Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Are they going to spend all of their political effort and capitol slandering yet another person not actually running for president, like they did with Hunter Biden?

Unlikely. This is just fundraising, as they've already laid the groundwork to set Michelle up as the next Hillary in terms of being evil bogeywomen. I mean, from the "IS SHE A MAN!?" to the "SHE WANTS YOUR KIDS TO GET NUTRITIONAL FOOD IN SCHOOL AND NOT SUGAR/SODIUM FILLED GARBAGE" to "SHE'S FREAKIN BLACK!!" they've been filling that strawman with all the straw they can.

If this plays well they'll run with this for a while, but they'll drop it as soon as it stops helping raise money.

[Gorsameth]

Are they going to spend all of their political effort and capitol slandering yet another person not actually running for president, like they did with Hunter Biden?

Spending a ton of time on slandering Clinton worked to kill her candidacy and got Trump into the WH despite them never finding anything. Pre-emptively flinging dirt is a winning strategy at this point.

[Clone]

Egregious human rights violations aside, the prisoners there were never American citizens in the first place.

Human rights violation aside, it's pretty fitting.

[Kaleredar]

Spending a ton of time on slandering Clinton worked to kill her candidacy and got Trump into the WH despite them never finding anything. Pre-emptively flinging dirt is a winning strategy at this point.

Sure, but Hillary Clinton was a long-time politician. Michelle Obama might be a political figure but she doesn’t have the track record Clinton did that made it somewhat obvious that Clinton would be running for higher office.

[Edge-]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/m...l-insurrection

A lawyer for Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) cited an 1872 congressional action granting amnesty to Confederate soldiers to defend his own client’s eligibility for office.

The argument from Cawthorn lawyer James Bopp Jr. came in response to a legal effort to have Cawthorn declared ineligible for office because he allegedly “encouraged, and upon reasonable suspicion helped aid, the insurrection” on Jan. 6.

The legal challenge, from a group of North Carolina voters backed by the organization Free Speech For People, alleges that Cawthorn violated the third section of the 14th Amendment, which states, “No Person shall be a […] Representative in Congress […] who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

On the phone with TPM Wednesday, Bopp said “there are substantial constitutional defenses, which include the fact that Congress passed the 1872 Amnesty Act, which removed all persons whatsoever from the disability under Section 3 as a result of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion.”

TIL Madison Cawthorn is a Confderate.

[Mazza]

Hang on, their defense is not "I did not engage in insurrection or rebellion"? Is that basically an admission of guilt?

[Kaleredar]

Hang on, their defense is not "I did not engage in insurrection or rebellion"? Is that basically an admission of guilt?

Perhaps we can read between the lines and guess that their lawyers think that ship has already sailed?

[Breccia]

TIL Madison Cawthorn is a Confderate.

Neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but pretty sure the 1872 Amnesty Act won't help unless Rep. Cawthorn is 150 years old.

To the end, therefore, that the authority of the government of the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and freedom may be established, I, ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except in cases where legal proceedings, under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion, have been instituted; but upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person shall take and subscribe the following oath, (or affirmation,) and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate

Unless this lawyer is able to convince a court Andrew Johnson, no longer our worst President, was pre-emptively pardoning all insurrectionists for the next two centuries.

[Gorsameth]

Neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but pretty sure the 1872 Amnesty Act won't help unless Rep. Cawthorn is 150 years old.



Unless this lawyer is able to convince a court Andrew Johnson, no longer our worst President, was pre-emptively pardoning all insurrectionists for the next two centuries.

I was guessing they didn't write an Amnesty Act that cleared everyone of insurrection in perpetuity, and surprise, they didn't...

Hang on, their defense is not "I did not engage in insurrection or rebellion"? Is that basically an admission of guilt?

I assume this is just his lawyer bringing up every possible defense he could think of. In a kind of "he didn't engage in insurrection because of X, Y, Z. But even if he did then it wouldn't matter because of this Amnesty act that doesn't even apply to him and has no bearing on this case"

Fun to see a representative actually get sued for possibly aiding the insurrection tho, will be very interesting to see if it goes anyway because if it does there will probably be a few more representatives sweating.

[DarkTZeratul]

Unless this lawyer is able to convince a court Andrew Johnson, no longer our worst President, was pre-emptively pardoning all insurrectionists for the next two centuries.

That does, in fact, seem to be his argument:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/m...l-insurrection

Though the Amnesty Act applied at the time to Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War, nothing in the law prevented it from being applied in the future, Bopp argued. “There’s nothing in the Amnesty Act that says it’s only applicable to the Civil War, and it was very broad in its terms,” he said.

Which, of course, is complete nonsense, and provably complete nonsense at that:

Ron Fein, legal director for Free Speech For People, told TPM in a statement that “Mr. Bopp’s argument is contradicted by history and common sense.”

“In the congressional debates leading up to the 14th amendment, Congress considered but rejected a draft of section 3 that only applied to ‘the late insurrection,’ i.e., the Civil War; in other words, Congress explicitly wrote section 3 to apply to future insurrections,” Fein said. “In the entire public and congressional debate leading to the 1872 amnesty, no one ever mentioned Mr. Bopp’s idea of future amnesty for insurrectionists who hadn’t even been born yet.”

“If Congress had intended through the 1872 amnesty to enact a de facto repeal of a constitutional amendment that it had just passed, you would have expected someone to have mentioned this at the time,” he added.

[Edge-]

That does, in fact, seem to be his argument:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/m...l-insurrection


Which, of course, is complete nonsense, and provably complete nonsense at that:

Pretty weird given that Andrew Johnson said this -

“To the end, therefore, that the authority of the government of the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and freedom may be established, I, ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except in cases where legal proceedings, under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion, have been instituted; but upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person shall take and subscribe the following oath, (or affirmation,) and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:

I, _______ _______, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner, abide by, and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God.”

Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how he thinks it applies to future insurrections given that it was specifically about the existing rebellion which ended over 100 years ago.

[Kaleredar]

Pretty weird given that Andrew Johnson said this -



Emphasis mine. I'm not sure how he thinks it applies to future insurrections given that it was specifically about the existing rebellion which ended over 100 years ago.

Yeah I doubt any Judge would be having that as a defense

[Breccia]

Which, of course, is complete nonsense

Can you imagine being the lawyer trying to argue to SCOTUS "Insurrection and sedition are no longer a problem, 14th Amendment? Section 3? Never heard of it."

[Edge-]

Neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but pretty sure the 1872 Amnesty Act won't help unless Rep. Cawthorn is 150 years old.



Unless this lawyer is able to convince a court Andrew Johnson, no longer our worst President, was pre-emptively pardoning all insurrectionists for the next two centuries.

Oh hey, I totally missed that you linked the exact same text I did...just like an hour and a half before. And that we highlighted the exact same text, kek.

[Breccia]

Oath Keepers plead not guilty by reason of "No crime was committed".

UPDATE: Oath Keepers leader denied bail on the grounds that...well, read for yourself.

On balance, the evidence in the record overall indicates Defendant's release could endanger the safety and wellbeing of others. This factor weighs in favor of detention.

[Rhodes' alleged] authoritative role in the conspiracy, access to substantial weaponry, and ability to finance any future insurrection, combined with his continued advocacy for violence against the federal government.

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen a bail denied more vehemently.
1) Has a ton of money
2) Does not comply with authority
3) Violent threat
4) Risk to himself and others
5) Committed insurrection...so, there goes that defense.
EDIT: Shit, I forgot
6) Has experience digging escape tunnels, no really, he built elaborate escape tunnels.

I wonder if he'll use the line @Edge- cited and claim he's a Civil War veteran?

- - - Updated - - -

Just to remind everyone, it's not the First Amendment if it's being done by private citizens and companies.

That said, Neil Young has his music removed from Spotify because he refuses to share a platform with Joe Rogan.

I have no interest in comparing how much Neil Young is worth to Spotify vs how much Joe Rogan is. I am pretty sure that, if Neil Young is willing to yank his music in protest, there are others who may follow his example. At some point, Spotify may ask if it's worth the hassle to defend a known danger to himself and others.

- - - Updated - - -

Hang on, their defense is not "I did not engage in insurrection or rebellion"? Is that basically an admission of guilt?

I guess we can address this. No. Their defense is "I did, but it didn't matter because Andrew Johnson pardoned us 150 years ago"

[PhaelixWW]

Another day of mixed news today. New cases continue to decline from the high mark a couple of weeks ago, settling at 533k, a decrease of 178k from last Wednesday's total. Unfortunately, while the decline is welcome, it's not extremely precipitous. And now we have word that the BA.2 sub-variant of omicron is likely a bit more transmissible. There are very few cases of "stealth omicron" in the US so far, and when that sub-variant takes over, the decline might slow down even more.

But the really bad news is that deaths today are up to 3143, which is an increase of 769 over the number reported Wednesday last week. And that's before the inevitable backfills we'll see pushing it up further over the next week or so. For comparison, last Wednesday has had an additional 344 deaths added between then and now. A similar increase would see today's final total up right at about 3500, which is not a pleasant thought.

The 7-day average for deaths has now surged to 2286, which is meaningful because, well...

The next milestone will be 2279, which was the peak 7-day average for deaths of the very first wave in early 2020. We could easily pass that next week if this increase doesn't reverse trend.

So, yeah, despite being 2+ years into this pandemic, despite having a vaccine available for over a year, we're now seeing more deaths occur than even at the very beginning of the pandemic. Things were definitely worse during last winter's spike, prior to the vaccine, but that means the only milestone remaining for the 7-day average of COVID deaths is the peak of 3566 just over a year ago.

We shouldn't see that high of a rate again. Then again, we really shouldn't be seeing as many as we still are, either, so...

[s_bushido]

I wonder if bringing up the Amnesty Act in the context of people who wanted to overturn the election and install the losing GOP candidate instead will effect the "Democrats are the real slave-holding Confederates!!!" narrative at all.

But of course I know the answer...

[Kaleredar]

I wonder if bringing up the Amnesty Act in the context of people who wanted to overturn the election and install the losing GOP candidate instead will effect the "Democrats are the real slave-holding Confederates!!!" narrative at all.

But of course I know the answer...

These are people who consider themselves American patriots and yet flew the confederate flag in the halls of Congress.

[YUPPIE]

about the guy in this thread regularly broadcasting COVID deaths in America:

wait, you people hold Trump accountable for all the millions of deaths even now?

[Dontrike]

about the guy in this thread regularly broadcasting COVID deaths in America:

wait, you people hold Trump accountable for all the millions of deaths even now?

Yes, his rhetoric still lingers with those that refuse to get the hoax vaccine. He actively made the reaction to the pandemic worse at every step of the way. It's literally no one else's fault.