cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I suspect the tone and content lead the social trend more than they follow it. Thus my opinion that sensationalism is unethical in the non-tabloid media.
TRUMP CONVICTED
- Thread starter jimihendrix1
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
So is lying and exhorting mobs to violence and we have seen plenty of that, Trump's outrageousness and unpredictability (in the early days) was a magnet for both America's assholes and media. Since then most of the news organizations have adapted their coverage of Trump, but his acolytes are now trying to cause a stir and his base will remain like a poison in the party preventing sensible people from joining and changing its course, once ya get so far down the sewer drain there is no getting out.
We have a diversity of opinion and too much entertainment, the same technology that gives us infinite variety also make death threats easier to send. I doubt even old-style content regulations will work except on broadcast and cable based streaming media. The internet is the modern equivalent of the public square and print press, in its freedom. Anybody with a computer can be a journalist or have a TV studio, even a cellphone can make you famous online and sometimes rich, if you can capture enough eyeballs and attention is what the game is really all about. More often than not that takes the form of sensationalism as everybody tries stunts to get noticed in a sea of choices, going "viral" is the goal.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I encountered a named aphorism (Somebody’s Law) that stated that pure bullshit tends to drive ordinary bullshit off the TV screen. Google feigned ignorance.
There appears to be a direct proportion between the potential of an emergent medium
(print to radio to TV to internet to social media) and its noisiness.
Even the “educational” cable networks, with Discovery in the vanguard, decayed into mendacious “reality programming”.
printer
Well-Known Member
Judge confronts novel issues in whether to move Meadows’s Georgia charges to federal court
A judge is set to rule soon on the first Georgia 2020 election co-defendant’s attempt to move their charges to federal court, a decision that could prove decisive for the future of Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) criminal case.
Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows wants U.S. District Judge Steve Jones to allow him to switch courts to attempt to get his charges thrown out on immunity grounds. It would also widen the jury pool to less Democrat-heavy areas and likely prevent a televised trial allowed by state law.
If Meadows succeeds, legal experts say it would make it easier for former President Trump, who on Thursday pleaded not guilty to the Georgia charges, to follow in his footsteps.
“If Jones does permit Meadows to remove, it won’t be on the strength of Meadows’s legal argumentation. It will be because of the atmospherics of the case,” said Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas.
“And because it will be because of the atmospherics of the case, it seems likely that he would also permit Trump to remove, notwithstanding the specifics of the legal argument,” Kovarsky added.
Meadows and his 18 co-defendants are charged with racketeering, which enabled prosecutors to weave together an alleged months-long conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election result to help keep Trump in power.
Prosecutors outlined 161 acts they say are part of the conspiracy, and Meadows is mentioned in eight. The list includes meetings with state legislators, Meadows’s attempt to observe a signature match audit during a Georgia trip and calls he set up between state election officials and Trump.
Meadows has disputed the substance of some of the allegations.
In connection with one of those calls — in which Trump asked the state’s top election official to help “find 11,780 votes” — Meadows also faces a count of soliciting a public officer to violate their oath.
He isn’t the first federal official to attempt to move their criminal prosecution, but legal experts say Jones is confronting a novel issue with limited case law.
As Jones mulls his decision, he has signaled some, but not all, of the allegations against Meadows may meet the criteria to proceed in federal court.
It has left Meadows and prosecutors battling over whether that is enough to make the switch.
“ased on the Notice of Removal and the record before the Court, each one of these charged acts has a sufficient connection to Mr. Meadow’s official duties to support removal,” his attorneys wrote in court filings Thursday.
“But based on the black-letter law outlined above, the Court need not reach that conclusion to permit removal. If the Court finds that any charged conduct relates to Mr. Meadow’s official duties, that is the end of the inquiry; removal must be permitted,” they continued.
The legal dispute turns on three prongs: Meadows must show he was a federal officer, that the allegations relate to an act taken “under color of such office” and that he has a plausible federal defense.
Both sides agree Meadows’s White House job means he clears the first prong, but on the last two, they split sharply.
Jones held a hearing last Monday to resolve the dispute. But a day later, he appeared to still have uncertainty, as he asked both sides to submit their views in writing on a singular question.
“Count 1 of the Indictment (pertaining to Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(c)) contains a number of overt acts attributed to Mr. Meadows. Would a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadows’s office, be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution,” Jones asked in the order.
Legal experts said Jones’s request means he seems to think only some of the alleged conduct merits changing courts.
“A judge doesn’t ask for additional briefing unless the judge is thinking that that briefing will be helpful to resolving the motion that is in front of them. So it seems obvious that the judge is at least considering finding that some of the acts fall within the scope of removal,” said Alex Reinert, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law.
Responding to the judge’s inquiry, Meadows and prosecutors unsurprisingly fell on opposite sides.
“The State also cannot avoid removal by charging a mix of removable and nonremovable conduct. Any contrary rule would lead to absurd results; a State could charge even the most quintessential official act and defeat removal by tacking on unofficial conduct,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote.
Willis, on the other hand, said Meadows’s counts should remain in state court, contending the racketeering charge is not because of one specific act in the indictment and is instead over Meadows agreeing to join the broader conspiracy.
“A finding that some of the overt acts attributed to the defendant occurred under color of office would not suffice to show that the defendant’s joining in the conspiracy was itself under color of office or even related to it,” Willis’s office wrote.
Kovarsky, the University of Texas law professor, said even if the judge takes Meadows’s view, he still hadn’t satisfied the third prong of showing a federal defense.
“I don’t know if the strength of the briefing will decide the issue for Judge Jones. But if it does, Willis clearly has the stronger briefing, because Meadows doesn’t explain why he has a colorable defense of Supremacy Clause immunity,” Kovarsky said.
Reinert agreed it would be hard for Meadows to show a federal defense for some of the allegations. But he cautioned that the judge still has room to find removal is proper.
“I think there’s good reason to think that that shouldn’t result in removal,” he said. “But a lot of this world is unexplored.”
thehill.com
A judge is set to rule soon on the first Georgia 2020 election co-defendant’s attempt to move their charges to federal court, a decision that could prove decisive for the future of Fulton County, Ga., District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) criminal case.
Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows wants U.S. District Judge Steve Jones to allow him to switch courts to attempt to get his charges thrown out on immunity grounds. It would also widen the jury pool to less Democrat-heavy areas and likely prevent a televised trial allowed by state law.
If Meadows succeeds, legal experts say it would make it easier for former President Trump, who on Thursday pleaded not guilty to the Georgia charges, to follow in his footsteps.
“If Jones does permit Meadows to remove, it won’t be on the strength of Meadows’s legal argumentation. It will be because of the atmospherics of the case,” said Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas.
“And because it will be because of the atmospherics of the case, it seems likely that he would also permit Trump to remove, notwithstanding the specifics of the legal argument,” Kovarsky added.
Meadows and his 18 co-defendants are charged with racketeering, which enabled prosecutors to weave together an alleged months-long conspiracy to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election result to help keep Trump in power.
Prosecutors outlined 161 acts they say are part of the conspiracy, and Meadows is mentioned in eight. The list includes meetings with state legislators, Meadows’s attempt to observe a signature match audit during a Georgia trip and calls he set up between state election officials and Trump.
Meadows has disputed the substance of some of the allegations.
In connection with one of those calls — in which Trump asked the state’s top election official to help “find 11,780 votes” — Meadows also faces a count of soliciting a public officer to violate their oath.
He isn’t the first federal official to attempt to move their criminal prosecution, but legal experts say Jones is confronting a novel issue with limited case law.
As Jones mulls his decision, he has signaled some, but not all, of the allegations against Meadows may meet the criteria to proceed in federal court.
It has left Meadows and prosecutors battling over whether that is enough to make the switch.
“ased on the Notice of Removal and the record before the Court, each one of these charged acts has a sufficient connection to Mr. Meadow’s official duties to support removal,” his attorneys wrote in court filings Thursday.
“But based on the black-letter law outlined above, the Court need not reach that conclusion to permit removal. If the Court finds that any charged conduct relates to Mr. Meadow’s official duties, that is the end of the inquiry; removal must be permitted,” they continued.
The legal dispute turns on three prongs: Meadows must show he was a federal officer, that the allegations relate to an act taken “under color of such office” and that he has a plausible federal defense.
Both sides agree Meadows’s White House job means he clears the first prong, but on the last two, they split sharply.
Jones held a hearing last Monday to resolve the dispute. But a day later, he appeared to still have uncertainty, as he asked both sides to submit their views in writing on a singular question.
“Count 1 of the Indictment (pertaining to Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(c)) contains a number of overt acts attributed to Mr. Meadows. Would a finding that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of Meadows’s office, be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution,” Jones asked in the order.
Legal experts said Jones’s request means he seems to think only some of the alleged conduct merits changing courts.
“A judge doesn’t ask for additional briefing unless the judge is thinking that that briefing will be helpful to resolving the motion that is in front of them. So it seems obvious that the judge is at least considering finding that some of the acts fall within the scope of removal,” said Alex Reinert, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law.
Responding to the judge’s inquiry, Meadows and prosecutors unsurprisingly fell on opposite sides.
“The State also cannot avoid removal by charging a mix of removable and nonremovable conduct. Any contrary rule would lead to absurd results; a State could charge even the most quintessential official act and defeat removal by tacking on unofficial conduct,” Meadows’s attorneys wrote.
Willis, on the other hand, said Meadows’s counts should remain in state court, contending the racketeering charge is not because of one specific act in the indictment and is instead over Meadows agreeing to join the broader conspiracy.
“A finding that some of the overt acts attributed to the defendant occurred under color of office would not suffice to show that the defendant’s joining in the conspiracy was itself under color of office or even related to it,” Willis’s office wrote.
Kovarsky, the University of Texas law professor, said even if the judge takes Meadows’s view, he still hadn’t satisfied the third prong of showing a federal defense.
“I don’t know if the strength of the briefing will decide the issue for Judge Jones. But if it does, Willis clearly has the stronger briefing, because Meadows doesn’t explain why he has a colorable defense of Supremacy Clause immunity,” Kovarsky said.
Reinert agreed it would be hard for Meadows to show a federal defense for some of the allegations. But he cautioned that the judge still has room to find removal is proper.
“I think there’s good reason to think that that shouldn’t result in removal,” he said. “But a lot of this world is unexplored.”
Judge confronts novel issues in whether to move Meadows’s Georgia charges to federal court
A judge is set to rule soon on the first Georgia 2020 election co-defendant’s attempt to move their charges to federal court, a decision that could prove decisive for the future of Fulton Cou…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
There is still more talk of the 14th in the public square and more importantly in the legal community and among state officials. From what I can gather the states need to know by the end of the year at least, if Trump is disqualified from the primary process, so expect the SCOTUS to act on the matter before then and it to work its way up to them before that with lower court rulings all along the way. I would expect movement on the 14th in the courts this fall and winter. We should know where Donald stands in regard to the 14th by the new year, before the primaries begin. Primary ballots have to be printed and sent to overseas troops among other things.
Donald Trump is ALREADY DISQUALIFIED under the 14th Amendment from being president again.
54,968 views Sep 4, 2023 #TeamJustice
Constitutional scholars, both conservative and liberal, both Republican and Democrat, are unifying behind one position: section 3 of the 14 Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from holding any federal office in the future, including the presidency, because he engaged in an insurrection against the United States, after taking an oath to support the Constitution.
Scholars say the constitutional disqualification is self-executing, requiring no act of Congress, no act of any state legislature, and no court proceeding, civil or criminal. Indeed, it is automatically disqualifying, just as someone who is 34 years old is automatically disqualified from being president.
This video breaks down, in layman's terms, the arguments made in a length law review article authored by two conservative constitutional law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen.
Donald Trump is ALREADY DISQUALIFIED under the 14th Amendment from being president again.
54,968 views Sep 4, 2023 #TeamJustice
Constitutional scholars, both conservative and liberal, both Republican and Democrat, are unifying behind one position: section 3 of the 14 Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from holding any federal office in the future, including the presidency, because he engaged in an insurrection against the United States, after taking an oath to support the Constitution.
Scholars say the constitutional disqualification is self-executing, requiring no act of Congress, no act of any state legislature, and no court proceeding, civil or criminal. Indeed, it is automatically disqualifying, just as someone who is 34 years old is automatically disqualified from being president.
This video breaks down, in layman's terms, the arguments made in a length law review article authored by two conservative constitutional law professors, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Donald will rail against the constitution and the 14th on his way down and in doing so prove his disqualification once again before he goes to prison. If the SCOTUS makes a finding that the 14th applies to him before the primaries it will be game over for Donald and salvation for the republican establishment. It could mean possible trouble for Joe and the democrats as the republicans nominate a contender and quickly put lipstick on the pig, but they will be facing a head wind of Trumps attacks. Then his trials before he is locked up and his TV trial in Georgia should be before the election, since he is disqualified, and the election is no longer a factor.
If the SCOTUS is gonna disqualify Trump, we will soon see the action and rulings in state courts as the primary approaches and the cases work their way up through the system.
BREAKING: Donald Trump is hit with more devastating news as January 6 Committee member Adam Schiff becomes the highest profile member of Congress to call for insurrectionist Trump to be banned from running for office under the 14th Amendment.
But it gets way WORSE for Trump…
In front of millions of live MSNBC viewers, Schiff declared that it’s “very clear” that Trump “engaged in acts of insurrection and rebellion against America’s government and gave aid and comfort to those who do” — so he MUST be “disqualified from the ballot because he fits the 14th Amendment’s ban on traitors and insurrectionists ‘to a ‘t.”
Congressman Schiff continued, encouraging Democrats to take this all the way up to the Supreme Court because even prominent conservative constitutional scholars believe that this is a “legitimate issue” — and that traitor Trump must be banned from running.
This new endorsement from Congressman Schiff is the latest sign that the will to ban Trump from running for office under the 14th Amendment is gaining steam. The damn appears to be breaking — and Trump worst nightmare just might be coming true.
If the SCOTUS is gonna disqualify Trump, we will soon see the action and rulings in state courts as the primary approaches and the cases work their way up through the system.
BREAKING: Donald Trump is hit with more devastating news as January 6 Committee member Adam Schiff becomes the highest profile member of Congress to call for insurrectionist Trump to be banned from running for office under the 14th Amendment.
But it gets way WORSE for Trump…
In front of millions of live MSNBC viewers, Schiff declared that it’s “very clear” that Trump “engaged in acts of insurrection and rebellion against America’s government and gave aid and comfort to those who do” — so he MUST be “disqualified from the ballot because he fits the 14th Amendment’s ban on traitors and insurrectionists ‘to a ‘t.”
Congressman Schiff continued, encouraging Democrats to take this all the way up to the Supreme Court because even prominent conservative constitutional scholars believe that this is a “legitimate issue” — and that traitor Trump must be banned from running.
This new endorsement from Congressman Schiff is the latest sign that the will to ban Trump from running for office under the 14th Amendment is gaining steam. The damn appears to be breaking — and Trump worst nightmare just might be coming true.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It looks like all the talk and action on the 14th has caught Donald's attention, constitutional scholar that he is.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
topcat
Well-Known Member
"...allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution." Yeah, the law-and-order party.
I wrote my letter to the secretary of state.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I can assure you that others are writing similar letters in every state in the union, petitions too from bar associations and DOJ alumni along with lawsuits being filed in every state. I figure the republicans are the most motivated to sue at this point, state officials need a finding by the SCOTUS before the end of the year, before the primaries begin.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Trump's DISQUALIFICATION over 14th Amendment SURGES into spotlight
34,703 views Sep 5, 2023 No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen
No Lie podcast episode 173: Secretaries of State consider removing Trump from the ballot due to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Donald is facing a minimum $250 million loss here, maybe much more in back taxes and penalties. He can't stiff them over taxes because it could mean more jail time, but that makes little difference now. The government could just seize the money or assets though, and Trump tower would pay for quite a bit. He is also facing the prospect of owing $300 million over Truth Social, but the investors will just get stiffed there, suckers.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Let's talk about how Smith is still investigating and Trump....
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Trump Is Nearly Broke After PAC Burns Through $150 Million
112,076 views Sep 5, 2023 Farron Balanced
According to new reports, Donald Trump's Save America PAC - the group that has been paying most of his legal fees - has very little cash on hand and they've somehow managed to blow through most of the $150 million that they raised following the 2020 election. Not only does this mean that Trump is going to have to start paying out of pocket for his lawyers, but it also means that his presidential campaign may not be as strong as he's led us to believe. Farron Cousins explains what all this means.
printer
Well-Known Member
Small cost for playing the hero.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
i know right.....figured that sentence was gonna be higher than 22yr since he's the leader....
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Trump’s NIGHTMARE Gets Worse with Special Counsel’s LATEST MOVE
22,841 views Sep 5, 2023
Special Counsel Jack Smith is continuing to seek justice in his investigation of efforts to deny the 2020 election results. Now, he's focusing on fundraising generated from false claims about the election as well as voting equipment breaches.