How Many People Think the Election was REALLY Stolen

[Pete F.]

Did someone say voter suppression

This week the ET published an editorial call to invoke the Insurrection Act to force a “military audit” of the election and “arrest those who have conspired to deprive the people of their rights through election fraud.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did someone say voter suppression

This week the ET published an editorial call to invoke the Insurrection Act to force a “military audit” of the election and “arrest those who have conspired to deprive the people of their rights through election fraud.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is discovering voter fraud a way to suppress the votes?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How is discovering voter fraud a way to suppress the votes?

the same people claiming votes were suppressed believe biden got over 80 million votes...must have been trumps votes that were suppressed

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How is discovering voter fraud a way to suppress the votes?

You love playing obtuse don’t you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

A foreign cult that thinks Donald Trump is on a messianic mission has a “news site” that has spent at least $2 million on YouTube ads since 2018, mostly in 2020.
This “news site” has called for a violent insurrection to keep Trump in power.
The group behind the ads has seemingly unlimited resources and was the second-largest pro-Trump advertiser on Facebook before such ads were banned.
They believe the stakes are a literal apocalyptic battle between good and evil.
Kind of makes you wonder just how much money this “news” organization really poured into the election in order to boost Donald Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A foreign cult that thinks Donald Trump is on a messianic mission has a “news site” that has spent at least $2 million on YouTube ads since 2018, mostly in 2020.
This “news site” has called for a violent insurrection to keep Trump in power.
The group behind the ads has seemingly unlimited resources and was the second-largest pro-Trump advertiser on Facebook before such ads were banned.
They believe the stakes are a literal apocalyptic battle between good and evil.
Kind of makes you wonder just how much money this “news” organization really poured into the election in order to boost Donald Trump.

The editor who wrote the article is not part of the "foreign cult." The "foreign cult" has not proclaimed anything about using the Insurrection Act.

The "news site" did not call for a violent insurrection. The Insurrection Act is for stopping insurrections, not starting them.

The money "poured" into the election was legal. Biden got a lot more money "poured" into his campaign than Trump did.

Various left wing "news sites" believe that Trump is "evil" and that a media war against him was necessary to get rid of the bad Orange Man.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The editor who wrote the article is not part of the "foreign cult." The "foreign cult" has not proclaimed anything about using the Insurrection Act.

The "news site" did not call for a violent insurrection. The Insurrection Act is for stopping insurrections, not starting them.

The money "poured" into the election was legal. Biden got a lot more money "poured" into his campaign than Trump did.

Various left wing "news sites" believe that Trump is "evil" and that a media war against him was necessary to get rid of the bad Orange Man.

In what world does it make sense to allow a fake news site run by a literal foreign cult that thinks the president is a tiny-fingered prophet ushering in the end times to spend unreported millions on their propaganda?

[spence]

What’s everybody drinking for the insurrection?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What’s everybody drinking for the insurrection?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

liberal tears

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In what world does it make sense to allow a fake news site run by a literal foreign cult that thinks the president is a tiny-fingered prophet ushering in the end times to spend unreported millions on their propaganda?

It's not a fake news site. It's an international multi-language newspaper and media company. It's a member of the New York Press Association which has given Epoch Times journalism awards. And it is not run by Falung Gong. And your myopic characterization which exaggeratedly focuses on a minor aspect of the total ET range of content is more of your biased propaganda.

According to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Epoch Times is an international, multi-language news media company in print and online. The Epoch Times first published in New York in April 2000 (in Chinese only) and the online edition in August 2000. In 2003, The Epoch Times launched an online edition in English, which began printing as a newspaper in New York in 2004. The Epoch Times is founded by John Tang and a group of Chinese-American Falun Gong practitioners. The Epoch Times publishes in 21 languages in 35 countries across five continents. Their focus topics include sections for world and national news, op-eds, sports, entertainment, business, arts and culture, travel, and health. Although it rates ET as questionable because some of its op-eds seem conspiratorial (I could say the same about CNN, and NYT), it claims.however, that The Epoch Times straight news reporting (which is what interests me) through the use of journalists and syndication through the Associated Press and Reuters . . . are well-sourced and reasonably low biased. However, when reporting on China they do reflect a strong anti-communism bias in general, but that straight news reporting is sourced and mostly low biased.

The Epoch Times chair Stephen Gregory said in 2007: "It's not a Falun Gong newspaper. Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China." But the news org. staff which runs it are a spectrum of Americans which may include some that practice falung gong.

One of the quotes in Quora re ET:
"Now some say Epoch Times has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and as I pointed out, this is not true. However, there are other news outlets that do have close ties to the CCP. News outlets that the accusers would consider trustworthy while bashing Epoch Times.

NBC News has now published at least five articles in just over a year that contain egregious factual errors about their competitor, The Epoch Times. NBC News has refused to correct many of these errors, which gives the appearance of it being intentional and agenda-driven.

I would invite anyone to read both NBC News and The Epoch Times, and compare for yourself the fairness and balance of each media organization’s reporting.

Perhaps the biggest contrast between NBC News and The Epoch Times can be found in their independence from the CCP, which has worked for years to subvert key American institutions, including media organizations.

Over the past 20 years, The Epoch Times has reported extensively on the CCP’s widespread human rights violations, its efforts to subvert the United States, and its efforts to expand its influence around the world, and have never taken a penny of CCP money.

NBC News and its parent company, NBC Universal, meanwhile, have cultivated close relationships with the CCP and affiliated entities, reaching business agreements worth billions of dollars.

On the editorial side, NBC News signed a memorandum of cooperation in 2010 with the CCP’s state media agency, Xinhua, to conduct extensive and in-depth cooperation in the collection, production, and broadcasting of TV news content and personnel training. Xinhua was officially designated by the US State Department as a Chinese “foreign mission” in February this year.

It’s sad to see that one of America’s largest media organizations has close financial ties and editorial cooperation with the world’s most repressive regime. This makes abundantly clear that NBC has no ability to report on The Epoch Times without a biased agenda."

[wdmso]

Since 2016, the Falun Gong-backed newspaper has used aggressive Facebook tactics and right-wing misinformation to create an anti-China, pro-Trump media empire.

For years, The Epoch Times was a small, low-budget newspaper with an anti-China slant that was handed out free on New York street corners. But in 2016 and 2017, the paper made two changes that transformedk it into one of the country’s most powerful digital publishers.

to become a leading purveyor of right-wing misinformation. Hence why Detbuch loves them ... that’s why he left out some details
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Since 2016, the Falun Gong-backed newspaper has used aggressive Facebook tactics and right-wing misinformation to create an anti-China, pro-Trump media empire.

For years, The Epoch Times was a small, low-budget newspaper with an anti-China slant that was handed out free on New York street corners. But in 2016 and 2017, the paper made two changes that transformedk it into one of the country’s most powerful digital publishers.

to become a leading purveyor of right-wing misinformation. Hence why Detbuch loves them ... that’s why he left out some details

Left out some details? I noted details that you and Pete and Got Stripers conveniently don't mention or are ignorant of. Details? It would take a 200 page book to mention all the relevant details, especially all of the smears and inaccuracies perpetrated against ET. Like the viciously biased slant by Pete F. And your myopic and irrelevant quote above. Starting out small is neither a crime, nor a nor a blemish. To grow to such size in such a short time is an accomplishment, not a vice. Aggressive tactics are not some kind of evil. Most successful endeavors use them. And saying something is misinformation needs to be backed up in detail. It is a malevolent aggressive tactic to claim something is misinformation without thorough proof--to do so is in itself misinformation of the most hypocritical kind.

I gave a suitably brief, given the constraints of a forum, response to Pete F's claim that ET was a fake news site. Either he knowingly lied or he was just wrong. It's as legitimate as the news sites you use. It may get some things wrong. They all do.

And I don't love misinformation--right-wing or otherwise. Saying that I do is misinformation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Left out some details? I noted details that you and Pete and Got Stripers conveniently don't mention or are ignorant of. Details?

And I don't love misinformation--right-wing or otherwise. Saying that I do is misinformation.

they work very hard to convince themselves of things don't they?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And I don't love misinformation--right-wing or otherwise. Saying that I do is misinformation.

thats funny! to bad we could string together a montage of your You Tube videos .. because they clearly dont promote facts or follow any journalism ethics and standards of principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability..

they are actually people in their basements

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

thats funny! to bad we could string together a montage of your You Tube videos .. because they clearly dont promote facts or follow any journalism ethics and standards of principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability..

they are actually people in their basements

This is misinformation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is misinformation.

isn't it fun when leftists talk about destroying our democracy and undermining our Constitution? ...I thought that's what they've been working toward all these years...they just don't want trump to get the credit

[Pete F.]

Since Media bias/Fact check is a legitimate source here’s more of what they had to say re ET

“Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories as well as numerous failed fact checks.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Falun Gong group's leaders "believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party."

who else has attached their horses to the same thinking that Trump was sent by heaven . oh shocking evangelicals

Religious right leaders say God anointed Trump as a "king." This week he actually declared himself the "chosen one"

So a Theocracy is what the trump faithful want ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since Media bias/Fact check is a legitimate source here’s more of what they had to say re ET

“Overall, we rate The Epoch Times Right Biased and Questionable based on the publication of pseudoscience and the promotion of propaganda and conspiracy theories as well as numerous failed fact checks.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't consider fact check orgs to be legitimate. There may actually be some that are, but I've found the ones usually referred to, including Mediabias/Fact check, to be biased themselves.

As for your quote from Media Bias/Fact check re ET, you may have overlooked that I alluded to it in my posts--"Although it rates ET as questionable because some of its op-eds seem conspiratorial (I could say the same about CNN, and NYT), it claims, however, that The Epoch Times straight news reporting (which is what interests me) through the use of journalists and syndication through the Associated Press and Reuters . . . are well-sourced and reasonably low biased. However, when reporting on China they do reflect a strong anti-communism bias in general, but that straight news reporting is sourced and mostly low biased."

It is the "straight news" they publish that intrests me. The rest of their content doesn't. Opinion pieces and editorial comments of most if not all supposedly journalistic orgs are, in my opinion, biased. I take no stock in opinions expressed in NYT, WAPOST, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and the host of most other media. Including no interest in their opinions on entertainment, fashion, horoscopes, crossword puzzles, culinary, and in their various pseudo-science and popular culture sections--with the possible exceptions of some sports commentary.

So, for me, I see ET as legitimate as any so-called mainstream news org.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

isn't it fun when leftists talk about destroying our democracy and undermining our Constitution? ...I thought that's what they've been working toward all these years...they just don't want trump to get the credit

That's the nature of leftism of all sorts, including Progressivism. Leftist governments thrive on the notion of useful idiots.

It's amazing how the leftists on this forum so often avoid having a rational discussion. Their mode is to attack every opposition with a religious fervor. They believe they are fighting under the banner of truth. Everyone else is a liar or a fool . . . or a NAZI, or Putins's puppet, or a hater.

They will often attack posts on the basis of their source, without nary a discussion of their content. And they spend time on trashing the source with irrelevant or slanted or lying factoids.

Such as, in this thread: "In what world does it make sense to allow a fake news site run by a literal foreign cult that thinks the president is a tiny-fingered prophet ushering in the end times to spend unreported millions on their propaganda?"--The Falung Gong do not run the straight news political sector of ET. The only mention of Falung Gong in the news section is an occasional article of the CCP oppression of it. One might ask in what world does its make sense to allow a fake news site run by Progressive leftists (NYT, WAPO, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN)who promote the centralization of government run solely by those who it considers "experts" and spends their millions to oppose "conservative" values by printing Progressive propaganda. (Certainly not in a constitutional republic such as the U.S.)

Or this:"Falun Gong group's leaders "believe that Trump was sent by heaven to destroy the communist party." That may be interesting to some. Not to me. What does that have to do with the straight news reports by Epoch Times which are researched and written or delivered by Non Falun Gong, Christian or Jewish or atheist journalists? I don't know what the religious, if any, beliefs of the founders or supporters or management, journalists, employees of the NYT, WAPOST, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN are. What concerns me is "news" they report and the slant they put on it, or the news they don't report, or the actual lies and misinformation/disinformation they spout.


Or: "thats funny! to bad we could string together a montage of your You Tube videos .. because they clearly dont promote facts or follow any journalism ethics and standards of principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability..
they are actually people in their basements "

I don't recall any such video that I posted, nor any explanation how they were all that. Nor even any discussion of the content. Incredibly, the same ad hominem attacks were made on my sources who didn't operate out of their basements and actually were of the same political mind as wdmso and his partners in political smear.

They viciously attacked Glenn Greenwald who is a flaming Progressive who wants government to do the same thing this forum's left want. But he dared to say something against their own. I almost totally disagree with Greenwald on what government should "do" for us, but I respect his "journalism ethics and standards of principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability." In my opinion, he is politically wrong, but he is honest and willing to call out his own when he believes they are wrong. Even though they would probably agree with 95% of his commentary, for his transgression of saying something that disturbs their view of the world, the lefties had to take him down--not by debating his words, but by demeaning his person.

When I posted a video by Jimmy Dore, he and Greenwald were sarcastically mocked as to their "authority." Not only does Greenwald have as much authority as any other journalist that lefties rely on (probably more because he is more honest), but he and Dore (who has the authority of a big following--which likewise gives other commentators "authority") want the same government policies as the lefties here.

So the lefties here will not only try to trash a post by gratuitously attacking "conservative" sources, but Progressive sources as well if they somehow threaten their narrative--especially their anti-Trump narrative.

Killing the messenger is the authoritarian way of breeding useful idiots.

[Pete F.]

How are things in the echo chamber........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

How are things in the echo chamber........

Are you under some illusion that what you say is essentially original rather than versions of regurgitated pap which bounces off the inflated wall of the information bubble you choose to dwell in?

[Pete F.]

I can sleep in my bubble, must be hard to rest when rioters and caravans are coming to get you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I can sleep in my bubble, must be hard to rest when rioters and caravans are coming to get you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, you are asleep in your bubble. That is evident in your toxic hate filled nightmares of an evil Putin loving orange monster and his covid coming to get us all.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, you are asleep in your bubble. That is evident in your toxic hate filled nightmares of an evil Putin loving orange monster and his covid coming to get us all.

My nightmares luckily are almost over, is it 29 days to go?

Just think in 1974, GOP Congressional leaders went to the WH to tell Nixon it was time to resign over Watergate.

Today, GOP leaders went to the WH to conspire with Trump to overturn a democratic election. From leaders to traitors.

The Republican Party is dead. All that remains is MAGA..............

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

My nightmares luckily are almost over, is it 29 days to go?

Just think in 1974, GOP Congressional leaders went to the WH to tell Nixon it was time to resign over Watergate.

Today, GOP leaders went to the WH to conspire with Trump to overturn a democratic election. From leaders to traitors.

The Republican Party is dead. All that remains is MAGA..............

Their intention is to preserve a democratic election. So long as they remain within the bounds of the Constitution, their intentions will be preserved.

Your nightmare is a false picture of reality. And reality won't end when your nightmare is over.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Their intention is to preserve a democratic election. So long as they remain within the bounds of the Constitution, their intentions will be preserved.

Your nightmare is a false picture of reality. And reality won't end when your nightmare is over.

Trump’s impeachment foreshadowed the damage he has wreaked in the six weeks since Biden beat him in the election and demonstrated his elevation of self over country, his willingness to subvert democracy, and the GOP’s refusal to constrain his behavior.

In his increasingly desperate bid to hang on to the White House, President Trump is reportedly contemplating invoking martial law to force the invalidation of the results of the election in four swing states, apparently inspired by remarks of the former and recently-pardoned National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. While we deem the chances that Trump will actually follow through with the attempt to spark a military coup between now and January 20th extremely low, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen should be prepared for such a contingency and play out the legal and enforcement implications in advance. Shocking and unprecedented though it would be, Rosen should be ready to go so far as to order federal law enforcement officers to arrest anyone, including if necessary the president, who has conspired to carry out this illegal plan. Short of those steps, the Justice and Defense Departments should be ready to issue internal and public statements that the law clearly prohibits any such actions.

Senior U.S. Army officials felt the apparent need to issue a joint statement last week saying “there is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.” This shows the dangerous place our country has reached due, in no small part, to extreme and erroneous views of the president’s Article II powers and immunity from criminal law.

* * *

Following Flynn’s public remarks, the idea of a military coup took shape in earnest last Friday, when the president met with Flynn and Flynn’s (and the Trump campaign’s) former lawyer, Sidney Powell, as well as with executive branch staff, to discuss various methods for overturning the results of the election, including the use of martial law. Trump reportedly asked Flynn to spell out his proposal during the meeting.

The legal vehicle the president would likely hope to use is the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that allows the president to federalize the national guard in order to “suppress” an insurrection.

Last used in 1992 in response to unrest sparked by the Rodney King verdict, the Insurrection Act has never been invoked to overturn an election or to intervene in peaceful political events of any kind. Indeed, it has never been used in any context other than suppressing civil unrest. It was invoked in 1967 in response to the unrest following the death of Martin Luther King, and in 1957, 1962 and 1963 to help enforce civil rights laws in the face of local opposition to federal court orders requiring school integration. Ulysses S. Grant used it in 1871 to suppress the Ku Klux Klan, and it was used during the Civil War to impose a blockage of the ports of seven southern states. Only in rare instances has it been used against the wishes, and without the consent of, state and local officials. It has never been used to deny federal and state rights, such as the right to vote.

* * *

Any attempt to deploy the military to overturn the results of the 2020 election would violate multiple federal laws. First, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law codifying the longstanding principle that the military may not engage in domestic law enforcement (18 U.S. Code 1385). The Insurrection Act is understood to provide a rare exception to posse comitatus, based on a civil emergency that requires the immediate restoration of law and order, conditions that would simply not be satisfied here, even if Trump’s allegations of election fraud were true. There are also specific laws designed to criminalize election interference by the military. Members of the Armed Forces, for example, who assist with the overthrow of a lawful election can be held criminally liable under 18 U.S. Code 593 and sentenced for up to five years imprisonment.

More significantly, a series of criminal provisions in federal law prohibits attempts to overthrow the lawful authority of federal and state government. These laws could subject Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, or others involved in such a plan to criminal charges much in the way that the 1861 firing on Fort Sumter by confederate forces after the election of Abraham Lincoln was criminal. 18 U.S. Code 2383 criminalizes “rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof.” 18 U.S. Code 2384 criminalizes “Seditious Conspiracy,” which prohibits two or more individuals by force “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States,” and 18 U.S. Code 2385 makes it a crime to “knowingly or willfully advocate[], abet[], advise[], or teach[] the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State … by force or violence,” with additional penalties for conspiring to do the same with another person. The participation of multiple individuals in such a plan would constitute a conspiracy under federal law, thus enhancing the penalties for any of the above acts performed in conjunction with others, with the exception of the crime of “seditious conspiracy,” which is already a collective offense. Several of these provisions not only provide for jail time but also preclude employment in the federal government following conviction, which among other things would prevent Trump from running for president again in 2024 and anyone who assisted him from holding any federal office.

But do “seditious conspiracy” and similar offenses apply to a sitting president? There is no telling what President Trump’s informal advisors apparently suggested. One can imagine that they would try to claim that sedition is not a crime if it is ordered by the president under his extensive Article II powers. And since he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the military would be bound to obey.

This is wrong on all counts and, indeed, White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone reportedly tried to push back by telling the president that proposals raised during the Friday meeting were not within his constitutional authority. But this is not simply about constitutional authority. It also involves military and criminal law.

First, all well-trained military personnel understand that the duty to follow orders is limited to legal orders. Under Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the duty of obedience to the chain of command does not apply to orders the recipient knows to be illegal Thus even if Donald Trump were to issue an illegal order to overturn a lawful election, that order could not be obeyed by the officers and enlisted men and women, whose primary duty is to defend and uphold the Constitution. Second, active duty as well as retired military officers would be subject to the UCMJ, and as such they could be held criminally liable for “mutiny” or “sedition” under 10 U.S. Code 894, a provision that is broader than its civilian counterpart. This would apply to Michael Flynn, who, as a retired officer, could be charged and subject to courts-martial under this provision. What is more, civilians could be held liable (under 10 U.S. Code 2) for aiding and abetting Flynn’s violation of the UCMJ.

But second, not even the president would have immunity under Article II from criminal prosecution were he to attempt to overthrow the results of the election. Under Trump v. Vance, decided by the Supreme Court in July of 2020, Trump was unable to assert presidential immunity to repel a criminal subpoena for financial records of the Trump organization sought by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance. At oral argument in the Second Circuit, the president’s lawyers had presented one of the most extreme interpretations of presidential powers ever offered in a court of law, namely that under his Article II constitutional authority, the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without being either investigated or indicted until after he had left office.

Following the Second Circuit’s rejection of this extreme appeal to immunity, the Supreme Court had no difficulty agreeing that the president would not be immune to criminal process, including investigations and subpoenas. The Court thereby sent the powerful message that no president is above the law. Like ordinary citizens, the president is subject to generally applicable criminal laws, both state and federal. Although the Supreme Court did not address whether a sitting president can be indicted, even the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) opinions that a president should not be indicted while in office accept that he could be indicted and prosecuted immediately following the end of his term. Existing OLC opinions also recognize that a sitting president can be criminally investigated by the Justice Department. Indeed, that is precisely what Robert Mueller did. There are some extreme scenarios that surely would cause even the OLC to rethink its own preference for deferred prosecution; for example, if the president is in the course of carrying out an ongoing violent crime (shooting people on Fifth Avenue) or a military coup, he should be subject to arrest.

Still, an expansive vision of presidential powers under Article II has made dangerous inroads on our constitutional democracy, fueled by a legal fiction known as the theory of the “unitary executive.” This theory was originally a thesis about the president’s power to remove upper level executive branch officials, but it has broadened over the years to justify virtually limitless use of presidential power. As President Trump once put it, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Law Professor John Yoo and other Justice Department lawyers used unitary executive theory during the Bush Administration to justify torture in the face of federal criminal statutes and international treaties forbidding torture. William Barr, as a private lawyer before he became Trump’s Attorney General, auditioned for the job with a 19-page memo in 2018 arguing that the president is constitutionally incapable of committing the crime of obstruction of justice under Article II if he fires an FBI Director or federal prosecutor specifically in order to impede an ongoing criminal investigation, even one investigating himself. Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the opposite stance in Part II of the Mueller Report, where he provided a roadmap for a possible indictment of President Trump for obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation after he leaves office, though Mueller acknowledged that he was bound by the prevailing DOJ practice forbidding indictment of a sitting president.

In 2020, Trump called upon John Yoo for advice on how he could use his power as president under Article II to skirt Congress and impose his own policies on matters such as DACA, healthcare, tax policy, and criminal justice. The same thinking may have helped devise the convoluted legal excuse that nominally allowed the Attorney General to send federal agents into Portland to protect federal courthouses and monuments against protestors seeking to exercise their right to free speech under the First Amendment. One of us wrote against the invocation of the Insurrection Act then; still more does the idea shock and trouble us now. Clearly it is time for the Justice Department to rethink its policy prohibiting indictment of a sitting president. An overly expansive interpretation of presidential powers under Article II has misled one administration after another into thinking that the president is above the law, and our democracy has increasingly paid the price. Having reached the point that a sitting president is seriously contemplating using the military to overturn an election, it should be clear that we need to rethink our approach to presidential power. The Court’s decision in Trump v. Vance, which tells us that no president is above the law, shows us where to begin.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump’s impeachment foreshadowed the damage he has wreaked in the six weeks since Biden beat him in the election and demonstrated his elevation of self over country, his willingness to subvert democracy, and the GOP’s refusal to constrain his behavior . . .

The Court’s decision in Trump v. Vance, which tells us that no president is above the law, shows us where to begin.

This is a long conjectural, speculative, exposition of possibilities and interpretations with the chance that it may all come to fruition being, as mentioned in the second paragraph, "extremely low." It is all based on the notion that there is an attempt to subvert the Constitution rather than an attempt to preserve it.

This paragraph from your post is interesting: Still, an expansive vision of presidential powers under Article II has made dangerous inroads on our constitutional democracy, fueled by a legal fiction known as the theory of the “unitary executive.” This theory was originally a thesis about the president’s power to remove upper level executive branch officials, but it has broadened over the years to justify virtually limitless use of presidential power. As President Trump once put it, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”


I don't know why the author considers the "unitary executive" to be a fiction. It was debated in the Constitutional Convention and decided that rather than having more than one executive it would be better to have only one. From Wiki:

In 1788, the letters of the Federal Farmer were published, generally considered among the most astute of Anti-Federalist writings. The pseudonymous Federal Farmer defended the proposed unitary executive, arguing that "a single man seems to be peculiarly well circumstanced to superintend the execution of laws with discernment and decision, with promptitude and uniformity."

Meanwhile, Federalists such as James Madison were emphasizing an additional advantage of a unitary executive. In Federalist No. 51, he wrote that an undivided executive would strengthen the ability of the executive to resist encroachments by the legislature: "As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided [into branches], the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified." Alexander Hamilton later pointed out that the Constitution grants executive power and legislative power in different ways, with the legislative powers of Congress being expressly limited to what is "herein granted," unlike executive powers which are not expressly limited by an enumeration. Hamilton wrote: In the article which gives the legislative powers of the government, the expressions are "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States." In that which grants the executive power, the expressions are "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States." The enumeration ought therefore to be considered, as intended merely to specify the principal articles implied in the definition of executive power. ...

So, Trump's simplistically artless "I have the right to do whatever I want as president” is a crude iteration of a President having the power to do whatever Article II says he can do as President.

And, so far, he has not abandoned the Constitution--except in your obsessive nightmare. But the growth of Presidential power, along with the expanded power of the whole central government, has long preceded Trump. And it has been a deliberate expansion toward the Progressive administrative state. Which is not constitutional.

[Pete F.]

"The left-wing outrage is predictably over the top. The request here is simple: bring a case before the Supreme Court that would end both democracy and federalism for all time. Why is everyone so mad?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"The left-wing outrage is predictably over the top. The request here is simple: bring a case before the Supreme Court that would end both democracy and federalism for all time. Why is everyone so mad?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not going to happen. "The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters"