This is the full "Trump Accountability Project" enemies list before it was hidden & before the judges & donors tabs were removed. I took screen shots of every page before that happened. The list of administration officials is 1202 long so I overlapped the pics to get them all. /0
Overview Page:
/1
Campaign Staff:
/2
Administration Members:
/3
Administration Members:
/4
Administration Members:
/5
Administration Members:
/6
Administration Members:
/7
Administration Members:
/8
Administration Members:
/9
Administration Members:
/10
Administration Members:
/11
Administration Members:
/12
Administration Members:
/13
Administration Members:
/14
Administration Members:
/15
Administration Members:
/16
Administration Members:
/17
Administration Members:
/18
Administration Members:
/19
Administration Members:
/20
Administration Members:
/21
Administration Members:
/22
Administration Members:
/23
Administration Members:
/24
Administration Members:
/25
Administration Members:
/26
Administration Members:
/27
Administration Members:
/28
Administration Members:
/29
Administration Members:
/30
Administration Members:
/31
Administration Members:
/32
Administration Members:
/33
Administration Members:
/34
"Appointees" - Sitting Federal Judges:
/35
"Appointees" - Sitting Federal Judges:
/36
Donors:
/37
Law firms:
/38
"Endorsers" - otherwise known as a sitting US Senator
/39
Denouncer
/40
You may have noticed that some of the "Administration Members" are Assistants and Stenographers.
What the Fuck is wrong with you, you totalitarian goons? /41
These are the 3 totalitarian goons who drew up and sponsored this "enemies list." 👇Despicable.
/42
This link will take you to the Wayback machine capture (web archive) of the website and list also. web.archive.org/web/2020110621…
1. complaints to the Gov’s office by individuals & groups; 2. complaints also to NM legislators; 3. pressure from NM & national GOP politicians;
4.statements from groups & lawyers condemning it; 5. open defiance of the suspension.
If you live in NM, write & call your state reps.
ALSO write & call your federal rep & two Senators: tell them you expect them to act to protect your federal rights in NM.
This video serves as a litmus test. You either listen to it & respond, “That’s right, we need to do something,” or you think, “You can’t override the Constitution like that.”
The first response acquiesces to tyranny.
The second insists on liberty.
If you’re in the 1st group: you are part of the problem.
If you’re in the 2nd group, start figuring out now what to do about it because now:
1. everyone is going to have to pick a lane, &
2. everyone in our group is going to have to get involved righting our ship of state.
If you’re already in group two - the liberty lovers - use this video as a litmus test. Get anyone in your sphere of influence who is still “in the middle,” or “an independent” to watch it & get their reaction. Are they in group one or two? We need to know where everyone stands.
In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the former federal employee who sued Nixon argued it couldn’t be w/in the functions of the POTUS to fire an employee (for whistleblowing) who could only be fired for a cause that promotes the efficiency of federal service.
The SCOTUS rejected that framing of the question. It said:
“This construction would subject the President to trial on virtually every allegation that an action was unlawful, or was taken for a forbidden purpose. . . .
Adoption of this construction thus would deprive absolute immunity of its intended effect.”
The Court said that since Nixon had the authority to direct the Sec of the USAF’s conduct of the Air Force & the Sec had authority to reorganize & do a reduction in force (RIF), . . .
Reminder for tonight’s Spaces: we are talking LAW, not politics.
While politics influences (for good & bad) what the law is & its application & therefore political considerations may come up, we are not discussing the coming election itself & our various views on that.
Lawyers are (& should be) able to discuss legal issues separate from political considerations, & also to offer opinions on how politics may affect a case WITHOUT it mattering what their own politics are. You should expect them to be able to do that.
Lawyers absolutely expect that of other lawyers. Not all lawyers do it, of course, but they should be able to. If they don’t or won’t, then their views on what the law is or should be carry less weight. This is how lawyers are trained to think.
So this thread will look at (1) who can file the notice to remove, (2) do each/all the defendants need to file separately to get the removal, & (3) will the whole case be taken by the federal court or just the "federal" defendants.
I knew a bit about some of these issues when this started & some I had to figure out by researching a bit. As I've noted repeatedly, removal in criminal cases does not happen that often and I have never personally handled one.
As I explained in an earlier thread, there is a federal statute that governs removal. It's not just for federal officers & most of it is for civil rather than criminal cases. The sections Meadows' lawyers are using pertain to state court criminal cases against a federal officer.