Attorney Cheeseburger (Chesebro) has done much work on understanding the selection and voting for Presidents, including some fine historical analysis that he emailed to a certain Mr. Giuliani on December 13, 2020. After summarizing the details of the process for determining electoral counts under the original constitution, he pointed out:
Attorney Cheeseburger (Chesebro) has done much work on understanding the selection and voting for Presidents, including some fine historical analysis that he emailed to a certain Mr. Giuliani on December 13, 2020. After summarizing the details of the process for determining electoral counts under the original constitution, he pointed out:
"Further, during this era there was an emphasis on honorable behavior and circumspection. Leaders were greatly concerned about their reputation, about whether they were perceived as honorable, both during their lives and afterwards. So there was much less concern that someone in a national legislature entrusted with power to count votes would abuse it.."
So what Attorney Cheesebuger is saying in his own analysis is that the framers never expected to see the kinds of abuses of power that he and Guiliani were counselling for.
The basic scheme they devised was to have Pence go against the Electoral Count Act, based in part on a claim of a "conlfiict of interest" by Pense so that someone else could step in as "President of the Senate" or otherwise to count votes based on committee findings that could be made, recognizing alternative electors.
A couple of basic important points I dont think you will see on TV:
1) What is couched as legal strategy and advise is often really a media strategy - Chesebro in numbered point (1) of his strategy talks only in terms of media strategy;
2) Media has a severe conflict of interest - the criminals always see this a s a media game and want all
legal matters to be tried in the court of public opinion, ruled by the media;
3) The big, glaring legal case is not the insurrection, its the conspiracy charged in smith's DC indictment and the GA case, both of which do not really involve the insurrection or related acts. Regardless of the insurrection that took place, there was a pretty detailed strategy laid out by Attorney Cheesebuger, and the vaious co-conspirators were following it and trying to get others to follow it, etc.
First Amendment and free speech WOULD BE a relevant defense (a generally relevant, legitimate defense that could be asserted depending on facts) to charges involving insurrection (inciting violence etc). The whole point that's missing is that those arent the charges, Trump and his media echo are talking about a defense to the wrong charges.
A lot of what you see on Politico, The Hill, even most CNN, is just a way of getting Trump narratives out there with a straight face, or distracting from the seriousness and illegality of the subject matter at hand.
Here it is, see anything about Free Speech, All I see is Congress shall make no laws
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That sentence does not say that you, I, an employer, a university can say any thing we want, especially if it harms or threatens a person or public safety, Nor does it mean that a state can't pass laws that limit speech.
The thought just occurred to me, that the reason that the media makes so much noise about free speech, is because that is how they make a profit, causing division, telling lies, focusing on the liars and thieves, the media loves Trump, the media created Trump, as Les Moonves said: Trump is bad for America but great for CBS. They can justify slanders and lies, (Fox is the master of it) by claiming free speech and no one questions it, iby the same token the media, if it so wished, could make guns totally socially unacceptable and rally the people behind sensible laws, but they make too much money (eyeballs) with breaking news on another mass shooting.
Attorney Cheeseburger (Chesebro) has done much work on understanding the selection and voting for Presidents, including some fine historical analysis that he emailed to a certain Mr. Giuliani on December 13, 2020. After summarizing the details of the process for determining electoral counts under the original constitution, he pointed out:
"Further, during this era there was an emphasis on honorable behavior and circumspection. Leaders were greatly concerned about their reputation, about whether they were perceived as honorable, both during their lives and afterwards. So there was much less concern that someone in a national legislature entrusted with power to count votes would abuse it.."
So what Attorney Cheesebuger is saying in his own analysis is that the framers never expected to see the kinds of abuses of power that he and Guiliani were counselling for.
The basic scheme they devised was to have Pence go against the Electoral Count Act, based in part on a claim of a "conlfiict of interest" by Pense so that someone else could step in as "President of the Senate" or otherwise to count votes based on committee findings that could be made, recognizing alternative electors.
A couple of basic important points I dont think you will see on TV:
1) What is couched as legal strategy and advise is often really a media strategy - Chesebro in numbered point (1) of his strategy talks only in terms of media strategy;
2) Media has a severe conflict of interest - the criminals always see this a s a media game and want all
legal matters to be tried in the court of public opinion, ruled by the media;
3) The big, glaring legal case is not the insurrection, its the conspiracy charged in smith's DC indictment and the GA case, both of which do not really involve the insurrection or related acts. Regardless of the insurrection that took place, there was a pretty detailed strategy laid out by Attorney Cheesebuger, and the vaious co-conspirators were following it and trying to get others to follow it, etc.
First Amendment and free speech WOULD BE a relevant defense (a generally relevant, legitimate defense that could be asserted depending on facts) to charges involving insurrection (inciting violence etc). The whole point that's missing is that those arent the charges, Trump and his media echo are talking about a defense to the wrong charges.
A lot of what you see on Politico, The Hill, even most CNN, is just a way of getting Trump narratives out there with a straight face, or distracting from the seriousness and illegality of the subject matter at hand.
Free speech, an overworked and fraudulent phrase.
Have you read the 1st amendment?
Here it is, see anything about Free Speech, All I see is Congress shall make no laws
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That sentence does not say that you, I, an employer, a university can say any thing we want, especially if it harms or threatens a person or public safety, Nor does it mean that a state can't pass laws that limit speech.
The thought just occurred to me, that the reason that the media makes so much noise about free speech, is because that is how they make a profit, causing division, telling lies, focusing on the liars and thieves, the media loves Trump, the media created Trump, as Les Moonves said: Trump is bad for America but great for CBS. They can justify slanders and lies, (Fox is the master of it) by claiming free speech and no one questions it, iby the same token the media, if it so wished, could make guns totally socially unacceptable and rally the people behind sensible laws, but they make too much money (eyeballs) with breaking news on another mass shooting.