Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 20, 2023

"If I were to put the headline on Friday night, as an appeals lawyer, it would be: This is the very worst decision Donald Trump could get from the trial court."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Katyal noted the difference between the "factual finding" that Wallace said Trump committed insurrection and the "legal part" of her ruling that it doesn't apply to the presidency.

On appeal, "the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court" as "it's almost impossible to overturn a trial judge's factual finding," he said.

The legal findings can be overturned, Katyal explained, because "that's basically a fresh look at the legal thing."

But in this case, Wallace "factually made devastating findings against Trump and then looked at this legal technicality, which is the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of the president, which is so weak, even the judges themselves admitted that this would be preposterous."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-20 01:07 PM | Reply

In the eye of this legal typhoon, the judge hammers down a thunderous chord: Trump, the ringmaster, the central figure in this circus of insurrection. This isn't conjecture; it's a hard fact, as solid and undeniable as a fistful of dirt in the face of the American dream.

Picture this: a judge, with the meticulous zeal of a gonzo journalist, roots through the tangle of evidence and emerges with a pearl " the bold assertion that the man with the golden tower played puppeteer in a dance of defiance against the very fabric of the Republic.

Now, overturning this? It's like trying to erase your own shadow in the blistering Nevada sun. These facts are now etched in the narrative of the case, indelible and haunting as the aftertaste of adrenochrome.

This factual finding, that Trump was the maestro of mayhem, it's not some acid flashback; it's the bedrock of the ruling. And it'll cling to the case like bats to the roof of a cave as it soars to the dizzying heights of the Supreme Court.

So while that last page might be a curious footnote, a bizarre twist in the saga, it's the core revelation that Trump was the central conductor in this insurrection that really cranks the volume to eleven. And that, my friends, is the savage heart of this trip, the piece that will echo through the marble halls of justice as this psychedelic opera plays out its final act on the grandest stage of all.

Woman Yelling at Cat Meme - Judge's ruling on Trump

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-11-20 01:46 PM | Reply

Ah, adrenochrome. Someone's a fan of the good doctor. Don't forget the Ibogaine.

#3 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2023-11-20 03:09 PM | Reply

So the judge found a way to find trump guilty of insurrection without enraging his cult?

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-20 04:02 PM | Reply

Sounds to me like the judge knew no matter which way s/he ruled it would go to the supreme court. So s/he's set it up with that knowledge to have a heavy influence when it arrives to be considered. Judges are often smarter than the average layman gives them credit for.

#5 | Posted by BBQ at 2023-11-20 04:13 PM | Reply

5

I think you are exactly right.

Conspiracy planner John Eastman knew it too when he admitted that even Clarence Thomas would have trouble coming up with a rationalization to support Eastman's Fake Electors scheme, and the rest of the Court wouldn't even try.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2023-11-20 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wonder if a judge in a surprising State like say Kansas Mike conclude that in light of another States legal finding that Trump is guilty of insurrection he cannot appear on a Kansas ballot.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2023-11-20 05:38 PM | Reply

@#1 ... On appeal, "the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court" as "it's almost impossible to overturn a trial judge's factual finding," he said. ...

I remember back in the day, the Judge in a Microsoft trial issued "Findings of Fact" separate from the decision. I did not know at the time, but some lawyers on that message board said effectively the comment I quoted above.

U.S. V. Microsoft: Court's Findings Of Fact (1999)
www.justice.gov

Full set of docs...

U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation [Browser and Middleware]
www.justice.gov


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-11-20 06:51 PM | Reply

@#4 ... So the judge found a way to find trump guilty of insurrection without enraging his cult?...

That is the curious part of this.

Are Trump supporters so devoted to the cult that the ignore any outside information?


MAGA knows that Trump is the President, that Biden did not get elected, that Biden didn't win by 7+ million votes. Therefore, MAGA thinks we have an illegal president. This is how MAGA sees the world --- "They" (the Deep State) stole the election from Trump. Now "they" are so afraid of Trump that the only way "they" can stop Trump is to put him in jail. So, the more Trump gets indicted, the more MAGA is going to support him, because if they don't support him then MAGA just becomes a tool of the Deep State.
-- Stuart Stevens, The Lincoln Project Senior Adviser (paraphrased)


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-11-20 06:55 PM | Reply

@#8

I forgot to note...

A website that was a major source of excellent information regarding Microsoft litigation...

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
www.groklaw.net

Major thanks to that site.

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-11-20 07:05 PM | Reply

@#5 ... Sounds to me like the judge knew no matter which way s/he ruled it would go to the supreme court. ...

Yup.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-11-20 08:02 PM | Reply

#9-From my experience reading trumper posts, absolutely. You know, you've debated them 100's of times.

#12 | Posted by Yodagirl at 2023-11-20 09:00 PM | Reply

@#12 ... you've debated them 100's of times. ...

First off.. thanks for noting that. I do try.

But more important here, I doubt if anything I say will ever change the opinions held by those in the Trump Cult.

I hope to address more rational people with my comments.

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-11-20 09:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They don't write songs like this anymore...

Garry Lee and Showdown - The Rodeo Song (1982)
www.youtube.com

Lyrics excerpt (though I suspect there may be a lot of censoring...)

genius.com

...
Well, it's forty below and I don't give a ----
Got a heater in my truck and I'm off to the rodeo

(And) It's an allemande left and allemande right
C'mon you ------' dummy, get your right step right
Get off stage, you goddamn goof, get off
Piss me off, ------- jerk, get on my nerves
...


#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-11-20 09:27 PM | Reply

General question: sometimes the Supreme Court turns away cases - how does that happen? Would they consider turning this away.

I appreciate Neal Katyal's opinion, love watching his appearances on MSNBC - but what he calls "factual" - that Trump engaged in insurrection. Couldn't that be very subjective? I mean - I believe he did but there's a case to be argued he did not (hence, impeachment is available).

Finally - how in the world did this judge come to the conclusion that the President is not part of this Amendment? I don't get that. Did the judge try to rule so crazy that is has to be overturned?

#15 | Posted by brass30 at 2023-11-21 10:13 AM | Reply

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I guess reading that - it really does not mention the President - which seems crazy.

#16 | Posted by brass30 at 2023-11-21 10:24 AM | Reply

"or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States"

Pretty much sums it up right there, pal.

#17 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-11-21 06:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

who, having previously..............

You failed to mention what was connected - and none of the having previously refer to the President of the US.

#18 | Posted by brass30 at 2023-11-21 08:29 PM | Reply

Pretty much sums it up right there, pal.

Were it so simple. From the court's opinion:

311. On the other hand, Intervenors argue that five constitutional provisions show that the President is not an "officer of the United States."
There follows the five provisions and her conclusions which is too long to copy and paste.

You can find the pertinent excerpts and a link to the opinion here. reason.com

#19 | Posted by et_al at 2023-11-21 09:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#19 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Oh FFS. The legal profession continues to make an absurdity of itself with nonsense like that.

"All the Officers" is essentially a placeholder to mean everything else not explicitly mentioned so they don't have to make an all-inclusive, itemized list. That covers the first three provisions.

The fourth provision

the President is explicitly absent from the enumerated list of persons the clause requires to take an oath to support the Constitution.

has made the hyper literal, childlike simplicity of language problem a circular argument.

The POTUS isn't an "officer," therefore they're not covered under the phrase "all executive and judicial officers."

The last one is just another joke. Because ItZ NoTxz ThE SaMe As EvEryRoNe ElsE's@!!! Even though it explicitly states "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nope, to the childish simpletons, the words have to be exact. or else it's NoT ThE SaMeZ!!

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-22 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And yes, I understand not all are like that.

But that a federal judge made that kind of argument is akin to people like RFK junior being full blown professors of immunology. It definitely makes you step back and take what you're hearing with some heavy doses of salt.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2023-11-22 11:24 AM | Reply

The POTUS isn't an "officer," therefore they're not covered under the phrase "all executive and judicial officers."

Agreed ... this is nonsense.

If the POTUS isn't an officer then why is he called the Commander in Chief?

Head of all the armed forces is not an "officer".

Not only that he holds the highest "office" in the land.

Therefore an "officer" by definition again.

This should go to the supremes for a final ruling.

#22 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-11-22 01:26 PM | Reply

Head of all the armed forces is not an "officer"?

This was a question not a declaration.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2023-11-22 01:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort