The purpose of this brief newsletter is to open the Comment section to paying subscribers for the weekend. As always, please be respectful and “like” worthy comments to promote them to the attention of other readers. See my note below for additional information about the Comment section.
Brief notes:
The Republican chair of the House Ethics Committee has introduced a resolution to expel George Santos. Speaker Mike Johnson told members to consider the best interests of the House in voting on the motion. Johnson’s comments are a shift from those of Kevin McCarthy, who suggested that Santos should remain in Congress until convicted.
Apple and IBM “paused” advertising on Twitter after Elon Musk retweets antisemitic claims about “replacement theory.”
Judge Arthur Engoron emphatically denied Trump's motion for a mistrial in the NY civil fraud trial against Trump.
Judge Aileen Cannon is doing her best to ensure that Trump's trial for retaining national defense secrets will not commence until after the 2024 election. Aileen Cannon Makes A MAL Trial Before Election Nearly Impossible (talkingpointsmemo.com).
The Department of Justice has opened investigations targeting seven incidents of antisemitic and Islamophobic conduct on university campuses and K-12 schools.
A Colorado judge ruled that Donald Trump cannot be kept off the Colorado primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Larry Tribe and Judge Luttig will explain the ruling on Ali Velshi’s program on MSNBC on Saturday at 10:00 AM Eastern.
As Judge Luttig explained on Twitter, the ruling includes several factual findings that will be helpful in keeping Trump off the ballot if an appeal is successful on a key legal issue. Judge Luttig wrote,
The Colorado State District Court, Judge Sarah B. Wallace, held tonight that the former president “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect [his] speech." The court also held that he "acted with the specific intent to disrupt the Electoral College certification of President Biden’s electoral victory through unlawful means." The court thus found as both fact and law the preconditions to the former president's disqualification under Section 3.
But then, accepting wholesale the former president’s tortured constitutional arguments, the court held that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States” and that the former president was not an "officer of the United States" and did not take an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States” in 2016 when he took the presidential oath in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It is unfathomable as a matter of constitutional interpretation that the Presidency of the United States is not an “office under the United States.”
A comment on the Comment section.
As you know, I occasionally open the Comment section to all readers. (The Comment section is usually open only to paying subscribers.) I believe the ability to share comments with other readers is an important part of the “glue” of this community. But when I open the Comment section to all readers, it is open to the public at large.
Opening the Comment section to the public introduces some risk that trolls will enter the forum. A pattern has developed recently: Several hours after I open the Comment section to all readers, trolls find their way to the Comment section and post bad-faith comments, advertisements, or malicious links that take readers to MAGA content.
Last week, a troll joined the Comment section early Saturday morning after I opened comments to all readers. I am embarrassed to say I clicked on a malicious link posted by the troll (I was trying to determine if it was a legitimate link). I heard from one other reader who did so, as well. Fortunately, I identified the offending comment within ten minutes of its posting and deleted it. I then locked down the Comment section to paying subscribers.
The “paywall” to the Comment section is nearly 100% effective in keeping out trolls. It turns out they don’t like providing credit card information and a real email for the privilege of posting bad-faith comments, ads, or malicious links.
I will continue to look for opportunities to open the Comment section more broadly, but for the reason explained above, I will do so on short notice and for a limited duration. Thanks for your understanding. And remember, you can always email me directly by “replying” to the newsletter email. I read every email every day, even if I am unable to reply.
Concluding Thoughts.
In my concluding thoughts yesterday, I suggested that the upcoming holiday week would be a time to slow down and relax. That is true for many people, but not for others. Reader Tim R. sent an email saying that he works in a hospice, where the need for staff and volunteers does not subside during the holidays. He writes,
The suffering do not get a break from their infirmities, the poor do not get a break from poverty, the lonely don’t get a break from isolation. This is the time to provide extra visits and support, not less.
I endorse Tim’s comments and extend them. Over the holidays, many workers show up at their jobs as nurses, law enforcement officers, government employees, grocery workers, restaurant workers, service workers, postal workers, delivery personnel, and more. They allow us to enjoy the holidays with ease, comfort, and safety because they continue to work regular hours (or overtime).
This holiday season, remember to express gratitude to the person behind the counter, the voice who picks up the phone, and the workers who allow us to continue our lives as usual. And, as Tim urges, let’s also remember those who are struggling with illness, poverty, and isolation. Small acts of kindness and generosity on our part can make a huge difference for others.
Talk to you on Monday!
Resounding applause to the House Ethics Committee for calling out egregious self-dealing, abuse of office and financial misappropriation. Perhaps they might assist Chief Justice Roberts in composing an Ethics Code for the Supreme Court, then apply the exact same standards and scrutiny to the current candidates for President...especially the Republican front runner.
I'm anxious to hear more about the Colorado decision and the appeal process. I have long felt that there was a need for some judicial authority to determine that the Defendant had engaged in an insurrection, in order for the 14th Amendment to apply, but I never thought any reasonable person would buy the argument that a president is neither an office holder nor an officer in the federal government. The judge's decision on the latter may call into question the decision on the former.
The fact that the judge found the Defendant engaged in an insurrection but that 14A doesn't apply to the presidency is perplexing, and would seem to provide grounds for a successful appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, which will likely then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps this split verdict will lead to a unified verdict sooner rather than later.