Seems there's some misapprehension about what going on. This is the necessary result of the asinine SC immunity decision. The decision requires the trial court consider extensive detailed evidence about the Buffoon and associates conduct to determine what is and what is not immune conduct. Short of live witnesses the next best evidence is transcripts and investigative notes. Since court proceedings are public such filings are public subject to some redactions for privacy and security reasons.

It has nothing, again nothing, to do with trial in the media or providing an advantage. It's about how the SC requires immunity to be evaluated.

For what it's worth, I generally agree with the SC's bottom line conclusions about immunity but the procedural mechanism it created is asinine. The trial and appellate court's had already generally adhered to the bottom line conclusions using normal motion practice. The Court should have simply declined the interlocutory appeal and dealt with it in the the normal course after judgement, if necessary.

#6

On that alone, questionable.

What he apparently put on paper, devastating.

51, 52, 53

I don't care. My first presidential vote was in '72 for Nixon, later royally regretted. I'm a Reagan republican lite that's voted all over the ballot. My first impression of the Buffoon was formulated sometime after I first had cable TV, he's a narcissistic con that thinks he's better than anyone else. Basically a POS human. I will vote against a Buffoon presidency under any circumstance ever. I don't care, do you?

So far I haven't heard any state, other than Georgia, succumbing to pressure from the Trump campaign to refuse to certify.

You sound like the Buffoon pontificating about the non-existent things he's heard.

Similar to the non-existent memory of the DR.

I'll say it again, no criminal conduct committed on J6 constitutes the crime of Treason. None. Get over it.

That was one of the more bizarre things I've seen in my years of observing elections which first caught my attention in 4th grade as my grandfather was on the ballot for re-election as Justice of the Peace.

FTA In Georgia, an administrative law judge sided with the Georgia Democratic Party and barred him from access to the ballot on a technicality despite finding his petitions met Georgia's minimum signature threshold.

Dang, FUed again and drank straight Kentucky bourbon. Oh well maybe next year.

I don't care what problems you are having in life. And how much you are trying to "bond" with your son. You still have responsibilities. To the safety of your son and the community in which you are raising him.

While you may have a moral or civic responsibility to your child or the community at law, especially criminal law, there generally is no such responsibility. Rarely does law hold one responsible for the acts of third parties. This is an attempt at finding an exception to the general rule. I'm skeptical based on available information in this case.

They have passed laws to try and make it easier to block certification of local elections ...

Who is "they?" The only one I'm aware of is a GA board passing rules not law. GA is addressed in the main article.

But that's not the kind of people who we are dealing with. Is it?

Page up. "Each time that local officials have tried, they have been either forced to certify by a court, outvoted by their fellow commissioners or reversed course." Which is the point of the three articles I've linked. Fretting about what ifs just helps the media sell soap.

Stopping the certification on Jan 6th ...

The topic is certification of local results.

... and if those deadlines are missed?

#3

Those briefs will be about detailed evidence of the Buffoon's criminal conduct, not quite, but almost, as good as a trial before the election.

And we have seen officials still refuse to act which throws wrenches and delays into the system. And MANY are still in office: The Guardian

From the article you cite.

No effort to block certification thus far has been successful. Each time that local officials have tried, they have been either forced to certify by a court, outvoted by their fellow commissioners or reversed course. Few have faced any consequence, with two notable exceptions. (emphasis mine)

Currently Nate Silver has her 14-% below Trump for winning the election.

Delay and confusion.

Seems you may also misapprehend "ministerial obligation." Any such case would be resolved with a certain outcome- do it - and very quickly because of tight certification deadlines. This is why election officials aren't really concerned about certification. What comes next, election contests and the other bulls**t, will be of concern.

Also... the article cites Courts as our protection against denial of certification at a time when Courts are become in many cases more political than judicial.

Perhaps you misapprehend what "ministerial obligation" means. If the required act of an official is ministerial then a court considering the officials' refusal to act has no discretion but to order the official to perform the act.

Anyway, its interesting the issue has suddenly popped onto the radar. Two more articles with the same theme.

Informative article. Won't slow down the "chicken littles."

I can't speak to today in law school. I can speak to what I endured some 40 years ago. Two semesters of con law taught by a dean. I wasn't taught a methodology, I was taught what is in terms of SC precedent on major matters.

I've come to original meaning on my own. With my own reservations.