Jan 6. Supreme Court case addendum

O.K. I have read a bit about how some of the judges asked questions in regards to this case. And I also did a deeper dive into the actual law.

First up the part of the law that is shown most in news report from the Sarbannes Oxley actually was a reform to part of an existing set of laws about tampering with evidence and witnesses in official proceedings. Which I read in full. And it clearly states that government proceedings are included. And it seemed to me that not only the reform (part c) but some of the previous law(part) should apply to the people who on Jan 6 attempted to stop or delay the certifying into the record of the presidential election results from the states by the vice president. It did not need to be successful to be a criminal. But there was a delay. Hence it was partially successful. And they were there also in an attempt to intimidate Mike Pence to not certify also a crime under this set of laws.

So, looking back on the questions of some of the justices I was quite confused that some seemed to be leaning towards finding a way to say that the actions on the 6th did not fall under this. Such as how broad is the law, Would pulling a fire alarm qualify and if so isn’t a 20 year sentence too long? Of course the second part of that is totally disingenuous since it is not an automatic sentence of 20 years it up to 20 years. And so far no one charged under these laws has received close to 20 years.

And then there was the whole you have to read the whole thing and connect them to see how they make a group. But they seemed at that time to be only reading the reformed part. Not the whole law. And saying it had to include a crime dealing with tampering with evidence and paperwork. But if you actually look deeper like did and find that that part of the act is a reform to a bigger law about tampering with witness and officials proceedings in general then this argument seems pointless.

And the pulling of the firearm and the asking about protesters at a meeting or a sit-in. Well those have always been handled differently at different times. Some have been left to protest. Others have been arrested for disturbing the peace. If the Supreme Court feels that they can’t trust local authorities to figure out when it is appropriate to apply certain laws then do we have a functioning society at all? I do fear that we don’t have a logically functioning Supreme Court right now.

Taking Aim at the Babies

The most heinous talking point some Republicans try and push in the abortion fight is that Democrats support infanticide. Abortions so late in pregnancy that the baby is born alive then killed. At first what can one say.

If it was born alive does it even qualify as an abortion and belong in this debate at all. Shouldn’t it just be a murder.

But then of course me being me my mind got rolling. And I got researching to see if my thoughts were backed up with some facts.

And it turns out it is the republicans in congress and in state houses that have attempted and sometimes succeeded in infanticide and other murder by denial from afar. Because they have time after time voted and sometimes succeeded in ending coverage for low income individuals/families of medicaid, aca insurance and CHIP. All these programs have reduced mortality rates of mothers to be during pregnancy and childbirth and infants and children. When Republicans vote to end them or reduce access to them they are pretty much saying they don’t care that it will mean women and infants and children will die do to inability to afford access to health care. They also have tried to cut in half WIC. Nutrition for pregnant mothers.

Is it really more important to give e a tax break to a millionaire or a billionaire or multinational businesses who already barely pay any taxes. Who won’t die if they don’t get the tax cut.

They say every life matters. But they vote like they don’t give a damn.

Elementary Grammar and An American Judge…

I was reading this morning about one of the January 6 defendants appealing his charges to the Supreme Court that could overturn a lot of the other cases.

And it all ended up hinging on what a judge said was one word but I would say is one other word. The judge who initially said a case was a wrongly convicted was D.C. Judge Carl Nichols.

The law deals with interrupting official proceedings and the first part talks about corrupting records and documents etc. ands with the word. or . Then comes the second section beginning with the word otherwise obstructs and impedes or attempts to do so.

This judge said that the word otherwise meant that the person must have tried the first part first.

Ok. It would if the preceding word had been AND. But the word was OR. And the difference between these words are taught in elementary school. At least I hope they still are.

But here are some simple examples for the judge.

Would you like an apple and an orange? Would you like an apple or an orange?

He could have said that otherwise was just too nebulous. Although an armed entry into the capitol was pretty concrete. He could have said the whole preceding was just a formality really. But to the mind of the defendant it wasn’t.

And to the Supreme Court and the writer of the Huffington Post article ignoring the OR and focusing on this otherwise to make some kind of illogical ruling to connect the two not only would free jan 6 participants and remove charges from those not yet tried it would work in reverse. Because if you say for the second part to work you need to first don’t you then need the second for the first to work. An and is an and. Either they are connected or they are not. So anyone convicted based on the first part alone could appeal and have their conviction overturned if they didn’t otherwise do anything.

In conclusion it’s not about the otherwise it’s all about the OR.

Just a Quick Trump Legal Thought

This one is about his case coming up in NY for paying off the porn star to keep quiet before the 2016 election. AS usual he is claiming it is all a big nothing burger that Biden is behind to keep him from beating his in the election.

But the problem here is that when his ex Lawyer Michael Cohen was convicted of the same crime and was sent to jail during Trumps presidency he didn’t save his long time lawyer from this travesty of justice with a pardon did he. No he left him in jail. Aren’t pardons there to right the wrongs of criminal justice and if Trump now says this whole she bang is just a witch hunt it would have to have been one then too. Which means he left his ex long time lawyer in jail to rot because he was mad at him even though supposedly Trump says no crime was committed. Not very Jesus or Christian of him.

So don’t believe Trump when he says the legal system in America is broken. He just means he can’t bend it to his 3will as much as he is used to.

After all he is still suing people. Mostly losing those cases before they even get to court. But I think in the past that was part of his m.o. but now he is going against bigger richer opponents so it’s not working out in his favor like it used to.

Pro Choice Plan B… Spread the Field

I’ve been doing a lot of reading and thinking this week with the new case before the Supreme Court in which a group of conservative doctors want to stop the fad approval of mifepristone for abortions. Especially through the mail. It does seem that it might fail because they are to actually being harmed, so have no right to be suing. But Alito and Thomas threw them a bone in the form of a tip to try the Comstock act next time.

If this was done and actually was put back in use could it be used only for this one thing? Because it covers pretty much all of reproductive information and porn and sex toys. All three of which are huge money making industries.

Then I read an article suggesting using an earlier court precedent that says the government has no standing to make laws in regards to how a family choses to live. In theory it might work. But it has huge problems for me. Since I suspect we have since it was put in place passed many laws contradictory to it that benefit both children and wives. Like child abuse and spousal rape.

My idea plays on a quote I saw from Alito which is the basis on the pro life movement that life starts at conception but he added that everything must be done to bring about this life no matter how small a chance it has to make it. I think that was the quote. I couldn’t find it again this morning.

And it is under that theory of life should be fought for no matter how small the chance of survival is part of my new plan. The second is I have always found that pro life people focus too much on fetuses. Except for the catholics. So I think we should hold them to their word that all lives should be fought for even if the other person who has to fight along doesn’t want to and the government will have to make them. One Example a child gets cancer put the parents insurance refuses to pay for the treatment because they say it is experimental and has a very low chance of success but is the Childs only hope. Then sue them to make them pay for it under the threat of a murder charge if they don’t and the child dies. This should happen any time insurance turns someone down with a fatal diagnosis but an available treatment that could offer a possible cure no matter how low the chances. After all the Supreme Court has already said that businesses have the same standings as citizens under the constitution.

If they don’t have insurance. Then sue the doctors that offer the treatments if they wont treat them. Or the hospitals if they won’t take them into their facilities. They shouldn’t be able to claim any kind of financial way out of this if women can’t.

Show the Supreme Court and Pro lifers that if they want Fetuses to be considered little teeny tiny humans than the rights they want them to have they have to give to the rest of us. The right to impose our chance to stay alive onto other un willing people that we may both physically and financially ruin. Even cause the death of.

The Slippery Slope of Litigious Lactose Intolerant Starbucks Drinkers

This morning I read that in California a class action lawsuit is happening against Starbucks for charging more for dairy alternative milk products by lactose intolerant coffee drinkers. They claim they a have a serious medical condition recognized as having a disability being lactose intolerant. If the ADA recognizes this I find it a bit dubious since no one has to drink milk and suffer the ramifications of being intolerant to the lactose in it. And of course there are products with he lactose removed. And as far as I know there are no long term or serious effects of lactose intolerance like there are with celiacs disease or say a peanut allergy. One of which can kill you and the other can lead to an inability to absorb nutrients.

But let’s assume it is ADA recognized. Then why are they only suing a company that actually offers an alternative that addresses their needs at all? Why aren’t they suing places that don’t offer any? Like most ice cream stores? Or if they do, do they charge more for vegan plant based ice cream? I know that the few pizza places I have seen that offer Vegan cheese charge more. They also charge more for gluten free. Hence the slippery slop I lead off with. Because if these drinkers win. Then Celiacs could be next and they have a better case I feel. Why should they be charged more for a gluten free crust when they have a serious medical condition requiring a gluten free alternative?

Restaurants mostly run on thin margins but should they be forced to offer alternatives on every menu item to ever possible medical diet issue out there? It would financially ruin every one.

Secondly, if it passed, how would Starbucks ask if someone was allowed to claim a disability and a lower price on the more expensive milks. You just can’t look at someone and tell if they are. And if it becomes common knowledge that they have to charge the same for people with lactose intolerance then everyone will of a sudden be lactose intolerant. It will be an impossible situation. Im not sure if or how much more lactose free milk costs than regular milk. But all of the plant based ones definitely cost more.

Sometimes life just isn’t fair. But a fancy coffee drink isn’t a necessity of life. Like going to school, or being to get from a parking space to a store, or using a public rest room. Or even getting into the restaurants themselves.

So please withdraw this waste of the courts time and think about more than just your petty annoyance at a big corporation. because this thing could snowball into something bigger that hurts businesses much smaller. Maybe save the money from those cups of coffee and donate to some food banks. Maybe even se if they have needs for people with dietary needs like lactose issues of Gluten free. Which as you know are very pricey.

It might just be me…but the Justices ruling on the Trump ballot ruling seemed illogical.

I expected they would rule he could stay on the ballots. But that the majority would go with the “congress needs to make a law to handle any 14th amendment issues dealing with federal elected officials like the president because it would cause chaos if the states did it individually”.

That a law is needed to use the 14th amendment seems odd to me. Did all the amend meets need a law to work? Did congress make laws for freedom of speech and freedom carry guns. I can only think of laws that try and curtail these freedoms. Not enact them.

Secondly it seems they didn’t seem to think at all about this case specifically. It is about Trump trying to stay President for a second term illegally. And his supporters even storming the capital to try and stop the certification of the electoral votes. Which was helped along by members of his own party in congress who tried to delay the count that very day. Who also before that day supported Trumps fight to stay President and even if a few wavered after Jan 6 they were back to claiming a stolen election and supporting Trump full time soon enough. Now Trump has installed a member of his own family as co head of the RNC. So how can the Supreme Court believe that the republicans in congress would ever vote to make a law to in act the 14th amendment against Trump. It is illogical. And at this time they are the majority in the house. It’s like asking the co conspirators of the criminal to decide if the person is guilty. They know he will hold grudges and with his daughter in law at the RNC she holds the money they need too.

And I get tired of people who say let the voters decide. Read about the 14th amendment. It is there to stop the populace from being able to vote for people who have openly tried to undermine our government. That was what was feared would happen after the civil war when the south had a larger population. And the other thing I hear is a fear of what his supporters would do if he isn’t allowed to run. And all I think is what”like storm the capital while shouting hang the veep”. Been there. If he isn’t on the ballot the worst thing that could happen is that a republican wins the presidency.

But maybe I am all wrong about this. I have never studied law. But I think if it isn’t up to the Staes then it should be up to federal courts. maybe. But the last people deciding this should be republican politicians. And second to last, maybe, are some questionably morally compromised Supreme Court justices.

Thank Bill Clinton for Trumps And a Colorado Judge playing your game of how stupid are Americans.

Trump is claiming he did not take an Oath to “support the constitution, there fore he can not be subject to the clause that would keep him from running again for aiding an insurrection after swearing such an oath. And a Judge agreed that the words in his Oath, preserve, protect and defend are not the word support so he is correct.

But if you google synonyms for the word support you will find that the first two sources list defend as a synonym and protect is listed in 1 of them as a synonym for it.

I think it is ridiculous to think that the founders would not want the president to be subject to all the same rules as everyone else after all they were revolting against the tyranny of living under a king.

It is just as ridiculous as when Bill Clinton stood up and said he did to have sex with that woman. Oy. If someone were on trial for robbing a bank and claimed that he only asked for all the bread or Benjamins would he get off because he didn’t ask for the money or cash. No.

The other thing that came up while looking not the whole oath thing is what is the whole point of having an oath. It is obvious even if you buy that he can’t be subject to this ruling due to the wording issue, that President Trump did not defend the constitution from candidate Trump. Or protect it. His pressuring Vp Pence alone to not do his job seems to violate this. But there seems to be no direct punishment. In theory you could impeach him for the underlying actions. But what about the breaking of the oath? Is it just a show? Where most if not all of the men who are about to be president lay their hand on a bible and swear? And if so why aren’t religious people upset that Trump so blithely, violently and breaking a few commandments broke his oath sworn before god on a bible. This is one reason I struggle with most religious people. They seem to look the other way when it suits them or claim human failing when a religious person does something bad or goes against their own teachings. But can be super judgey of everyone else. And force their beliefs on them. Im looking at you DeSantis and Florida.

Should we just forgo the oath? After all Trump has done everything he can to make his supporters doubt every part of our government and only trust him which again is against his oath to protect and defend the constitution. But I really don’t know if he fully understands it or if he does cares as long as he financially benefits.

The Reverse Logic of Trumps Defense in His NY Civil Trial.

Trump has been sued for lying on financial forms to banks, insurance companies and his taxes The judge has already found that he has lied. But Trump is still claiming that he has not because the Trump name adds value to the properties. The prosecuters have poked a few holes in this showing that one building is only half full. One building changed its name.

But I think the main issue is that there is a flaw in Trumps logic. Since so many of the businesses he puts his names on go bust. His name can’t be what is the selling point. So I think what really he knows but can’t say because it isn’t a defense for this crime is putting his name on buildings, especially know and famous ones ups his value. Whether it’s as a celebrity business man or his ability to boast about his net worth beyond what it really is. The building is what increases his names value not the other way around. Like when he bought the Plaza Hotel. Even if it may have been need of help. Owning the Plaza upped Trumps profile. Mar-a Lago. again ups his profile. And he tries to claim he could turn it into a huge profit maker despite that he doesn’t have the right to subdivide and other things to do what he would need to do. So good for name value not so much for actual projected value.

Trump Jan 6 my Rebuttal #1 : in defense of reason

First off some people say you must listen to Trump supporters and their concerns and then address their concerns thoughtfully. And you know what I think they support Trump because he does the exact opposite. So I will meet somewhere in the middle. I will listen but I will not coddle. I will talk somewhat bluntly. I will not tell you what you wan’t to hear. Trump is not innocent of everything absolutely he has ever been accused of. It is not a witch hunt and it is not fake news. And no I am not some die hard democrat/socialist shill. I hated when Bill Clinton thought Americans were stupid enough to fall for oral sex is not sex rationalization. Only die hard totally blind followers would believe that total bs and that men who are that selfish in their personal lives don’t let have that same personality in their professional.

I just don’t suffer fools.

Now back to Trump and his lawyers trying to test the waters on some defenses.

Let’s start with one I heard. It wasn’t a crime it was just aspirations. So then are all failed crimes just aspirational and we shouldn’t charge those people too. really. I tried to blackmail my ex over nude photos but she went to the police. We had planned to hold up the bank but someone tipped off the police and they arrested us as we entered the bank. Darn. But we were just carrying are guns and the plan was just you know aspirational we may not have gone through with it. So let’s call it what it is charged as attempted. No more word play please. I and I hope you now will stop playing along with his games. Just like Bill did.

Now onto Trump and his online rants. Oh please. Stop threatening people. All through 2020 elections online and at rallies you chanted about how crooked Hillary was and lock her up. So then. He had 4 years to have the DOJ lock into it and nothing. Your champion did nothing. Got nothing done about this supposed criminal. This man who sells himself as the toughest, meanest get things done person. Nothing. Against a woman he and all of you all swore up and die was a total criminal. Put up or shut up. I believe Trump would put it a bit more bluntly. but you get my point. He is using you. Playing you.

Next rant. Onto Mike Pence. Now Trump is forced to turn to his favorite tactic name calling. But let me get more to the point. Trump has claimed he is the smartest man in the room. Now we can debate who he is chasing to fill these rooms. Because this weekend he now claims he chose as his running mate in 2020 a soon to be ousted Governor of Indiana. So he chose a loser for a running mate. I mean that wouldn’t be my first chose to surround myself with a loser. I’d pick someone very popular. Or at least a winner. But maybe when you want to be the smartest man in the room you have to pick stupid followers to surround yourself. remember I’m just using Trumps on words here. Smartest ma, ousted Governor running mate. Think about what your guy is saying. Not how he is saying it.

I’m tired so that is it for now. There will probably be some more. Unless the gag order is put n place and is a very tight one.

PS If he is such a successful billionaire business man why are all his supporters paying all of his legal bills? Don’t give him your money because he wanted to keep some Presidential keepsakes he had no right too. And then played hide and seek with. He claims to be an offing billionaire big boy. Let him pay his own bills. What other billionaire acts so damn poor?