Trump 2024 — The second term

[KG1]

Is this why they picked Eastman to present as their most "preeminent constitutional scholar in the US" because he has an "established track record of success in performing the operation that they were contemplating many times with a high percentage of success?" or was it the best they could get who would go along with their scheme? One in which he himself wasn't confident in the untested legal theory that Pence had the constitutional authority to stop the official State certified elector count before Congress, and acknowledged according to Glen Jacobs (Pence's legal counsel) that the strategy would most likely lose 9-0 in front of SCOTUS but went along with the plan anyway.

Addendum: How many other "preeminent constitutional scholars" came out and put whatever credentials they have on the line for such an untested constitutional legal theory that they especially acknowledge would most likely fail? Not many that I am aware of if any. It was unwise for Eastman to do so.

 

[jamil]

Moving on up.

Trump ballot ban appealed to US Supreme Court by Colorado Republican Party

The move is the potential first step to a showdown at the nation’s highest court over the meaning of a 155-year-old constitutional provision that bans those who “engaged in insurrection” from office.

apnews.com

I don't see how this does not go 9-0 to bitch slap the 4 ideologues on CO SC.

1. A state does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally judge whether Trump participated in an insurrection or even that it was an insurrection. That's a highly subjective opinion.
2. Trump had not been convicted of an insurrection, let alone tried by the federal government for it.
3. No due process in this ruling. No opportunity for Trump to defend himself.
4. It was a narrow decision in which the dissenting justices cited a lack of the 4 justices following their own process for coming to this ruling.
5. Any lefty justicies would signal their TDS if they rule in favor. Because it's self-defeating. If a state court can rule a candidate in violation of the 14th amendment without a trial to establish the candidate's guilt, then any Red state can too.

It's point #5 which should guarantee a 9-0 vote if nothing else. Do the blue states have enough electoral votes to win that battle? Will they get enough swing states to remove Trump? I think that's a battle Democrats shouldn't want to wage unless they're totally consumed by TDS.

 

[Ingomike]

preeminent constitutional scholar in the US

Do you have a link to this? Some context to understand what the motivations may have been? This sounds like pretty normal Trump’s often overstated flattery…

 

[Ingomike]

Where he went to school isn't even a part of that conversation.

That is EXACTLY where the conversation started, denigration solely based on the institution associated with.

 

[KG1]

Do you have a link to this? Some context to understand what the motivations may have been? This sounds like pretty normal Trump’s often overstated flattery…

I posted sometime back that this is the way Guliani presented Eastman at their J6 rally. He was obviously trying to sell to the crowd that he was a "preeminent constitutional scholar in the US" Those were his words.

 

[Ingomike]

I think you need to parse the conversation a bit more if you think this is what I'm arguing for. We both agree that "credentialism" is not good. You don't have to convince me on that. I can add plenty to the examples of how credentialism is a scam.

My contention is that credentialism is irrelevant to the conversation about Eastman, because no one has done that. But, I think credentialism is an interesting side-topic to get into.

It's not out of "credentialism" that people are questioning Eastman's preeminence as an election law scholar. It's that he lacks bonafides, the credentials that demonstrate his preeminence. Where he went to school isn't even a part of that conversation.

Credentials are more than just where one went to school. It's also their body of work. When you listen to keynote speakers, they're typicaly introduced by citing their credentials. That includes education, academic accomplishments, contributions to their field, successes, and the like. They do this so that the audience can decide if that person is qualified to speak on that topic with credibility or not.

That's not "credentialism". Credentialism is a scam to provide superficial information to con people into assuming the person is competent. That's basically what Rudy did by introducing Eastman as a preeminant scholar, without laying out all the reasons why people should think so.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ingomike]

Addendum: How many other "preeminent constitutional scholars" came out and put whatever credentials they have on the line for such an untested constitutional legal theory that they especially acknowledge would most likely fail? Not many that I am aware of if any. It was unwise for Eastman to do so.

How many other scientists came out with the theory of relativity? That Einstein guy must be a whack job, no one else ever said that, it is untested theory.

More credentialism. If the crowd isn’t saying it, it cannot be true is what you just implied.

 

[KG1]

Do you have a link to this? Some context to understand what the motivations may have been? This sounds like pretty normal Trump’s often overstated flattery…

Here is a transcript of Guliani's speech at the J6 "Save America Rally"

Rudy Giuliani Speech Transcript at Trump's Washington, D.C. Rally: Wants ‘Trial by Combat’ | Rev Blog

Rudy Giuliani gave a speech at Donald Trump's "Save America" rally on January 6, before Trump protestors stormed the Capitol building in a riot. Giuliani said he wants a "trial by combat" in his speech. Read the full transcript here.

www.rev.com

Rudy Giuliani: (00:09)
"Hello. Hello everyone. We’re here just very briefly to make a very important two points. Number one; every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly legal. I have Professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States."

 

[Ingomike]

I posted sometime back that this is the way Guliani presented Eastman at their J6 rally. He was obviously trying to sell to the crowd that he was a "preeminent constitutional scholar in the US" Those were his words.

Do you think it uncommon, when people do introductions at large public events, to puff up the person being introduced?

 

[jamil]

That is EXACTLY where the conversation started, denigration solely based on the institution associated with.

That was not about where he went to school. It was about his bonafides as what Rudy allegedly introduced him as, a preeminent scholar. What SD4L did was go through what we know about him and not the lack of “preeminence” in his apparent resume. You say you don’t know anything about the guy. You have the same information available to you as SD4L. If you were to vet him as a “preeminent scholar” you will use credentials. Something that certifies in a believable way that he is what is claimed.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

I don't see how this does not go 9-0 to bitch slap the 4 ideologues on CO SC.

1. A state does not have the constitutional authority to unilaterally judge whether Trump participated in an insurrection or even that it was an insurrection. That's a highly subjective opinion.
2. Trump had not been convicted of an insurrection, let alone tried by the federal government for it.
3. No due process in this ruling. No opportunity for Trump to defend himself.
4. It was a narrow decision in which the dissenting justices cited a lack of the 4 justices following their own process for coming to this ruling.
5. Any lefty justicies would signal their TDS if they rule in favor. Because it's self-defeating. If a state court can rule a candidate in violation of the 14th amendment without a trial to establish the candidate's guilt, then any Red state can too.

It's point #5 which should guarantee a 9-0 vote if nothing else. Do the blue states have enough electoral votes to win that battle? Will they get enough swing states to remove Trump? I think that's a battle Democrats shouldn't want to wage unless they're totally consumed by TDS.

The 3 judges on the left have an interesting choice to make.

Kagan, the most reasonable of the three, I would expect to join the right. She is smart and should recognize the precedent this would set. I doubt she wants this to look left v right.

Sotomayor is a lefty who has made up law out of thin air. Her Janus dissent was the most telling that she is willing to legislate from the bench. KBJ is also a lefty-lunatic and wouldn’t shock me if she took a moral stance against J6 and wrote a dissent to try and carve a path for future legal action against Trump. My guess is 8-1.

 

[jamil]

Do you think it uncommon, when people do introductions at large public events, to puff up the person being introduced?

That doesn’t answer anything. Of course they do. If what SD4L did was credentialism, how is that not? Rather, neither are. When we think of credentialism, it’s usually about the person’s educational background.

If a claim is made that we should judge a person’s professional opinion based on a claim that he or she is an expert, it’s reasonable to look at their background and note the lack of evidence for that.

 

[jamil]

The 3 judges on the left have an interesting choice to make.

Kagan, the most reasonable of the three, I would expect to join the right. She is smart and should recognize the precedent this would set. I doubt she wants this to look left v right.

Sotomayor is a lefty who has made up law out of thin air. Her Janus dissent was the most telling that she is willing to legislate from the bench. KBJ is also a lefty-lunatic and wouldn’t shock me if she took a moral stance against J6 and wrote a dissent to try and carve a path for future legal action against Trump. My guess is 8-1.

I agree that if the progressives are going to rule ideologically it’s gonna be those two. It’s certainly possible that ideology could possess them to the point of cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.

The logical conclusion of such a ruling would be that states are free to exclude from the ballot any minority candidness in that state, for any excuse they can find relating to the 14th amendment. I think the three will be persuaded of their folly, while I’m excluding the ideological ruling from possibility.

 

[KG1]

How many other scientists came out with the theory of relativity? That Einstein guy must be a whack job, no one else ever said that, it is untested theory.

More credentialism. If the crowd isn’t saying it, it cannot be true is what you just implied.

Even Johnathan Turley who is well respected here by many and oft times cited by you said that he told Trump that he was wrong about the election and wrong about the law.

The Mind of Donald Trump: Why Proving a Lie Will Not Necessarily Secure a Conviction for Jack Smith

Below is my column in The Hill on how the second indictment of Donald Trump could fail even if Special Counsel Jack Smith could prove that the former president knew that he was lying after the elec…

jonathanturley.org

"I was one of those voices. Trump did not listen to me, most legal analysts or even his White House counsel. Instead, he listened to a small group of lawyers who assured him that a challenge might succeed and that there was evidence of massive election fraud."

"But Trump is allowed to seek out enablers who tell him what he wants to hear. All presidents do this."

 

[KG1]

Do you think it uncommon, when people do introductions at large public events, to puff up the person being introduced?

Are you just now admitting that Eastman may not have been the "preeminent constitutional scholar" that Guliani made him out to be? This is the argument that many have been trying to make here.

 

[Ingomike]

That was not about where he went to school. It was about his bonafides as what Rudy allegedly introduced him as, a preeminent scholar. What SD4L did was go through what we know about him and not the lack of “preeminence” in his apparent resume. You say you don’t know anything about the guy. You have the same information available to you as SD4L. If you were to vet him as a “preeminent scholar” you will use credentials. Something that certifies in a believable way that he is what is claimed.

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…

 

[Ingomike]

That doesn’t answer anything. Of course they do. If what SD4L did was credentialism, how is that not? Rather, neither are. When we think of credentialism, it’s usually about the person’s educational background.

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?

If a claim is made that we should judge a person’s professional opinion based on a claim that he or she is an expert, it’s reasonable to look at their background and note the lack of evidence for that.

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

 

[Ingomike]

Even Johnathan Turley who is well respected here and oft times cited by you said that he told Trump that he was wrong about the election and wrong about the law.

The Mind of Donald Trump: Why Proving a Lie Will Not Necessarily Secure a Conviction for Jack Smith

Below is my column in The Hill on how the second indictment of Donald Trump could fail even if Special Counsel Jack Smith could prove that the former president knew that he was lying after the elec…

jonathanturley.org

"I was one of those voices. Trump did not listen to me, most legal analysts or even his White House counsel. Instead, he listened to a small group of lawyers who assured him that a challenge might succeed and that there was evidence of massive election fraud."

"But Trump is allowed to seek out enablers who tell him what he wants to hear. All presidents do this."

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”?

 

[Ingomike]

Are you just now admitting that Eastman may not have been the "preeminent constitutional scholar" that Guliani made him out to be? This is the argument that many have been trying to make here.

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

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I agree that if the progressives are going to rule ideologically it’s gonna be those two. It’s certainly possible that ideology could possess them to the point of cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.

The logical conclusion of such a ruling would be that states are free to exclude from the ballot any minority candidness in that state, for any excuse they can find relating to the 14th amendment. I think the three will be persuaded of their folly, while I’m excluding the ideological ruling from possibility.

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...