Trump 2024 — The second term

[KG1]

Yes, Turley is a seemingly knowledgeable scholar, and yes I quote him often. (Also check his blog daily.)

So since academia had obvious conflicts on this situation, shouldn’t the constitutional resolution be for the federal courts to hear this and run it up the chain to SCOTUS? And, for Gods sake stop hiding behind “standing”?

Who would you say had the preponderance in numbers in the "academic" conflict.

Those like Turley or those like Eastman?

 

[jamil]

You are still credentialing. If the guy was the “preeminent constitutional scholar in the US” (whatever that means) that created and espoused conservative constitutional theory, today, they are never going to get accolades from the institutions holding power that the opinions reduce that power.

********. There are conservative legal associations and whatnot. Robert Barnes manages to have a reputation of being a top legal mind on the conservative side. He's worked on high profile cases and won. What has Eastman accomplished? A job as a professor at a mediocre law school.

The judgement of the position of scholar is purely subjective, I suspect similar to the perverted atmospheric sciences that promotion and money are for advancing the left narrative, constitutional scholarship out of the narrative will not be recognized.

Again, there are plenty of conservative lawyers who have real ass credentials of being scholars. Someone who has argued before SCOTUS and won, is a lot more credible about constitutional preeminence than anything we can dig up about Eastman's scholarly accomplishments.

Thus back to my point, conservative scholars, legal representation, and the news are not going to be coming from the old sources and folks better get out of their normalcy bias pretty soon.

I think you overuse "normalcy bias" whenever someone is skeptical of some pretty wild ass theories. I would have been quite willing to entertain the Kraken if it had ever materialized as credible. I think you need to be more skeptical of all information, even information that comes from your side. So I think you tend to have a strong bias towards the tribe. It's us, so it has to be right. That's only natural, just like normalcy bias. They kinda work the same way.

I just reposted this a day or so ago. Go read back. SD4L denigrated the guy SOLELY on the institution he is associated with. I called him an elitist…

He cited many details of Eastman's employment to make a valid point. There's no evidence of scholarly preeminence. That's not being an elitist. That's making a point that tends to turn the Trump narrative about the plan to ****.

 

[KG1]

I have not researched him because I do not believe it possible to find the truth via search engines on a guy this politicized…

Well my point is that it seems to me you are agreeing that Guliani "puffed" Eastman up.

 

[jamil]

I think that's an argument too far... Jan 6th and the Eastman memo isn't some "made up excuse". It may or may not have been an insurrection, or an attempt at one, but it wasn't just "feelz".

It definitely was an attempt to disrupt the orderly transfer of power demanded by the constitution, and honored in our country since the founding, until Jan 6th when an attempt was made to do something completely different.

It definitely was an attempt by Trump to pressure Pence into unconstitutionally, without any power to do so, to throw out the legitimately certified electors of states solely for the purpose of avoid transferring the office of President to Biden and retaining it for himself... arguably an attempted bloodless coup.

Not any excuse...

SCOTUS easy way out is that the CO SC did not have authority under CO law to exclude anyone from the Primary Ballot... parties can include ineleigible candidates on "their" ballot. Bascially the same thing the other states have done, kicking the can down the road to the general election ballot when the question will have to be answered for real... most states disallow ineligible individuals from the acutal election ballots...

Whatever it is, if the federal government hasn't charged him with insurrection (his J6 charges are for conspiracy and obstruction), then yes, I get to classify their ruling as a made up excuse. Using their ruling any red state can justify removing Biden from the ballot.

 

[indyblue]

It may or may not have been an insurrection, or an attempt at one, but it wasn't just "feelz".

US Supreme Court Should Reverse Colorado Supreme Court 9–0 - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

The decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Trump from the ballot has provoked a great deal of commentary.

spectator.org

the clearest of many grounds on which the Supreme Court should reverse — namely, that the United States Senate, sitting “as a High Court of Impeachment to consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official,” has already acquitted Trump of “incitement of an insurrection.” That is the exact same crime for which the Colorado Supreme Court purported to find him guilty based on an abbreviated trial before a single Colorado judge with a shockingly low standard of proof. This decision cannot be allowed to stand for reasons that are well-established in the law, including the doctrine of res judicata, which is also known as “claim preclusion” or “estoppel by judgment,” not to mention the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy. In common parlance, these preclusion doctrines all come down to the same basic idea that no one may be tried over and over for the same offense.

The Colorado Supreme Court decision should be summarily reversed by a 9–0 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court on the solid but narrow ground that presidents acquitted by the Senate cannot be retried for the same crime in every court in the land until their opponents finally find one that will give them the result they want.

 

[Ingomike]

I think that's an argument too far... Jan 6th and the Eastman memo isn't some "made up excuse". It may or may not have been an insurrection, or an attempt at one, but it wasn't just "feelz".

It was a legal theory and it is free speech. You are trying to make legal memos and maneuvers criminal here.

It definitely was an attempt to disrupt the orderly transfer of power demanded by the constitution, and honored in our country since the founding, until Jan 6th when an attempt was made to do something completely different.

This we agree, we do not agree on just who perpetrated the unconstitutional actions.

It definitely was an attempt by Trump to pressure Pence into unconstitutionally, without any power to do so, to throw out the legitimately certified electors of states solely for the purpose of avoid transferring the office of President to Biden and retaining it for himself... arguably an attempted bloodless coup.

Is this illegal? What law is broke? Believing that slates of electors were obtained in a manner other than prescribed by the legislature, therefore not constitutional, and coming up with a plan to expose a constitutional crisis to force the courts to do their job is illegal?

 

[Ingomike]

Who would you say had the preponderance in numbers in the "academic" conflict.

Those like Turley or those like Eastman?

We will never know…

 

[KG1]

Yes, Turley is a seemingly knowledgeable scholar, and yes I quote him often. (Also check his blog daily.)

So since academia had obvious conflicts on this situation, shouldn’t the constitutional resolution be for the federal courts to hear this and run it up the chain to SCOTUS? And, for Gods sake stop hiding behind “standing”?

Also, you have vehemently been a stanch component of adhering to the strict language of the Constitution which is fine if you want to do that. Where in the constitution does it explicitly say that a vice president has the authority to do what Trump and his few handpicked legal advisors say that he has?

 

[KG1]

We will never know…

Dodge. We know that the numbers by those legal minds that have weighed in are vastly greater on Turley's side.

 

[Ingomike]

Also, you have vehemently been a stanch component of adhering to the strict language of the Constitution which is fine if you want to do that. Where in the constitution does it explicitly say that a vice president has the authority to do what Trump and his few handpicked legal advisors say that he has?

I have not studied the “Eastman memos’. I believe the actual goal was to try to force SCOTUS off the sidelines. To force a recognition that the slates several states sent to the EC were in fact unconstitutional. Everything reported concerning Trump will always be presented in the most negative light possible.

 

[Ingomike]

Dodge. We know that the numbers by those legal minds that have weighed in are vastly greater on Turley's side.

More credentialism. I say you have no way to know what conservatives thought because it is unsearchable therefore unknowable.

Now for those like you that are are willing to trust corrupted institutions and their legions you are welcome to be their patsy…

 

[KG1]

I have not studied the “Eastman memos’. I believe the actual goal was to try to force SCOTUS off the sidelines. To force a recognition that the slates several states sent to the EC were in fact unconstitutional. Everything reported concerning Trump will always be presented in the most negative light possible.

That's not exactly answering my question of where in the language of the Constitution does it explicitly say the VP has the constitutional authority to suspend an officially State certified electoral vote count to do what Trump and his few handpicked legal advisors say that he has?

 

[KG1]

More credentialism. I say you have no way to know what conservatives thought because it is unsearchable therefore unknowable.

Now for those like you that are are willing to trust corrupted institutions and their legions you are welcome to be their patsy…

You certainly like to hide behind that "credentialism" term. I made no mention in that post about credentials. Where is the proof that I am trusting any corrupt institutions?

 

[Ingomike]

That's not exactly answering my question of where in the language of the Constitution does the VP have the constitutional authority to suspend an officially State certified electoral vote count to do what Trump and his few handpicked legal advisors say that he has?

Well, if you appoint me judge, in the oath to the constitution, if the VP knows the slates were not obtained in a manner directed by the legislature, the VP should reject the slates to protect the constitution, then send the congress into the proceedings the constitution provide for when there are insufficient votes and let the courts decide if that was the right thing to do.

I am not a lawyer…. LOL

 

[KG1]

Well, if you appoint me judge, in the oath to the constitution, if the VP knows the slates were not obtained in a manner directed by the legislature, the VP should reject the slates to protect the constitution, then send the congress into the proceedings the constitution provide for when there are insufficient votes and let the courts decide if that was the right thing to do.

I am not a lawyer…. LOL

It's not about what the VP "should" do. It's about what's within his/her explicit Constitutional authority or lack thereof "to" do.

 

[foszoe]

Well, if you appoint me judge, in the oath to the constitution, if the VP knows the slates were not obtained in a manner directed by the legislature, the VP should reject the slates to protect the constitution, then send the congress into the proceedings the constitution provide for when there are insufficient votes and let the courts decide if that was the right thing to do.

I am not a lawyer…. LOL

Don't let your lack of credentials stop you.

 

[jamil]

I have not researched him because I do not believe it possible to find the truth via search engines on a guy this politicized…

I dunno, maybe it's your google fu that's at issue. But I think that it's because he has no credentials that you don't think enough of credentials, even credentials by your own words, you've accepted.

It explains the context in which the puffery was offered up. How is a statement of opinion credentialism if the statement does not include an appeal to something generally thought to be prestigious?


Do you really believe, that at this point, an accurate assessment of a figure like Eastman is possible given the control TPTB have over information?

It is often frustrating in some of our debates here that I reference information I have read but it is now scrubbed from the internet or swamped by the narrative in results that are not found even ten pages in, though I know it existed, it cannot be found. So no, I do not trust simple searches to reveal the total truth.

I suspect others had theories similar to Eastman, but quickly scrubbed them lest they too become a pariah

Idunno. As I've said a few times now, I don't have any problems finding evidence of top conservative lawyers on the internet. They tend to leave a footprint. Not much information out there on Eastman before Rudy proclaimed him "preeminent".

 

[jamil]

I have not studied the “Eastman memos’. I believe the actual goal was to try to force SCOTUS off the sidelines. To force a recognition that the slates several states sent to the EC were in fact unconstitutional. Everything reported concerning Trump will always be presented in the most negative light possible.

At this point, if you're not read in on that, you don't really know a whole lot about what exactly Trump asked Pence to do. And that's been posted here for months.

 

[Ingomike]

You certainly like to hide behind that "credentialism" term. I made no mention in that post about credentials. Where is the proof that I am trusting any corrupt institutions?

The numbers you cite are only obtainable by acknowledging credentials given by media, the bar association, honorary degrees. What do all these have in common? They are all leftist controlled institutions. So what is happening here is you are setting up a scene where only those the left approves are qualified to have an opinion on constitutional law. That is credentialism…

 

[jamil]

It's not about what the VP "should" do. It's about what's within his/her explicit Constitutional authority or lack thereof "to" do.

Given that Pence believed he was being asked to do what he believed he did not have the authority to do, he had a duty and moral obligation to refuse.