At any rate, my thanks to @rocking_chair for plowing through all that. Very informative; thanks again!
IOW, you don’t get to turn this into a lie-spewing rally like you do with everything else. Like a mod telling a poster they have to stop hijacking every thread to bring up some specific topic, even when it’s not really relevant. If Chutkan was a doper, this is where she could have included an Easter Egg by saying that she won’t allow her court room to be turned into The Trump Show.
Speaking of…I was watching something the other day when the a few of the people on a panel started discussing if a list with only one item was actually a list and, if not, how many items does it take before it’s considered a list. I remember thinking at one point that if a doper was in the group, there was one or two opportunities to say ‘hi opal’, especially since it had mostly devolved into blooper territory at that point anyway.
Can somebody clarify what “cc” and “p” stand for wrt the redacted individual names?
P means “person”, cc means co-conspirator.
I was reading this as more “Knock it off or face sanctions”.
Also, “you know better, so act like it”
Do they, though?
I think so.
I truly feel like this is a case of “this is what the client demands, even if we know it won’t work and probably will get us in trouble ifnwe push too hard. So we push it just short of that point, so we can tell the client ‘we tried’ and the client can make political bullet points with it.”
Unless they’re true believers like Rudy. But hopefully the supply of those lawyers is running out.
yes, that should be pressure trump and does not have the authority.
pp79-85 continues the day at the capitol and the white house highlighting trump’s tweets and the actions of cc1 and others to pressure lawmakers to stop the certification.
pg 85 starts the legal framework
in trump, the supreme court held that former presidents are immune from prosecution for core official acts, enjoy a rebuttable presumption of immunity for other official acts, and have no immunity for unofficial acts, and remanded to the court for further proceedings consistent with its holding.
so pp85-165
layout the unofficial acts argument.
pg88 none of the allegations or evidence is protected by presidential immunity. that trump used private actors and his campaign infrastructure to attempt to overturn the election results and operated in a private capacity as a candidate for office.
the argument starts with pence. stating that the executive branch has no authority or function to choose the next president.
pg 94
history confirms that presidents have never understood their wide-ranging duties to encompass any direct role in the function of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of a presidential election.
pg 95 states that: the absence of any such historical tradition is reinforced by the fact that in 22 of the 59 certification proceedings the vice president has not presided at all.
pg 96 because the vice president’s role is and has always been ministerial, rather than substantive or discretionary, it is difficult to imagine an occasion in which a president would have any valid reason to try to influence it.
pg 100 start the arguments of trump’s interaction with targeted states.
most importantly, as with the defendant’s plan regarding the fraudulent elector slates, as president, he had no official role in the process by which states appointed and ascertained their presidential electors.
calls to the governor of arizona, meetings with michigan legislators, calls to speaker of arizona, calls to the georgia attorney general, call to p33, are detailed.
pg 111 starts part 2
even if the defendant’s contacts with state officials were official, the government can rebut the presumption of immunity
pg 116 discusses the event at dalton ga for the senate election the following day. the rnc paid for the event and the trip binder included a hatch act disclaimer that employees of the federal government may not use their official title or position when participating in a political event.
pg 118 discusses the ellipse speech on jan 6. the event was planned and executed by private political supporters.
the ellipse rally was originally planned to take place at freedom plaza, but after women for america first began to plan the rally independent of the defendant, p 64 a private fundraiser for the defendant, contacted wfaf to discuss moving the event to the ellipse and featuring the defendant as a guest.
the defendant’s trip binder for the ellipse speech also reinforces the private nature of the event.
the binder did not include the hatch act disclaimer. an email from the white house photographer stated “reminder today is a political event”.
the white house counsel’s office pointedly did not review the ellipse speech because it was an unofficial campaign speech.
pg 121 mentions that the defendant did not take the stage with hail to the chief.
pg 126 moves on to tweets.
as an initial matter, the defendant sent, or directed the sending of all tweets and re-tweets from at real donald trump, the personal twitter account that the defendant started long before assuming the presidency.
the supreme court’s decision in lindke v freed confirms that a public official’s personal social-media account can be used for both personal and public business, and consistent with trump, that a fact-specific inquiry is required to discern into which category a post falls.
a tweet by tweet analysis was done. pp 126-144 lay out the argument of various tweets and why they are not covered under “official acts”.
144 moves on to other public statements.
147 starts the defendant’s interactions, in his capacity as a candidate, with white house staff
the use of the hatch act informs the arguments for official vs unofficial
pg 158 gives evidence of the defendant’s knowledge and intent
pg161 the defendant’s use of twitter and television on jan 6
pg 162 the defendant’s post-administration statements
(rc, what you say can and will be used…)
and the conclusion wraps up on pp 164 and a wee bit of 165.
this motion for immunity determinations is quite something. this is just a brief (hee) look at the evidence in this case. there is a lot of new information. the thing i found most persuasive in the official vs unofficial is that the defendant was all in only on his race. he never mentioned the other candidates on the ballot. his name is not alone on the ballots.
if votes were taken from him, were they not taken from others?
I appreciate rocking_chair posting highlights, but does anyone have a good link to the whole motion?
i posted pbs’s link above. linking fox here. a bit of both…
Thank you.
The above as text:
CC1: Rudy Guiliani - DJT Personal Lawyer
CC2: John Eastman - Trump lawyer
CC3: Sidney Powell - Trump lawyer
CC4: Jeffery Clark - DOJ Official
CC5: Kenneth Chesebro - Drafted fake elector memos
CC6: Boris Epshteyn - Private campaign advisor
P1: Steve Bannon
P2: Bill Stepien - Campaign Manager
P3: Justin Clark - Deputy Campaign Manager
P4: Jason Miller - Senior Campaign Advisor
P5: Michael Roman - Campaign staffer - disrupting vote counts
P6: Roger Stone - Longtime Trump advisor
P7: Hope Hicks - Advisor And Campaign spokeswoman
P8: Mark Short - Pence Chief of staff
P9: Eric Herschmann - White House Lawyer
P10: Joseph DiGenova - Lawyer
P11: Victoria Toensing - Lawyer
P12: Jenna Ellis - Trump Lawyer
P13: Jared Kushner - Trump’s son-in-law
P14: Ivanka Trump - Trump’s daughter
P15: Assistant to the President and Director of Oval Office Operations - Nicholas F. Luna
P16: Arizona Gov Doug Ducey
P17: Brian Kemp - Georgia Governor
P18: Rusty Bowers - AZ House Speaker
P19: Christina Bobb - Campaign Staffer
P20: Kory Langhofer - Bowers’ lawyer
P21: Mark Meadows - White House Chief of Staff
P22: Alex Cannon - Lawyer
P23: Ray Stallings Smith III - Trump GA Lawyer
P24: Jacki Pick - presented misleading footage
P25: Gabriel Sterling - GA official
P26: Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr
P27: U.S. Senator David Purdue
P28: U.S. Senator Kelly Loeffler
P29: Ruby Freeman - GA election worker - falsely accused
P30: Shaye Moss - GA election worker - Freeman’s daughter
P31: Cleta Mitchell - Trump GA Attorney
P32: Kurt Robert Hilbert - Trump’s lawyer in Trump v. Kemp
P33: Brad Raffensperger - Secretary of State GA
P34: Geoff Duncan - Lt. Gov Georgia
P35: Alex Kaufman - Raffensperger’s general counsel
P36: Robert Cheeley - Trump lawyer on GA call
P37: Mike Shirkey - MI Senate Majority Leader
P38: Lee Chatfield - MI House Speaker
P39: RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel
P40: Unknown - Not seen in Document
P41: Scott Gragson - NV operative assisting in MI
P42: Molly Michael - Trump’s executive assistant
P43: Justin Riemer - RNC Chief Counsel
P44: Sophia Lai - RNC spokesperson
P45: Dan Scavino - Trump’s social media director
P46: Bernard “Bernie” Kerik - PA Republican Party Chair
P47: Al Schmidt - Philadelphia City Commissioner
P49: Brian Hagedorn - WI Supreme Court Justice
P50: Chris Krebs - CISA Director
P51: Tucker Carlson - Fox News host
P52: William Barr - Attorney General
P53: Jack Wilenchik - Fake elector scheme (emails)
P54: Hannah Salem - Trump campaign staffer
P55: Boris Epshteyn - Trump advisor
P56: Cleta Mitchell - Trump lawyer
P57: Lou Barletta - Former Congressman, PA elector
P58: Greg Jacob - Pence’s Counsel
P59: Pat Cipollone - White House counsel
P60: Kayleigh McEnany - WH Press Secretary
P61: Karen Fann - AZ Senate President
P62: Ken Paxton - TX Attorney General
P63: Eric Schmitt - MO Attorney General
P64: Caroline Wren - Jan 6 rally organizer
P65: Julie Fancelli - Jan 6 rally funder
P66: Dustin Stockton - Jan 6 rally organizer
P67: Shealah Craighead - WH photographer
P68: Raheem Kassam - Conservative commentator
P69: Peter Navarro - WH trade advisor
P70: Ivan Raiklin - Trump Campaign Surrogate
P71: Patrick Philbin - Deputy White House Counsel
P72: Matt Morgan - White House Aide
P73: Campaign staffer working with Eric Herschmann
P74: Spoke in court Dec 10, 2020 in GA — J. Christian Adams or Matt Braynard
P75: Unknown
P76: Sidney Powell - Trump’s lawyer
P77: Stefan Passantino
C1: Company owned by Ken Block to investigate - He says no fraud was found
C2: C2 Berkely Research Group
C3: Dominion Voting Systems
Thank you, Ann. And ChatGPT.
Here’s a pretty good layman’s explanation for the whole thing (with a healthy sprinkle throughout of every version of “F-bomb” that you can think of).
This twitter curmedgeon guy (Jeff Tiedrich) never fails to deliver the goods.
This is a link to his own blog, outside of Twitter.
Thank you! I’ve been filling in the blanks, this really helps.