100% agree: start labelling MAGA as "domestic terrorist extremists" & defendant demagogue "terrorist leader", pass it along to all the media. The dumbing-down, normalizing of the mainstream coverage is maddening. Still reporting the "campaign" as some kind of unprecedented poll, rather than a terrorist movement, now openly neo-nazi in threat & rhetoric, the consequences of "election" a choice between dystopian hell & 4 more years of insurrection. Recently replied to a congressperson who repeated the normalized line: "we should let the voters choose", challenging: "it appears that the twice-impeached loser will have to actually shoot someone on 5th ave before the establishment takes the threat seriously." Also, the issue of him being able to even pass a national security clearance of any kind is sadly underreported. "Enemy of the State" by all historic & legal measures.
This aligns nicely with what I have been saying in comments. SCOTUS will be looking for an easy way out but will not find one that doesn't have serious ramifications for the court and the law going forward. Looking at each of these "outs", they will find none really do the trick and it will force them to seriously consider knocking Trump off the ballot. Of course, even if they do decide that it is ok to rule against Trump, they still have a problem to solve. I suppose they can let Colorado's decision stand and, basically, let each state decide for themselves whether to allow Trump on the ballot. Perhaps they will view this as the least bad path.
I'd be interested in hearing from Asha and Renato on how SCOTUS might rule if the supremes can't tolerate any of the "outs" listed in this article.
Thanks for the thorough, point-by-point legal analysis, Asha. Same in French's piece. He listed the basic rules of legal interpretation.
What I really appreciate in your podcast with Renato is hearing two lawyers discuss how they view a ruling or a procedure. It's like going to law school for only $6/mo! I hear that there will be a flurry of amicus briefs submitted to the Court and I hope you will be giving us your in-depth analysis of them.
I really enjoy reading your comments and first became impressed with your thinking when you were a commentator on CNN.
Sorry I may have missed your point because I am so used to hearing all the ways Trump may escape accountability. I remain, possibly naively, hopeful that SCOTUS, as well as other justices will hold him to account for his many self-evident crimes.
Thank you for the update, Asha, and for scheduling our 'book break' with Prof. McQuade. Perfectly timed so that we have time to read the book after it comes out before our book club meeting!
SCOTUS could decide that Trump is guilty of insurrection and therefore disqualified from running for any office, including the Presidency, as proscribed by the Article.
Great article! It really seems like the most logical conclusion is that Trump is disqualified. Either the SC should rule he is (they won’t), or at least leave it up to the states to decide for themselves (they might).
This question is NOT an argument for ignoring the 14th Amendment. But what will happen in the swing states on election day amongst people currently not likely to vote? That's what matters. Assume the Extremes decide it's a "state matter." What happens when already blue states are the only ones to take this move? Will people in the swing states be horrified by whatever violence breaks out?
Or will enough be outraged to go to the polls in support of trump where they otherwise might not bother? In other words, if Colorado gets him off the ballot, will some currently unpolitical types in Pennsylvania or Georgia decide that's "not fair" and go out to vote for him to protest the unfairness?
More likely, if the Extreme's find a way to interpret the 14th that doesn't apply to trump, (it "wasn't an insurrection") will it outrage "undecided" swing state voters even more than Dobbs has? that part would be good news, I guess.
The fact that purely political consequences shouldn't affect the Court's reasoning, in fact there WILL be consequences, and not just violence. Clearly this consideration will affect how the campaigns craft their messages. The only way to solve the problem I raise is for the Extremes to decide that trump is indeed banned, everywhere. Then the swing state attitude won't matter. But I really can't see that being the conclusion of this court.
You make a good case for why the most likely (and sensible) result would be for the Extremes to decide the question for the whole country, one way or t'other.
If they do cop out and find a pretext to leave Trump on the ballot, my hunch would be that a court decision nine months ahead of the election that basically just leaves things as they were is not going to be on the radar of that many swing voters.
This is from Platformer regarding Nazi content on Substack:
How do you feel about Nazi content on Substack?
Substack says it will remove Nazi publications from the platform
Nazi content violates rules against incitement to violence, the company says
CASEY NEWTON
JAN 8
Substack is removing some publications that express support for Nazis, the company said today. The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies.
As part of the move, the company is also terminating the accounts of several publications that endorse Nazi ideology and that Platformer flagged to the company for review last week.
The company will not change the text of its content policy, it says, and its new policy interpretation will not include proactively removing content related to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism. But Substack will continue to remove any material that includes “credible threats of physical harm,” it said.
In a statement, Substack’s co-founders told Platformer:
If and when we become aware of other content that violates our guidelines, we will take appropriate action.
Relatedly, we’ve heard your feedback about Substack’s content moderation approach, and we understand your concerns and those of some other writers on the platform. We sincerely regret how this controversy has affected writers on Substack.
We appreciate the input from everyone. Writers are the backbone of Substack and we take this feedback very seriously. We are actively working on more reporting tools that can be used to flag content that potentially violates our guidelines, and we will continue working on tools for user moderation so Substack users can set and refine the terms of their own experience on the platform.
Substack’s statement comes after weeks of controversy related to the company’s mostly laissez-faire approach to content moderation.
In November, Jonathan M. Katz published an article in The Atlantic titled “Substack Has a Nazi Problem.” In it, he reported that he had identified at least 16 newsletters that depicted overt Nazi symbols, and dozens more devoted to far-right extremism.
Last month, 247 Substack writers issued an open letter asking the company to clarify its policies. The company responded on December 21, when Substack co-founder published a blog post arguing that “censorship” of Nazi publications would only make extremism worse.
McKenzie also wrote that “we don’t like Nazis either” and said Substack wished “no-one held those views.” But “we don't think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away,” he wrote. “In fact, it makes it worse. We believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power.”
The statement seemed to be at odds with Substack’s published content guidelines, which state that “Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes.”
In its aftermath, several publications left the platform. Others, including Platformer, said they would leave if the company did not remove pro-Nazi publications.
Meanwhile, more than 100 other Substack writers, including prominent names like Bari Weiss and Richard Dawkins, signed a post from writer Elle Griffin calling on Substack to continue with its mostly hands-off approach to platform-level moderation.
From its inception, McKenzie and Substack co-founder Chris Best have touted freedom of speech as one of Substack’s core virtues. As a result, the platform has been embraced by fringe thinkers, who have built large businesses while promoting anti-vaccine pseudo-science, Covid conspiracy theories and other material that is generally restricted on mainstream social networks.
Substack has defended its approach by arguing that it is built differently from social networks, which optimize for engagement rather than subscription revenue. The company says it employs a “decentralized” approach to moderation that allows individual readers to decide which writers they want to subscribe to; and lets writers determine which comments they will allow and which blogs they will recommend.
(Incidentally, this approach means that you can’t currently report comments directly to Substack: only writers receive your reports. Platformer has reviewed several cases of violent material and death threats in Substack comments.)
At the same time, over the past couple years Substack has come to more closely resemble the social networks it often criticizes. Each week, Substack sends users a personalized, algorithmically ranked digest of posts from writers they don’t yet follow — a feature that can help fringe publications build larger audiences and make more money than they would otherwise.
And last year Substack launched Notes, a text-based social feed similar to Twitter that also surfaces personalized content in a ranked feed. Notes can also give heightened visibility and free promotion to extremists.
The question now is whether taking action against some pro-Nazi accounts will shift the perception that Substack is a home for the most extreme ideologies, and prevent an exodus among writers who prefer more aggressive content moderation.
In recent weeks, Platformer has worked with other journalists and extremism researchers in an effort to understand the scope of far-right content on the platform. We’ve now reviewed dozens of active, monetized publications that advance violent ideologies, including anti-Semitism and the great replacement theory.
Substack has argued that extremist publications represent only a small fraction of newsletters on the platform, and as far as we can tell this is true. At the same time, the site’s recommendations and social networking infrastructure is designed to enable individual publications to grow quickly. And the company’s outspoken embrace of fringe viewpoints all but ensures that the number of extremist publications on the platform will grow.
The company is now in a difficult position. Having branded itself as a bastion of free speech, any changes to its content policy risks driving away writers who chose the platform in part for its rejection of aggressive content moderation. At the same time, other publications — Platformer included — have lost scorse of paying customers who do not want to contribute to a platform that they see as advancing the cause of extremism.
In coming days, explicitly Nazi publications on Substack are slated to disappear. But the greater divide within its user base over content moderation will remain. The next time the company has a content moderation controversy — and it will — expect these tensions to surface again.
What this means for Platformer
Substack’s removal of Nazi publications resolves the primary concern we identified here last week. At the same time, as noted above, this issue has raised concerns that go beyond the small group of publications that violate the company’s existing policy guidelines.
As we think through our next steps, we want to hear from you. If you have unsubscribed from Platformer or other publications over the Nazi issue, does the company’s new stance resolve your concerns? Or would it take more? If so, what?
Paid subscribers can comment below; everyone is welcome to email us with their thoughts.
Would a SC ruling that he is ineligible in CO automatically be applicable to every state, or would their ruling have to contain specific language stating his nation-wide inelgibility? They are technicaly only answering the CO question, correct? Even the Maine ruling is not yet before the SC?
"Heck, let’s just hand the entire country over to MAGA and let them do whatever they want, since if they don’t get their way they’ll have a temper tantrum"
Wait, are you talking about BLM and the race hustlers or MAGA. It wasn’t that long ago we dealt with months of rioting, burning & looting. Does the trial of Rittenhouse or Derek Chauvin come to mind among others? How hypocritical.
I'm not a Trumper. However, I do think You should get your facts straight. January 6 was not an insurrection according to the FBI. It was a riot. At Trumps rally he called for peaceful protest. To make another point, Democrats have opened a political Pandora's box. What makes you think this won't be used again by the opposition party? How about the reason it's never been done in our history. Democrats are destroying our political system to hold on to power for another election cycle.
Democrats corruption payed the groundwork for people's distrust of the electoral system. I don't know why people are so blind to the future ramifications of these actions. It saddens me for future generations.
No my dear lady' it's not Trump that's on Trial...it's how robust the Constitution, and DOJ is' and GOD forbid the History of the American people' also' What We fought for in World War ll, I hope you realise if Trump gets back in the White House, he'll chip away at the Constitution' then eventually destroy it...
I keep having flashbacks of the 'back to the future movie' where biff steals the Time Machine and Changes the future to his advantage, and lives in 'Biff's Tower' it's enough to send shivers down your spine 😪 😔
..<><>.. Ms.Asha @AshaRangappa I think You hit the "nail on the head" Ms.Asha with Your outlook an explanation with the Colorado Case going forward in the Supreme Court. If Justice Leader Roberts an other's on the Court do not make sure Justice "Thomas" recuse himself, I an many other's will agree America doesn't have a "Fair an Impartial Supreme Court!"
100% agree: start labelling MAGA as "domestic terrorist extremists" & defendant demagogue "terrorist leader", pass it along to all the media. The dumbing-down, normalizing of the mainstream coverage is maddening. Still reporting the "campaign" as some kind of unprecedented poll, rather than a terrorist movement, now openly neo-nazi in threat & rhetoric, the consequences of "election" a choice between dystopian hell & 4 more years of insurrection. Recently replied to a congressperson who repeated the normalized line: "we should let the voters choose", challenging: "it appears that the twice-impeached loser will have to actually shoot someone on 5th ave before the establishment takes the threat seriously." Also, the issue of him being able to even pass a national security clearance of any kind is sadly underreported. "Enemy of the State" by all historic & legal measures.
This aligns nicely with what I have been saying in comments. SCOTUS will be looking for an easy way out but will not find one that doesn't have serious ramifications for the court and the law going forward. Looking at each of these "outs", they will find none really do the trick and it will force them to seriously consider knocking Trump off the ballot. Of course, even if they do decide that it is ok to rule against Trump, they still have a problem to solve. I suppose they can let Colorado's decision stand and, basically, let each state decide for themselves whether to allow Trump on the ballot. Perhaps they will view this as the least bad path.
I'd be interested in hearing from Asha and Renato on how SCOTUS might rule if the supremes can't tolerate any of the "outs" listed in this article.
Thanks for the thorough, point-by-point legal analysis, Asha. Same in French's piece. He listed the basic rules of legal interpretation.
What I really appreciate in your podcast with Renato is hearing two lawyers discuss how they view a ruling or a procedure. It's like going to law school for only $6/mo! I hear that there will be a flurry of amicus briefs submitted to the Court and I hope you will be giving us your in-depth analysis of them.
This week's conversation immediately brought to mind your colleague Timothy Snyder's New Year's Day post, which I imagine you read, where he pithily refers to a prospective court decision swayed by fear of popular reaction as a "pitchfork ruling." https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/the-pitchfork-ruling?r=23z6is&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web (tl:DR: he's not in favor.)
I really enjoy reading your comments and first became impressed with your thinking when you were a commentator on CNN.
Sorry I may have missed your point because I am so used to hearing all the ways Trump may escape accountability. I remain, possibly naively, hopeful that SCOTUS, as well as other justices will hold him to account for his many self-evident crimes.
Thank you for the update, Asha, and for scheduling our 'book break' with Prof. McQuade. Perfectly timed so that we have time to read the book after it comes out before our book club meeting!
You left off one important option:
SCOTUS could decide that Trump is guilty of insurrection and therefore disqualified from running for any office, including the Presidency, as proscribed by the Article.
Well, I said that was the ideal option. The list was just brainstorming off ramps if they don’t want to tackle that question head on.
Great article! It really seems like the most logical conclusion is that Trump is disqualified. Either the SC should rule he is (they won’t), or at least leave it up to the states to decide for themselves (they might).
This question is NOT an argument for ignoring the 14th Amendment. But what will happen in the swing states on election day amongst people currently not likely to vote? That's what matters. Assume the Extremes decide it's a "state matter." What happens when already blue states are the only ones to take this move? Will people in the swing states be horrified by whatever violence breaks out?
Or will enough be outraged to go to the polls in support of trump where they otherwise might not bother? In other words, if Colorado gets him off the ballot, will some currently unpolitical types in Pennsylvania or Georgia decide that's "not fair" and go out to vote for him to protest the unfairness?
More likely, if the Extreme's find a way to interpret the 14th that doesn't apply to trump, (it "wasn't an insurrection") will it outrage "undecided" swing state voters even more than Dobbs has? that part would be good news, I guess.
The fact that purely political consequences shouldn't affect the Court's reasoning, in fact there WILL be consequences, and not just violence. Clearly this consideration will affect how the campaigns craft their messages. The only way to solve the problem I raise is for the Extremes to decide that trump is indeed banned, everywhere. Then the swing state attitude won't matter. But I really can't see that being the conclusion of this court.
You make a good case for why the most likely (and sensible) result would be for the Extremes to decide the question for the whole country, one way or t'other.
If they do cop out and find a pretext to leave Trump on the ballot, my hunch would be that a court decision nine months ahead of the election that basically just leaves things as they were is not going to be on the radar of that many swing voters.
This is from Platformer regarding Nazi content on Substack:
How do you feel about Nazi content on Substack?
Substack says it will remove Nazi publications from the platform
Nazi content violates rules against incitement to violence, the company says
CASEY NEWTON
JAN 8
Substack is removing some publications that express support for Nazis, the company said today. The company said this did not represent a reversal of its previous stance, but rather the result of reconsidering how it interprets its existing policies.
As part of the move, the company is also terminating the accounts of several publications that endorse Nazi ideology and that Platformer flagged to the company for review last week.
The company will not change the text of its content policy, it says, and its new policy interpretation will not include proactively removing content related to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism. But Substack will continue to remove any material that includes “credible threats of physical harm,” it said.
In a statement, Substack’s co-founders told Platformer:
If and when we become aware of other content that violates our guidelines, we will take appropriate action.
Relatedly, we’ve heard your feedback about Substack’s content moderation approach, and we understand your concerns and those of some other writers on the platform. We sincerely regret how this controversy has affected writers on Substack.
We appreciate the input from everyone. Writers are the backbone of Substack and we take this feedback very seriously. We are actively working on more reporting tools that can be used to flag content that potentially violates our guidelines, and we will continue working on tools for user moderation so Substack users can set and refine the terms of their own experience on the platform.
Substack’s statement comes after weeks of controversy related to the company’s mostly laissez-faire approach to content moderation.
In November, Jonathan M. Katz published an article in The Atlantic titled “Substack Has a Nazi Problem.” In it, he reported that he had identified at least 16 newsletters that depicted overt Nazi symbols, and dozens more devoted to far-right extremism.
Last month, 247 Substack writers issued an open letter asking the company to clarify its policies. The company responded on December 21, when Substack co-founder published a blog post arguing that “censorship” of Nazi publications would only make extremism worse.
McKenzie also wrote that “we don’t like Nazis either” and said Substack wished “no-one held those views.” But “we don't think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away,” he wrote. “In fact, it makes it worse. We believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power.”
The statement seemed to be at odds with Substack’s published content guidelines, which state that “Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes.”
In its aftermath, several publications left the platform. Others, including Platformer, said they would leave if the company did not remove pro-Nazi publications.
Meanwhile, more than 100 other Substack writers, including prominent names like Bari Weiss and Richard Dawkins, signed a post from writer Elle Griffin calling on Substack to continue with its mostly hands-off approach to platform-level moderation.
From its inception, McKenzie and Substack co-founder Chris Best have touted freedom of speech as one of Substack’s core virtues. As a result, the platform has been embraced by fringe thinkers, who have built large businesses while promoting anti-vaccine pseudo-science, Covid conspiracy theories and other material that is generally restricted on mainstream social networks.
Substack has defended its approach by arguing that it is built differently from social networks, which optimize for engagement rather than subscription revenue. The company says it employs a “decentralized” approach to moderation that allows individual readers to decide which writers they want to subscribe to; and lets writers determine which comments they will allow and which blogs they will recommend.
(Incidentally, this approach means that you can’t currently report comments directly to Substack: only writers receive your reports. Platformer has reviewed several cases of violent material and death threats in Substack comments.)
At the same time, over the past couple years Substack has come to more closely resemble the social networks it often criticizes. Each week, Substack sends users a personalized, algorithmically ranked digest of posts from writers they don’t yet follow — a feature that can help fringe publications build larger audiences and make more money than they would otherwise.
And last year Substack launched Notes, a text-based social feed similar to Twitter that also surfaces personalized content in a ranked feed. Notes can also give heightened visibility and free promotion to extremists.
The question now is whether taking action against some pro-Nazi accounts will shift the perception that Substack is a home for the most extreme ideologies, and prevent an exodus among writers who prefer more aggressive content moderation.
In recent weeks, Platformer has worked with other journalists and extremism researchers in an effort to understand the scope of far-right content on the platform. We’ve now reviewed dozens of active, monetized publications that advance violent ideologies, including anti-Semitism and the great replacement theory.
Substack has argued that extremist publications represent only a small fraction of newsletters on the platform, and as far as we can tell this is true. At the same time, the site’s recommendations and social networking infrastructure is designed to enable individual publications to grow quickly. And the company’s outspoken embrace of fringe viewpoints all but ensures that the number of extremist publications on the platform will grow.
The company is now in a difficult position. Having branded itself as a bastion of free speech, any changes to its content policy risks driving away writers who chose the platform in part for its rejection of aggressive content moderation. At the same time, other publications — Platformer included — have lost scorse of paying customers who do not want to contribute to a platform that they see as advancing the cause of extremism.
In coming days, explicitly Nazi publications on Substack are slated to disappear. But the greater divide within its user base over content moderation will remain. The next time the company has a content moderation controversy — and it will — expect these tensions to surface again.
What this means for Platformer
Substack’s removal of Nazi publications resolves the primary concern we identified here last week. At the same time, as noted above, this issue has raised concerns that go beyond the small group of publications that violate the company’s existing policy guidelines.
As we think through our next steps, we want to hear from you. If you have unsubscribed from Platformer or other publications over the Nazi issue, does the company’s new stance resolve your concerns? Or would it take more? If so, what?
Paid subscribers can comment below; everyone is welcome to email us with their thoughts.
I knew they were going to punt that ball 😂
Would a SC ruling that he is ineligible in CO automatically be applicable to every state, or would their ruling have to contain specific language stating his nation-wide inelgibility? They are technicaly only answering the CO question, correct? Even the Maine ruling is not yet before the SC?
It's rare.but people.can.loose there citizenship. Refusal to testify before.congress, membership in.a renegade group.
"Heck, let’s just hand the entire country over to MAGA and let them do whatever they want, since if they don’t get their way they’ll have a temper tantrum"
Wait, are you talking about BLM and the race hustlers or MAGA. It wasn’t that long ago we dealt with months of rioting, burning & looting. Does the trial of Rittenhouse or Derek Chauvin come to mind among others? How hypocritical.
I'm not a Trumper. However, I do think You should get your facts straight. January 6 was not an insurrection according to the FBI. It was a riot. At Trumps rally he called for peaceful protest. To make another point, Democrats have opened a political Pandora's box. What makes you think this won't be used again by the opposition party? How about the reason it's never been done in our history. Democrats are destroying our political system to hold on to power for another election cycle.
Democrats corruption payed the groundwork for people's distrust of the electoral system. I don't know why people are so blind to the future ramifications of these actions. It saddens me for future generations.
No my dear lady' it's not Trump that's on Trial...it's how robust the Constitution, and DOJ is' and GOD forbid the History of the American people' also' What We fought for in World War ll, I hope you realise if Trump gets back in the White House, he'll chip away at the Constitution' then eventually destroy it...
I keep having flashbacks of the 'back to the future movie' where biff steals the Time Machine and Changes the future to his advantage, and lives in 'Biff's Tower' it's enough to send shivers down your spine 😪 😔
..<><>.. Ms.Asha @AshaRangappa I think You hit the "nail on the head" Ms.Asha with Your outlook an explanation with the Colorado Case going forward in the Supreme Court. If Justice Leader Roberts an other's on the Court do not make sure Justice "Thomas" recuse himself, I an many other's will agree America doesn't have a "Fair an Impartial Supreme Court!"
wAc
@CrowBwell9