Three Interviews About the Criminal Cases Against Trump and his Possible Disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment

I recently did interviews on these topics with Reason TV, the Washington Post, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

(Illustration: Lex Villena)

I recently did three relatively detailed interviews about the criminal cases against Donald Trump and his potential disqualification from the presidential election under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

One is an interview for Reason TV, conducted by Zach Weissmuller and Liz Wolfe, who asked many interesting questions:

Another was for the Washington Post, which included several comments of mine in a video feature on Trump and Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. If nothing else, it features a nice view of one of our classrooms at George Mason university! The video also features commentary by Jeffrey Rosen, President of the National Constitution Center.

 

Finally, I did a detailed Russian-language interview covering both the indictments and Section 3 for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The transcript and audio are available here. I recognize that only a few of our readers at this site know Russian. But for those who do, the RFE/RL interview may be of interest. It covers a good deal of ground.

I recently published  an article on Section 3 disqualification for Lawfare. Here are links to pieces I have written about the criminal cases against him:

"Retribution, Deterrence, and the Case for Prosecuting Trump for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election"

"The Georgia Case Against Trump"

"The Dangers of Giving Trump Impunity are Far Worse than those of Prosecuting Him"

"Jack Goldsmith Responds to Critics on the Dangers of Prosecuting (or not Prosecuting) Trump for Trying to Overturn the 2020 Election"

"Against the 'Banana Republic' Critique of Indicting Trump"

"A 'Water Pistol Unnecessarily Preceding' a "Missile-Launching F-35 Attack": Thoughts on the New York Trump Indictment"

 

Comments

[ReaderY]

I notice that while there have been several posts on this topic, they have consisted, like this one, of advertisements for discussions on other fora. The fact that posters don’t think this forum worth taking time to articulate their thoughts on may say something about it what its stature is today compared to the past. What, I’m not so sure.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm more concerned about hour long transcript free interviews. I don't mind following links to text elsewhere, so long as it's not paywalled, but I read a LOT faster than I can listen.

In to it a bit, I see Somin just assumes that Trump's guilt is self-evident. No surprise there.

[Orbital Mechanic]

In to it a bit, I see Somin just assumes that Trump’s guilt is self-evident. No surprise there.

No it is not self-evident. There is plenty of evidence

Otherwise professional prosecutors would not bother bringing the cases through grand juries and a court. I would bet money that their reputations are worth much more to them than any fealty to some political cause.

[Mr. Bumble]

I was unaware that there was such a thing as "professional prosecutors". I guess they're like "experts". Why even bother with trials?

[Bob from Ohio]

To think that Bragg and Willis at least are not politically motivated is certainly a take.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course there are "professional" prosecutors. All it means is that they're paid to do it, you know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Really????

Exactly when did they cease being human beings?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"their reputations are worth much more to them than any fealty to some political cause"

That guy who lost unanimously in the Supreme Court seems to have kept his reputation intact.

[Michael Ejercito]

Who lost unanimously in the Supreme Court?

[Bob from Ohio]

Jack Smith in the McConnell bribery case.

[David Nieporent]

Even if you weren't trolling, which of course you are, Jack Smith neither briefed nor argued the case at the Supreme Court, so I'm not clear why it would affect his reputation that the Supreme Court decided to reinterpret a law differently than lower courts had interpreted it for years.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

…and this sort of excuse is how prosecutors preserve their reputations intact in the face of getting smacked down in the courts.

If you can defend a prosecutor who gets smacked down unanimously by the highest court in the land (liberal and conservative members alike joining to condemn him) – what excuse *wouldn’t* you make for an unsuccessful prosecution?

So much for the original claim that prosecutors wouldn’t dare risk their reputations by prosecuting a bad case.

Of course, Trump may be guilty as sin, but to believe this, I’d need a verdict or verdicts from actual trial jurors (with correct legal instructions), not blind faith in prosecutors who have nothing to lose whatever the outcome of the case may be.

[David Nieporent]

Smith did not "get smacked down in the courts." The district court agreed with him (obviously). The circuit court unanimously agreed with him. (Well, again, not him; he was not part of the appeal, but it agreed with his position.) And then the Supreme Court said, "We think the statute should from now on be interpreted more narrowly."

There is a huge difference between bringing a case foreclosed by precedent and having all the judges to whom you bring the case laugh at you and say, "Um, we've told you that's not the law," and bringing a case about an unsettled area of law, having a bunch of judges agree with you, and then having SCOTUS saying, "No, we think it should be narrower than that."

If you can defend a prosecutor who gets smacked down unanimously by the highest court in the land (liberal and conservative members alike joining to condemn him) – what excuse *wouldn’t* you make for an unsuccessful prosecution?

Precisely zero of the justices "condemned" Smith.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I simply suggest waiting for jurors to pronounce on the various accusations, rather than trust simply trust the prosecutors, as one of the commenters above suggested.

If the Supreme Court unanimously says that a prosecutor's theory, and the judge's instructions, allowed a citizen to be convicted for what might not have been a crime at all, then I'm not going to be bedazzled by appeals to simply trust that prosecutor in future cases. Would you?

[David Nieporent]

I can't answer that because I don't have the foggiest idea what you mean by "trust" the prosecutor. Trust the prosecutor about what? To do what?

Note that contrary to your claim, none of the commenters above suggested anything of the kind. In fact, ctrl-F reveals that you are the only person who used the word "trust" in this entire comment thread. (Yes, yes, until I did while responding to and quoting you.)

[Noscitur a sociis]

I simply suggest waiting for jurors to pronounce on the various accusations, rather than trust simply trust the prosecutors, as one of the commenters above suggested.

I note that the Trump partisans commenters commenting here appear to be disputing precisely zero of the factual allegations in the various indictments.

[MaddogEngineer]

The issue isn’t the existence of evidence, somewhere. It’s whether any such evidence has been adjudicated/recognized in a way that satisfies due process.

If you’ve been captured as POW as part of an insurgent army (Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia) there exists “evidence” of insurrection. The surrender recorded those who were captured, it’s an objective fact that Robert E. Lee was one of those paroled.

That’s a very different factual question than whether Trump’s conduct on/before January 6 rose to the level of inciting/supporting an insurrection. Absent non-ephemeral military action, civil courts are in operation which requires a criminal conviction to make such a determination.

Otherwise one could also seek to disqualify other elected officials who spoke in support of BLM rioters, maybe even make a RICO case. Because I’m old enough to remember when some people at the NY Times (and elsewhere) got the vapors about Senator Tom Cotton advocated for invoking the Insurrection Act in response to urban riots. It's only an insurrection if the other guys are doing it. This is why the Framers codified treason in the Constitution, because it had been employed as a political weapon throughout English history.

[Sarcastr0]

civil courts are in operation which requires a criminal conviction to make such a determination.

I don’t think this is generally accepted as true.

Otherwise one could also seek to disqualify other elected officials who spoke in support of BLM rioters
There are many differences between Trump's actions and Floyd/BLM that cannot just be waved away. One clue is how no one mentioned the word insurrection until J6.

maybe even make a RICO case.
It's never RICO.

I’m old enough to remember when some people at the NY Times (and elsewhere) got the vapors about Senator Tom Cotton advocated for invoking the Insurrection Act in response to urban riots. It’s only an insurrection if the other guys are doing it.
Are you conflating the invoking of the insurrection act with the crime of insurrection with Article 3 of the 14A? Because those are all different things that you cannot assume operate the same way.

This is why the Framers codified treason in the Constitution, because it had been employed as a political weapon throughout English history.
Insurrection is also in the Constitution.

[Josh R]

Assuming 14/3 doesn't require a criminal conviction (which seems right to me), I don't see how 14/3 is implicated by the BLM riots. They don't strike me as an insurrection. Jan 6 sure does.

[Armchair Lawyer]

One of the issue there is that it is "how you feel about it"

You "feel" the BLM riots weren't an insurrection. Nor the Trump inauguration riots I imagine. But you "feel" January 6th was.

One could imagine that different people would "feel" the opposite. Or that both were. Or that neither were.

There is in general a problem with disqualifying individuals from a public office based purely on how an individual "feels" about it. Things like court decisions, convictions, etc, are pretty important to upholding the rule of law.

Plenty of people "felt" Obama wasn't a natural born citizen. And thought he couldn't be President, as a result. But there of course, there were a number of lawsuits. And the courts did not uphold that.

If an individual "felt" Trump was guilty of insurrection, the proper remedy would be via the courts. For an individual in power to unilaterally disqualify Trump because of how they felt, without any civil or criminal process would be an abuse of power.

[Josh R]

We should start with what constitutes an insurrection as the term was used in 14/3. Baude and Paulsen felt it was “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government to execute the laws in at least some significant respect.” Makes sense to me.

It seems obvious that the Jan 6 riot fits within that definition, but the BLM riots do not (looting of stores and destruction of property aren’t an attack on government’s authority to execute laws). I’m not familiar with the inauguration riots, but if they were intended to keep Trump from taking the oath, they too would seem to fit.

If a secretary of state invokes 14/3 to keep Trump off the ballot, the courts will review that decision de novo.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You may consider the BLM protests also attacked a federal courthouse in Portland and destroyed a police station in Seattle and in Minneapolis. Seems a pretty attack on government’s authority to execute laws

Personally, I would consider that “concerted, forcible resistance to the authority of government.” Wouldn’t you?

What about those who supported or provided aid to those who actively destroyed city police stations? What should happen to them?

[Josh R]

That's possible. Who provided support or aid for these particular acts, and what was the nature of the support or aid?

[Sarcastr0]

Someone's going to bring up the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.

After the police in Seattle tried crowd suppression and it failed, they boarded up their building and moved out. It was an unlawful protest via occupation.

Not concerted,
Not forcible
A protest, not actually resistance to the authority of government
The government in fact *never attempted* to execute the laws, they just withdrew to deescalate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, Sarcastr0, you can't turn an insurrection into peaceful protest by just pretending that there wasn't any violence, pretending it wasn't organized. And that's all you're doing here: Pretending.

Yeah, that looks totally non-violent to me.

I understand that you want "insurrection" to be a legal club only your side gets to bash people with, I really do. But it doesn't work like that, and nobody's going to play along with your demand that groups like Antifa get an exemption when THEY drive the police out of an area and take over.

[Sarcastr0]

No attempt to overturn the peaceful transfer of power as was the demonstrated desires of the American People?

Trump lost and used fraud and violence and treats to try and not lose.

This was a protest where the cops left. And people who did wrong went to jail.

You support the bad guys.

[Nige]

'you can’t turn an insurrection into peaceful protest by just pretending that there wasn’t any violence'

You can't turn any violence into an insurrection just because you've been bamboozled by a multiple-bankrupt fraudster reality show host.

[David Nieporent]

If you’ve been captured as POW as part of an insurgent army (Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia) there exists “evidence” of insurrection. The surrender recorded those who were captured, it’s an objective fact that Robert E. Lee was one of those paroled.

I'm sorry, but you think that when hundreds or thousands of rebel soldiers surrendered/were captured, that they… looked at all of their drivers' licenses? Photographed them all? Took their fingerprints? What evidence do you think they had that would be sufficient to identify all rebel soldiers beyond a reasonable doubt in a future criminal case, if such a standard were required?

[Kazinski]

Court rooms all over the country have cases heard every day where guilt is self evident. But there is still a trial, the evidence is presented, and the accused can confront the witnesses and the evidence.

Self evident has always taken a back seat to proof beyond a reasonable doubt presented in a court of law.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, when we're talking about a criminal conviction. Not when appliying section 3 of 14A.

[Bob from Ohio]

He links to 6 VC posts.

Somin has always pimped his radio appearances.

[con_fuse9]

One thing you will find in reason - and even in Volokh subsections is essentially two types. Those that will support Donald Trump till the end and those that will hate Donald Trump till the end.

Neither side will concede an inch. Thus it becomes a shouting match - or rather, a waste of time.

Back in the early days of the open Internet, discussion lists usually had rules like - no name calling or the one I liked the "no 'ME TOO'" post. If your not adding either facts or analysis you weren't adding anything of value and some form of punishment would follow. Banned for a week etc.

You can still find archives of lists like the "hotrod list" that banned any form of "Ford vs. Chevy vs. Mopar" - instead, find discussions on how to make your own Freon replacement (hint: it involves butane!). The moderator once used the term 'Jap' cars and was called out on it. To which he responded "I fought against them in the Pacific, I believe I have a right to call them 'Japs'" He of course didn't punish himself but he also refrained from doing it again.

[Drewski]

"Back in the early days of the open Internet, discussion lists usually had rules like – no name calling or the one I liked the “no ‘ME TOO'” post. If your not adding either facts or analysis you weren’t adding anything of value and some form of punishment would follow. Banned for a week etc."

Professor Volokh rejects that model for ideological reasons and is convinced that unmoderated discussion leads to a better social environment and more robust debate. He feels this so strongly, despite the evidence at his own blog, that he puts considerable effort into attempting to force all Americans into his preferred model via legislation and legal action. It's a regular theme at this blog, one that has caused me to lose a measure of respect for the professor over the years.

[Kazinski]

I guess EV runs a pretty tight plantation.

[Jacob Grimes]

Thank god for another Trump post! The 500+ Trump discussions in every Thursday open thread for the past three years just haven't been enough for me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you equally bothered by the steady stream of transgender sorority drama, Muslim, drag queen, white grievance, transgender rest room, Black crime, lesbian, and transgender rest room posts provided by Prof. Volokh?

What about the incessant, multifaceted bigotry that is the signature element of this white, male, conservative blog?

Or is it just Trump posts that aggravate you.

In any event, Prof. Volokh is working overtime to avoid adding to the Trump-Eastman-Clark content at this cowardly, polemic blog.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah Coach, get that you're establishing your "Dominance" on your Cell Block
On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges.[6][7] Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012, to 30 to 60 years in prison.[8] On October 18, 2012, Sandusky's lawyers appealed his conviction in Centre County Court in Pennsylvania. They claim that they did not have enough time to prepare for their client's case.[9] On October 31, 2012, Sandusky was moved to Pennsylvania's SCI Greene "supermax" prison to serve his sentence.[10] On January 30, 2013, Pennsylvania Judge John Cleland denied Sandusky's request for a new trial.[11]

Frank "Guilty!"

[Brett Bellmore]

"Maga heads"? Sheesh, no animosity here!

[Randal]

MAGA is defined by animosity, so settle down.

Majoritarian Anger, Grievances, and Animosity

[Krychek_2]

Except the MAGAs aren't the majority, even though they may have convinced themselves otherwise. The majority would be happy if Trump just went away.

Although MAGA is an acronym for My Attorneys Get Attorneys.

[Randal]

True, but their anger, grievances, and animosity are all based on the false belief that they're the majority. Their ideology is majoritarian in nature.

[Frank Drackman]

And Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

[Ben_]

“Finally, I did a detailed Russian-language interview…”

Did you tell them about how earth-shatteringly important a 90-day moratorium on travel to the US from Yemen was in 2017? The world almost ended because people from Yemen couldn't come here for a short time.

[Bob from Ohio]

I don't speak Russian so I'd learn more than from his English posts.

[con_fuse9]

I knew I felt a bit safer in 2017... for 90 days... Thanks Trump!

As long as we didn't do it because we are ignorant Islamaphobes, I'm OK with it.

[Brett Bellmore]

“First, the actual statement by Trump is, “Find me 11,780 votes”

Here’s the call transcript. I went through it, looked in detail at every single appearance of the word “find”. The phrase “find me” occurs nowhere.

He never said that. He never even said anything that meant that, if you care about the rules of grammar.

Agorizer, if you read the damned transcript, is precisely right about what Trump actually asked for, and Somin is WRONG.

Trump was saying that, if you just bothered to look for them, there were more than enough votes that were illegally counted to exceed the 11,780 margin of the election.

How the hell is it possible that Somin is still wrong about what Trump actually said, so confidently wrong, when there’s a damned transcript he could just sit down and read?

[windycityattorney]

The important transcript we need is from the Sec of State's grand jury testimony. Because that is likely to mirror closely his trial testimony as the questions will be of a similar nature. If he testified that he "felt pressured" or "threatened" or 'intimidated' to do something in his official capacity that he thought he could not legally do, then I think quibbling over exactly how Trump asked him to change the State's election results won't matter to a jury hearing the Sec of State testifying at the trial. You are focusing on one little snippet when the overall tone and theme of the call matters.

[Michael Ejercito]

Even if true, hiow would it prove a crime?

[windycityattorney]

By itself, it doesn't. But you are dealing with conspiracy and this example is one overt act among many and when looked at collectively toward the overarching goal of the conspiracy [to wit: reverse the outcome of the election so Trump wins] it is pretty persuasive evidence towards that end.

Asking a state election official to take an official act that is illegal (under state law) and threatening potential legal consequences if they don't is also called other things. But in this context, it is part of a wider theory that Trump et al resorted to legal (state court) challenges first and when that failed they resorted to extra-legal means to achieve a goal. Like threatening a Sec of State with criminal charge for not doing what they ask, seizing voting machines, certifying fake electors, etc...etc...

[Drewski]

It would give the jury a factual basis to use to determine wether an element of the charged crime was met. Do you even law, bro?

[David Nieporent]

When exactly nobody said to Twitter, "Delete these posts or the government will punish you," Brett somehow managed to find those exact words in the so-called Twitter Files. When Trump says, "I need you to 'find' votes, and if you don't it's a crime," Brett somehow can't figure out that Trump is telling them to fraudulently manufacture votes.

[Michael Ejercito]

There was nothing criminal about what Trump saying “I need you to ‘find’ votes, and if you don’t it’s a crime,”.

[Sarcastr0]

Ipse dixit all you want, a grand jury and prosecutor have found otherwise.

[Michael Ejercito]

The thing is, merely asking someone to find votes is a petition for the redress of grievances, fully protected by the First Amendment.

If you had asked for what Trump asked, you would not have been prosecuted.

I do not take stock into what grand juries and prosecutors say, not after what happened to Rick Perry.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, check out the crimes Trump is going up for - it's not for petitioning for redress, lol.

You will refuse all indictments, convictions, confessions, etc. You're not playing for facts, you are playing for owning the libs.

[Randal]

How exactly would Sarcastr0 threaten the Secretary of State of Georgia?

[Josh R]

It's not protected speech if Trump knew he was perpetrating a fraud.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, merely asking someone to find votes is a petition for the redress of grievances, fully protected by the First Amendment.

The thing is, no.

[Frank Drackman]

The thing is, yes.
Sorry your political beliefs don't correlate. It's like how Senescent/Parkinsonian Joe beat up teenage black "toughs", Supported White Supremercist Strom Thurmond, Opposed School Busing, and fucked up the Afghanistan Surrender worse than 1: A "Football Bat", 2: a "Basketball Glove",

Frank

[bernard11]

Brett,

I read the damn transcript. And the strongest conclusion I drew is that Trump is raving lunatic who says whatever he pleases and makes shit up right and left.

No one could possibly read that and come away thinking he is sane.

[Brett Bellmore]

To a limited extent I'd agree with you. Thinking he'd manage to produce enough evidence of illegal votes to actually result in the system replacing Biden with him was at best insanely optimistic, at worst delusional.

But he's not charged with being delusional about his chances.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett's still inching towards that 2020 trutherism.

[Michael Ejercito]

In what way?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Obviously by implying that, but for "the system", Trump had a snowballs chance in hell of showing there was fraud of magnitude anywhere close to being decisive.

Investigations and recounts galore, but no evidence of anything close to that fact.

Trump was and is a raving lunatic who either says whatever he thinks you are stupid enough to believe or has dangerously unhinged delusions about reality.

[Nige]

He didn't produce 'not enough,' he produced precisely none. You can't keep claiming to really believe the election was fraudulent when you have no evidence for it whatsoever. Everyone's conflating *acting* delusional with actually being delusional. It was so outrageously fake that describing it as 'delusional' is a metaphor, but he wasn't and isn't. He knew he was lying. How do we know? He had absolutely not a single shred of evidence to back up his claims.

[Josh R]

Do you agree his delusions make him unfit for the presidency?

[bernard11]

He's charged with acts committed as a result of his delusions.

[con_fuse9]

"I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes"
" Because all we have to do Cleta is find 11,000-plus votes."

Was the phone call illegal? By itself, probably not (my personal opinion). It conjunction with a scheme to appoint Trump favorable electors and the layer scheme to a) Get Georgia to overturn its election and if that doesn't work b) Have congress reject Georgia's electors and if that doesn't work c) Have Pence do it.
Its kinda like the mob - asking for charitable donations is not illegal, combined with either vailed threats or actual threats would be.

On the otherhand, I think Trump (and by extension all his cult followers) really believe they won Georgia by hundreds of thousands of votes. Nothing the Georgia politicians said could dissuade Trump even one iota. Even the dead people voting - where outsiders don't have enough information to determine who died (no access to birth month or day and no access to SS number) - just name and birth year (how many John Smiths died in 2012? or 2013?) and there is at least preliminary evidence that everyone on the list was very much alive.

So if you really believe something is true, can that belief ever lead to fraud? Maybe not for Trump... but he has smarter people working for him...

[Michael Ejercito]

It conjunction with a scheme to appoint Trump favorable electors and the layer scheme to a) Get Georgia to overturn its election and if that doesn’t work b) Have congress reject Georgia’s electors and if that doesn’t work c) Have Pence do it.
Its kinda like the mob – asking for charitable donations is not illegal, combined with either vailed threats or actual threats would be.

Such as scheme was not a crime.

When John Podesta called for intelligence agencies to brief the electors in 2016, it was a scheme to overturn the 2016 election. That was not a crime.

The whole point of the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign was to first win the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton, then to overturn the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton, and finally, to sabotage the transfer of power to Donald Trump. Those goals were not crimes.

What were crimes were the Clinton Campaign paying for the Steele dossier and concealing the source of funding, and Kevin Clinesmith lying on a FISA warrant application to obtain a warrant against Carter Page.

[Josh R]

I don't see any scheme in 2016 because the only post-election action was Podesta's call to brief electors (what happened before the election is ordinary hardball politics). But, had their been a scheme to steal the 2016 election after the fact and sabotage the transfer of power, there is an excellent argument they too would be crimes.

[David Nieporent]

What Kevin Clinesmith did was indisputably a crime (he pled guilty!), but it also had nothing to do with overturning an election. If Clinesmith's alteration of the single email had succeeded, then… the U.S. could have continued to monitor Carter Page's communications for three more months. Which is, in fact, what happened. It was not about installing Hillary Clinton as president. It could not have resulted in that, no matter what. There's no evidence that Clinesmith had a political motive, AFAIK, but even if he did, the only thing he could've been doing was trying to put Mike Pence into the Oval Office.

[bernard11]

So if you really believe something is true, can that belief ever lead to fraud?

Of course it can.

If I really believe I've paid off my mortgage can I forge some documents and get the lien removed?

[Social Justice is neither]

Because he is lying as a State propagandist and apologist.

[Nige]

'Trump was saying that, if you just bothered to look for them, there were more than enough votes that were illegally counted to exceed the 11,780 margin of the election.'

But this can be dismissed since he had absolutely no basis for saying any such thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Trump was saying that, if you just bothered to look for them, there were more than enough votes that were illegally counted to exceed the 11,780 margin of the election.

The disaffected, autistic, bigoted, obsolete perspective is always a treat and customarily provided by Mr. Bellmore.

[Z Crazy]

I read that Brandon aided and comforted the Taliban. Does that make him disqualified?

[windycityattorney]

I heard that Trump made a deal with the Taliban that resulted in someone (among a lot of prisoners) being released from jail and that same person is now head of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Does that make Trump disqualified?

[Z Crazy]

maybe

[grb]

I heard that Trump signed a treaty with the Taliban with no input from our allies in the Afghan government. I heard that agreement pledged a total withdrawal of U.S. forces in return for the empty promise the Taliban would become sweet, nurturing, and brotherly. I heard Trump withdrew almost all U.S. forces despite without zero reciprocal action by the Taliban - save they limited their attacks on the small U.S. force remaining.

And that’s the situation Biden inherited. I really wonder how anyone can be so ignorant about recent history as Z Crazy. It’s like he knows nothing about Afghanistan whatsoever.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I’m getting awfully tired of that mug shot. He looks like a six year old boy who’s been running up points in Super Mario Bros. and been told to put it away because it’s bedtime.

[Mr. Bumble]

To bad. Nobody cares. Go get ready for your next movie revue.

[Drewski]

I can tell how little you care by how you reply to every comment he makes within minutes. Also your translation app failed you: "Review." A rare error for an English speaker but a common one for language apps.

[Mr. Bumble]

It was intentional:
revue
rĭ-vyoo͞′
noun

1. A musical show consisting of skits, songs, and dances, often satirizing current events, trends, and personalities.
2.A form of theatrical entertainment in which recent events, popular fads, etc., are parodied.
3.Any entertainment featuring skits, dances, and songs.A variety show with topical sketches and songs and dancing and comedians.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
More at Wordnik

[NvEric]

While the A14 route seems worthwhile, I suggest greater avenues of merit lies in two other, yet unexplored, areas. Earnestly researched and extrapolated to their fullest depths, such elements would bear greater and be more compelling to vacate Mr. Trump from the scene. Firstly, there's the chemical attack from substances such as the soap used by Mr. Trump. Secondly, the greater one, in the obvious bio-hazard attack introduced by Mr. Trump's sweat. Logic delves in these for greater and more outstanding fruit.

[hoppy025]

Looks like a black Obama judge ruled against Meadows' removal motion. What a shocker.

[David Nieporent]

The thing about racists is how stupid all of their "ideas" are. By rejecting Meadows' motion, this "black Obama judge" left Meadows' prosecution in the hands of a white Republican judge — exactly the opposite of what he would do if he were acting as a "black Obama judge."

[Mr. Bumble]

Most likely immediate outcome is appeal to the 11th Circuit.

[hoppy025]

Yes, a white Republican judge with a jury of at least 9 blacks. You're a fool.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and the Queen loves to talk out of his/her ass when it isn't hosting a friend.

[MaddogEngineer]

Experts!

[Michael Ejercito]

We can only assume Ilya Somin is acting in bad faith.

[Brett Bellmore]

Makes perfect sense when he was saying that he wanted to find illegal votes. Which would then be thrown out.

Mind you, he was on a probably futile quest, because proving there were more illegal votes than the margin of victory wouldn't have legally established that HE was the actual winner; You couldn't prove who they'd been cast for, after all! The downside of ballot secrecy.

Courts will normally only throw out election results on such a showing if it's a minor local election that can be reheld, and even then it's like pulling teeth to get them to do it. There's no provision for rerunning a Presidential election.

I suppose if he'd produced 5-10 times the margin of victory in illegal votes, he might have had enough leverage to get the result decertified...

[Randal]

Oh, bee. Here comes Bumble, the ass-play bee!

[David Nieporent]

The fact that there were roughly 0 fraudulent votes doesn't seem to give Brett any pause in this fantasy of his.

[Randal]

I just want to find 11,780 votes.

You're upset because Ilya summarized that as "Find me 11,780 votes"?

Oh my god. Pathetic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, damn it. If you say, "Trump's actual statement was", what follows should, you know, be Trump's actual statement. Not a mangled paraphrase that actually means something different, and very relevantly so.

I can, if I squint, see how you could, with a lot of imagined winking and nodding, (Somehow transmitted over the phone...) interpret "find me 11K votes" as "manufacture for me 11K votes". But "let me look for 11K votes" takes a hell of a lot more squinting, more than I've got on tap.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am in awe of the level of delusion necessary to think any election of significant magnitude in the US has 0 fraudulent votes.

And I didn't say "fraudulent", I said "illegal", and that word choice was deliberate. Any departure from mandatory election procedure makes the resulting votes illegal, regardless of whether whoever filled out the ballot was committing fraud.

[Frank Drackman]

there's no evidence JFK was shot by the CIA, haven't seen him for awhile, pretty sure he's dead

[Randal]

"Let me look for?" Now who's mangling their paraphrases?

Let's see from context which mangled paraphrase is more accurate, yours or Ilya's.

I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new and they don’t have a seal and there’s the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt. And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen.

You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

I would say, not only is Ilya's more accurate, even it downplays the gist of the statement. A more accurate paraphrase would be "Find me 11,780 votes or else!"

[Sarcastr0]

You make up from whole cloth the way state institutions must work so you can call said institutions' actions illegal.

No on buys it, certainly not Trump. You're just a passionate defender of a hill zero people want to join you on.

[Sarcastr0]

Look, based on zero evidence I was just innocently trying to figure out how the election I didn't like the outcome of was "wrong".

[Randal]

Any departure from mandatory election procedure makes the resulting votes illegal, regardless of whether whoever filled out the ballot was committing fraud.

I don't think this is true at all. Absent evidence of intent i.e. fraud, vote counters are generally very generous about unintentional mistakes. They don't want to throw out a bunch of legitimate votes on technicalities, like, you didn't fill the bubble in quite all the way even though the instructions say that's how you have to do it.

[bernard11]

I am in awe of the level of delusion necessary to think any election of significant magnitude in the US has 0 fraudulent votes.

And I am in awe of the level of delusion necessary to think that any fraudulent votes were necessarily cast for Biden, so should just be subtracted from his total. How the hell are you going to throw out votes if you don't know who they were cast for?

Is it your opinion that Republicans are all angels?

[David Nieporent]

ny departure from mandatory election procedure makes the resulting votes illegal, regardless of whether whoever filled out the ballot was committing fraud.

100% false, as is always the case when you attempt to discuss law.

[David Nieporent]

I am in awe of the level of delusion necessary to think any election of significant magnitude in the US has 0 fraudulent votes.

What does the word "roughly" mean to you?

[Mr. Bumble]

Randal is in today (substituting for Nige) as one of the Double Dumbfuck Twins.

[Randal]

What's that buzzing!

[Nige]

'Thanks for showing us who you really are. Again.'

[Mr. Bumble]

GaslightO.

[Don Nico]

bernard,
"necessary to think that any fraudulent votes were necessarily cast for Biden,"
he did not say that.. Now you may think that he implied it.. and maybe he did.
But his simple declaratory with no "he-implied" added is most likely true.

[Life of Brian]

Yes, thanks -- agree the broader context is quite instructive. From the assertive, lockstep reporting, I certainly never would have imagined he was actually looking to demonstrate that at least ~12k votes Biden that had already been counted were in fact fraudulent. Here's some more:

But we have a number of things. We have at least 2 or 3 — anywhere from 250-300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls. Much of that had to do with Fulton County, which hasn’t been checked. We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged
* * *
We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted but they weren’t on the voter registration roll which they had to be. You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.
* * *
You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia but they were from out of state, of 4,925. You had absentee ballots sent to vacant, they were absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses. They had nothing on them about addresses, that’s 2,326.
* * *
Ballots were dropped in massive numbers. And we’re trying to get to those numbers and we will have them.

They’ll take a period of time. Certified. But but they’re massive numbers. And far greater than the 11,779.
* * *
But Brad, if you took the minimum numbers where many, many times above the 11,779 and many of those numbers are certified, or they will be certified but they are certified. And those are numbers that are there that exist. And that beat the margin of loss, they beat it, I mean by a lot and people should be happy to have an accurate count instead of an election where there’s turmoil.

If you took, these are the most minimal numbers, the numbers that I gave you, those are numbers that are certified, your absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses, your out of state voters 4,925. You know when you add them up, it’s many more times, it’s many times the 11,779 number.
* * *
Oh, I don’t know, look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state.
* * *
Mr. President and Cleta, this is Kurt Hilbert, if I might interject for a moment. Um Ryan, I would like to suggest just four categories that have already been mentioned by the president that have actually hard numbers of 24,149 votes that were counted illegally. That in and of itself is sufficient to change the results or place the outcome in doubt. We would like to sit down with your office and we can do it through purposes of compromise and just like this phone call, just to deal with that limited category of votes. And if you are able to establish that our numbers are not accurate, then fine. However, we believe that they are accurate. We’ve had now three to four separate experts looking at these numbers.

Regardless of what you think of the merits, the message itself reads very consistently from top to bottom. Given that, why do you suppose the crop-quoting paraphrasers are all so hot to trot that he was asking to find additional Trump votes that had not indeed been counted?

[Randal]

I would not find criminal liability on this call alone, if that's what you're asking.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You think it somehow saves Trump that, ever the salesman, part of his spiel was "there were many more illegal ballots than 11,779, so I just need you to find 11,780"?

With his explicit threat to Raffensberger: "it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen."

Sure, he's claiming they have evidence of massive fraud that could change hundreds of thousands of votes, but we now know that was all bullshit and it's likely Trump knew it at the time. More to the point, of course, he said there were way more votes to find than what he needed, but we can just settle on exactly what I need, right?

[bernard11]

Can you read that and not conclude that Trump is either batshit crazy or willing to say whatever pops into his head?

[Armchair Lawyer]

Why don’t you qualify that “roughly” with a number for us.

As in “less than X number of fraudulent votes”

I mean, there were over 150 million votes in the 2020 US presidential election. Just a million fraudulent votes would be less than 1%. So "roughly" zero.

We’ll wait for you to define yourself.

[bernard11]

Don,

True as far as it goes, but why would Trumpists want votes thrown out unless they thought they were all Biden votes?

That's really a common theme in these discussions. "Throw out the (imaginary) illegal votes and Trump wins. The logic doesn't exactly look airtight.

[bernard11]

I would guess that the actual number is a very small fraction of one million, and that many of those were unintentional mistakes.

I would also guess that they were approximately equally divided between the candidates.

[Armchair Lawyer]

We'll wait for David to define himself. I won't "guess" for him....

[Randal]

I feel like "roughly zero" sounds about right. What more are you looking for?

Look at it this way. There's practically zero incentive for someone to cast like one fraudulent vote. Just... vote. Probably a few nutjobs do, but "roughly zero."

And "roughly zero" excludes any large-scale fraud.

That's what "roughly zero" means.

[grb]

“Vote fraud in the United States is exceedingly rare, with mailed ballots and otherwise. Over the past 20 years, about 250 million votes have been cast by a mail ballot nationally. The Heritage Foundation maintains an online database of election fraud cases in the United States and reports that there have been just over 1,200 cases of vote fraud of all forms, resulting in 1,100 criminal convictions, over the past 20 years. Of these, 204 involved the fraudulent use of absentee ballots; 143 resulted in criminal convictions.

Let’s put that data in perspective.

One hundred forty-three cases of fraud using mailed ballots over the course of 20 years comes out to seven to eight cases per year, nationally. It also means that across the 50 states, there has been an average of three cases per state over the 20-year span. That is just one case per state every six or seven years. We are talking about an occurrence that translates to about 0.00006 percent of total votes cast.

https://shass.mit.edu/news/news-2020-pandemic-voting-mail-safe-honest-and-fair-stewart

(Sounds pretty close to “roughly zero” to me)

[David Nieporent]

We’ll wait for David to define himself. I won’t “guess” for him….

I dunno… nationwide, divided among both candidates, a few hundred?

(To be clear, I am using the normal human definition of fraudulent — e.g., a ballot cast by someone pretending to be someone else, or by a non-existent person, or by someone voting more than once — and not Brett’s definition — e.g., a ballot accepted by election workers that was filled out in blue pen even though the instructions said to use a black pen.)

If you look at the tiny number of actual fraudulent voters found, the vast majority fit the fact pattern of "Absentee ballot came in the mail for my husband, who died a month ago, and I filled it out and returned it along with my own," or things like that. You have a few snowbirds who vote in both Florida and New York.

[Brett Bellmore]

You maintain a system where fraudulent votes are hard to find, and then brag that you're not finding fraudulent votes. I'm SO impressed.

[Sarcastr0]

Fraudulent votes are found all the time, Brett. it’s not hard to do. Ask Dinesh D’Souza.
Usually it’s Trump crazies.

It even been found at a scale that matters in local elections.

It’s not been found at a scale that matters in national elections because it’s not happening.

[David Nieporent]

Not clear on the Dinesh reference, Saracastr0; there are two things that I can think of relevant to voting:

1. His own felonious conduct. But that was for campaign finance violations, not for fraudulent voting.

2. His participation in the 2000 mules mockumentary. But that was a joke that found no fraudulent voting at all.

[grb]

Trump also said this to Raffensberger after the Georgia Secretary of State said there were zero grounds to deliver the votes Trump was demanding:

“And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated”

And Trump said this to the acting head of DOJ, Jeffery Rosen :

“just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen,”

That explains why Trump was willing to say whatever popped into his mind. That explains why Trump never had a coherent theory of voter fraud from one huckster pitch to the next. That explains why he threw out conspiracy gibberish like a monkey hurling feces at the zoo.

He was only interested in creating noise about “stolen elections”; facts were irrelevant. If he created enough noise (Trump thought), then there’d be no certification and HIS politicians and HIS judges and HIS Justices would hand the election to him. That Republican officials would honor their office and duties never occurred to him a second. He always assumed they were corrupt as he.

[grb]

David Nieporent : 100% false, as is always the case when you attempt to discuss law.

I don't think you're being entirely fair to Brett. His stance cleverly works around the total dishonesty of his position.

Say you're Brett and you want to be part of the "stolen election" crowd because they're your brethren. But that group is loony toons batshit crazy, which isn't a good look. And you're Brett : You like a veneer of faux-reasonableness to dress-up your lying. How can that gap be bridged?

Easy. Just suddenly discover an ironclad "principle" that any adjustment to voting procedures by the executive or judicial branch magically invalidates the vote. It's no problem (to Brett) that such adjustments can be found in every election during his sixty-plus years. It's no problem (to Brett) that his "principle" doesn't exist. The only important thing is he can now stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the crazies and has a pretend-argument to justify it.

[grb]

There's no evidence a rational thought ever flitted thru your brain, Frank.

Still, I'd like to give you the benefit of doubt. I really would. But you don't give us anything to work with.

[Don Nico]

No argument there.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's a fair complaint. What did I say above?

" proving there were more illegal votes than the margin of victory wouldn’t have legally established that HE was the actual winner; You couldn’t prove who they’d been cast for, after all!"

If you could prove 5-10 times as many illegal votes as the margin, and primarily in areas that went heavily Democratic, you'd have something. But even then the courts would rebuff you, because there's no available remedy!

Our system is deliberately set up to break the connection between ballot and voter just before the votes are cast, so that you can't prove how a particular person voted. That's supposed to stop people from selling their votes, or having them extorted into voting a particular way. (Which is why widespread absentee voting is so bad: It puts the secrecy of the vote on an honor system.)

The downside of that is that, once the votes are counted, there's no way to uncount them. Even if you proved 100K votes were illegally counted in Pennsylvania, you'd have no way of proving what the outcome would have been without those illegal votes. So, no remedy, so you can't win in court.

Look, I'm NOT saying that Trump was being reasonable. I'm saying that he wasn't extorting Raffensperger to manufacture votes for him.

And I'm objecting to a fake quote that continually gets attributed to Trump, and which Somin has evidently mistaken for real, that was manufactured specifically to create the impression that he was extorting Raffensperger to manufacture votes.

[David Nieporent]

Brett does that distancing thing a lot. Like birtherism. He knows it's insane, so instead of proclaiming that Obama was born in Kenya like outright birthers did, he took the position that "Well, I wasn’t in the hospital room when Obama was born so I can't really be 100% sure beyond a metaphysical doubt… and also the whole controversy [sic] is Obama's fault, the result of 15D chess by Obama to trick people into focusing on the issue."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to Brett.

If you are suggesting that people should cut some slack to delusional, antisocial, belligerently ignorant, autistic bigots, that seems a reasonable point. But only in the sense of feeling sorry for them and making allowances; not in the sense of accepting that anything they say is credible or reasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to have some weird obsession with me being obligated to avoid nuance.

Birtherism wasn't "insane", it's not like somebody just invented it, it was based on a PR handout Obama's own publicist originated. And kept alive, no matter how much you want it to go unnoticed, by Obama's own actions.

It was just probably wrong. Very probably wrong, but not categorically impossible.

My position on it all along was that they were very likely wrong, but they deserved to be proven wrong in a court hearing on the merits, because the natural born citizen clause IS in the Constitution, and I really hate the idea of "non-judiciable" constitutional clauses.

My view of the Section 3 claims against Trump is pretty much the same. They deserve a hearing in a court. Where I expect them to lose...

[David Nieporent]

Birtherism wasn’t “insane”, it’s not like somebody just invented it, it was based on a PR handout Obama’s own publicist originated. And kept alive, no matter how much you want it to go unnoticed, by Obama’s own actions.

Both of those statements are not nuance, but a flat out lie in every respect. There is zero truth to any of it.
​
​
I was going to leave it at that, but I'll expand:

1) There was no such "Obama's own publicist."
2) The thing that you are referring to, that did not come from any "Obama's own publicist," was not the origin of the birther lie. It is in fact 100% the case that someone invented it. You are fabricating a timeline when you pretend that someone said, "Look, I found this thing somewhere that says he was born in Kenya, so maybe we should question his birth." The birther lie came first, and then desperate losers who were willing to pretend that a birth certificate and a birth announcement in the paper had been fabricated came across this.
3) Obama denied it and produced his birth certificate refuting it. That was more than he was obligated to do, but he did it. He didn't keep it alive. Malicious and insane Republicans did, by claiming the birth certificate was a forgery.