Former TIME magazine essayist Lance Morrow, in a recent WSJ op-ed attacking the Maine Secretary of State for banning Trump from the ballot - may change his mind if he processes what happened yesterday. There in the D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals Trump lawyer D. John Sauer claimed presidential immunity meant one could issue an order to have a political opponent assassinated. The loopy lawyer was caught out by Judge Florence Pan who posed the hypothetical and Sauer - ass that he is -walked right into it. As LA Times legal specialist Harry Littman put it on ALL In last night:
"Legally, historically and logically this is nonsense. Once Judge Pan asked that hypo Sauer was a dead man walking. And we can be sure that this vampire of a claim will now finally have a stake put in its heart."
Well, let us hope so! As there have been far too many dodges through the justice system for putting the orange ratfucker away - for keeps. But even before this episode which ALL In host Chris Hayes called out as "an argument of such a breath taking vision of American dictatorship as we have ever seen" Morrow was loopy and chagrined about knocking Trump out of eligibility for the office, by virtue of disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Thus Morrow began his hack piece by setting his sights on the Maine Secretary of State for following Colorado's example in disqualifying Trump, writing:
"Invoking Section 3 of the post-Civil War
14th Amendment, Ms. Bellows claims Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection against
the U.S. when he did whatever he did, or didn’t do, on Jan. 6, three years ago
this week. "
Huh? He incited a mob to storm the Capitol you clueless
Babbit. As former DOJ Prosector Chuck Rosenberg noted the day after, in an
episode of ALL In:
"The insurrection was the attempt by an armed mob to interfere with the electoral vote count, and to thwart that, to upset it, to stop it from happening. And this is not something that sprang up organically on January 6th.
This is something Trump has been talking about over and over an over again. And that is why inciting this mob to insurrection and encouraging them - telling them they were doing the right thing and fighting for his electoral victory is so troubling."
This take was supported by historian Michael Beschloss:
"An attempted overthrow of our government has never in American history included the president of the United States. We Americans have never before been in a situation when a president with all his awesome power tried to incite an attack on the Capitol and congress. "
Does this has -been and hack Morrow really believe he knows more than a former DOJ prosecutor and a presidential historian? I mean, this turkey in his previous forays actually cheered the Trumper MAGA insurrectionists as "freedom loving pirates", e.g.
Morrow, buried brain deep in cluelessness about Section 3 to the 14th amendment goes on to write:
"Recently, Colorado’s Supreme Court ordered Mr. Trump’s name deleted from that state’s Republican primary ballot for the same reason. Other states have been toying with the idea. It’s up to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the disqualifications are constitutional. The justices may decide the matter on narrow or legalistic grounds—by a close parsing of the 14th Amendment, and of the term “insurrection.” They must rule on whether Mr. Trump’s rhetoric, actions or failures to act on that day amounted to a violent uprising against the American government. "
But as Constitutional scholar and former 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig pointed out in a 'Deadline White House' appearance on Dec. 20th, the threshold for insurrection does not necessitate actual incitement, but merely participation. Of that Trump is clearly guilty of as when he bellowed to the gathered MAGAs;
"You'll never take back our country with weakness! You have to be strong!"
And yes, the effect did amount to a violent uprising against the American government, given the mob was intent on stopping the certification of electoral votes and getting Trump back into power. Oh and yeah we have the images that show the violence,
Morrow next goes on to show an even deeper misunderstanding of Section 3:
"Two powerful lines of argument clash: 1. In such a dispute, a democracy must revert to its essential idea: the sovereignty of the people. It isn’t for unelected judges, or provincial officials, to make such a decision. The people themselves, in their millions, must render their verdict in the voting booth.
2. A man who has so menaced democracy itself has disqualified himself from the privilege of democratic process. "
Morrow fails to grasp that indeed, by the letter of the original meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Trump has indeed disqualified himself. In much the same way that a man 34 years old disqualifies himself because he lacks eligibility owing to the age threshold - at least 35. Or a foreign born individual disqualifies himself by not being a native born citizen. In all these cases, the people's rendering of a "a verdict" is irrelevant because no verdict (as a vote) can be rendered for any person who isn't eligible to run ab initio. This was also historian Michael Beschloss' point - as well as J. Michael Luttig's - in noting: the 14th amendment is “self-executing” meaning no prior criminal proceedings are necessary for the person to be so disqualified. Just as no prior criminal proceedings are necessary for the person to be so disqualified if under the age of 35, or if not a native born citizen.
Hence, there is really no "clash", as when Morrow babbles:
"Argument No. 2 escalates; it conjures monstrous possibilities. Should a demagogue be permitted to use the rules of democracy (let the people decide) in such a way that, once he has been legally elected to office, he might turn dictator, declare an “emergency” and dismiss the democratic process that brought him to the White House? "
Failing to understand there can be no "democratic process" if his eligibility for that office is already terminated by not meeting the standards defined. This is also why Justice Luttig observed: "The Colorado decision was not anti-democratic”, rather it was the conduct giving rise to the disqualification that was antidemocratic." Again, Trump disqualified himself from contention by his own actions on January 6th, 2021. This is as basic as a Sesame Street rhyme whether Morrow pretends to get it or not.
Lastly, we see his actual claims as risible and egregious when he writes:
"In America in 2024, who, or what, is the real threat? Mr. Trump? Or the left? It’s a harder question than either side will admit. The faithful of the progressive left, every bit as cultish as Trumpians are alleged to be, consider themselves and their doctrines as the path to righteousness. The sane course is to let the people vote on it. "
This emanating from a guy who actually once insisted Trump's Nazis were not the actual fascists, but rather is was the "left". E.g.
WSJ Hack Lance Morrow Gets Fascism 'Backwards' -
Claiming ( (WSJ, Sept. 6, p. A17, 2022, 'The Left Gets Fascism Backward' ):
"Mr. Trump and his followers, believe it or not, are essentially antifascists: They want the state to stand aside,"
Anti-fascist? What mushrooms has he been ingesting? Maybe this loser needs to learn more about "Agenda 47" that Trump and his minions have planned if they can sneak into power again,
"If Trump is re-elected, he’d be America’s 47th president, so he’s named the plans for his second term “Agenda 47.” At best, it’s a dystopian nightmare: at worst it means ending our current system of American government; aligning the US with Russia and other autocratic nations"
Morrow's also oblivious to the Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist 'Unite the Right' March that transpired in August, 2017, in Charlottesville, VA,
As well as multiple attacks on minority groups driven by Trump's rhetoric, such as at the Squirrel Hill Synagogue, by Robert Bowers - the largest Jewish massacre in U.S. history. As for the "sane course" being for the "people" to vote on it. Again, no, because you don't vote on anyone already disqualified from running in the first place. Moreover, as NY Times Jamelle Bouie pointed out on ALL In last week, we know Trump will merely undermine the next election and try to overthrow the result again if not in his favor. So Morrow's "sane course" is simply doing the same thing again expecting a different result, the definition of insanity.
As Bulwark contributor A.B. Stoddard
writes.
“Without objective truth in a rules-based system, we will have anarchy and tyranny. Any Republicans who endorse Trump this year and lies about the 2020 election, or about January 6th, are not just complicit in spreading his falsehoods — they are also helping to perpetrate an ongoing attack on the rule of law and our constitutional system, because Trump will demand they lie about the next election also."
The latest wake up call for blasé Americans (including Morrow) regarding Trump and his re-election plans was issued yesterday by none other than his lawyer D. John Sauer. This was in the immunity appeal case before the D.C. Circuit Court. When Judge Florence Pan asked Sauer whether immunity extended to the power of a president to order the assassination of a political opponent, Sauer hedged at first then answered in the affirmative. In other words, if Trump were to be elected again he'd have the power to carry out any murders he wants, just like Adolf Hitler. As Chris Hayes put it on ALL IN:
"If Sauer is correct you just need to hold on to 35 votes in the Senate (in its current composition) and you can have your political opponents murdered, you can have anyone murdered. You can do whatever you want. And there is nothing anyone can do about it anywhere in this country under the structure they claim. They are not trying to hide it.
Trump’s argument is of such a breath taking vision of American dictatorship as we have ever seen. And let’s be totally clear. The claim was not being made in a fundraising email or on a tarmac or blurted in a campaign rally. It was a considered argument of the lawyer for the man who wants to hold the office of the president again.”
The time to climb out of sleepwalking mode is now, my friends, before the Iowa caucuses and months before the Nov. 5 general election.
See Also:
by Robert Reich | January 11, 2024 - 7:29am | permalink
— from Robert Reich's Substack
Excerpt:
Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, argued on Tuesday (before the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) that a precondition for a president to face criminal trial is impeachment by Congress.
As Doug Gilbert noted in the comments to yesterday’s substack letter, a rogue president could avoid impeachment by simply imprisoning members of Congress who’d otherwise vote to impeach him.
In effect, John Sauer was arguing for the equivalent of the 1933 Enabling Law in Germany.
And:
Judges appear skeptical that Trump is immune from Jan. 6 prosecution
Excerpt:
The idea that former President Donald Trump was performing his official duties when he told his supporters to march to the Capitol and "fight like hell" and then sat in his dining room as they stormed the building and he refused to do anything to quell the riot has always seemed to be a stretch. After he lost 60 of 61 court cases in which he tried to overturn the results of the election and continued to exhort the top officials in the Justice Department to lie and say they had evidence of fraud hardly seems like a presidential duty either. And all the calls to local officials asking them to "find" enough votes to change the outcome of their election wouldn't normally be considered the job of a president. American elections, for better or worse, are processed by state and local authorities.
Nonetheless, Donald Trump's lawyers filed an appeal in a U.S. District court arguing that everything he did in the post-election period was part of Trump's official duties as president and therefore he should be given immunity for all of it, which is ridiculous. But even more ridiculous: His lawyers didn't really end up addressing that claim in oral arguments before the court on Tuesday, instead focusing on a truly fatuous assertion that unless a president has been impeached and convicted by Congress, he cannot be prosecuted for anything that happened during his term in office. This naturally led to some very unusual questioning by the judges:
In Watershed Decision Colorado Supreme Court Merits Kudos For Disqualifying A Traitor From Ballot
And:
by Amanda Marcotte | December 22, 2023 - 8:04am | permalink
Let's just get this out the way up front: If Donald Trump is removed from enough state ballots that one of the also-rans vying for the Republican nomination gets to run for president instead, there's a risk that President Joe Biden loses in November. All of those never-Trumpers we thought were our buddies will abandon the #Resistance so fast it will make Democratic heads spin. And the MAGA types could be so angry about losing Dear Leader they will rush the polls to vote as hard against Biden as possible.
Or maybe the opposite will happen: Trump will whine, cry and blame whoever gets the nomination, convincing enough MAGA types to sit the election out in protest, thus handing Biden an easy victory next fall.
The reality is we're facing a situation never seen before in the United States. A shameless insurrectionist is running for president while under 91 felony indictments. To add to this historic situation, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday banned Trump from appearing on the state's Republican presidential primary ballot. The 4-3 decision follows the clear language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment barring those who "have engaged in insurrection" from running for office. Yet anyone who thinks they know how this will play out over the next 11 months is kidding themselves. The one thing that is dead certain, however, is that the Supreme Court justices would be fools not to uphold this decision.
And:
by Heather Digby Parton | January 9, 2024 - 8:39am | permalink
Groundhog Day isn't until next month. But if you were watching cable news over the past few days you certainly got a feeling of déjà vu watching all the footage of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection again and being reminded of the violence and horror of that day. It is still as shocking as it was three years ago. And yet: We are evidently about to embark on a replay of the election that brought us to that awful moment and it feels as if nothing has changed in our politics at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment