Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[John]

** 05-Feb-2024 World View: Trump vs the Democrats

> More than a distraction,
> alas. Since the Obama
> administration, the Right have
> tried to prevent any kitchen
> table issues from being
> resolved, which means nothing
> gets resolved. The latest
> example was the bipartisan
> attempt at a southern border
> resolution, and Trump's killing
> it to prevent Biden getting any
> credit. He would rather take the
> blame for no progress than see
> the problem addressed.

> How much help have they been at
> convicting insurrectionists?
> Impeachment investigations with
> no evidence and nothing like
> 2/3rd of the Senate? Getting
> health care that the majority of
> the women want? Saving lives
> from spree killers? I really
> doubt they will hang on to the
> House.

As you're well aware, the Senate border
bill is a full-scale Democrat hoax. The
bill is designed to bring in more
millions of illegal aliens, in order to
fulfill the Democrats' "Replacement
Theory" objective, by flooding the
country with tens of millions of
invaders and following on with new laws
to make them citizens who will vote
Democrat.

The Biden administration is doing
everything it can to destroy the United
States from within. Everything they do
is evil, so it's not surprising that you
support it, since you are the epitome of
evil.

[Bob Butler]

As you're well aware, the Senate border bill is a full-scale Democrat hoax.

No, it is genuine attempt at bipartisanship. If anything is do be done on a lot of things, both factions have to answer each others most desired outcomes. Trump, of course, would rather see Biden get credit for nothing, and therefore is killing any progress on the most desirable objectives for either faction or the American people. Typical Trump.

I am still waiting on the Supreme Court's ruling on the 14th Amendment Section 3. Is an insurrectionist allowed to hold US or state office? Is the office of the presidency an office? Is an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution to the constitution? Is a conspiracy to alter electors an insurrection? Is a promise to pardon aid and comfort?

Republican justices have long claimed to follow the words of the text and the meaning of the authors. Both are absolutely clear. Yet they are also known to legislate from the bench, to find a way to support Republican positions regardless of law and precedent. Which way will they go? I have comfort in that the bias in Republican positions has remained primarily on abortion. In insurgent related cases, with the exemption of the Florida judge who is countered somewhat on appeal, the courts have been fairly straight. There was the 60 to 0 on the Big Lie, juries ruling Jan 6 was an insurrection, Seditious Conspiracy convictions for the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, lots of convictions on Trump University, the Trump Charity, the Trump business, the EJ Carol defamation, etc...

Timing wise, though. the 13th Amendment will be the big one. Boy would that mess up the Republican primaries.

[guest]

I'm starting to get excited. I can't wait for Trump to be our President again.
This is going to be wonderful, watching him clear out the entrenched swamp garbage. This time, he has not only a blueprint, but detailed plans, and thousands of vetted individuals at the ready to instantly replace all the re-classified and summarily dismissed federal bureaucrats.
Get the popcorn.

[Bob Butler]

Get the popcorn.

We''ll see how Thursday goes.

[Bob Butler]

Get the popcorn.

We''ll see how Thursday goes.

After listening to the oral arguments, a few thoughts...

The plain meaning of the !4th Amendment Section Three is that you do not allow insurrectionists to serve in office again. The questions were about the meanings of office, officer, and insurrection. The MSNBC commenters afterwards concluded the justices were less concerned with the meaning of the text and intent of the authors than finding a convoluted meaning of the words used that would allow them to make a pro Republican ruling. Thus, they are predicting Colorado would be overturned.

I noted that the states were given control of federal elections, which means lots of varying procedures and rulings. This is called federalism. If the justices wanted a simple consistent set of rulings, they are on the wrong court, serving the wrong nation. This is a case where federalism more than usual can run amok.

I still respect the Tribe interpretation more.

Many commenters though would prefer for Trump to get the Republican nomination, then lose the general election to Biden. That would kill the Republicans deader. They have a point. There would be a trial or two before the general. I would expect some convictions and an eventual Biden victory. Still, such a result would be more decisive and final, not the mention extra popcorn.

[guest]

The Supreme Court session was very refreshing because the liberal justices for once put aside partisan politics, and asked very pointed questions of the Colorado's counsel. As has been pointed out, they were actually more critical of the 14th Amendment argument than were the conservative justices.

In an entirely different theater, the Biden classified documents special counsel report was released. It said (and I paraphrase, but very accurately) "Biden clearly knew the law, and broke the law, but now he's so demented that we think a jury may have sympathy for him and not convict him, so we're not bringing charges."

Can you say "Donald J. Trump, 45th and 47th President of the United States of America?"
Coming soon to a theater near you.

[Bob Butler]

Last evening, MSNBC gave a bunch of other perspectives on Thursday’s 13th Amendment oral arguments, mostly from the Democratic angle. One stood out for me. They brought in a pair of historians from Harvard and Yale. Asked if anything stood out, they repeated a comment by one of the justices that it was impossible to guess what the authors of the 14th would say or think today. Their time was too different.

Which ticked off the historians no end. They projected that if the authors were present that day, they would have “waved the bloody shirt.” They had just fought a bloody war whose goal among other things was to make sure the new black citizens kept their vote, their voice in government. The 14th’s primary goal, the objective behind all that blood, was to assure that. The impulse of that blood was the strength of their feeling.

And Trump’s goal was to disenfranchise minority voters, blacks and latinos, to nullify minority votes, exactly what the 14th was intended to prevent, exactly why so much of the blood was shed.

The 14th’s framers could not be there. The two professors spoke well for them, though. Their image of the author’s leaping over the front row seats of the court room in rage has stuck with me.

[Bob Butler]

At least we will have Biden and Kamala to lead us into war.

Nevermind.

We've had them for 3 years and NOBODY could consider the absolute disaster we're witnessing on many fronts to be anything short of deliberate. Treason is an apt term

Wel, under the US Code, the term is clearly defined.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

While I disagree on Biden’s recent leaning towards Israel, it is hard to say Israel is an enemy. Trump, however... Insurrection? Withholding spending approved by congress without getting lies on a political rival? Theft of government documents? Giving aid and comfort to Putin?

I'm not confident US Code 2381 really applies to Trump. Other areas sure, but not 2381. Biden is even further from the official definition.

[Guest]

At least we will have Biden and Kamala to lead us into war.

Nevermind.

We've had them for 3 years and NOBODY could consider the absolute disaster we're witnessing on many fronts to be anything short of deliberate. Treason is an apt term

Wel, under the US Code, the term is clearly defined.

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

While I disagree on Biden’s recent leaning towards Israel, it is hard to say Israel is an enemy. Trump, however... Insurrection? Withholding spending approved by congress without getting lies on a political rival? Theft of government documents? Giving aid and comfort to Putin?

I'm not confident US Code 2381 really applies to Trump. Other areas sure, but not 2381. Biden is even further from the official definition.

What about the millions of dollars the Chinese have been pouring into the Biden family coffers?

[Bob Butler]

What about the millions of dollars the Chinese have been pouring into the Biden family coffers?

If some Chinese company wants to hire Hunter, what entry in the US Code is violated? By who?

I'm not sure if I could convincingly call China either ally or enemy. In terms of providing cheap labor to US companies who import Chinese products, they are friends. In terms of the US backing an allegiance that deters autocratic expansion, they are not friends. In between, this convoluted policy violates 18 U.S. CODE § 2381 how?