Sonny Tufts
Member

It refutes your fatuous claim that "elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state."

Bilge. A voter in Illinois has the right to vote for electors in Illinois but has no right to vote for electors in Georgia. His vote in Illinois isn't rendered meaningless or diminished by anything that happens in Georgia because if his vote is properly counted in Illinois that's all he's entitled to. You might as well allow California to sue Texas in the Supreme Court alleging that Texas's voter ID law violates equal protection and therefore damages CA or its citizens. And you can cite Douglas's dictum fom now until doomsday but it will always remain dictum, nothing more. Are you oblivious to the fact that the PA no-excuse mail-in voting procedure was enacted by a GOP-controlled legislature in 2019? Or that the act required any constitutional challenge to be brought within 180 days (which didn't happen)?

You can't remove language to try and shoehorn the rest into something the drafters didn't intend. All it means is that SC authorities can go on the land the fort is situated on and serve process. The legal matter the process is associated with doesn't have to involve the land itself. For example, if a soldier got into a bar fight in Charleston and someone he beat up sued him for assault, the summons could be served on him in the fort. If SC really wanted to serve an eviction notice it's doubtful anyone in the fort would have had the authority to accept service on behalf of the federal government. It's more likely someone in D.C. would need to be served. That's inconsistent with the language of the cession, under which SC transferred "all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory", which transfers ALL of SC's interest, not merely a leasehold.

The book cites a resolution passed by the South Carolina legislature in 1836 and recorded in the deed records in Charleston in 1840, both well before Reconstruction.

You misunderstand the language. It means simply that if someone in the fort is being sued in a civil suit or is being charged with a crime under South Carolina law process can be served upon him on the fort by South Caroina authorities. It has nothing to do with the fort's ownership. That doesn't follow. Even assuming the people "own" the federal government it means all of the people, not just South Carolinians. They would have no greater claim to the Fort than Virginians or Vemonters. But secession has no bearing on ownership. If South Carolina had sold the fort to the federal government would you seriously claim it could get it back by seceding? Or what if it sold cotton raised on state-owned land -- would the cotton suddenly become SC's property upon secession? The fact that the fort was ceded instead of sold is irrelevant. If someone makes a gift to you the subject of the gift is still your property even though you paid nothing for it, and the donor has no legal claim to it. The same applies to property that's ceded by a State. This is reinforced by I.8.17, which contemplates that the area comprising the Seat of Government of the United States would come from land ceded by States. Would you claim that when Virginia seceded it magically became the owner of the portion of D.C. that it had ceded?

That's because it was already owned by the United States. South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter to the federal government in 1836. https://books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false

All she said in her confirmation hearing is that she'd "consider" taxing unrealized capital gains; it wasn't a proposal. Such a rule is already in place for securities dealers, but it's totally impractical for average investors and has zero chances of being passed.

The reason this lying POS doesn’t talk about it is because it’s a totally bogus theory. Notice that Rose never points to anything in the Constitution that exempts any kind of income from taxation. He goes on and on bloviating about the regulation’s reference to income that’s not constitutionally taxable, but he conveniently never gives an example. But there’s a very good reason for that – there is no example. There used to be examples, but not because of any specific language in the Constitution. What happened was that beginning in the 19th century the Supreme Court held that certain kinds of income were exempt from federal taxation because of the federalism structure of the Constitution. In a series of cases the Court held that Congress couldn’t tax such things as the income earned by the States, the salaries of state employees, or interest on state and local obligations. The idea was that taxing such items would unduly interfere with the States’ governmental functioning. The drafters of the regulation Rose cites obviously had these decisions in mind, and when the regulation was promulgated interest on state and local obligations was still exempt. But what Rose never mentions is that all of these prior decisions were overruled by the Court itself, the last instance occurring in South Carolina v. Baker, 85 U.S. 505 (1988), in which the Court held that interest income from state and local obligations could be subject to federal taxation. So since 1988 there is no kind of income that’s constitutionally exempt except certain income earned by state and local governments. He also misrepresents the regulation under Section 861 as somehow exempting some income from taxation. It doesn’t.

He addressed it directly in his phone call with Trump. When Trump asked, "And Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? They put them in three times." Raffensperger replied, "Mr. President, they did not put that - we did an audit of that and we proved conclusively they were not scanned three times." Regarding the observers, the SoS said that the staff, not the observers, were told they would be discontinuing the counting at 10 and would resume in the morning. The observers then likely went home on their own accord (why stick around?). Of course, you probably think that this was done intentionally just to get rid of the observers so they could resume the nefarious counting after they'd left. But the Trumpers have never been able to explain why a pro-Trump Republican Governor, a pro-Trump Republican Secretary of State, and a pro-Trump Republican chief operating officer would have allowed this or any of the other alleged fraudulent actions to happen.

A lot of people don't want to examine Trump's claims for fear they'll discover that they've been had.

He and the Trump campaign claimed that the containers of ballots pulled from under the tables had been added in secret, when in fact they were sealed and placed under the tables in full view of the monitors. So it wasn't just a case of there being a lack of evidence to support a Trumpian claim; the actual evidence was to the contrary.

But if all this is true (and I'm not saying it is), why was it necessary for Guiliani and his cohorts to lie about the edited video?

When an agency is is given increased responsibilities but is underbudgeted and understaffed because its funding has been reduced, it's not incompetence and poor service should not be surprising.

I suggest you watch this piece, in which the chief operating officer for the Secretary of State (a Republican and Trump voter) explains exactly what happened, contrary to the lies put out by Trump's people. Watch the video at the top and the one marked "Sterling refutes election conspiracy". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-60-minutes-2021-01-10/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-60-minutes-2021-01-10/

If your last name is Trump or Kushner, it's free.

The January 6 date, as well as the objection procedure, comes from the Electoral Count Act, 3 USC § 15.

Well for starters, I think if a Trump toady like William Barr says there was no widespread fraud, there wasn't any. Of course, this won't satisfy those who think Barr is a Deep State mole, but there's no reasoning with such people. Here's a point-by-point refutation of the claims Trump made in his phone call with Secretary Raffensperger: https://sos.ga.gov/admin/uploads/Letter%20to%20Congress%20from%20Secretary%20Raffensperger%20(1-6-21).pdf Trump's claims of a stolen election have a 100% failure rate in court. But don't think that all of the courts dismissed the claims on procedural grounds. In Nevada, for example, a trial court ruled that there was "no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” The ruling was affirmed by a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court. An Arizona court found that the evidence presented "did not prove illegal votes, much less enough to affect the outcome of the election” and that "The court finds no fraud, no misconduct, and no effect on the outcome of the election...Plaintiff has not proven that the Biden/Harris ticket did not receive the highest number of votes.” And when given the opportunity to present evidence in a Georgia court, the Trump team voluntarily withdrew its suit the day before the hearing was to occur. https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/trump_legal_team_folds https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-drops-georgia-lawsuit-overturn-biden-win And when Trump's legal team resorted to presenting highly-edited and misleading video to Georgia Senators instead of honest evidence, you can bet there was nothing to support their claims. If Giuliani was aware of the edited video's mischaracterization of events, he should be disbarred.

It’s precisely because conduct warranting impeachment doesn’t need to constitute criminal conduct that the charge against Trump makes sense. While his January 6 speech, standing alone, probably doesn’t amount to inciting insurrection under the criminal statute, his actions preceding the speech coupled with it certainly amounts to impeachable conduct. Here’s the entire impeachment article (emphasis is mine): Additional conduct not specifically mentioned in the Article but clearly encompassed by the phrase “his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election” (and also alluded to by Trump in his speech) was his effort to have Pence not accept certified electoral votes from certain states, something Pence had absolutely no authority to do under the Constitution. Fortunately, Pence had the integrity to recognize this and to send a letter to Congress on January 6 in which he explained he has no such authority, thereby causing some of the rioters to scream for his death. There is no question that Trump's conduct warranted impeachment.

Most legal scholars agree with that position. https://apnews.com/article/a4ac94cbde7e34c953dce82d0f60d0a4

Given that Trump has a long history of stiffing people including dishwashers, bartenders, plumbers, and painters, the probability approaches certainty. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/

One person with experience with Trump had advice for Giuliani:

The dual-sovereignty rule also applies to civilians. If someone commits an act that's a crime under both state and federal law, he can be tried by both sovereigns and there's no double jeopardy. See U.S. v Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922). Federal law has carved out a few exceptions involving carriers -- e.g., 18 USC §§ 659, 660, 1992, and 2117. The two-thirds threshold was changed to three-fourths in 2019. See UCMJ Art. 52(a)(3) (10 USC § 852(a)(3))

If Brooks' followers are gullible enough to believe all the lies about a "stolen election", they're probably gullible enough to believe he was referring to a donkey. Seriously, that's an unbelievably pathetic attempt by Brooks to cover his butt.

Maybe he heard the speech of Mo Brooks (a true scumbag and traitor to his oath), who said "Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass" and figured he didn't want to be in the middle of a riot.

So why didn't he march down Pennsylvania Avenue with them?

Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, who hadn't been convicted of anything.

"I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president". King (in his own mind) Donald Trump, July 23, 2019.