A few years ago the answer would have universally been to say no. They may have created unconstitutional guidance and executive actions according to the courts, but that would simply suggest that the orders would become null and void. There was never any argument that the politicians who exceeded their authority be arrested and tried as criminals.
But of course, that was before Trump derangement syndrome, and a Biden administration so petrified by the idea of Trump running in 2024 that they want to criminalize exactly this sort of constitutional issue... at least as it pertains to Trump.
All to prevent him from running for President again.
The irony of all of this is that these executive orders and election "guidance" was 100% in violation of the written Wisconsin law. Politicians and Election officials took it upon themselves to simply ignore the law (under the pretense of Covid) and make up their own rules. There was no real doubt that their actions did not conform to the actual law here... and there was actual specific laws to follow. But nobody is suggesting that these officials be charged with any crime. At least not as far as I have heard.
On the flip side, as it pertains to issues with certifying the vote, whether or not lawsuits could be extended past certain safe harbor dates, or whether there was constitutional reasoning to create alternate electors... there is literally no Federal "laws" anywhere that would be violated in any of this. More to the point, where there were questions, those questions would have been settled by the court. The fact that these get-Trumpers continuously point to opinions from scholars and what Trump was "told" by people (rather than citing actual election laws) confirms this concept. Furthermore, the fact that they are using other crimes (not specific to his actions) is just further proof.
In a second bit of irony here, the concept that Trump wanted to push many of these lawsuits past safe harbor dates to get around the rulings that were basically ending the lawsuits due to time restraints has actually been proven out in this case. We now know that had this particular lawsuit been allowed to be litigated without the time constraint, then the decision would have gone in Trump's favor in Wisconsin, not against him (and it would not have taken 20 months to decide).
And this is not the only lawsuit that has been won on merit after being previously rejected for time constraints or lack of standing. There have been others where behavior that the States used in 2020 (under Covid justification) will not be allowed in upcoming elections. Ballot curing and the allowance of unsigned mail in ballots were allowed in 2020 in multiple states and found later to have been in violation of state laws in at least two of those states.
In theory, any state that was found to have conducted their election in violation of their own election laws could actually legally decertify their results with an act of their State Congress. This decertification wouldn't matter much 18 months after the election, but had it been done prior to Jan 6th... well then we might be telling a different story. As it is understood, if the results are decertified then that is when the so-called "alternate electors" come into play and ultimately that State congress makes the call on which set of electors are sent.
Trump's attempt to push Georgia to find the 12,000 fraudulent ballots (and the infamous phone call) plays into this concept. Had Georgia been able to confirm that there were more illegally counted ballots than the margin of victory, their State Legislature also could have decertify their election results as well. The issue (and why there was pushback) is that the number of illegally counted ballots in Georgia's was more of a guess at the time of that phone call. It would later be shown that there was well over 12,000 ballots that were questionably (arguably illegally) counted in multiple counties. But there was not "time" to confirm this between the election and safe harbor, thus Trump's call fell on deaf ears (as it probably should have).
All that being said...
My last thought on this is a puzzler. What happens if these same politicians and officials decide to to something similar in the next election, knowing that they can likely get away with it at least for the election in question, even knowing that it will be declared illegal moving forward? Would there come a time when they could be held criminally liable for violating election laws with executive orders or guidance. Would a repeat offender eventually need to be charged just to stop the behavior?
Hmmm.....
59 comments:
I guess Ch aka Scott is not aware that Dinesh D'Souza's 2,000 Mules movie has been totally discredited.
Even Fox News backed away from it, and in his testimony to the Jan 6 Committee William Barr actually laughed when he was asked about it and dismissed its assertions as "indefensible."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is not the SCOTUS.
"Hunter Biden: Jill Biden Is a ‘Selfish Silly Entitled Cunt"
It is a betrayal of our democracy. The freedom to choose our leaders is the fundamental structure.
It makes it more difficult to vote.
Someone will find a way to take it to the Federal Court and unfortunately the current Supreme Court has reversed the 20th century and even further back in time.
Those boxes are used in California and I don't know how many others.
But unfortunately you don't care about anything but your own feelings.
And the IED is getting worse
I think the Georgia probe poses the greatest threat to Trump
The Georgia probe could in the end be the most dangerous legal arrow aimed at Trump.
One reason is the recorded phone call with Raffensperger.
In addition to the ominous request to “find” votes, the then-president also implied, in vague terms, that Raffensperger was complicit in election fraud or was willfully ignoring it. This, Trump warned Raffensperger, was “a criminal offense.”
Raffensperger has said he viewed Trump’s words as a threat.
Last month, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman told MSNBC’s Katie Phang, “Donald Trump has zero defense in Georgia. If I had to put my money on one prosecution that’s going to go forward here that will send Donald Trump to jail — it’s Georgia.”
Of course, Trump and his supporters see things completely differently.
“I did NOTHING wrong in Georgia, but others did,” the former president wrote on Truth Social on Thursday, apparently responding to news of the subpoenas. “They CHEATED in the 2020 election and those are the ones that should be investigated (and prosecuted).”
The DA seems to like her chances
Willis, the district attorney leading the probe, is exuding confidence so far.
In an interview with Yahoo News last month, she spoke about her willingness to enforce subpoenas even on recalcitrant, high-profile witnesses.
“I’ve had a witness arrested before because they ignore my subpoena. And you do not expect to have to do it. But I will,” she said.
In the same interview, Willis said she feels “great” about the make-up of the grand jury and underlined the importance of maintaining the integrity of elections — something she traced back to lessons learned from her father, a onetime Black Panther who became a lawyer.
She recalled being “dragged to the polls” as a young girl and added: “So you understand very, very early on, voting is such an intrinsic right … And so I understand how important the infraction on someone’s right to vote is. So I do get the significance.”
In a separate interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Willis promised that she will be guided only by whether the facts would support criminal prosecution.
“If we can do that, I’m going to bring an indictment — I don’t care who it is,” she said.
But if it’s Trump, any trial will be a sensation.
Some key figures have already testified
The Georgia grand jury has already heard testimony from other key witnesses.
Raffensperger appeared before it in private in early June — before he testified to the House Select Committee in public.
According to The Associated Press, Raffensperger told one reporter on his way into the Georgia proceedings that his testimony would be “hopefully short” — but ended up staying for more than five hours.
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has been subpoenaed and is expected to testify before the grand jury later this month.
Kemp, like Raffensperger, resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the elections. Trump then backed challengers to both men in Republican primaries this year. In the end, Raffensperger and Kemp both survived, dealing Trump his most notable defeats of this year’s election season to date.
CNN reported in May that “several individuals” who were willing to serve, on specious grounds, as pro-Trump electors in Georgia have also been interviewed. The CNN report said these people had been told they were “considered witnesses, rather than subjects or targets” — suggesting that Willis might be more interested in what they can reveal than in charging them.
A decision on charges could come soon — or not
Willis, despite her expressions of confidence, has shifted around when it comes to predicting a timetable for when the grand jury might finish its work.
You really are in need of some help from your wife
should the politicians who ordered them be held criminally liable?
No
But you really are getting worse 😕
Trump saved My Republic.
Trump appointment three Constitutionalist to The United States Supreme Court .
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › 2000_Mules2000 Mules - Wikipedia
SIDE SPLITTING HILARIOUS.
ANONYMOUS' 5:07
Also SIDE SPLITTING HILARIOUS.
Newt Gingrich - Trust the American People, Not the Jan. 6 Committee
The Left understands that it cannot tell the American people the truth. This is why the Jan. 6 Committee has been so manipulative and consistently secretive and dishonest.
Gingrich 360
From his perspective
The Proud Boys etc
the government has evidence that members of the group from Florida and Arizona allegedly staged semiautomatic rifles and other weapons in a suburban Washington hotel while a third team from North Carolina kept their firearms “ready to go” in a vehicle in the parking lot.
The prosecutor claimed that another Rhodes co-defendant, purported Florida “state lead” Kelly Meggs, had told a cooperating defendant who has pleaded guilty in a cooperation deal with the government that another Florida member of the group, Jeremy Brown, came to Washington with explosives in his recreational vehicle, which he left parked in College Park, Md. Brown, who has pleaded not guilty to the misdemeanor Jan. 6 counts, is not charged in the seditious conspiracy indictment but was described by prosecutors as an “unindicted co-conspirator.”
The government last September allegedly seized weapons from Brown, including two illegal short-barreled firearms from his home in Tampa and military grenades from “the same RV that Brown used to travel to Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6,” the prosecutor asserted.
They had a list of people they would have killed
Next week we might see a direct deposit to them and Trump’s team...
The unresolved questions for January 6 investigators remain whether Trump knew that Proud Boys and Oath Keepers would storm the Capitol, and whether Trump was in contact with their leaders who have since been indicted for seditious conspiracy.
The founder of the Oath Keepers is going to testify next week and if they grant him immunity he might confirm a direct deposit to the former President and information about the Proud Boys 👦
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is not the SCOTUS.
They are THE COURT that determines Wisconsin election law.
And quite frankly there would no reason to believe that the USSC would not back them up 100% in all of this.
Bottom line. The 2020 election in Wisconsin was run under unconstitutional standards (illegal as it were) and we could still see the Wisconsin legislature decertify the results! All based on legal rulings and constitutional allowances...
Which, of course, you would like to see "criminalized" apparently?
should the politicians who ordered them be held criminally liable?
No
Why not?
Then use the same standards for why Trump "SHOULD BE" charged with a crime even though he did not use any executive actions to bypass or ignore election laws?
I usually don't comment about this but.
The danger of illegal abortions; the mental and financial disaster of forcing women to have babies they don’t want; the outrage of the state controlling what you do with your body, and the implications of forced pregnancy when it’s a result of rape – all these arguments have been staples of anti-abortion politics for decades. Now that the worst has happened, however, they are joined by a bunch of considerations that are so wildly beyond reason, so fanatically punitive, that they represent a potential death sentence for any pregnant woman.
And if some states declare abortion is murder, millions of women will be in jail for their lives. Some people advocate putting tracking implants in pregnant women, so if they travel to get an abortion , they could be charged for murder in their home state.
If they violated the law in order to do those things they can be changed.
You really don't understand it anymore 😕
During the eight hours testimony yesterday Mr. Cipollone repeatedly raised legal and other concerns about President Trump’s activities on January 6th and in the days that preceded.
We will see 👀
Btw Reverend...
The ruling that Wisconsin's Governor and election officials violated election laws by the use of the drop boxes and "allowing" ballot harvesting has nothing to do with 2000 mules.
How could you possibly have an informed opinion no 2000 mules if you do not have the slightest idea what it was about?
And if some states declare abortion is murder, millions of women will be in jail for their lives. Some people advocate putting tracking implants in pregnant women, so if they travel to get an abortion , they could be charged for murder in their home state.
Hey Alky the board historian, familiarize yourself with the VI amendment
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
LOL
You don’t know shit
Put down the PBR
You don’t know shit Alky!
Ch aka Scott says:
Then use the same standards for why Trump "SHOULD BE" charged with a crime even though he did not use any executive actions to bypass or ignore election laws?
_______
Surely Scott cannot actually think that the only criminal activity with which Trump could ever be charged would have to be some sort of official act of his presidency? Trump was doing absolutely everything he could in all sorts of nefarious ways to distort and falsify and get others to distort and falsify the results of a past presidential election, attempting to overthrow it by claiming it was not what it was, namely, a legitimate election with a legitmate outcome: Trump's electoral and popular vote DEFEAT by the American electorate.
That is NOT defending the Constitution of the United States. That is attempting to subvert the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the
American people. It is a criminal act so reprehensible as to demand the severest of punishments, including never again being able to hold a political office.
Executive orders are difficult to challenge.
But they are not crimes
Using Executive management to steal an election is a crime.
Using Executive management to steal an election is a crime.
EXACTLY.
Using Executive management to steal an election is a crime.
Roger said that, but it got deleted.
Vox
The highest Court in the most powerful nation in the world appears to have decided that it only needs to follow the law when it feels like it.
Last December, for example, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that fundamentally alters the Union — giving states sweeping authority to restrict their residents’ constitutional rights.
At least, that’s what happened if you take the Court’s 5-4 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson seriously. Jackson involved Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8, which allowed “any person” who is not employed by the state to sue anyone they suspect of performing an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, and to collect a bounty of at least $10,000 from that abortion provider. The Court allowed that law to take effect, even though abortion was still considered a constitutional right at the time.
If you apply the logic from Jackson more broadly, any state could pass a law unleashing such litigious bounty hunters upon people who exercise any constitutional right. Perhaps a state wants to make it illegal to own a gun, or maybe it wants to allow bounty hunters to sue any Black family that sends its child to a predominantly white school — and the federal judiciary will simply stand back and let it happen. Realistically, the Court is unlikely to allow these sorts of attacks. But to spite abortion, the conservative majority was willing to open the door to them.
Jackson involved Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8, which allowed “any person” who is not employed by the state to sue anyone they suspect of performing an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy,
Are you able to recognize that has nothing to do with this statement of yours?
And if some states declare abortion is murder, millions of women will be in jail for their lives. Some people advocate putting tracking implants in pregnant women, so if they travel to get an abortion , they could be charged for murder in their home state.
Probably not.
Texas can make abortions illegal but the 6th Amendment prevents them from prosecuting women that GO OUT OF STATE FOR AN ABORTION, YOU STUPID SOT
So Reverend
Sounds like you are arguing that making a claim that an election was not valid is a crime?
Wouldn't everyone involved with pushing the fake Russian collusion narrative criminals then?
Vox?
Do they not realize that there is no actual constitutional right to an abortion? But there is a second amendment last time I looked?
I
Written by his long time friend.
Based on what we have now already heard from Jan. 6 hearing witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson, it is apparent that there likely was ongoing crime and fraud being orchestrated by Trump and that Cipollone was a firsthand, percipient witness to those events.
Today, Pat Cipollone is a key witness to history. Our democratic form of government is still under attack, and it continues to be his highest duty as a lawyer to protect the Constitution of the United States. There are surely personal consequences he may suffer for testifying to the truth, as John Dean did in 1973, but our country and our now precarious democracy are worth the price.
A lot of things in the laws are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
But basing it upon feeling should not be used by a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Vox called it out on the first sentence.
But abortion is OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY not a constitutional right after Dobbs. That is no longer up for opinion.
Second amendment still exists.
From the New York Times..
If he confirms these actions Trump will be in danger legally. "sending false letters to state officials about election fraud and seizing voting machines."
Mr. Cipollone was a witness to key moments in Mr. Trump’s push to overturn the election results, including discussions about sending false letters to state officials about election fraud and seizing voting machines. He was also in direct contact with Mr. Trump on Jan. 6 as rioters stormed the Capitol.
I just want Alky to admit no resident from an no-abortion state and goes somewhere, where it’s legal to have an abortion, can be charged or get a gps implant in them, where an abortion is illegal. and he wonders why he doesn’t have the door code
This has always been my discussion with pro infanticider’s, it might become illegal in some states but it’ll never be illegal in all
And “The People” can chuck whomever they disagree with out..
The 9th amendment
Some of the non-enumerated rights recognized by Supreme Court are as follows:
right to an abortion based on right to privacy[ii].right to choose and follow a profession[iii];right to attend and report on criminal trials[iv];right to receive equal protection not only from the states but also from the federal government[v];right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime[vi];right to associate with others[vii];right to privacy[viii];right to travel within the United States[ix];right to marry or not to marry[x];right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]right to educate one’s children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state[xii];right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens[xiii];right to use the federal courts and other governmental institutions and to urge others to use these processes to protect their interests[xiv];right to retain American citizenship, despite even criminal activities, until explicitly and voluntarily renouncing it[xv];
If the current Supreme Court ignores the 9th amendment we are subject to their feelings
I don't think you understand Roger...
a previous court decision that has been overruled is no longer valid and neither are the arguments from that decision
There are many ways to change a court decision.
But you are the one who doesn't understand.
He is the lawyer in charge at the Department of Justice
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/politics/trump-investigation-thomas-windom.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuomT1JKd6J17Vw1cRCfTTMQmqxCdw_PIxftm3iWka3DLDmwSiPkORJCH_0bRZKF4IMcpwjGDAd5HLrI0WP19x_NeOEooVwmvp5Kf3YsEJSkyrMSzQmYyldrrbIwPzAXLPCO_Ofstg_q2pQ6HOzy9RveI1HEicwduvZNgcF613X0DxLPPGu90xtgujfx2A5EtRWxXYzKY_KW9U2UIM9SGbBHe7Ag0SrsZDWmVxYjAnupGJAZCClvGT2d953I_6b5eOdAWP6X-LH0waZa0wOVRWiEzctDfV9BmTJPUlr5qrbfHtRWHrcO0zP82H69U16jWLPzcMTlGndhbcSOSA0nhEw&smid=url-share
Be scared
There are many ways to change a court decision.
Sure Rog...
Care to name all of them?
Right now pass a federal Roe v Wade law.
Stopped by after a busy day to see 27 out of 41 posts on this thread put up by James and Roger.
I'm not interested in that. I'm out.
The writer for Vox wrote a book about the current Supreme Court’s decision a couple years ago.
The current Supreme Court,” he warns, “is likely to build a nation where conservatives, and only conservatives, have the opportunity to govern.”
The current Supreme Court has just done ✔️
To answer your question that you censored
The congress can write a federal Roe v Wade.
Wtf is this shit salad.
"The congress can write a federal Roe v Wade."
Joe Biden and His Cunt Wife.
"retired three-star general of the U.S. Army has been suspended from a "mentor" position after sarcastically congratulating first lady Jill Biden for learning "what a woman is
Joe Biden and his Cunt wife
Barack Obama and his Chicago Whore wife
Harris Says Americans Took Abortion Rights for Granted
July 9, 2022 at 6:39 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 63 Comments
Vice President Kamala Harris said that Democrats failed to codify Roe v. Wade in the past because they “certainly believed” that issue was “settled,” Axios reports.
Said Harris: “I think that, to be very honest with you… we certainly believed that certain issues are just settled.”
She added: “That’s why I do believe that we are living, sadly, in really unsettled times.”
____________
Three of the Justices nominated by Trump lied to the effect that Roe vs Wade WAS settled.
Abortion is banned in Texas. A woman who has miscarried and needs foetal tissue removed to forestall infection will be monitored but not treated. We will see in Texas the coming weeks, doctors must stand back and wait for women to start dying.
January 6 Committee Questioned Cipollone on Pardons
July 9, 2022 at 6:50 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 214 Comments
“Pat Cipollone, who served as White House counsel for President Donald Trump, was asked detailed questions on Friday about pardons, false election fraud claims and the former president’s pressure campaign against Vice President Mike Pence,“ the New York Times reports.
NEXT WEEK IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING.
I wonder when some women die unnecessarily if lawsuits will be forthcoming.
https://wapo.st/3nS1cXG
President Biden is going to the middle east next week.
Ch stupidly said:
But abortion is OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY not a constitutional right after Dobbs. That is no longer up for opinion.
____________
So you mean Dobbs is settled law?
Where have we heard that before?
The Texas Freedom Caucus, a legislative caucus in the Texas House of Representatives, sent a threatening letter to a law firm with locations in Dallas and Houston that planned to reimburse travel costs for employees wanting an abortion.
In the letter, which was addressed to Sidley Austin LLP, the 11 representatives of the caucus wrote that legislation will be introduced to impose civil and criminal sanctions on law firms that pay for abortion or abortion travel.
"We are writing to inform you of the consequences that you and your colleagues will face for these actions," it said.
The proposed legislation will prohibit any employer in the state from paying for elective abortions or reimbursing abortion-related costs regardless of where the abortion occurs. According to these lawmakers, private citizens will be allowed to sue anyone who pays for an elective abortion performed on a Texas resident.
If passed, the law will grant The State Bar of Texas to disbar any lawyer who has violated any abortion statutes.
The Texas Freedom Caucus said Sidley had aided or abetted drug-induced abortions that violate the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that bans abortions at about six weeks of pregnancy. According to the letter, litigation is already underway to identify employees who may have been involved.
"To the extent that Sidley is facilitating abortions performed in violation of article 4512.1, it is exposing itself and each of its partners to felony criminal prosecution and disbarment."
According to an email viewed by Bloomberg Law, Sidley said it would cover abortions and related travel costs for employees in states where restrictions are going into effect.
On June 24, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a legal precedent from 1973 that made abortion legal across the US.
Last year, State Senate Bill 8 took effect in Texas which outlawed abortion around six weeks of gestation, even in cases of rape and incest. The latest ruling will create criminal penalties for those who perform or aid abortions at all stages of pregnancy.
The letter was supported by the 11 conservative Texas lawmakers and concluded: "Conduct yourselves accordingly."
Sidley Austin LLP and The Texas Freedom Caucus did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Republicans are scum of the earth
Over 2/3 of the posts on this thread were put up by James and Roger. You two are ruining this blog. I hope you're pleased with yourselves.
I'll be back when there's something more than spam from two old men.
But the convergence of so many cases against Trump during the next few weeks means any one of these issues could become a real problem for the former president. And just when things couldn’t seem to get any worse, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is expected to take the Trump Organization and its former CFO to trial for dodging city, state, and federal taxes by coming up with a payment scheme that included off-the-books luxury apartments, a flashy car, and tuition at an exclusive school for his grandkids.
All of these perks weren’t reflected as income, investigators allege, so both the company and the executive were able to avoid taxes.
At the moment, there are signs that Manhattan prosecutors are indeed preparing to bring their case to a conclusion. Jennifer Weisselberg, a key witness in the case who was once married to the former CFO’s son, has been called in by the DA’s office to go over documents and prepare her to testify at trial.
“Things seem to be wrapping up,” said her attorney, Duncan Levin, who previously investigated money laundering at the same DA’s office.
“They're looking for somebody who can illustrate these documents for the jury and breathe some life into [them],” he said. “She was intricately involved in these issues: What was it like to renovate the apartment? Who paid the bills? Tuition payments to the school… who signed the check?”
Need a hint? It was Donald Trump.
Post a Comment