I read the article the conservative scholars wrote. While I agree with the premise that tRump should be disqualified on the basis of the 14th amendment, I do not agree that it is self enforcing. I kept wondering who would decide whether tRump was guilty of insurrection? At the time of the passage of the 14th amendment, it was probably easier to determine who had engaged in insurrection. If you were an officer in the Confederate army, that would be pretty straightforward forward. That amendment was ignored in the south. Trump would need to be judged an insurrectionist by a body with authority. The partisan Senate utterly failed the country on this account when it had the chance to disqualify tRump.
Go Montana...I have lived here 47 years. We have a great State Constitution.
We fought the Anaconda Company...corporations are not people. Then that was overturned by the Feds.
We are entitled to clean air and water. Imagine sitting by a campfire. The smoke is blowing in your face. Do you sit there or do you move. Any sensible person would move. Why would anyone in their right mind let others-who control corporations-pollute their air and water AND let their children imbibe.
"Emily Flower, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R)" ... "decried the ruling as 'absurd' and said Montanans cannot be blamed for changing the climate" is an infuriating case of misdirection along the same lines as calling Trump's case one of freedom of speech. They are blatantly trying to induce a defensive reaction in state citizens by telling them they (or their rights) are being attacked.
Contending that environmental impact be included among the considerations when determining the future of an energy project no more blames Montanans for climate change than it blames the energy companies. They also argue that rescinding the law will not have an appreciable impact because Montana contributes so little in the global scheme of things. If I were to cut my energy consumption by half, it would not create a detectable change, but if everyone in the world were able to do so and did, global energy consumption would be cut in half. It takes us all to lift a burden by each lifting our small corner. Someone said "there is so much to do is a terrible excuse for doing nothing".
Happy anniversary, and thank you, Robert, for your lucid analysis of the latest 14th Amendment theory of immaculate enforcement without due process and all of the chaos that would unleash.
Your expectation that Trump will be jailed when he inevitably pushes the boundaries and forces Judge Chutkan to act is very sobering. This is going to be a wild ride.
How about house arrest, no contact with outside world, no internet, no contact with Walt Nauta, no gallivanting around the country for rallies? A regular, nonwealthy person would be sitting in a jail cell, like various January 6 defendants.
I suggested something similar the other day, along with an ankle bracelet. It would be infeasible to hold him in a jail cell, with the unfortunate requirement that he have a Secret Service detail. Aside from the logistical challenges, they don't deserve an assignment like that. Being on the detail alone is punishment enough. Perhaps they could deputize some low risk inmates to serve in their stead. Picture a few guys named Bubba.
A gag order plus confinement would most likely be tried before he would go to prison. As much as I'd like to see him in prison, I agree with Robert that it would be divisive. Though it looks as if Trump might push it that far.
If he were less impulsive and less of a narcissist I would be feeling the prickling of extreme caution - trying to see the trap he's laying. As it is, any trap is inherent in the situation rather than part of some "grand chess strategy". Trump simply cannot believe he could possibly go to prison or even be placed under any serious restriction, so his self interest isn't motivating him to regulate his behavior even if he could (which is questionable).
The trick will be to convince him without looking like it's an effort to affect his ability to conduct a campaign until enough evidence has been laid bare so stronger measures (or even imprisonment which should follow a conviction at any rate and which will be divisive even then) will be acknowledged as justified by a larger portion of the independent and moderate right public.
I very much like the judge's threat of speeding up the time table. That's probably not strong enough but it is very clever.
I'm all for it, but until he's convicted he has to be allowed to campaign. There would need to be some gatekeeper on his communication rather than a cold hard stop.
Happy Anniversary to you and Jill. I wish there were more people like you. Thanks for your discipline and devotion to among others things, this newsletter.
Kudos Robert. This is one of your finest missives.
You have given us lay people a thoroughly parsed and rational thought-provoking set of perspectives here. I must concur with all your positions. Mind you, could Trump still be stupid and unhinged enough to keep breaking the rule of law and provide the noose to hang himself figuratively? Yes. Frankly, it is a safe bet; none of his rotating and shrinking cadre of "no ethics or talent" lawyers have ever demonstrated any ability to restrain him... they are apparently just weak "deflector shields" that collect whatever $$ they can; get whatever PR they can and exit stage left - with the risk of being disbarred. To trump the underbelly of the law profession is just a tool to be exploited and discarded as per his whim.
As attractive as it is for some to buy into and espouse the trite legal theory approach offered by the arch-conservative Federalist Society, I offer the "other angle" perspective that maybe they are actually positing this hoping it will cause the chaos of a "loose interpretation morass" that you have predicted here. I certainly would not put it past them as a means to an end to foment discord and give conservatives some window of opportunity to play a misinformation gambit to get more seats in Congress.
So yes, the ultimate safe and most prudent path barring something bizarre happening (it still might) is to crush him at the ballot box. I frankly think that is the perfect way to vanquish him, then let him serve some time and serve notice on all his core "deplorables" that they are a minority and will stay so.
Lastly, and very importantly, please accept by best wishes for a joyful anniversary and many more to come 🙏. Cheers.
Thanks for putting meat on the bones of my view that invoking the 14th Amendment requires a guilty finding by a court of appropriate jurisdiction (the court of public opinion not being one). As you say, we need to beat the guy in the election, and beat him soundly. We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by shiny objects, smoke, projection, misdirection, or wishful thinking. Focus, focus, focus!
Apparently, Bob, the Governor cannot pardon Trump. That's a relief. Plus he was on MSNBC in an interview he gave to someone this morning saying Trump is guilty!
That's correct for Georgia. In NY, the governor can. In GA, there's a board that grants pardons, but it's only after five years have elapsed after a sentence has been served. I believe it still leaves a record, but that may be moot in TFG's case if he's convicted of the RICO charge, because he'd be about 89 years old.
I heard the interview again this afternoon, and Kemp didn't actually say Trump was guilty, but rather indicated that there is no evidence that there was fraud in the Georgia election.
Mazal Tov on your wedding anniversary! Looking forward to seeing some Alaska slides on the Senate Circle Zoom and reading your thoughts about the Georgia indictment.
Aug 15, 2023·edited Aug 15, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Psssssss. . . .that is the air being let out of the Article 14, Section 3 argument balloon.
Only a good lawyer, like Robert, could find fault with another good lawyer's argument. But, of course, neither Baude or Paulson are "good" lawyers given that they are revered members of the Federalist Society, a group that has misappropriated the Supreme Court.
Since, Robert, you obviously make very strong arguments that, at a minimum, there are good arguments against application of Art. 14, Sec. 3. I previously referenced the State of NM v. Couy Griffin wherein the State Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that Griffin was barred from public service based on his actions on January 6, 2021. Adds to the argument. See links below.
In the meantime, let's keep your arguments tucked away, hidden in Substack. I'm going to continue to support CREW's effort to prevent Trump from getting on the ballot. My guess is that this issue will end up before the Supreme Court. And there are two things we know about the "conservative" SC justices: (1) they are deep in debt to the Federalist Society for reaching the pinnacle of power and (2) they ain't the sharpest tools in the shed. So, who knows, maybe they'll just apply Baude and Paulson's arguments because to do otherwise could result in Trump getting re-elected president!😱
But I'll keep working to defeat Trump no matter what!
I always appreciate your thoughtful, well-informed, and sensible pieces, Robert. You are a beacon of light as we navigate these difficult times.
Trump has just been indicted in Georgia! Yippee! He can’t pardon himself out of this one!
Note to the 18 other defendants: "When you hitch your wagon behind a horse's a$$, don't be surprised if you wind up eating a lot of horse$#!+."
Happy anniversary and may there be many more happy years.
And thanks for the clarification on the 14th amendment. We will make sure to bar Trump at the ballot box.
I read the article the conservative scholars wrote. While I agree with the premise that tRump should be disqualified on the basis of the 14th amendment, I do not agree that it is self enforcing. I kept wondering who would decide whether tRump was guilty of insurrection? At the time of the passage of the 14th amendment, it was probably easier to determine who had engaged in insurrection. If you were an officer in the Confederate army, that would be pretty straightforward forward. That amendment was ignored in the south. Trump would need to be judged an insurrectionist by a body with authority. The partisan Senate utterly failed the country on this account when it had the chance to disqualify tRump.
Good for you for reading the article! It is a slog!
Go Montana...I have lived here 47 years. We have a great State Constitution.
We fought the Anaconda Company...corporations are not people. Then that was overturned by the Feds.
We are entitled to clean air and water. Imagine sitting by a campfire. The smoke is blowing in your face. Do you sit there or do you move. Any sensible person would move. Why would anyone in their right mind let others-who control corporations-pollute their air and water AND let their children imbibe.
Love our Montana kids.
Go Griz, Go Bobcats
Happy 42nd!! Celebrate with joy ❣️
Thank you GEORGIA!
10 Indictments.
19 people named.
41 counts.
State charges without the ability of federal pardons.
I'm going to have a small glass of champagne.
Saving the bottle for the first trial.
Having a party at conviction.
Nice! I too am sipping Champagne and saving some really good stuff for every major takedown event that is forthcoming. Cheers!🍾
https://www.kuow.org/stories/a-new-gray-wolf-pack-is-found-200-miles-south-of-california-s-nearest-known-pack
A story about wolves moving south into your “neighborhood” ❤️!
And huge kudos to the young people of Montana!!!
"Emily Flower, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R)" ... "decried the ruling as 'absurd' and said Montanans cannot be blamed for changing the climate" is an infuriating case of misdirection along the same lines as calling Trump's case one of freedom of speech. They are blatantly trying to induce a defensive reaction in state citizens by telling them they (or their rights) are being attacked.
Contending that environmental impact be included among the considerations when determining the future of an energy project no more blames Montanans for climate change than it blames the energy companies. They also argue that rescinding the law will not have an appreciable impact because Montana contributes so little in the global scheme of things. If I were to cut my energy consumption by half, it would not create a detectable change, but if everyone in the world were able to do so and did, global energy consumption would be cut in half. It takes us all to lift a burden by each lifting our small corner. Someone said "there is so much to do is a terrible excuse for doing nothing".
Thanks for expanding on my comments. I wanted to make some of the above points but ran out of time!
Enjoy your anniversary!
Beautifully written and so true!
Robert and Jill,
Happy anniversary, and thank you, Robert, for your lucid analysis of the latest 14th Amendment theory of immaculate enforcement without due process and all of the chaos that would unleash.
Your expectation that Trump will be jailed when he inevitably pushes the boundaries and forces Judge Chutkan to act is very sobering. This is going to be a wild ride.
How about house arrest, no contact with outside world, no internet, no contact with Walt Nauta, no gallivanting around the country for rallies? A regular, nonwealthy person would be sitting in a jail cell, like various January 6 defendants.
I suggested something similar the other day, along with an ankle bracelet. It would be infeasible to hold him in a jail cell, with the unfortunate requirement that he have a Secret Service detail. Aside from the logistical challenges, they don't deserve an assignment like that. Being on the detail alone is punishment enough. Perhaps they could deputize some low risk inmates to serve in their stead. Picture a few guys named Bubba.
A gag order plus confinement would most likely be tried before he would go to prison. As much as I'd like to see him in prison, I agree with Robert that it would be divisive. Though it looks as if Trump might push it that far.
If he were less impulsive and less of a narcissist I would be feeling the prickling of extreme caution - trying to see the trap he's laying. As it is, any trap is inherent in the situation rather than part of some "grand chess strategy". Trump simply cannot believe he could possibly go to prison or even be placed under any serious restriction, so his self interest isn't motivating him to regulate his behavior even if he could (which is questionable).
The trick will be to convince him without looking like it's an effort to affect his ability to conduct a campaign until enough evidence has been laid bare so stronger measures (or even imprisonment which should follow a conviction at any rate and which will be divisive even then) will be acknowledged as justified by a larger portion of the independent and moderate right public.
I very much like the judge's threat of speeding up the time table. That's probably not strong enough but it is very clever.
I'm all for it, but until he's convicted he has to be allowed to campaign. There would need to be some gatekeeper on his communication rather than a cold hard stop.
Happy anniversary! It is plain to see how much you love and respect each other. May you have many more happy years!
Happy Anniversary to you and Jill. I wish there were more people like you. Thanks for your discipline and devotion to among others things, this newsletter.
Kudos Robert. This is one of your finest missives.
You have given us lay people a thoroughly parsed and rational thought-provoking set of perspectives here. I must concur with all your positions. Mind you, could Trump still be stupid and unhinged enough to keep breaking the rule of law and provide the noose to hang himself figuratively? Yes. Frankly, it is a safe bet; none of his rotating and shrinking cadre of "no ethics or talent" lawyers have ever demonstrated any ability to restrain him... they are apparently just weak "deflector shields" that collect whatever $$ they can; get whatever PR they can and exit stage left - with the risk of being disbarred. To trump the underbelly of the law profession is just a tool to be exploited and discarded as per his whim.
As attractive as it is for some to buy into and espouse the trite legal theory approach offered by the arch-conservative Federalist Society, I offer the "other angle" perspective that maybe they are actually positing this hoping it will cause the chaos of a "loose interpretation morass" that you have predicted here. I certainly would not put it past them as a means to an end to foment discord and give conservatives some window of opportunity to play a misinformation gambit to get more seats in Congress.
So yes, the ultimate safe and most prudent path barring something bizarre happening (it still might) is to crush him at the ballot box. I frankly think that is the perfect way to vanquish him, then let him serve some time and serve notice on all his core "deplorables" that they are a minority and will stay so.
Lastly, and very importantly, please accept by best wishes for a joyful anniversary and many more to come 🙏. Cheers.
Happy 42nd! Maybe you should take the night off!
Thanks for putting meat on the bones of my view that invoking the 14th Amendment requires a guilty finding by a court of appropriate jurisdiction (the court of public opinion not being one). As you say, we need to beat the guy in the election, and beat him soundly. We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by shiny objects, smoke, projection, misdirection, or wishful thinking. Focus, focus, focus!
Apparently, Bob, the Governor cannot pardon Trump. That's a relief. Plus he was on MSNBC in an interview he gave to someone this morning saying Trump is guilty!
That's correct for Georgia. In NY, the governor can. In GA, there's a board that grants pardons, but it's only after five years have elapsed after a sentence has been served. I believe it still leaves a record, but that may be moot in TFG's case if he's convicted of the RICO charge, because he'd be about 89 years old.
Interesting!
I heard the interview again this afternoon, and Kemp didn't actually say Trump was guilty, but rather indicated that there is no evidence that there was fraud in the Georgia election.
Mazal Tov on your wedding anniversary! Looking forward to seeing some Alaska slides on the Senate Circle Zoom and reading your thoughts about the Georgia indictment.
On the PBS Newshour tonight, Judy Woodruff conducted an excellent in-depth interview with distinguished retired judge J. Michael Luttig, in which the judge characterized Trump and his allies and supporters as being a "clear and present danger to American democracy". You can see it at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/conservative-retired-judge-says-trump-corroded-and-corrupted-american-democracy.
Thanks for the link!
Thanks so much for this link. This interview with Judge Luttig was very powerful.
Psssssss. . . .that is the air being let out of the Article 14, Section 3 argument balloon.
Only a good lawyer, like Robert, could find fault with another good lawyer's argument. But, of course, neither Baude or Paulson are "good" lawyers given that they are revered members of the Federalist Society, a group that has misappropriated the Supreme Court.
Since, Robert, you obviously make very strong arguments that, at a minimum, there are good arguments against application of Art. 14, Sec. 3. I previously referenced the State of NM v. Couy Griffin wherein the State Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that Griffin was barred from public service based on his actions on January 6, 2021. Adds to the argument. See links below.
In the meantime, let's keep your arguments tucked away, hidden in Substack. I'm going to continue to support CREW's effort to prevent Trump from getting on the ballot. My guess is that this issue will end up before the Supreme Court. And there are two things we know about the "conservative" SC justices: (1) they are deep in debt to the Federalist Society for reaching the pinnacle of power and (2) they ain't the sharpest tools in the shed. So, who knows, maybe they'll just apply Baude and Paulson's arguments because to do otherwise could result in Trump getting re-elected president!😱
But I'll keep working to defeat Trump no matter what!
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/state-supreme-court-dismisses-griffins-appeal-of-ruling-finding-him-an-insurrectionist/article_4d12b522-aee9-11ed-b4cd-9baa820fac13.html#
https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/D101CV202200473-griffin.pdf