Blue Horseshoe

This tragedy in Hawaii won't end well for Newsom in 2024 if he runs for POTUS. Not by a long shot.

"These ambiguities have given rise to a debate about whether Trump’s speech did or did not cross the strict incitement threshold of Brandenburg v. Ohio. It could well be that it did cross the line: Trump had deliberately assembled the mob of supporters, steeled them to action, knew that they were ready to take immediate action, and directed them to take it. But the most important thing is that the Brandenburg question is beside the point. Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact the legal standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio. It enacts the standard of having “engaged in insurrection,” or given “aid or comfort” to those doing so, and qualifies, modifies, or simply satisfies the First Amendment to the extent of any conflict between these constitutional principles. First Amendment or no, the speech was part of Trump’s participation in and support for the insurrection." https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751 ****** "Brandenburg question is besides the point" and "First Amendment or no" So yes, Baude and Stokes Paulsen are completely avoiding the Brandenburg Test. They are attempting to say the 14th Amendment scenario they are presenting doesn't include Brandenburg at all ( in their viewpoint), so thus Brandenburg shouldn't count at all. That the only basis of examining the legal pathway of Trump and J6 is within some very narrow parameters that they've set out. ( Huge logical fallacy carpet bombing from them right here) And I'll say it again, if there was a legal "slam dunk" to wipe out Trump from running for 2024 POTUS, it would have happened already.

@Patented Phil , watch the activist radical leftists start to attack me now. Can't have anything that challenges "The Narrative", can we?

For the "Left" to force Trump from ever holding and/or running for public office again, based on J6, they need to find a way around the Brandenburg Test. From a legal standpoint, there is no way around it regarding Trump. Otherwise Trump would already be in the jackpot for J6 already. And this is Basic Law 101. I don't want Trump in professional politics ever again. I find him exhausting and he's a complete imbecile. I also find the "breach" of the Capitol on J6 to be indefensible. (However the rioters were only a small part of a much larger overall protest, in which the majority were law abiding and exercising their First Amendment rights. ) But Trump is still an American citizen. You can't stretch the law just because so many people actively despise him. Now if someone said to me that Brandenburg is antiquated and no longer is an effective "test" because of the new social media age and the speed of information in current society ( SCOTUS back then could not conceive of these kind of technological changes, they did the best they could given the time and place) , I'd actually agree with that. But Brandenburg currently is the law we have right now. If a political party effected actual and formal DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES to change the law, I don't have a problem with that either. But again, Brandenburg is what we all have right now. Also William Baude, the main author here, was appointed by Biden in 2021 to PCSCOTUS to explore "court packing" for SCOTUS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Commission_on_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States The other "author", Michael Stokes Paulsen, said this before the 2016 general election - "Donald Trump is himself a dangerous man, and should not be permitted to exercise power in any respect." https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/supreme-court-2016-election-fewer-justices-would-curb-power/ Can "inaction", however Baude and Stokes Paulsen ( both clearly hard partisans against Trump and/or Conservatives, no matter how they are attempted to be labeled right now) want to try to define that, be used to show "specific intent" on the part of Trump during J6? Good luck trying to shovel that through any kind of fundamental basic legal scrutiny. It would take a string of outright partisans to force something like what Baude and Stokes Paulsen are suggesting all the way to SCOTUS. And it would never survive SCOTUS even if it made it that far. Game. Set. Match. This is not one of those things where people can say, "Well, everyone can have a different opinion" To get Trump as proposed, you NEED to overcome Brandenburg. You also need to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, "specific intent" That's basic fundamental law. Feel free to try to do both ( Baude and Stokes Paulsen avoided it completely) and let's see how far you get.

This is where the situation gets more ugly and more complicated. There is A LOT of violent crime where the perpetrator AND the victim are both career criminals. You'll notice all of the George Soro's funded woke DA's tend to release those who hunt only "civilians" I.E. they are less apt to go easy on one violent criminal from a pure organized street gang ( because they'll eventually be "green lit" over it by a rival gang) However some cases have slipped through the cracks. Also the "Six Degrees Of Separation" of some of the victims can be quite expansive. So Gascon, like Alvin Bragg, like Larry Krasner, and all the rest need full time security. Highly organized street gangs enforce order by killing someone's children. This is how a lot of hard line ethnic gangs took the East Coast by storm many years ago. In effect, Gascon is getting a private payday from Soros for all of this. Now Gascon is a Newsom/Pelosi loyalist. So he's only in power because of them and Alex Soros. While he will get paid, he has essentially put his entire family under threat the rest of their lives. So the problem is pushback will force changes in sentencing eventually. So you'll have some guys in organized crews who got off light, but a rival gang will get it heavy. All it takes is for a highly organized street crew to assess Gascon is in league with their rivals, and he's "green lit" All these Soro's DAs don't quite understand that the "cancel culture" could easily flip a pure 180 degrees. What if it shifts entirely the other way? When you erode the line of "civil order", the old unspoken rule of those in the "criminal justice system" being off limits no longer applies. That means these new age street thugs don't have the old code anymore. They'll kill cops, they'll kill judges, they'll kill DAs as well. They'll kill their kids. Also no one knows how long Alex Soros will keep playing this game. As soon as these DA's like Bragg, Krasner, Gascon and others are no longer "useful", then what happens to them? They know too much, they've done too much, they are too much of a threat to flip in public on Soros. This is part of the total arrogance of many Americans, and again, for activist leftists. In other non Western countries, people would be outright killed for what Gascon, Bragg, Krasner, Boudin, Foxx and others are doing now. Impending sweeping political violence will soon become a new normal in this country. I mean look at the trajectory now. It's not like this is some huge secret. People are tired, they know they've been abandoned, and they know they won't get justice unless they take it in their own two hands. You can't exercise power if you've enraged the masses and the mob to come massacre you. You can't spend your Soros payoffs if you've incited the rank and file and the working class to come tear you apart. There's greed, and then there's mindless willfully obtuse entitled tone deaf greed. Gascon is a former cop, so he has to be completely a narcissist to rationalize away the real deal here. He chose money and fleeting power over his family.

I created a thread in late July that's essentially designed for people to complain about my posts and/or thread topics. Call it a functional "grease trap" of sorts. You are welcome to take your complaints there. But I'll also address it here. If my thread topics and/or posts are not for you, then there is plenty of other material on the forum you can read and participate in elsewhere. No one is stopping you. The kind of world I want to live in includes people who disagree with me. I'm OK if you disagree with me. No problem there. On any issue. But I draw the line on your entitlement in believing you have some say in how I choose to post. For example, I don't tell Wade Garrett he can't post the way he does. I'll just archive it in public in the hopes that the site owner will see it, finally get tired of him, then decides to permanently ban him forever. But I can't control that. But the same point remains in place - If there are people who want to see a certain kind of posting style or format or topic choice, then nothing is stopping them from setting an example in their own behavior and for them to create the kind of thread topics in the Geek Club that they would like to see regularly. Again, I'm doing that myself now. I'm posting in a way and manner that I would enjoy if others chose to participate that way. But I can't control if they do or don't. Though actually taking some kind of action here, on my part, IMHO, is 1000 times more effective than what I see you and the OP doing here, which is endless complaining about what everyone else is not giving you. Give it to yourself. “I’d always end up broken down on the highway. When I stood there trying to flag someone down, nobody stopped. But when I pushed my own car, other drivers would get out and push with me. If you want help, help yourself – people like to see that.” — Chris Rock

Gov’t scientists got $325M in royalties from China, Russia, pharma firms: report .....National Institutes of Health scientists raked in more than $325 million in royalties from Chinese and Russian entities — as well as pharmaceutical companies — over more than a decade, according to a new report....Former NIH director Dr. Francis Collins and former National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci were among the thousands of government whitecoats who took the cash between September 2009 and October 2020, the taxpayer watchdog OpenTheBooks.com revealed on Wednesday....Several of those royalties came from companies that in turn received federal contracts and grants, prompting concerns about conflicts of interest....Collins, for instance, took licensing payments from at least four firms that have been awarded nearly $50 million from the US government since 2008.... ....Unredacted documents obtained by the group through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show at least 34 Chinese companies are licensing NIH technologies initially funded by US taxpayers....Some of those licensing fees came from the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of the Chinese government-owned pharmaceutical company Sinopharm, which produced a COVID-19 vaccine....In 2016, the biological products company moved its headquarters next to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where risky “gain-of-function” research funded by the US government may have led to the outbreak of the pandemic. The late Dr. Robert Chanock, the former head of the NIAID’s laboratory of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jeffrey Cohen, his successor, were just a few of the virologists on the take from the Wuhan-based company... ....Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who recently referred Fauci to the Department of Justice for having allegedly lied to Congress about government funding of Chinese labs, recently asked the Senate to mandate royalty disclosures from federal employees — but was shot down in committee by Democrats and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)....“Some employees of the federal government are receiving royalties paid out by companies, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, who often have business before the agencies that oversee them,” he said in a July Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing. “Without this amendment, taxpayers, and Congress itself are left in the dark when trying to assess conflicts of interest....” ....The year before, Fauci had declined to say in a Senate hearing what companies paid him third-party royalties...... https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/325m-in-royalty-payments-to-nih-scientists-included-chinese-and-russian-firms/