Images | Commentary | Digital Scrapbook
Related:
– Hikers found dead
– Drownings
– Small plane crashes
– Bicyclists collapsing dead
– Soccer players (Footballers) dropping dead
– All manner of athletes collapsing or dying suddenly
– People dead in their sleep
– People found dead at home
– Entertainers collapsing/dying on stage— Dr. James E. Olsson (@DrJamesOlsson) August 17, 2022
“…When I was reporting Live Not By Lies, I talked to a senior physician at a major US hospital in a conservative state. The man only talked to me if I agreed not to use his name. His family emigrated to the West from the USSR when he was a child. Now, he said, he is seeing things that didn’t even exist in the Soviet Union. He told me that at his hospital, the management instructed all the physicians to give to any patient, including children, any gender-transition assistance they asked for — even if it violated the physician’s best judgment about that particular patient. There was no other health care issue in which doctors were told by the hospital to suspend their medical judgment to give a patient what he or she wants. Why do you think that is, reader? When the lawsuits begin, I wonder if “just following orders” will protect doctors?
By the way, this particular physician told me that the HR department at his hospital monitored their social media accounts, looking for wrongthink. He said that if he didn’t have a social media account, that would cause HR to flag him as a potential problem. So he kept his account up, but only put happy-clappy “wellness” things on it. This man is a top doctor at one of the country’s biggest hospitals, and he has to live in that kind of fear. Why doesn’t he quit? Because he has a family, and tuition to pay, and all the usual reasons. The other day in Vienna, I talked to a young Muslim from Canada, a man who works in IT. We agreed that the Canadian government is insane, and that trans ideology is destroying children and families. “Why don’t people stand up?” he said. I asked him if he would stand up, knowing that it would probably cost him his job. He thought for a second, and said, no, he guesses that he wouldn’t.
I understood. This is the condition most people are in. You maybe start to see why there were so few dissidents in the Communist world. It really and truly cost you a lot. Everybody likes to think that they would stand up, but when it comes right down to it, almost everybody conforms…”
“…I am the author or co-author of several publications on constitutional qualifications for elected federal positions, on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and on impeachment procedures and standards.[1] Likewise, I have also been a source for prior Politifact reports.[2]
You stated in your August 9, 2022 report that:
Congress could act to bar Trump from running again under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that public officials cannot serve in any future federal, state, or military office if they engaged in “insurrection or rebellion.” The Senate hasn’t pursued that route. It could have banned Trump from running again during impeachment proceedings and did not. It’s unknown how the committee investigating Trump’s actions around the Jan. 6 attack may address the prospect of Trump’s candidacy.
Not one of your statements above is a fact. Each is a highly contestable legal claim, argument, or intuition.
First, you suggest Congress, acting under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, can pass a statute or resolution barring Trump (and, by implication, others) for purported insurrection. That has never been done. No federal court of record has ever said it could be done. And one federal court has suggested that it cannot be done. See Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7 (Circuit Court of the District of Virginia 1869) (Chase, Chief Justice of the United States). Your suggesting that Congress can enforce Section 3, by what amounts to a bill of attainder, is not a “fact;” rather, it is a contestable legal intuition.
Second, you state that a Section 3 disqualification by Congress would bar the defendant from holding “any future federal, state, or military office.” (emphasis added) However, that is not what Section 3 says. Section 3’s disqualification bar extends to listed positions: “Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or … any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State.” This list does not cover: [1] membership in a state legislature; and, [2] arguably, the presidency and vice presidency. No court of record has determined the scope of Section 3 disqualification or the scope of its “office … under the United States”-language. Your use of “any” is not a “fact;” rather, it is a contestable legal intuition.
Third, you wrote: “[The Senate] could have banned Trump from running again during impeachment proceedings and [it] did not.” Senate disqualification in impeachment proceedings is controlled by the Impeachment Disqualification Clause—Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. That provision bars the defendant from holding “any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Here too, the scope of the Impeachment Disqualification Clause’s “office … under the United States”-language has never been determined by the United States Supreme Court or any court of record. (And, that is not surprising as only three defendants—Judge Humphreys (1862), Judge Archbald (1913), and Judge Porteous (2010)—have ever been disqualified in Senate impeachment proceedings.) Your asserting that this “office … under the United States”-language would bar a disqualified defendant from running for or holding the presidency—or any other elected federal position—is not a “fact;” it is a contestable legal intuition. Indeed, the Impeachment Disqualification Clause’s language of “office … under the United States” is also the language in 18 U.S.C. Section 2071. Today, the majority view (in my opinion) is that the “office … under the United States”-language in Section 2071 does not extend to the presidency (or to any other elected federal positions)—if the majority view is correct, as determined by the courts, that is some reason to think that the nearly identical language in the Constitution in Article I (the Impeachment Disqualification Clause) and Amendment XIV (the Insurrection Disqualification Clause) does not extend to the presidency (or to any other elected federal positions).
Fourth, and finally, you wrote: “It’s unknown how the [House] committee investigating Trump’s actions around the Jan. 6 attack may address the prospect of Trump’s candidacy.” Perhaps, it is not “unknown.” Have you considered the alternative?: The House committee has taken no concrete action because it has no power to do anything consequential—that is, anything which will have actual legal consequences along the lines it would seek to achieve.
Given that even legal holdings established by the Supreme Court can be overturned by the Court in subsequent cases (e.g., Dobbs overturning Roe), perhaps, it is time for your organization to reconsider the idea that legal “facts” exist at all. There might be a few unambiguous and undisputed legal facts (e.g., each state has exactly two authorized senators). But your repeatedly affirming that the scope of disqualification under Article I or Amendment XIV is clear, unambiguous, and undisputed cannot fall under that narrow rubric. Few things do…”
“…Each summer, for the past two years, Lowe’s has been conducting an annual small business promotion called “Making It … with Lowe’s.” Small businesses are invited to submit their new products to an in-house “shark-tank” panel. The winner is rewarded with nationwide publicity, inclusion among Lowe’s vendors, and sales through Lowe’s 1,728 locations as well as over its website. The catch: In order to participate, the business owner had to be a racial minority, female, LGBT, disabled, etc. After receiving formal notice from the ACR Project that this arrangement in a violation of Section 1981 (as to race) and an assortment of other laws, Lowe’s initially sounded like it was going to be uncooperative. But when the project was renewed for the summer 2022 under a new name, it was open to small businesses generally…”
More woke corporations are to be targeted for compliance with American laws, including Starbucks, McDonald’s, JPMorgan Chase, and Dropbox.
Related:
Liz Cheney’s Concession Speech Was a Mentally Ill Cry for Help
Trump obsession derails a second Cheney career, but huge war chest hints of 2024 comeback
Cheney to lead organization against possible Trump reelection effort, report
“…Former President Donald Trump will likely not be arrested on charges stemming from the FBI’s raid last week, according to a former Harvard Law School professor.
“Yes, it’s possible [but] I don’t think it’s going to happen,” Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax on Tuesday about whether Trump would be arrested. People who believe that prosecution and an indictment would keep Trump away from the 2024 campaign are “dead wrong,” he remarked.
“He can run for president even if he’s indicted, convicted, and wearing striped shirts, prison garb,” he added to the channel. “The Constitution provides only four bases for disqualification for president, and being convicted of a crime is not one of them. Congress can’t change the criteria that are in the Constitution for the election of the president.”…”
Yep pic.twitter.com/oMZqvqeckd
— Yankees Girl 1776 🇺🇸♥️🇺🇸 (@LizLemon5759) August 17, 2022
Harriet Hageman 🔥
"Wyoming has spoken on behalf of everyone who understands that our government is a government of, by, and for the people… While it may not be easy, we can dislodge entrenched politicians who believe they've risen above the people they are supposed to serve." pic.twitter.com/qGrljQ8Z1t
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) August 17, 2022
President Trump congratulates Harriet Hageman pic.twitter.com/YS8FxuOkuz
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) August 17, 2022
He’s the most radical candidate in the country. pic.twitter.com/Z2jr8yowos
— Dr. Mehmet Oz (@DrOz) August 15, 2022
