Trump's Trials and Tribulations: Waiting for the D.C. Circuit
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 фев 2024
- It's another episode of “Trump's Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on February 1 in front of a live audience on RUclips and Zoom. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower and Lawfare Senior Editors Roger Parloff and Quinta Jurecic about amicus briefs filed at the Supreme Court in the Trump disqualification case and Trump's financial situation given the fines and damages levied against him in multiple civil cases. They also checked in on Fulton County and talked about everything we are waiting on from Judge Engoron's decision in New York to a decision from the D.C. Circuit on Trump's presidential immunity claim. And of course they took audience questions from Lawfare Material Supporters on Zoom. To be able to submit questions to the panelists, you should become a Material Supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support.
The American legal system seems nuts. If you're rich you can engage million dollar lawyers. With million dollar laywers you can escape justice. If you're poor, forget it. Relying on a 250 year old constitution given all the changes in society since then is insane.
Why is the 14th considered optional? The citizenry deserve and are entitled to the protections offered by the Constitution.
No to the zoom meeting 😮
A good example....guns. Really?? You rely on laws re guns when they had muskets which took minutes to reload. On that basis AK 15s are ok??? Are you nuts????
I like what the Republican judge in Illinois said about the argument that Donald Trump is NOT or IS an Officer of the United States:
"Candidate includes the fifth ground within his fourth ground, but this appears to be a separate
challenge. Here Candidate argues that the president is not an officer of the United States under
the constitution. The Objectors disagree. Both sides cite a litany of sources, including Judges and
the Constitution itself in support of their respective positions. This Hearing Officer has no doubt
that given infinite resources, even more sources could be found to support both positions."
I think this go to the heart of Colorado Judge Wallace decision when she said that without CLEAR UNMISTAKABLE INTENT that 14S3 applies to Trump, she was unwilling to disqualify
There has to Clear unmistakeable intent that 14S3 applies to the President. This has never been provided.
If the PAC pays is that taxable income for Trump?
I think at FIRST GLANCE 14C3 captures the question of doubt - Why is the President NOT listed when the President is listed so predominantly in the Constitution. In other words, 14C3 is a proverbial "Elephant in a MouseHole"
14S3 doesn't cite the President and instead refers to him as just some other officer. Doesn't make a lot of sense in constutional statuory construction.
If the Drafter wanted 14S3 to apply to President, they would penned it:
"No person shall be PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Thank goodness im not American.
You guys...ie Americans...need to get real. The system seems designed to make lawyers rich.
What a massive waste of time going over this stuff.