The Omnibus P01135809 Criminal Investigation Thread

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1691286497788334081?s=20

If Atlanta actually jails Trump I am moving there. If the revolution starts that is the place I want to fight for. I never thought I would love a city so much, but Atlanta just has so much going on that I love. If they fuck Trump up that would be the cherry on top of the cake.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...soccer-and-american-institutions-190825541920

So a link to Hillary on Maddow. It is just fun to watch her dance all over MAGA. She is just doing her best to throw true shit at the Trumpers and if there is any justice this will be played on a constant loop in trump's cell until he dies.

This is Newsweek though, so I'm taking that with a grain of salt.

Just finished reading the indictment. There's very much a tone of "you fucked around, you gonna find out now". I like it.

It's not great that there are typos though. 2 Act 2s and Act 12s, no Act 3 or Act 13.

I'll have two Act 9s, an Act 9 in large print, an Act 6 with extra amendments, an Act 7, two Act 45s, one with footnotes, and a large binder.

The NYT "Who has Been Charged" page is nice and succinct, with a nice short bio for each of the perps.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...on=click&pgtype=Interactive&variant=undefined

23SC188947 - CRIMINAL INDICTMENT - DocumentCloud

Meme aside I heard on the Politics War Room (James Carville and Al Hunt - seriously worth a listen) podcast six months to a year ago (and I’m pretty sure I shared) that according to them Georgia has some of the most expansive RICO statutes in the nation. Like that the state can actually drill deeper down than the Feds in certain instances.

Not tonight, I’m tired but tomorrow (if not remind me) I’ll go look up and old posts about Georgia and RICO and from there go back and try and find the podcast.

Entire Republican Party tonight



Including Graham who should be thanking his Dear and Fluffy Lord that his name didn't appear tonight.

(Sidenote: Am I bad human for saying that maybe RICO at both the Federal and State level is a little over expansive and once the fascists are taken care of we should maybe have a good hard bipartisan look at trimming it up a bit?)

None of his children are charged.

I know it's likely that's just because they were already seeing the writing on the wall and trying to untangle themselves at that point, or were too incompetent even to be invited onboard the coup clown car, but god how good would it be if one or more of them had turned to protect themselves and try and salvage their legacy.

This Marxist plot rocks!

Let this thread be a lesson to everyone:

Your dreams can come true!

When I started this thread over two years ago, even I didn't think we'd see four -- FOUR! -- indictments against that piece of shit.

Me so happy.

I don't know with this Supreme Court that we can consider anything truly settled law. But as I understand it, not doing any research, the Naturalization Act makes people who are born to U.S. citizens abroad citizens, by birth, but "natural born citizen" is potentially still something different -- it means someone born within the geographical territory of the U.S.

This article has Harvard and Yale law professors discussing/debating the issue:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/a-question-of-citizenship/

I think that standing is a concept that is open to interpretation. The idea behind standing is that someone needs to be able to point to a specific actual or potential injury before they can bring suit, not just a loosey-goosey potential one. The leading case on it involved some environmental types who objected to federal regulations in Sri Lanka. Those environmentalists had no connection to Sri Lanka, no plans to go to Sri Lanka, and couldn't point to harm directly to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lujan_v._Defenders_of_Wildlife

I think that sort of thing is different from the potential election to the presidency of someone who may be disqualified to serve.

I would argue every individual voter would potentially have standing to challenge an ineligible candidate on the ballot, because it limits their choices as to who they could vote for. I think every competing candidate or former candidate would have standing to challenge because they are harmed by a potentially invalid candidate being on the ballot siphoning votes away from them. I would say various state and county officials would have standing as it is their job to maintain the integrity of the voting process.

I think it was someone on Twitter who posted about how you don't see any of Biff's family members making public appearances with him now, which is unlike 2016 and 2020.

Tribe's opinion is completely irrelevant. Again, this is settled law - in this case, there were lawsuits challenging Cruz right to be eligible to run for the presidency in NH, VT, TX, FL, UT, PA, AR, IN, AL, IL and NY. All of them failed and Cruz retained his eligibility.

McCain, Rubio, Gabbard, Jindal have all been US candidates for the Presidency despite not being born in the US.

Obama and Harris have been challenged as well, with both of them being found eligible, holding the Presidency and Vice Presidency.

I agree with a rogue SCOTUS who the hell knows, but to this point it's always been ruled to be inclusive, not exclusive.

Worth noting is that while Tribe said Cruz would be ineligible based on the way Cruz generally likes to interpret the Constitution, he didn't say that Cruz's interpretation is right. In fact, it's a pretty good bet that he doesn't feel that way.

"That scale was rigged!!! They're just trying to make me look bad!! Everybody knows I'm the most physically fit president in history!" +

The Deep Weight strikes again.

Like tafkats implied, it is probably not Tribe's own opinion that Cruz is not eligible, but it is the interpretation that originalism demands. At the time of the Constitution, "natural born" through English common law, "natural born citizen" required one to be born within the geographical boundaries of a state. No act of Congress can change what a natural born citizen according to what the prevailing legal thought was at the time of the Constitution actually is; it can at best confer citizenship.

I and Tribe don't generally subscribe to originalism, but I would say the SCOTUS conservatives generally do, or at least they pay it lip service. Now would they abandon/ignore originalism or rationalize that originalism doesn't apply if/when interpreting the law through that lens has a result that they don't want? That's an exercise best left to the reader.

As an aside, I was reminded today of the alternate definition for MAGA: Make Attorneys Get Attorneys.

If you’re a Democrat then it’s okay to challenge an election and say it was stolen.

What Democrats engaged in conspiracy to overturn the results of an election?