14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[Kriselda Gray]

Not going on threads bc it's not on laptop.

It is now. I access it from my laptop, not problem. Go to https://www.threads.net/ and sign in with your instagram login info an there's a web interface now

[Rolodex]

Not going on threads bc it's not on laptop.

It is now. I access it from my laptop, not problem. Go to https://www.threads.net/ and sign in with your instagram login info an there's a web interface now

Wow thanks. didn't know that. I barely use IG so I often forget it exists.

[MN-Skeptic]

Minnesota Supreme Court blocks bid to remove Trump from primary ballot in 14th Amendment challenge

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an attempt to block Donald Trump from the state’s GOP primary ballot next year based on the 14th Amendment’s “insurrection clause” but said the challengers can try again to block from the general election ballot if the former president wins the Republican nomination.

The 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, says US officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the Constitution doesn’t say how to enforce the ban, and it has only been applied twice since 1919, which is why many experts view these challenges as a long shot.

The ruling is a victory for Trump, in terms of keeping his name on the ballot for the 2024 GOP primary, where he has a commanding lead, according to recent polling. However, the Minnesota justices didn’t go as far as Trump’s lawyers wanted, which was to keep him on the ballot for the primary and general.

“There is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office,” the high court wrote in a four-page ruling.

Therefore, the court dismissed the case, but said it wouldn’t stopping the challengers from “bringing a petition raising their claims as to the general election.”

[bob]

An interesting kick of the can down the road: the 14th Amendment doesn't prohibit a party from nominating a disqualified candidate.

Yet, in various birther eligibility cases, the courts routinely said the voters (and opposing candidates) have an interest in not having to decide among/compete against ineligible candidates, even for primaries.

(Recall that all challenges to Cruz's eligibility occurred during the primaries.)

The Minnesota case was brought by voters; I wonder if SCoMN would have used the same reasoning for a lawsuit brought by a competing candidate (e.g., Castro).

[Gregg]

I wonder what they might say about Trump specifically after a conviction in the DC case?

To this one armed transmission mechanic from Argillite Kentucky, those facts make for a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

[raison de arizona]

Can't guarantee the characterization here, it's 102 pages and I haven't read it yet.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -109394065

293. The Court concludes that Trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the Capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. Trump cultivated a culture that embraced political violence through his consistent endorsement of the same. He responded to growing threats of violence and intimidation in the lead-up to the certification by amplifying his false claims of election fraud. He convened a large crowd on the date of the certification in Washington, D.C., focused them on the certification process, told them their country was being stolen from them, called for strength and action, and directed them to the Capitol where the certification was about to take place.

[p0rtia]

JHK

[Kriselda Gray]

Um, how was he not an officer? I don't get that. I'd thing if anything was an officer, it'd be the President!

[bob]

Um, how was he not an officer? I don't get that. I'd thing if anything was an officer, it'd be the President!

Short answer: Drafters' intent plus expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

That is, because the 14th Amendment's drafters included literally every federal officer except the president and vice president, their exclusion was intentional and meaningful.

(The birthers in the 2020 lawsuit against Harris made a related argument, but the court just cut to brass tacks in that case and dismiss due to no standing.)

[Kriselda Gray]

Um, how was he not an officer? I don't get that. I'd thing if anything was an officer, it'd be the President!

Short answer: Drafters' intent plus expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

That is, because the 14th Amendment's drafters included literally every federal officer except the president and vice president, their exclusion was intentional and meaningful.

(The birthers in the 2020 lawsuit against Harris made a related argument, but the court just cut to brass tacks in that case and dismiss due to no standing.)

Ok, thanks!!

[Luke]

Foggy has been HOLDING OUT ON US! He sure didn't mention to me that his Pal, Amy Kremer, was testifying in Colorado. Did any of you hear about it? She's listed in the FINAL ORDER.

49. Amy Kremer testified on behalf of Intervenor Trump. Ms. Kremer is the founder of Women for America First. Her group hosted the January 6, 2021 rally at the Ellipse. Ms. Kremer’s testimony was like Ms. Pierson’s in that she worked with Ms. Pierson to keep the people she described as “whackos” from speaking at the Ellipse. The reason she did not want “whackos” to speak at the Ellipse is because she was worried they might incite violence. She testified that from where she stood on the stage of the Ellipse, she did not witness any violence. Ms. Kremer acknowledged that she remained by the event stage throughout the rally, did not interact with anyone outside the security perimeter at the rally, and was unaware that in response to Trump’s speech, some people in the crowd yelled “storm the Capitol,” “take the Capitol,” and “take the Capitol right now.” She personally did not walk with the crowd to the Capitol and did not go to the Capitol but instead returned to her hotel immediately after Trump’s speech. Ms. Kremer also testified before the January 6th Committee. The Court found Ms. Kremer to be credible but found her testimony to be largely irrelevant other than that she was concerned about speeches at the Ellipse inciting violence and that the January 6th Select Committee interviewed many Trump supporters.

Darn right -- FOGGY'S Pal Amy Kremer and her delightful daughter Kylie hurried back to their spacious hotel suite, a generous "gift" from Mike Lindell and the charity donors, to enjoy more of their CHARCUTERIE and CHAMPAGNE. You might remember we discovered that Foggy had plans to visit his Pal Amy’s hotel, but couldn’t find a suitable HazMat suit at the last moment due to the ongoing COVID situation. However, it remains a mystery whether FOGGY'S Pal Amy and her lovely daughter Kylie made a pit stop in Foggyville, North Carolina, on their way back to Georgia, carrying with them a doggy bag of CHARCUTERIE and a half-drunk bottle of CHAMPAGNE.

Report: January 6 Organizers Threw Back Champagne and Charcuterie as the Capitol Was Attacked
Apparently, bubbly and cured meat pair well with insurrections.
***
According to text messages obtained by Rolling Stone’s Hunter Walker, as law enforcement officers “were in their third hour of battle with supporters of former president Trump on the steps of the U.S. Capitol,” a conservative activist who’d organized the major pro-Trump rally that came before the violence was busy ordering hors d’oeuvres and drinks to her hotel suite. Having apparently been distracted during “the chaos of the event this morning,” Amy Kremer allegedly wrote to fellow organizers that she’d made the executive decision to just call room service at the Willard InterContinental hotel—the same one that served as a “command center” to overturn the results of the 2020 election—rather than wait to get everyone’s individual requests. (Rolling Stone reviewed the text messages in question on “a phone where they were originally received and timestamped.” According to Walker, “The messages from Amy Kremer and her daughter, Kylie Jane Kremer, came from phone numbers that have been used by both women.”) “We ordered dinner again tonight,” Amy Kremer told the group chat. “Sorry, but we forgot to take orders in the chaos of the event this morning, so we just ordered the same thing as last night. I figured that was better than not eating. Lol. Cheese & Charcuterie should be here at 6PM and dinner around 7PM.”

What was on the menu for dinner? Only the best for Trump’s merry band of election deniers. Per Rolling Stone:

An emergency curfew took effect and National Guard troops arrived at the Capitol to clear the remaining crowds at roughly the same time Kremer and her fellow organizers received their cured meats. Three sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the ongoing investigations into the rally, told Rolling Stone that, along with food, people were drinking Champagne in the suite while rioters skirmished with law enforcement at the Capitol complex.

The text messages [also] include[d] a menu for a dinner for the organizers on the night before the rally. Menu options included a “Willard Burger” with truffle aioli, red-wine-braised Angus short rib beef bourguignon, steak frites, and a salmon filet with aged balsamic. Based on Kremer’s text about the charcuterie plate, she chose options from the same menu for the organizers on the evening of January 6. The options in the Willard suite also included Champagne that Kremer’s guests were drinking just as her organization issued a press release denouncing the violence and calling the group “saddened and disappointed.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/11 ... harcuterie


BONUS: FOGGY'S Pal Amy Kremer is praying for Jenna Ellis. Sincerely.

Jenna Amy.JPG (128.97 KiB) Viewed 7543 times

[Rolodex]

I watched part of that trial and happened to see Amy Kremer testify. I also saw Kristen Pierson. Kremer talked about how she wasn't at the Capital and didn't know what was going on. I'm sure they didn't have the tv on in the hotel. smh

[p0rtia]

Yes, the writers of the 14th amendment made a carve-out for president insurrectionists. Because that makes sense.

[Rolodex]

Yes, the writers of the 14th amendment made a carve-out for president insurrectionists. Because that makes sense.

Judge Luttig has been tweeting about this a lot. AFAIK he was not a witness but it seems like he should have been. I didn't see a lot of the trial/hearing/whatever and so I have no idea who the plaintiffs used for experts in this area.

[bob]

Yes, the writers of the 14th amendment made a carve-out for president insurrectionists. Because that makes sense.

The silver lining, people are noting, is that the was primary a legal ruling, which afforded less deference on appeal than a factual finding.

So an appellate court could rule, "we defer to the trial court's finding that the former president incited, but upon our independent review of the language 14th Amendment, we conclude it does cover the president."

[Maybenaut]

Yes, the writers of the 14th amendment made a carve-out for president insurrectionists. Because that makes sense.

The silver lining, people are noting, is that the was primary a legal ruling, which afforded less deference on appeal than a factual finding.

So an appellate court could rule, "we defer to the trial court's finding that the former president incited, but upon our independent review of the language 14th Amendment, we conclude it does cover the president."

I don’t know from Colorado appellate procedure, but the appellate court might actually be bound by the trial court’s conclusion that trump insurrection as a matter of fact. I suppose that would depend on whether they view that as a purely factual or mixed question as opposed to a purely legal finding.

[p0rtia]

Luttig and Tribe were on MSNBC this morning for an extended discussion. Interesting stuff from Luttig on the difference between Constitutional Law and Case Law. He says the context is unassailable, and of course the P is a public official. I think he expected the insurrection issue to be the sticking point. So all in all, he is heartened because the insurrection ruling has been said out loud.

I am heartened, in that, as Bob notes, the case is headed for appeal, and eventually to SCOTUS, where it has to go in an event. And she did make the insurrection conclusion.

However, I still cannot imagine what was going through Judge Wallace's head regarding the "officer of the US" issue. Because as rulings go, this is right up there with "let's give the domestic abuser who shot at a bystander and a fast-food worker all the guns" in terms of Rulings by Satan.

Is it possible that she is being incredibly clever, and creating a situation that is more favorable for appeal? Yes on insurrection, no on "public official?" Nah.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

The "Is the President an Officer of the United States" discussion has been going on since well before Trump was elected. Near as I can tell, the primary argument against is that the Founders didn't know how to use synonyms.

[Ben-Prime]

The "Is the President an Officer of the United States" discussion has been going on since well before Trump was elected. Near as I can tell, the primary argument against is that the Founders didn't know how to use synonyms.

It really all depends on how strict the strict constructionalists want to be at any given time -- when it favors a conservative outcome, words have specific, exact, un-synonymized meanings. Otherwise, not so much.

[Phoenix520]

However, I still cannot imagine what was going through Judge Wallace's head regarding the "officer of the US" issue. Because as rulings go, this is right up there with "let's give the domestic abuser who shot at a bystander and a fast-food worker all the guns" in terms of Rulings by Satan.

P0rtia,I heard discussion today that Judge Wallace might have been concerned that ruling him ineligible would rile the base and that this silly word parsing was an escape route that would easily be overturned on appeal. Ruling him an insurrectionist was the key part.

It seems that suddenly, gee, folks are concerned

[p0rtia]

However, I still cannot imagine what was going through Judge Wallace's head regarding the "officer of the US" issue. Because as rulings go, this is right up there with "let's give the domestic abuser who shot at a bystander and a fast-food worker all the guns" in terms of Rulings by Satan.

P0rtia,I heard discussion today that Judge Wallace might have been concerned that ruling him ineligible would rile the base and that this silly word parsing was an escape route that would easily be overturned on appeal. Ruling him an insurrectionist was the key part.

It seems that suddenly, gee, folks are concerned

Yeah, I wondered that too. Thought maybe she was moving the target off of herself and onto the appeals court. Safety in numbers.

[Maybenaut]

She knew that whichever way she decided, this case is headed for appeal. She explicitly said that that was the reason she included her findings with respect to insurrection - so that in the event she was wrong on the officer question, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have to remand for further fact finding.

I think she called the officer question like she saw it. Reasonable minds can differ about whether she was right or not, but I’m unwilling to ascribe any motive to her beyond ethically carrying out her judicial responsibilities.

[p0rtia]

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt too--but I disagree that reasonable minds can disagree over the "officer" question. This is an 80 percent issue, IMO. IOW, you will get some reasonable minds to disagree, but they will be in a significant minority.

I was interested to read her take on the earlier drafts, which included President and Vice President. Her reasoning was that since those offices* were taken out intentionally (true), the writers obviously meant to exclude them (not true).

Aside from the lawyerly arguments put forward by Luddig and Tribe, I can give you the editorial argument: I spend my life removing redundancies from manuscripts. It is perfectly reasonably to conclude that the writers thought that "officers" obviously included Pres and VP--or even that they were the exactly the "officers" referred to in Section 3. For comparison--what if there were no extant draft that mentioned Pres and VP? Where would her argument go?

Moreover, it does not take a Constitutional lawyer or a content editor to tell you that the idea of writing such a section in the Fourteenth Amendment, in the way the final version reads, with the specific intent of _excluding_ Pres and VP is untenable. Short of including language saying "with the exception of the Pres and VP" there is no way Section 3 can be read _in context_ as having been written to exclude those two most noteworthy officers.

[bob]

Concur that ascribing a secret motive is unnecessary: judges tend to call them as they see them. Bias, of course, may sway the path (and the result), but it is unlikely that this judge issued an intentionally incorrect ruling as part of some sort of unseen machination.

The issue becomes more muddled because the 14th Amendment was not drafted by the Framers. The amendment's authors and the Framers may have a different interpretations of "officer." And if there was a difference, what are the best tools to divine that difference? And what do the amendment's authors' acts (and inactions) mean in this context?

Underlying this is Congress' ability to impeach, remove, and bar the president. Even if that power is essentially theoretical, there's an argument to be made the 14th Amendment didn't implicitly revise the impeachment criteria and procedures.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Supreme Court Justices (including Justice Story, who said "not an officer") have discussed whether the Pres and Veep are officers, even before the 14th Amendment was even contemplated. It's not as cut and dried as we might think.