Re Ruling of Judge Jones:
Note the lack of a citation to any authority that this sentence is true.

In fact, there is no support for this proposition in federal case law.

I suspect I'll find more examples like this when I'm able to dive into this later. pic.twitter.com/XE0rDi3LzL

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) September 8, 2023

There's like 100 different allegations of ****ed up **** in the Georgia election that should be questioned and deserve real answers and more keeps coming.

🚨🚨BREAKING: Issues were found with transfer forms for 43,907 out of 61,731 absentee ballots cast via drop box in DeKalb County, Georgia, in the 2020 election.

— 🇺🇸🇺🇸Josh Dunlap🇺🇲🇺🇲 ULTRA-MAGA (@JDunlap1974) September 12, 2023

Instead, the response is to indict and try to imprison those who question it.

But Orange Man is so really really bad and says mean things and lacks decorum and whines about elections whilst not starting any new wars, increased overall tax revenue whilst cutting taxes for all, greatest economy, best employment figures particularly for minorities.

Yes, we must imprison Trump despite evidence of cheating because he asked people to look into cheating.

And he was impeached for asking Zelensky to look into crimes the Bidens actually were committing.

babe, wake up, LSAT logic games section of your nightmares just dropped pic.twitter.com/LD1TGw3pNC

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) September 12, 2023

TXAggie2011 said:

---

babe, wake up, LSAT logic games section of your nightmares just dropped pic.twitter.com/LD1TGw3pNC

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) September 12, 2023

---

someone should mock up a Venn-Diagram.

oh no said:

---

There's like 100 different allegations of ****ed up **** in the Georgia election that should be questioned and deserve real answers and more keeps coming.

🚨🚨BREAKING: Issues were found with transfer forms for 43,907 out of 61,731 absentee ballots cast via drop box in DeKalb County, Georgia, in the 2020 election.

— 🇺🇸🇺🇸Josh Dunlap🇺🇲🇺🇲 ULTRA-MAGA (@JDunlap1974) September 12, 2023

Instead, the response is to indict and try to imprison those who question it.

---

What, exactly, is an absentee ballot transfer form? What 'issues' were found? Were they addressed?
Were ballots from any other county found to have the same 'issues'?

Quote:

---

What, exactly, is an absentee ballot transfer form? What 'issues' were discovered? Were they addressed?

---

Seriously? LOL.

They cannot let themselves see how easy fraud is in the intentionally designed ez fraud system.

On the Meadows appeal to 11th Circuit:

very good sign--11th circuit moving quickly on the Meadows appeal. Meadows moved for a stay; court orders DA to respond by tomorrow at noon and also parties to brief by 5 the foreboding (for Meadows) Q: can former federal officials remove under §1442?

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) September 12, 2023

11th circuit briefing order is a little more nuanced, in a way that should further alarm Meadows. It cites a provision that by its terms does permit former officers to remove and then compares it to the one that Meadows is invoking, which has no such language.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) September 12, 2023

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What, exactly, is an absentee ballot transfer form? What 'issues' were discovered? Were they addressed?

---

Seriously? LOL.

---

Seriously.

Can you, or anyone else, explain what an absentee ballot transfer form is? Any idea what the 'issues' they found were (ie, were some folded in half, others folded in thirds, still others were not folded? I have no idea)? How were these 'issues' addressed?

If you can't explain, then what significance are you finding with that tweet? There is no source given for this information, and I googled "absentee ballot transfer form" and come up empty. Any links for additional information would be appreciated. Otherwise, it looks simply like a tweet saying:

Quote:

---

"OMG!!11! My opponent eats worms with his fingers dipped in ketchup!!!"

---

BREAKING: Fulton and Cobb, two of Georgia’s most populous counties, admit they are missing some or all of their 2020 original ballot images, a violation of federal and state retention laws. (Estimated 393k+ in Cobb and 350k+ in Fulton)

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) September 12, 2023

As expected, unfortunately.

aggiehawg said:

---

BREAKING: Fulton and Cobb, two of Georgia’s most populous counties, admit they are missing some or all of their 2020 original ballot images, a violation of federal and state retention laws. (Estimated 393k+ in Cobb and 350k+ in Fulton)

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) September 12, 2023

As expected, unfortunately.

---

see!!! There's no PROOF of fraud, which further PROVES it was the most secure election EVAAAR! BAM! EVERYTHING DEBUNKED!

so obviously anyone with questions who thinks they deserve legitimate answers should be locked up in prison and obviously any proposals to make elections secure with in-person voting and IDs or fewer insecure and unsurveilled drop boxes, or more stringent signature verification config for absentee voting is RACIST VOTER SUPPRESSION!!! Duh.

oh no said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BREAKING: Fulton and Cobb, two of Georgia’s most populous counties, admit they are missing some or all of their 2020 original ballot images, a violation of federal and state retention laws. (Estimated 393k+ in Cobb and 350k+ in Fulton)

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) September 12, 2023

As expected, unfortunately.

---

see!!! There's no PROOF of fraud, which further PROVES it was the most secure election EVAAAR! BAM! EVERYTHING DEBUNKED!

so obviously anyone with questions who thinks they deserve legitimate answers should be locked up in prison and obviously any proposals to make elections secure with in-person voting and IDs or fewer insecure and unsurveilled drop boxes, or more stringent signature verification config for absentee voting is RACIST VOTER SUPPRESSION!!! Duh.

---

Yep. Just destroy anything that could possibly be used as evidence, then stand in front of the cameras, stamp your feet, and demand that those accusing you show some evidence.

Is there any other source other than "The Leading Report"?

Just because it keeps getting used around here, and saying what people want to hear, does not make it true.

Critical thinks is essential, but it seems to be a lost art now. Instead both sides dig in with sources that only feed their confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Yep. Just destroy anything that could possibly be used as evidence, then stand in front of the cameras, stamp your feet, and demand that those accusing you show some evidence.

---

Like Hillary's server and phones...

This is corruption in our faces.

There are some moments in the aftermath of the 2020 election that still stick with me, as in I remember when my jaw hit the floor. One of those was during the "recount" in Fulton County. One of the supervisors, Richard Barron made a statement to the press that as of that time, "over 140,000 ballots had been adjudicated."

At first I thought maybe he misspoke as the term adjudication has a very specific meaning in electronic voting systems and that it requires human intervention to duplicate spoiled or otherwise faulty ballots. And in such a manner, votes can be changed and the original ballot image lost i.e. deleted.

But then a very odd sequence of events involving Mr. Barron occurred after he made that statement. He was fired, then unfired, then fired again and unfired again as different governing boards were getting involved.

Fani Willis is insane. Change my mind.

Quote:

---

Fulton County's District Attorney Fani Willis (D) on Wednesday insisted former President Trump and all of his co-defendants in the 2020 election interference case be tried together in October, despite already-emerging skepticism from the judge.

"The State requests this Court to keep all defendants together for trial … until the Defendants have presented to this Court their basis for severance," Willis said in court documents made public Wednesday.

---

Quote:

---

Trying the 19 defendants together is a stance Willis has firmly held since she announced sweeping racketeering charges in the case, where Trump and numerous allies are accused of interfering in Georgia's 2020 election results to keep the former president in power. Trump lost the state to then-candidate Joe Biden.

But Trump has fought back as part of his broader efforts to delay his criminal cases as he campaigns to return to the White House.

The defendants face state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act charges, which allow Willis to tie together several plots her office claims had the same objective even if each defendant is not inherently connected. Together, they face a combined 41 charges within the alleged criminal enterprise.

---

LINK

She is not crazy. She is committed to carry out the instructions Biden and his DOJ have provided to her in return for whatever position / compensation she has been promised.

Part of that instruction is to ignore all precedents, norms, criticisms and to most assuredly ignore any constitutional rights or protections her victims may have claim to. She has been told that those in position above her both in the courts and folks like Kemp will run interference, protect her and publicly support her.

Also, she is quite ignorant of the law and certainly of the Constitution.

11th circuit continues its warp-speed treatment of Meadows appeal, which clearly shows they are focused on not delaying justice in Fulton County. Oral arg on stay motion set for Friday --3 judge panel all Dem appointees.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) September 13, 2023

Meadows gave it a good shot.

Note: this is not binding on Trump.

Part of the judges ruling was that working on the Trump campaign was not part of Meadows duties as a federal official, as it was prohibited by law. That argument will not work against Trump.

Im Gipper said:

---

11th circuit continues its warp-speed treatment of Meadows appeal, which clearly shows they are focused on not delaying justice in Fulton County. Oral arg on stay motion set for Friday --3 judge panel all Dem appointees.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) September 13, 2023

Meadows gave it a good shot.

Note: this is not binding on Trump.

Part of the judges ruling was that working on the Trump campaign was not part of Meadows duties as a federal official, as it was prohibited by law. That argument will not work against Trump.

---

I think it's even more clear Trump was personally motivated and campaign focused than it was clear with regards to Meadows. They might get it removed, but as I said several weeks here, their actions don't pass the sniff test.


And I think the judge said the Hatch Act was informative but not legally determinative as to Meadows. Meadows' testimony didn't help him, in that he couldn't offer any outer definition of his official duties.

Kvetch said:

---

Wow! A political prosecution that has no basis in fact! Who would've seen that coming?

---

you misspelled persecution.

So now Meadows was working on a campaign that had already ended and there is no legitimate role for a sitting POTUS chief of staff to question election results to ensure there was no fraud?

These judges seem to have a strong handle on the law. I am assuming liberal judges are the ones who cannot hack it at chasing ambulances or whom could not hack it in a lib city DA department.

What incompetent, politically biased fools.

An interesting issue for those that were no longer federal employees

JUST IN: Willis argues. tothe 11th Circuit that *no* former federal officials should be able to remove state cases to federal court. https://t.co/UfXQrrqPM3 pic.twitter.com/wO1ITfDPGR

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 13, 2023

Fake electors have also tried to remove their cases to federal court, but they really have no legitimate argument.

I'm not convinced that particular issue should stop Meadows' removal, but it is an interesting question. The statute, if read super literally, doesn't refer to former officers.

Each side obviously took the stance which helps them.

Im Gipper said:

---

An interesting issue for those that were no longer federal employees

JUST IN: Willis argues. tothe 11th Circuit that *no* former federal officials should be able to remove state cases to federal court. https://t.co/UfXQrrqPM3 pic.twitter.com/wO1ITfDPGR

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 13, 2023

Fake electors have also tried to remove their cases to federal court, but they really have no legitimate argument.

---

In a sidenote, answer this question: Is POTUS while sitting, an "officer?"

I am not really sure about that. The oath a POTUS takes is Constitutionally required and different from that even of the VP and other federal officials.

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

An interesting issue for those that were no longer federal employees

JUST IN: Willis argues. tothe 11th Circuit that *no* former federal officials should be able to remove state cases to federal court. https://t.co/UfXQrrqPM3 pic.twitter.com/wO1ITfDPGR

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 13, 2023

Fake electors have also tried to remove their cases to federal court, but they really have no legitimate argument.

---

In a sidenote, answer this question: Is POTUS while sitting, an "officer?"

I am not really sure about that. The oath a POTUS takes is Constitutionally required and different from that even of the VP and other federal officials.

---

POTUS is the Chief Executive, not an officer. Those appointed to serve under him though…
ETA: my oath was …"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"… there's a clear distinction. Lawfare zealots will find a way to conflate, I'm sure.

Quote:

---

POTUS is the Chief Executive, not an officer. Those appointed to serve under him though…

ETA: my oath was …"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"… there's a clear distinction. Lawfare zealots will find a way to conflate, I'm sure.

---

So does the 14th even apply?

Quote:

---

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

---

Few people understand the differences in the oaths and what that means.

aggiehawg said:

---

or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States,

---

This is where the lawfare junkies will chime in, my opinion. Though in context to the USA, when state is used, it was begun by referencing independent states that became the USA, hence The United STATES of America. While the rest of the world (in large) talks about failed states in reference to countries.

The Last Cobra Commander said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

An interesting issue for those that were no longer federal employees

JUST IN: Willis argues. tothe 11th Circuit that *no* former federal officials should be able to remove state cases to federal court. https://t.co/UfXQrrqPM3 pic.twitter.com/wO1ITfDPGR

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 13, 2023

Fake electors have also tried to remove their cases to federal court, but they really have no legitimate argument.

---

In a sidenote, answer this question: Is POTUS while sitting, an "officer?"

I am not really sure about that. The oath a POTUS takes is Constitutionally required and different from that even of the VP and other federal officials.

---

POTUS is the Chief Executive, not an officer. Those appointed to serve under him though…
ETA: my oath was …"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"… there's a clear distinction. Lawfare zealots will find a way to conflate, I'm sure.

---

Trump would want to be considered an "officer" in this context otherwise the removal statute wouldn't apply and he wouldn't be able to remove the case under it.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Last Cobra Commander said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

An interesting issue for those that were no longer federal employees

JUST IN: Willis argues. tothe 11th Circuit that *no* former federal officials should be able to remove state cases to federal court. https://t.co/UfXQrrqPM3 pic.twitter.com/wO1ITfDPGR

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) September 13, 2023

Fake electors have also tried to remove their cases to federal court, but they really have no legitimate argument.

---

In a sidenote, answer this question: Is POTUS while sitting, an "officer?"

I am not really sure about that. The oath a POTUS takes is Constitutionally required and different from that even of the VP and other federal officials.

---

POTUS is the Chief Executive, not an officer. Those appointed to serve under him though…
ETA: my oath was …"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"… there's a clear distinction. Lawfare zealots will find a way to conflate, I'm sure.

---

Trump would want to be considered an "officer" in this context otherwise the removal statute wouldn't apply and he wouldn't be able to remove the case under it.

---

Right on cue, there you are.

---

Do you disagree with my statement about the removal statute? Do you have something substantive to say?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

POTUS is the Chief Executive, not an officer. Those appointed to serve under him though…

ETA: my oath was …"that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me"… there's a clear distinction. Lawfare zealots will find a way to conflate, I'm sure.

---

So does the 14th even apply?

Quote:

---

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

---

Few people understand the differences in the oaths and what that means.

---

We have a Supreme Court justice who doesn't understand the differences between men and women. Do you expect HER to understand these kind of subtle differences?

The President is an "officer" for purposes of the removal statute, at least. Trump removed the lawsuit about the Old Post Office in D.C. He also tried to remove the New York case, it was denied---but not because he wasn't an "officer."

And I think that's absolutely correct. It would make no sense in the world for the President to be subject to state court while an hourly TSA agent would not.

great point raised by aggiehawg. I think the law is going to show president is not an officer of the united states because he is not appointed.

under the original articles of the constitution, the president is definitely not an officer of the united states. for example, art. I sec. 4 says president, VP "and all Civil Officers of the United States" are removed by impeachment. if president was an Officer, it would include "other" in the phrasing.

also, article II, sec. 2 says president lists various positions appointed by president and ends with "and all other Officers of the united states" president does not appoint VP. So VP is not an Officer. how can president be if VP is not? that doesn't make sense

article II sec. 3 says president "shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." all means all. president does not commission himself or VP.

the case law also supports president not being an Officer of the united states.

buckley v valeo:

Quote:

---

We think that the term "Officers of the United States" as used in Art. II, defined to include "all persons who can be said to hold an office under the government" in United States v. Germaine, supra, is a term intended to have substantive meaning. We think its fair import is that any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an "Officer of the United States," and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by 2, cl. 2, of that Article.

---

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/1


free enterprise report v public company accounting:

Quote:

---

The diffusion of power carries with it a diffusion of accountability. The people do not vote for the "Officers of the United States." Art. II, 2, cl. 2. They instead look to the President to guide the "assistants or deputies … subject to his superintendence."

---

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-861.ZO.html


These all deal with the original articles of the constitution, not the 14th amendment which was written over 50 years later. did the meaning of the phrase change over time? that is certainly possible as "linguistic drift" is a thing where words meaning change over time.

but whoever is trying to use this against trump has to show why this specific language changed over time. i have not researched this, but have not seen any source saying it changed.

however, why in the world would the drafters of the 14th amendment not want the president included? by the end of civil war, I believe every state was choosing electors based on popular vote, so that level of protection no longer existed. On the other hand, what president would they even be worried about at that point?

also in 14th amendment "officers" is not capitalized, where Officer is capitalized in the original articles. was that meant to make lower case "officers" not a defined term?

then there is the removal statute, which angelflight correctly points out has consistently held it does apply to the president. and that law goes back in some version to 1815! here, officer is not capitalized and not defined. though TSA agents aren't appointed, so they aren't going to be Officers, but may be officers.


tl,dr version: president is definitely not an officer of the united states under the constitution as drafted by the founders, definitely is under the removal statute, and may be under 14th amendment, but its not clear and something we probably never get a definitive answer on.

so the perfect lawyer answer "it depends"

The record of debate for the 14th Amendment is enlightening as to its intended applicability to Presidents. But can we help keep this thread about the Georgia case on topic?