Even the Right wants Donny DQ'd

[jaF0]

Separate from the criminal cases, over the past few weeks a growing body of conservative scholars have raised the constitutional argument that Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election make him ineligible to hold federal office ever again.

That disqualification argument boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which says that a public official is not eligible to assume public office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Advocacy groups have long argued that Trump's behavior after the 2020 election fits those criteria. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review.

"If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency," the article reads.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316

 

[VinnyVeritas]

Any time you begin with "Even the..."

It's a prepackaged epic fail.

 

[easyoff]

Separate from the criminal cases, over the past few weeks a growing body of conservative scholars have raised the constitutional argument that Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election make him ineligible to hold federal office ever again.

That disqualification argument boils down to Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which says that a public official is not eligible to assume public office if they "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the United States, or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," unless they are granted amnesty by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

Advocacy groups have long argued that Trump's behavior after the 2020 election fits those criteria. The argument gained new life earlier this month when two members of the conservative Federalist Society, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, endorsed it in the pages of the Pennsylvania Law Review.

"If the public record is accurate, the case is not even close. He is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency," the article reads.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/14th-amendment-section-3-new-legal-battle-trump/story?id=102547316

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[VinnyVeritas]

There was no insurrection.

The Left does share that singular trait with their historical totalitarian fellowship,
a literal lie oft-repeated becomes a figurative truth because,
you can fool some of the people
some of the time.

 

[phrodeau]

A judge has ruled that the 1/6 riot was an insurrection, so there.

https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-study/couy-griffin-jan-6-insurrection-litigation

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Sorry folks. The 14th amendment is not going to keep Trump off the ballot next year. Nor will any of the prosecutors that have filed criminal charges. It’s 100% in the hands of voters.

 

[dkovic77]

Sorry folks. The 14th amendment is not going to keep Trump off the ballot next year. Nor will any of the prosecutors that have filed criminal charges. It’s 100% in the hands of voters.

Some amendments are iron clad, and some not so much. Sounds around right.

 

[LLCox]

The very best thing the repukes could do is to lose trump. Take your beating now or take it now And the following election. You will never please a trumptard.

 

[phrodeau]

Sorry folks. The 14th amendment is not going to keep Trump off the ballot next year. Nor will any of the prosecutors that have filed criminal charges. It’s 100% in the hands of voters.

Voters don’t choose the President. The EC does, and they need to follow the Constitution.

 

[Bray123]

There was no insurrection.

The Left does share that singular trait with their historical totalitarian fellowship,
a literal lie oft-repeated becomes a figurative truth because,
you can fool some of the people
some of the time.

https://imgur.com/7mw7UuA

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Voters don’t choose the President. The EC does, and they need to follow the Constitution.

Voters decide but if you have doubts, don’t vote.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Voters decide but if you have doubts, don’t vote.

Exactly, which is why the USA is a Democracy. Please try and inform some of your brethren of that fact.

 

[Rightguide]

Separate from the criminal cases, over the past few weeks a growing body of conservative scholars have raised the constitutional argument that Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election make him ineligible to hold federal office ever again.

Only the stupid are saying that.

 

[icanhelp1]

Only the stupid are saying that.

This may change some minds;

https://jonathanturley.org/

Why the House Has No Alternative to an Impeachment Inquiry into President Biden​

Below is my column in The Messenger on the expanding evidence in the Biden corruption scandal and the need for Congress to take commensurate action to investigate the matter. After this column ran, Fox’s Brian Kilmeade conducted an interview with Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. What was striking about the interview is not just the contradiction with other accounts (like insisting that he was investigating Burisma and the investigation was expanding when he was fired), but that he claimed that Kilmeade was the first to seek to interview him. This is just Shokin’s account and many question his veracity. However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years. However, the greatest case for an impeachment inquiry was made by Attorney General Merrick Garland himself.

Here is the column:
When Congress returns next month, it has little alternative but to launch a long-discussed impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. For House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the case for an inquiry came from a most unlikely source: Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The debacle in the Hunter Biden investigation has left most objective legal analysts in disbelief, with one CNN analyst calling it an “unholy mess.”
Even before the collapse of a widely condemned “sweetheart deal” with Hunter, the investigation headed by U.S. Attorney David Weiss was a growing concern for many observers. In prior years, I wrote about Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel despite the obvious conflicts posed by the potential involvement of President Biden in his son’s alleged influence-peddling scandal. I also raised the problem of an investigation that remained ongoing for years as the statute of limitations expired on major potential crimes.
It turns out that the same concerns were being raised within the Weiss team. Two IRS whistleblowers recently confirmed that the expiration of potential tax felony crimes was raised with Weiss and the Department of Justice (DOJ). There reportedly was an agreement to extend that period, including on the violations tied to the most controversial alleged payments from sources in Ukraine and other countries. The two witnesses testified that the Justice Department instead allowed the statute of limitations to expire.

VVVVVV
It is absolutely inconceivable that no one interviewed Shokin. How does that even happen, where the fuck was Bill Barr?..

 

[dkovic77]

This may change some minds;

https://jonathanturley.org/

Why the House Has No Alternative to an Impeachment Inquiry into President Biden​

Below is my column in The Messenger on the expanding evidence in the Biden corruption scandal and the need for Congress to take commensurate action to investigate the matter. After this column ran, Fox’s Brian Kilmeade conducted an interview with Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. What was striking about the interview is not just the contradiction with other accounts (like insisting that he was investigating Burisma and the investigation was expanding when he was fired), but that he claimed that Kilmeade was the first to seek to interview him. This is just Shokin’s account and many question his veracity. However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years. However, the greatest case for an impeachment inquiry was made by Attorney General Merrick Garland himself.

Here is the column:
When Congress returns next month, it has little alternative but to launch a long-discussed impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. For House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the case for an inquiry came from a most unlikely source: Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The debacle in the Hunter Biden investigation has left most objective legal analysts in disbelief, with one CNN analyst calling it an “unholy mess.”
Even before the collapse of a widely condemned “sweetheart deal” with Hunter, the investigation headed by U.S. Attorney David Weiss was a growing concern for many observers. In prior years, I wrote about Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel despite the obvious conflicts posed by the potential involvement of President Biden in his son’s alleged influence-peddling scandal. I also raised the problem of an investigation that remained ongoing for years as the statute of limitations expired on major potential crimes.
It turns out that the same concerns were being raised within the Weiss team. Two IRS whistleblowers recently confirmed that the expiration of potential tax felony crimes was raised with Weiss and the Department of Justice (DOJ). There reportedly was an agreement to extend that period, including on the violations tied to the most controversial alleged payments from sources in Ukraine and other countries. The two witnesses testified that the Justice Department instead allowed the statute of limitations to expire.

Wrong guy beat you to it.. but yeah it “belongs” here.

 

[Rightguide]

This may change some minds;

https://jonathanturley.org/

Why the House Has No Alternative to an Impeachment Inquiry into President Biden​

Below is my column in The Messenger on the expanding evidence in the Biden corruption scandal and the need for Congress to take commensurate action to investigate the matter. After this column ran, Fox’s Brian Kilmeade conducted an interview with Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. What was striking about the interview is not just the contradiction with other accounts (like insisting that he was investigating Burisma and the investigation was expanding when he was fired), but that he claimed that Kilmeade was the first to seek to interview him. This is just Shokin’s account and many question his veracity. However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years. However, the greatest case for an impeachment inquiry was made by Attorney General Merrick Garland himself.

Here is the column:
When Congress returns next month, it has little alternative but to launch a long-discussed impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. For House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the case for an inquiry came from a most unlikely source: Attorney General Merrick Garland.
The debacle in the Hunter Biden investigation has left most objective legal analysts in disbelief, with one CNN analyst calling it an “unholy mess.”
Even before the collapse of a widely condemned “sweetheart deal” with Hunter, the investigation headed by U.S. Attorney David Weiss was a growing concern for many observers. In prior years, I wrote about Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel despite the obvious conflicts posed by the potential involvement of President Biden in his son’s alleged influence-peddling scandal. I also raised the problem of an investigation that remained ongoing for years as the statute of limitations expired on major potential crimes.
It turns out that the same concerns were being raised within the Weiss team. Two IRS whistleblowers recently confirmed that the expiration of potential tax felony crimes was raised with Weiss and the Department of Justice (DOJ). There reportedly was an agreement to extend that period, including on the violations tied to the most controversial alleged payments from sources in Ukraine and other countries. The two witnesses testified that the Justice Department instead allowed the statute of limitations to expire.

VVVVVV
It is absolutely inconceivable that no one interviewed Shokin. How does that even happen, where the fuck was Bill Barr?..

Damn right. I posted that yesterday. The whole point of this lunatic prosecution is to have Trump found guilty on BS charges by an uneducated and biased jury in the hopes they can then make a 14th Amendment stink long enough to keep him out of the race. They know this will go nowhere on appeal. Remember the video of the deranged 20-something who chaired that Grand Jury? Way too dumb, visibly disturbed, and young, to be sitting on any Grand Jury.












and

 

[icanhelp1]

Damn right. I posted that yesterday. The whole point of this lunatic prosecution is to have Trump found guilty on BS charges by an uneducated and biased jury in the hopes they can then make a 14th Amendment stink long enough to keep him out of the race. They know this will go nowhere on appeal. Remember the video of the deranged 20-something who chaired that Grand Jury? Way too dumb, visibly disturbed, and young, to be sitting on any Grand Jury.

and

I was referring to Kilmeads interview with Shokin, must see TV!

I’m completely flabbergasted that Bill Barr did not have the foresight to assign a team to interview Shokin one on one. How could Barr assign Hunter Biden’s investigation to a Delaware US Attorney. As things unravel it just gets stupider and stupider.

Our justice system is turned on its head.

Now there’s evidence that Victoria Nuland changed her statement from being pleased with Shokin,doing a decent job… to getting in lockstep behind Biden?

 

[Pad_Foot]

IF he gets put away, with us paying for not only his jail time, but his Secret Service guard, can we be assured that he will no longer have any public voice? Is that possible, or due convicts from jail still have freedom of speech? Hopefully no lawyer will ever ever ever want to represent him again. How many lawyers have been punished??
Note... ONE already went to jail for the smallest offence compared to all the cases against him now.

 

[Rightguide]

I was referring to Kilmeads interview with Shokin, must see TV!

Here's a link to a Fox piece this morning on Shokin: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...plosive-claims-joe-hunter-biden-new-interview

I’m completely flabbergasted that Bill Barr did not have the foresight to assign a team to
interview Shokin one on one. How could Barr assign Hunter Biden’s investigation to a Delaware US Attorney. As things unravel it just gets stupider and stupider.

Our justice system is turned on its head.

Now there’s evidence that Victoria Nuland changed her statement from being pleased with Shokin,doing a decent job… to getting in lockstep behind Biden?

The only thing I've learned about Bill Barr in the last few years is that all that I have thought about him in the past was incorrect. He is a dishonest broker and apparently a well-steeped swamp rat. I'd like to know who recommended him to Trump. Could it have been Pompeo?

Victoria Nuland is a war-mongering neo-con and globalist. I think she has been elevated to the number two spot in the State Department. I don't know who is directing her but it can't be Joe Biden or the clueless Blinken. Joe is just too mentally damaged to be in charge of, or even aware of, anything let alone complicated policy decisions or the ever-changing military situation on the ground in Ukraine. I think the policies she carrying out in Ukraine are either her own or those of Barack Obama. She could get us into a ground war against the Russians, for whom she is filled with hate.

 

[phrodeau]

Trump called Barr a big fat stupidhead, so there’s some agreement.

 

[Rightguide]

Why Twisting The 14th Amendment To Get Trump Won’t Hold Up In Court​

BY: JOHN YOO AND ROBERT DELAHUNTY
AUGUST 25, 2023

https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/2...nt-clause-to-get-trump-wont-hold-up-in-court/

 

[phrodeau]

Who here thinks that 2/3rds of both houses of Congress would vote to allow Trump to be elected?

 

[jaF0]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/



Doesn't say convicted of, or even charged with. Just says 'engaged in', which Donny certainly did. The 'aid and comfort' clause could take in a few more people too.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Exactly, which is why the USA is a Democracy. Please try and inform some of your brethren of that fact.

I know many people wish more people would exercise their right to vote. Personally, I’m ok with people not voting. If they are not interested and informed, it’s their right to stay on the sidelines. Makes my vote more potent.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office​

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.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/



Doesn't say convicted of, or even charged with. Just says 'engaged in', which Donny certainly did. The 'aid and comfort' clause could take in a few more people too.

Do you think any states will keep Trump off the ballot? If so, which one(s)?