortgage would NOT be one of those.
Regardless, thank you for your excellent expression of the professional standards and law regarding property valuations.
There is so much wrong with this idiotic case.
So Dennis, If you or one of your loved ones was entering into politics and being railroaded by the Powers That Be – for whatever reason – and subjected to this kind of obviously unfair, authoritarian prosecution — from within the “justice” system, would you still feel the same?
How about a woman comes forward to accuse you of rape some 30 years ago? But she can’t pin down the date, or even the year — yet YOU must somehow defend yourself from her wrath. And the corrupt prosecutors and judges and juries — also want to destroy your reputation, bankrupt you with legal fees, see you suffer — for whatever reason. It could happen to you, too Denny. Why do you cheer on such lawlessness?
And yes, these malicious prosecutions can and do happen all across the country — even to hardcore lunatic Democrats. Do you see the threats being made against Mayor Adams in New York, the warning shots for him to get with the program?
For you to praise this kind of ‘rule by the lawless’ – especially as a lawyer – is quite irrational, insane thinking on your part.
And you know what else? Life was pretty good for most Americans under Trump’s four years. That’s why he’s coming roaring back with popular support — and yes, even among blacks, hispanics, brown people, rich people, poor people, moms, rappers, ALL people, except leftwing lunatics who are brainwashed by MSLSD “programming” and suffering from extreme TDS for which there is no cure. It’s sad, really.
“Dear Donald: Judge Engoron based his valuation of Mar-a-Lago on your own valuation for tax purposes. ”
Dear Dennis, it’s hard to criticize good friends, especially with all the cordial emails between us, but if you expect anyone to believe the rubbish you write, it will behoove you to realize taxing authorities have specific methods and laws to evaluate the amount of taxes to be paid annually. Assessing property for a private sale is a different story, and the two prices can vary by many millions.
For example, homestead laws in Florida keep taxes down for those who homesteaded their property. Therefore, two properties next to one another might have the same multimillion-dollar value, with one paying $15,000 and another upward from $100,000 of dollars. You have been told this before in written form with links, yet you are repeating the same error.
My friend, that repetition of error makes you sound like a liar and ignorant. As a friend, Dennis, it is my obligation to tell you these things. Next time you speak or see Jonathan Turley, send him my regards.
S. Meyer
You cite Trump’s remarks – what part of what Trump aid is wrong ? None of it.
What part of what Trump aid was he allowed by Engoron to argue in court ? None of it.
You are unfmailiar with the violations of due process in this case.
“Judge Engoron based his valuation of Mar-a-Lago on your own valuation for tax purposes.”
False – just about any moron knows that Tax assessment are done by the municipality – not the property owner and they have absolutely no bearing on the market value of the property.
Further they are not conducted the same way from state to state – and again can not be used to establish a market value of a property.
I own an apartment building in my City. It is assessed for taxes at 89,000 dollars. That is what the building was sold for 40 years ago . It has been bought and sold since – I paid 165,000 for it. Zillow currently says it is worth 500K, and I have had cash offers of 425K,
As to the rest of your idiotic claim – it rests on the absurd proposition that a tax assessment and appraisal are the same thing.
They are not.
“You had your chance to put on your case before Judge Engoron and you failed.”
False, aside from the fact that everyone knows this to be false – Engoron did not allow a hearing on the value of the properties – he concluded that there was fraud without having a trial. The Trial was purely about the penalty.
The evidence that you hear in public regarding tghe value of these properties – though I am sure engoron is aware of it, was not presented at trial because Engorn forbid it.
You really do not know much about this case.
Nor do you know muh about the law and the constitution.
The supreme court – including all 3 left leaning justices just slapped you and all the idiots claiming there was a case for removing Trump from the ballot. While the 3 justices on the left atleast partly correctly issues a concurence noting that SCOTUS should only have decided the issues they needed to decide to resolve this case – which is simply that the states do not have the power to do this and the 14th amendment was intended as a LIMIT on states not a grant of power to them.
I made many arguments as possibilities that SCOTUS might use to dismiss this.
I correctlyu noted that SCOTUS was going to decide this relatively narrowly AND 9-0 if possible.
SCOTUS adopted one of my arguments – though more eloquently – and NOT one of the more popular arguments against.
They did not adopt all my arguments – and they were not going to – as Sotomayor stated – they only decided enough to decide the case.
They did not decide things they did not need to. That does not mean that in a different case they would not have adopted a different one of my arguments.
The DID NOT adopt the 14A does not apply to the president – even though that was popular in oral arguments – even Jackson advancing it.
I specifically said I hoped they would NOT use the A14S3 does not apply to the president argment – because they need to be more forceful in rejecting this – which they were.
In a way this was consistent with the ISL argument I made post Moore – SCOTUS did not outright reject ISL, What they did was say it is up to the federal court to say when State executives and State courts are interfering in federal elections.
And that is exactly what they just did.
They said A14 is in its entirely a RESTRICTION of state power – not an explansion.
Regardless, the point is that YOU were wrong on A14S3.
You were not wrong because SCOTUS is a bunch of biased left wing nuts.
You are Wrong because you do not understand the rule of law, or the constitution.
SCOTUS just said that almost a dozen left wing nut judges through out the country are just totally completely bat$hit crazy wrong.
I would note this is mostly likely how Trump will win both the Engoron and Kaplan lawsuits.
You are pissing arround fighting about Engoron’s biased findings of fact.
The most likely way this decision goes down is for the appeals courts to properly decide that James and Engoron completely F#$K up the law,
That a consumer statute does not apply when there are no consumers.
And in the Carrol case that the NY legislature could not constitutionally pole a temporary hole in the statute of limitations.
In this case that strongly looks like a bill of attainder – and those are unconstitutional.
But my guess is that the Carrol lawsuit will be tossed in its entirety on due process grounds.
Temporaryily poking a hole in the statute of limitations is a clear violation of due process.
NY clearly felt that the SOL was necescary or they would not have made relaxing it temporary.
It is s due process violation if the law is not applied consistently. This is a pretty clear example of that.
Both cases will be tossed because of errors regarding the law – not the facts.
That is NOT because these cases do not have massive factual problems – but because when the law is not followed – the rest is irrelevant.
John Say,
I edited the above comment due to its inclusion of a word listed in the profanity filter, The word in the original preceded the word “slapped”. Due to the amount of time you spent on writing the comment I manually removed the flagged word so that it would post. If you refrain from using that word, you shouldn’t have any issues in this respect.
thx, darren.
Sorry
I normally try to avoid profanity – but with the increasing insanity sometimes it seems necescary.
Regardless, Schiff has become my goto synonym for one explative.
Maybe Biden is the appropriate sustitute for another.
Again thank you.
While I will try to avoid terms that get trapped by the content filter – you are ALWAYS free to remove a filtered word, from my posts without explanation – you have my permission.
Supreme ruling was 9 – Zip, yet the leftists on the court added other issues not germane in their response, abortion, and slavery (stating the amendment was about slavery). Couldn’t stay on topic, they needed to muddy the waters about their favorite issues.
Perhaps history will reflect JANUARY VI as America’s Tea Party of the 21st century; a fervent protest by the people extended further to be a riotous act by the establishment’s shadow participants.
The four activist judges in CO, the Sec State in ME, the opportunistic idiot judge in IL have all given Trump one thing that seemed impossible earlier…MOMENTUM!
Between Fani Willis imploding and being proven to be a crooked lightweight, the SCOTUS going unanimous in tossing the actiivist state rulings on the 14th A, the egregious and sickening “judgment” of Engoron and Letitia James and the horrific and sad murder of a young nursing student in GA by an illegal that was CAUGHT AT THE BORDER, ARRESTED IN NY and ARRESTED IN GA all have metastasized to implode the Biden WH and candidacy. Throw in the Hur report, for 2 reasons, 1) for NOT PROSECUTING Biden for the same thing that Trump is being charged with and 2) saying that Biden is senile and you have the Dems crying in their vichyssoise.
One last thing: Imagine how foolish the 4 judges in CO feel today and how satisfied the 3 judges that dissented feel.
Great post Hullbobby. Although I do have one observation as to your last point about the 4 activist judges.
Like adults who have lost the ability to blush, these activist judges have lost the ability to feel foolish. Their opinion was the legal equivalent of those “In this house we believe” yard signs that are oh so fashionable in progressive precincts.
@hullbobby
Agreed! This is a pretty damned clear message. I can’t express what I feel at the court continuing to actually do its job in the face of the past eight years. If you don’t like Trump, don’t vote for him; that’s pretty simple to a sane mind. Take your fascism at preventing others from doing what they prefer and stuff it. I have a tiny ray of hope that the era of the crybabies, which has been absurd, awful, insufferable, and at too many times to count, downright concerning if not despair-inducing – is finally seeing the beginnings of its end. The Biden administration and the way the DNC (in tandem with the rest of the globalists across the planet) is currently constituted are a plague or a cancer, the worst thing to happen in this country (our all free society. Can you imagine if ancient royalty had Tik-Tok or a MSM? I know there were anachronistic equivalents, but come on) in its history, very easily comparable to the buddings of the worst regimes the world has ever seen, and this could be, albeit small, a bit of chemo to that cancer.
So now sh** is real: Biden has already shown he’s perfectly happy to circumvent SCOTUS as though they had never spoken, repeatedly and without remorse; will this be more of the same? If so, there is no question that the entirety of the modern left is in the grip of lethal fascism. We are SO lucky we have our amendments and our rule of law – other Western countries are not fairing so well, and you’d better believe we are going to be castigated for our freedoms by them.
James,
Great comment.
As you point out, the Biden admin is perfect willing and has done so to ignore the SCOTUS. The rule of law is not something the Biden admin seems to be willing to follow.
I based off the most recent SCOTUS ruling, I could see leftists ready and willing to ignore the ruling, remove Trump anyways and give into their fascism, daring the rest of us to do something about it.
@Upstate
Thank you for your comment. That’s precisely what I suspect and fear, that the left are hoping they’ve lit a fuse, regardless of what the law says. Young, privileged, idiot activists have no actual idea of what they are fomenting, because they think playing Grand Tourismo is the same as driving in real life, and that logic is applied to everything. I do not want see any young person, however confused, seeing their best friend’s head blown off into liquid because they were simply never taught anything.
I don’t know what we do about the Tik-Tok stuff; that bespeaks a failure at home, I’m afraid to say. And we are going to have to address that, too. It will really, really, not be easy. Be glad you live upstate. The boroughs are not in good shape, and my own experience in these matters in another state is that the creep upward will only continue. I guess I was fortunate (?) to see in microcosm what is happening drip by drip everywhere. There are no words for the damage that has been done since 2020, even taking into consideration the malfeasance of the past.
The reason that the portion fo the Decision that is only a majority decision – was necescary is because without it, the same people pushing lawfare on the CO supreme court, would just switch to federal courts – find a batschiff crazy judge – Chutkan comes to mind or Beryl Howell or ….
And startt this mess all over in the federal courts.
It’s time to round up DNC “Boiler Room” operators and have them “spayed and neutered”.
Americans understand that these are politically motivated prosecutions.
The DOJ’s heavy handed prosecution of the J6 protesters who are being held as political prisoners. The DOJ going full bore on Trump’s documents while turning themselves into pretzels to let dementia Joe off the hook. The national embarrassment that is Fani Willis. Not to mention Letitia James’ nakedly political shakedown in New York. Or those leftists in Colorado prostituting the rule of law to get Trump off the ballot.
It has become abundantly clear that the anti-Trump zealots – by which we mean the political establishment and the media – will stop at nothing to destroy their most feared political opponent.
Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself,
Hard to argue against that.
And these same anti-Trump zealots, I do not think would destroy it all if it meant to keep themselves in power.
Rephrase: And these same anti-Trump zealots, I do think would destroy it all if it meant to keep themselves in power.
“If Baker reported from outside of the Capitol, he would not have been charged.”
There were some 60 journalists reporting from *inside* the Capitol (including the Rotunda). Many were from AP, the NYT, Axios. How many of them were arrested? Best I can tell: Zero.
If he had embedded himself with the Hamas terrorists as they raped, murdered and kidnapped Israeli civilians, he would have been invited to the best Georgetown cocktail parties.
Good point .. but don’t believe the NYT, in particular, had journalist reporting from *inside* the Capitol.
In fact, I have found no evidence of reporters inside the Capitol .. . other than those ‘advocating’ for Trump, of course.
*”The Times’s Visual Investigations team spent several months reviewing thousands of videos, many filmed by the rioters themselves and since deleted from social media. We filed motions to unseal police body-camera footage, scoured law enforcement radio communications, and synchronized and mapped the visual evidence.” ~ NYT
“I have found no evidence of reporters inside the Capitol . . .”
Yet I found oodles in about 10 minutes, including from the very outlets I named. And found reliable sources reporting the same fact.
Baker was LITERALLY walking through the capitol with a CBS and NBC reporter.
You cite the NYT – but the snippet you cite tells us what NYT did, not what they found, or even what they were looking for.
The most famous video of the Alishi shooting was recorded by a well know Antifa affiliated journalist would was actively inciting violence.
NINE TO ZERO!!! How many “experts” and other pundits said it is only due to it being a “MAGA” Court that it will fall?
Hey Dennis, hey Gigi, hey Sammy, hey Boob, hey all of you Anonymous big mouths, where the he** are you now?
HullBobby,
Now the real fun begins.
Watch how not only MSM, Democrats, and our leftist friends here on the good professor’s blog all try to spin, decry the court rouge, or use their third rate legal opinions generally nothing more than MSM propaganda or DNC talking points with a dose of mental gymnastics to say how wrong the professor and the SC are.
Go read the scathing concurrence. It is as we predicted. SCOTUS changed 14/3 to help Trump.
Sammy, go google the words “scathing concurrence” and you will see ZERO ENTRIES! Moron.
Scathing concurrence is not a thing!
HullBobby,
Did not take long, from my 1109 comment to you, to Sammy’s 1109 comment to prove their spin, decry the court rouge, or use their third rate legal opinions generally nothing more than MSM propaganda or DNC talking points with a dose of mental gymnastics to say how wrong the professor and the SC are.
“To start, nothing in Section 3’s text supports the majority’s view of how federal disqualification efforts must operate. Section 3 states simply that “[n]o person shall” hold certain positions and offices if they are oathbreaking insurrectionists. Amdt. 14. Nothing in that unequivocal bar suggests that implementing legislation enacted under Section 5 is “critical” (or, for that matter, what that word means in this context).”
“Although federal enforcement of Section 3 is in no way at issue, the majority announces novel rules for how that enforcement must operate. It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. In a sensitive case crying out for judicial restraint, it abandons that course.”
“Section 3 serves an important, though rarely needed, role in our democracy. The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is
a great and glorious thing. The men who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, however, had witnessed an “insurrection [and] rebellion” to defend slavery. §3. They wanted to ensure that those who had participated in that insurrection, and in possible future insurrections, could not return to prominent roles. Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President. “
Reply to Sammy @ 11:48 am “It reaches out to decide Section 3 questions not before us, and to foreclose future efforts to disqualify a Presidential candidate under that provision. . . . Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.” I assume this quote comes from Judge Barrett’s concurring opinion. She is being naive. The targets of section 3 will not be “insurrectionists”, a term not even defined in the 14 Amendment. The target will be people like Trump who are disfavored by powerful political and legal elites. If the S Ct did not make this kind of challenge virtuallly impossible, the current ballot cleansing scam would rear its ugly head again and again. Marc Elias, George Soros, and their ilk are not going away.
Edwardmahl,
“Today, the majority goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oathbreaking insurrectionist from becoming President.”
The way I see it, this line now opens the question of what procedures need to be established to determine exactly how 14, 3 is ruled on.
Someone just declaring someone else is an “insurrectionist” without due process, is the antithesis of the rule of law and the Constitution.
Congress would have to take up the question, present it as law.
Of course I would expect that law to get taken to the SC if it had some vague wording just to “Get Trump.” And I would expect the SC to also rule, even another unanimous ruling if it is clear it is just a “Get Trump” tactic.
For such the gravity of the seriousness of that kind of charge, perhaps only the SC should conduct a trial. As we have seen from other DC or NYC cases, Republicans or Trump would all be convicted guilty the day before the trial began.
Sammy who are you quoting
If you read the opinion, you would know? (Sotomayor’s concurrence)
14th Amendment section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
No Sammy. SCOTUS did not change 14/3 to help Trump.
They followed the Constitution. They followed the rule of law.
Helping Trump is a Blue-anon conspiracy theory. It is the conspiracy that your MSM betters tell you and you blindly believe.
The real question is, are you and all your other Blue-anon followers going to accept the ruling by SCOTUS? Or just blindly rage against it?
Upstate, keep at my friend, you destroy them with logic.
“scathing concurrence” (whatever that means)
What’s that chant from a sporting event?
“Scoreboard, scoreboard.”