Great podcast today ✊🏿 I have a question I'm sure you all can answer. My question is if the Judge that's is reviewing Fani Willis issues right now if this judge issues she is off the case does this judge retain or do he lose the case and everything starts over with new DA and new judge. My reason for the question is that that decision by the judge could be affected by whether he wants this case or not.
Very confused how you guys think that Judge McAfee is doing a good job handling the Fani Willis situation. I watched the entirety of both days and was shocked at the gross, salacious, unprofessional happenings. McAfee totally lost control of his courtroom.
1. If Willis withdrew and appointed a special prosecutor, how much time would be lost? 2. Why on earth would ANY public figure give political donations to anyone?
My guess would be because they are also citizens. Citizens who vote. Who have opinions and are willing to run a campaign to ask what others what they think and try to gather a majority. But thats just a guess
I think the SC is going to overturn the Colorado SC disqualification decision on the basis of ripeness. The disqualification applies to holding office or taking office. It doesn’t disqualify voters from voting for a candidate that might be disqualified. Nor does it apply to voters electing delegates that will support a candidate (to determine the nomination). This also makes me wonder about the General Election, in which we are technically voting for slates of electors, not the candidates themselves. So the part 3 disqualification would or should bind electors, not voters. (And I don’t know how you enforce that.) Lastly, if a candidate who is disqualified (under part 3), there is the theoretical possibility that congress could override the disqualification. If a candidate is disqualified prior to an election, that interferes with Congressional prerogative. The court could decide that it is too early to disqualify Trump from the primary ballot, and it might be premature to disqualify him from the general election ballot. Section 3’s provisions might not disqualify Trump unless he wins. What am I missing here?
Well I don't know about US law, but British and Commonwealth law interpretation requires judges to go through Hansard - parliamentary records - and discover the intent of the legislation. Any reading of the post Civil War Congressional records will show the intent of S3 14 amendment was abundantly and unambiguously chrystal clear. It was to allow individual states the right to keep traitors (ex-Confederates) off the ballot through disqualification. Because treason is only applicable in time of war, insurrection carries the same penalty. Daipher Don should be disqualified due to instigation, and giving aid and comfort to an insurrection. Any decision otherwise is pure partisan politics, and demeans the SCOTUS justices, both individually and collectively. He moment that happens, you in the US have a constitutional crisis. Then your president must act to preserve and protect the constitution. He can do this in one of two ways. The obvious one is to increase the number of judges to 15 by adding six Democrats. The harder course is to impeach the six Republican judges for high crimes and misdemeanors - namely " failure to follow existing precedent and intent of constitutional amendment".
@@richardcaves3601 According to your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, any southern state could have struck northern candidates from the ballot by merely alleging insurrection. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that congress decides whether or not to remove the disability of insurrection from a candidate. This implies that a so-called insurrectionist would have to run and win first.
@@brainstewX no, because the northern states didn't secede from the union, and after the civil war, they were under martial law until they met reconstruction criteria and were allowed back into Congress.
@@richardcaves3601 It doesn't matter if the allegation is well founded or not, since conviction isn't necessary. If you believe states can strike candidates from the ballot over allegations of insurrection, then you believe the southern states could have struck northern candidates. Obviously that is not a power the authors of the 14th Amendment wanted the states to have, and you completely ignored the point about Section 5.
@@brainstewX wrong on both counts. First, the TV evidence of insurrection on Jan 6 is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Daipher Don's instigation of it and his subsequent "giving aid and comfort" to insurrectionists is also beyond any doubt reasonable or otherwise, as is evident from his tweets and public statements. On that basis, Daipher Don is disqualified from candidacy, in the same manner if he wasn't old enough, or hadn't been a resident long enough. It's automatic. For southern states to do the same, they'd have to have grounds - solid legal grounds with incontrovertible evidence. Conspiracy driven hocus pocus unsubstantiated BS, like that from certain MAGA dumb idiots, isn't by any stretch of the imagination, evidence. Second, you're wrong about the intent of the framers of the 14 amendment after the civil war. They knew exactly what they intended - to stop the slavers and slavery supporters, and everyone who still held confederacy views - that is supported secession/treason - from ever being a candidate. After Appomattox, all confederate soldiers had to swear an oath of allegiance. Then they were free to take up their horse and arms and return home. That's the important bit, they swore an oath. If they broke it, they lost honour, and couldn't stand for office. Daipher Don swore that oath in 2016, and broke it in 2020. He's disbarred from holding office, or standing for it. Full stop. He has no honour and is an oath breaker - the worst kind of traitor on the books. Only idiots and ignorant defend him.
Idle speculation: Willis and Wade hooked up once in 2019, but didn't establish a relationship until years later. This comes out, the judge finds Willis and Wade were not candid with the court, DQs them, and the whole Georgia prosecution is in limbo while a new prosecutor is chosen. It's not the crime, it's the cover up. SO much idiocy. Pro-tip: KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS.
Nothing came up that they “hooked up” then! Defence couldn’t show evidence of that and Bradley GOSSIPED TO MERCHANT because 😊at being sacked. He was then in deep 💩He’s not credible for that reason
I was on a wrist watch show as a panelist , utube, when we redirected to the Trump shoes and the guy who won the bid invited to lunch at Mara Logo…….a pro Trump got on and grilled me and Host , that HE!!! Was a developer , how we knew nothing , and the whole court system is corrupt , and Trump is an innocent honest aggressive business man , that we were talking $%^& on the show, i got heated and yelled at the guy he , yelled at me………i felt stupid even though i should not have ….has anyone been through this
If Trump committed zero crimes and is truly innocent, then it's super easy and quick to produce to that verdict in trial, with using basic and simple evidence to defend himself. But he has none of that, I wonder why.
This is my first time seeing Ben in a suit and I've been subscribed to Lawfare for over a year.
Excellent singing, Ben! You are such a great group of smart people and you provide an essential service!
Thanks team. Really enjoy your informed commentary. Oh, great singing by Mr Wittes. An unexpected treat!
I watched both days of the Willis hearing and I thought MacAfee was absolutely stellar. I’ll trust his decision no matter which way it falls.
These are better played at 1.25 speed.
This was great. Thank you so much!
ben!
in his jacket and tie!
hubbard hubba!
Ben's song made my day.
haha! if ben is wearing a suit and tie the apocalypse is neigh... the best beginning ever...
Quinta’s “Our long national nightmare is over” is what the country needs!
Who knew Ben was a great singer ❤
Great podcast today ✊🏿 I have a question I'm sure you all can answer. My question is if the Judge that's is reviewing Fani Willis issues right now if this judge issues she is off the case does this judge retain or do he lose the case and everything starts over with new DA and new judge. My reason for the question is that that decision by the judge could be affected by whether he wants this case or not.
RUMP for PRISON😮2024
Very confused how you guys think that Judge McAfee is doing a good job handling the Fani Willis situation. I watched the entirety of both days and was shocked at the gross, salacious, unprofessional happenings. McAfee totally lost control of his courtroom.
1. If Willis withdrew and appointed a special prosecutor, how much time would be lost?
2. Why on earth would ANY public figure give political donations to anyone?
My guess would be because they are also citizens. Citizens who vote. Who have opinions and are willing to run a campaign to ask what others what they think and try to gather a majority. But thats just a guess
I think the SC is going to overturn the Colorado SC disqualification decision on the basis of ripeness.
The disqualification applies to holding office or taking office. It doesn’t disqualify voters from voting for a candidate that might be disqualified. Nor does it apply to voters electing delegates that will support a candidate (to determine the nomination).
This also makes me wonder about the General Election, in which we are technically voting for slates of electors, not the candidates themselves. So the part 3 disqualification would or should bind electors, not voters. (And I don’t know how you enforce that.)
Lastly, if a candidate who is disqualified (under part 3), there is the theoretical possibility that congress could override the disqualification. If a candidate is disqualified prior to an election, that interferes with Congressional prerogative.
The court could decide that it is too early to disqualify Trump from the primary ballot, and it might be premature to disqualify him from the general election ballot. Section 3’s provisions might not disqualify Trump unless he wins.
What am I missing here?
Well I don't know about US law, but British and Commonwealth law interpretation requires judges to go through Hansard - parliamentary records - and discover the intent of the legislation. Any reading of the post Civil War Congressional records will show the intent of S3 14 amendment was abundantly and unambiguously chrystal clear. It was to allow individual states the right to keep traitors (ex-Confederates) off the ballot through disqualification. Because treason is only applicable in time of war, insurrection carries the same penalty. Daipher Don should be disqualified due to instigation, and giving aid and comfort to an insurrection.
Any decision otherwise is pure partisan politics, and demeans the SCOTUS justices, both individually and collectively. He moment that happens, you in the US have a constitutional crisis. Then your president must act to preserve and protect the constitution. He can do this in one of two ways. The obvious one is to increase the number of judges to 15 by adding six Democrats. The harder course is to impeach the six Republican judges for high crimes and misdemeanors - namely " failure to follow existing precedent and intent of constitutional amendment".
@@richardcaves3601 According to your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, any southern state could have struck northern candidates from the ballot by merely alleging insurrection.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment makes it clear that congress decides whether or not to remove the disability of insurrection from a candidate. This implies that a so-called insurrectionist would have to run and win first.
@@brainstewX no, because the northern states didn't secede from the union, and after the civil war, they were under martial law until they met reconstruction criteria and were allowed back into Congress.
@@richardcaves3601 It doesn't matter if the allegation is well founded or not, since conviction isn't necessary. If you believe states can strike candidates from the ballot over allegations of insurrection, then you believe the southern states could have struck northern candidates. Obviously that is not a power the authors of the 14th Amendment wanted the states to have, and you completely ignored the point about Section 5.
@@brainstewX wrong on both counts.
First, the TV evidence of insurrection on Jan 6 is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Daipher Don's instigation of it and his subsequent "giving aid and comfort" to insurrectionists is also beyond any doubt reasonable or otherwise, as is evident from his tweets and public statements. On that basis, Daipher Don is disqualified from candidacy, in the same manner if he wasn't old enough, or hadn't been a resident long enough. It's automatic. For southern states to do the same, they'd have to have grounds - solid legal grounds with incontrovertible evidence. Conspiracy driven hocus pocus unsubstantiated BS, like that from certain MAGA dumb idiots, isn't by any stretch of the imagination, evidence.
Second, you're wrong about the intent of the framers of the 14 amendment after the civil war. They knew exactly what they intended - to stop the slavers and slavery supporters, and everyone who still held confederacy views - that is supported secession/treason - from ever being a candidate. After Appomattox, all confederate soldiers had to swear an oath of allegiance. Then they were free to take up their horse and arms and return home. That's the important bit, they swore an oath. If they broke it, they lost honour, and couldn't stand for office.
Daipher Don swore that oath in 2016, and broke it in 2020. He's disbarred from holding office, or standing for it. Full stop. He has no honour and is an oath breaker - the worst kind of traitor on the books. Only idiots and ignorant defend him.
YT algorithm is the worst. I get more and more drivel thrown at me daily. Or they’ll sign me out starting the whole weeding-out process. AGAIN.
Idle speculation: Willis and Wade hooked up once in 2019, but didn't establish a relationship until years later. This comes out, the judge finds Willis and Wade were not candid with the court, DQs them, and the whole Georgia prosecution is in limbo while a new prosecutor is chosen. It's not the crime, it's the cover up. SO much idiocy. Pro-tip: KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS.
Nothing came up that they “hooked up” then! Defence couldn’t show evidence of that and Bradley GOSSIPED TO MERCHANT because 😊at being sacked. He was then in deep 💩He’s not credible for that reason
I was on a wrist watch show as a panelist , utube, when we redirected to the Trump shoes and the guy who won the bid invited to lunch at Mara Logo…….a pro Trump got on and grilled me and Host , that HE!!! Was a developer , how we knew nothing , and the whole court system is corrupt , and Trump is an innocent honest aggressive business man , that we were talking $%^& on the show, i got heated and yelled at the guy he , yelled at me………i felt stupid even though i should not have ….has anyone been through this
This is political persecution.
If Trump committed zero crimes and is truly innocent, then it's super easy and quick to produce to that verdict in trial, with using basic and simple evidence to defend himself. But he has none of that, I wonder why.
And IF it is (which it is not), Trump deserves to be framed.
@@mikelord9860ruclips.net/video/-KRBgar3mLI/видео.html
@@mikelord9860 you voted for the guy who helped Bush push the WMD lie and kill a million poor people in Iraq?
anna can parse the tangled web of trump trials, like a boss!
i wish she could find her adult voice and bring her tone down, out of her nasal passages…