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.

Trumps Ideal Immigrants are Socialist Capitalist?

“Nice countries, you know like Denmark, Switzerland? Do we have any people coming in from Denmark? How about Switzerland? How about Norway?” Trump was his quote at a fundraiser. And my immediate thought was aren’t those countries Socialist capitalist countries. Then, doesn’t Trump and his MAGA followers hate the Democrats for their socialist ideals.

In fact they seem to love to call them socialist. But then I did some research on the 3 countries. And it turns out technically Norway and Denmark are classified as welfare states since they have capitalist economies. And Switzerland was a bit confusing they seemed to not be listed as a welfare state because the government doesn’t directly cover things but they do force citizens to buy health insurance and for companies to accept everyone. So not quite sure what that it is. Not purely capitalist, or socialist, or welfare.

So Maga it seems your leader wants more people to move here who like high taxes, lots of government programs, and all 3 are tops in Europe in the fight against global warming. And all three countries allow abortions. I’m gonna say they don’t sound very maga to me. But if he wants them I’m ok with it. But I would bet they rather stay where they are.

So Trump was asking for a bunch of “Welfare loving, global warming alarmist, baby killers to move to America”. Using Trumps hype.

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.

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.

What’s Good for the Gander isn’t Good for The Goose

Or why is Trump complaining about Nato nations not paying enough to in essence defend each other. And say that Putin should invade those who don’t pay as much as Trump thinks they should. While Trump, a man who constantly boasts of being a multi billionaire, has his political pacs, which are funded by ordinary citizens, pay his legal fees in defense of legal cases. So in essence he himself is not paying at all as far as we no any of the millions of dollars spent defending him against most if not all of the cases against him even though he is a billionaire and If anyone could afford to defend themselves it would be him. And despite claims of a witch hunt he has gotten himself into most of these if not all by his own doing. He kept the Whitehouse documents and then refused to give them back, having his staff hide them when the fbi came to get them, even asking his lawyer to take them with him. Or he keeps speaking out about Jean e Carrol whether he believes he raped her or not, just stop talking about her. Slander problem solved.

But why don’t people see the hypocrisy in bashing Nato for doing the exact thing he is doing. Except in reverse. We are the richer nation paying more than our share. Where as, he is the richer person pretty much paying nothing while his supporters pay everything for him. It is pretty ridiculous if you think about it. And really paying for Trump to get off from these charges won’t have much actual benefit for most of his supporters. Like his first term as president didn’t. If they would actually admit it. He stacked the Supreme Court and gave tax cuts to the wealthy and businesses and that was about it. And started to roll back the ability of the government to regulate things. Which I think will bite everyone pretty quickly. Pro life yay. Pro rich. yay. Everyone else not so much. And be real about where you are and where you will ever get to be now a days.

The 14th and the Supremes….

I just read an opinion piece on how someone thinks the Supreme Court will possibly rule on Trump being on Colorados ballot. I have been avoiding news coverage of it because I fear they will find a way to let him be on the ballots.

It seems they were leaning towards it’s too messy for each state to make up their own decision. Although as I type this isn’t that the way are whole election system works in essence. Each state running their own part. But back to why I started. It seemed they then suggested it could be they would rule it would need to be made as an argument to a federal court.

But I’m not sure how that would work. Do you sue the country? The Republican Party? Trump? Your State?

The next is that it would go to congress. Which has been an argument. It can be that only congress can invoke it. Which seems unlikely since no other amendment seems to work that way. Or something will happen when we get to that day when the electoral college votes get counted. What that is the column did not say. But I think the congress part is totally off as I wrote in an earlier post in the 14 amendment and insurrection and Jan 6. Trump is not the only politician we should be using it on. There are quite a few or more in congress who are subject to it. And the whole idea of the Trump issue being settled by congress shows why.

The 14th amendment comes from post civil war and wanting to keep the southerners who rebelled out of the us government partly because the south had a large population. So the 14th was a guard against a feared popular vote of rebels voting in a lot of rebels.

So the idea of the 14th amendment, that’s supposed to guard against popular votes gone amok, being executed only by politicians overseeing themselves is illogical. Especially in a two party system where sadly right now the Republican Party seems to only have an allegiance to Trump and not to the country or even the party.

So I think by being fearful and not wanting to get too involved and answer the one big question, which they really do not even have to do, which is, was Jan 6 an insurrection and was Trump part of it or did he give support to those who were. Because if the answer is yes then everything else should be clear. Especially to the originalist on the court.

You can’t try and leave the country so you can keep your slaves for cheap labor. And you can’t keep lying about having won an election you lost after seeking every legal way of challenging it and losing only to hold a large rally with armed supporters and then send them to the Capitol to fight for you and then sit on your butt for hours while they beat up the police and break into the Capitol chanting hang Pence. All to keep you as President. All while giving hundreds of millions of dollars.

And those in congress can’t keep supporting Trump and not be subject to the 14th too. Especially if at some point he gets convicted of an election crime. But I can be harsh and to the point. But maybe with those people gone congress might actually remember how to function again. How it was before newt and the tea party. When people knew you didn’t get everything you wanted. That it was about compromise.

It’s late for me. I’ve rambled. It’s all just so depressing a lot of the time. And not just on the right but on the left too.

Dear JD Vance….

I saw this quote from you this morning I believe it was from an interview with George Stephanopolous.

“I think it’s actually vey unfair to the victims of sexual assault, to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for President, when what he’s trying to do, I think, is restore prosperity.”

Well from here I think you are totally wrong. And it has a lot more than just the E jean Carrol cases that make him a problem for survivors of sexual assault. First off prosperity only matters now because Trump stacked the Supreme Court to repeal national access to abortions. So a victim of sexual assault who gets impregnated by her assailant may need to travel out of their home state to access an abortion. And that costs money that some low income people can’t afford. But Trumps prosperity has to reached these people. His has mostly just made the wealthy richer.

Which brings us back to losing access to abortions for victims of all kinds of sexual assault in many states. We have seen states say there can be exceptions until a woman asks for the abortions and are denied. Over and over. Unless their life is in immediate danger.

And I don’t think having a President who was caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it, wether it was true or just him being a braggart makes any woman feel good but especially not ones who have been assaulted, groped or harassed.

And let’s remember Trump may feel he doesn’t have his first amendment rights any more but he has tried to sue multiple times for defamation.

And P.S Check the economy statistics things are on the rise.

Oh Washington State…

Today a defeay some voters had their day in court in an attempt to Keep Trump of the primary ballot here in my home state. And I have to admit as I was at first reading the online news story I was annoyed by the ruling to keep him on. If you read my blog you know I believe he clearly is in violation of the 14th amendment. But it was the argument made by the head of the Republican Party that was so mind blowing at first. He seemed to have thrown out as a reason to keep Trump on the fact that People like Trump had falsely accuse Barak Obama of having been born outside the USA and ineligible to be president. Uhm. But he wasn’t. And Trump at the very least is giving people some of which have actually been convicted of sedition comfort and support. Even calling them hostages these days. Hostages he has said he would free if he ends up president again. So one was a total lie and one is based in facts or at least words that are coming out of the mouth of the man who they want o put on the ballot.

Their second defense was that the party gets to choose who they want to be on the ballot. Now I don’t know the rules bout what exactly the secretary of state does and doesn’t do in regards to elections in this state. So I did an internet search. And I found that yes the political parties d get to put whom/who they want on the primary ballots and I could not find anywhere where the Secretary of State has to or can certify if the candidates meet the constitutional requirements. I would assume they do. But I could not find anywhere where it is spelled out. Maybe they take for granted that the political parties would not put someone ineligible on the ballot.

So the judge ruling that it was not their place to step in and change the secretaries decision was probably correct at this point.

Now, to those voters and any other Washington state voters I did not see any rules regarding the general election. Obviously we have a top 2 primary system, which I do not like veery much. Not sure f it applies to the presidential election or not. But you might want to give it another go. Since now the Republican Party will be removed from being the official party placing him on the ballot. The secretary will have to make a clear statement if he finds him eligible to run for president in the general election.

PS. I was happy or at least like finally someone is pointing out more politicians are in violation of the 14th amendment when congressmen Goldman? in congress yesterday moved to censure congresswoman Stefanik for violating it. He said he was finally pushed to far when she started referring to those convicted of violence on jan 6 as hostages. which is really ironic as she was the one who was so smug when she traded the college presidents for saying all anti jewish statements were context-dependent. I wonder how the family of the Israeli hostages feel about their family being compared to those convicted of participating on January 6. I don’t think there is any context that will explain it.