Image 01 Image 03

Having Lost Impeachment Trial, Dems Now Considering 14th Amendment Disqualification Against Trump

Having Lost Impeachment Trial, Dems Now Considering 14th Amendment Disqualification Against Trump

Schumer may not be on board “And if Donald Trump ever stands for public office again… I hope, I pray, and I believe that he will meet the unambiguous rejection by the American people,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Saturday after Trump’s acquittal.

Even before the Senate voted Saturday to acquit Donald Trump for the second time, the discussions about either censuring Trump or invoking the 14th Amendment against him were fast and furious among Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media.

Failed 2016 Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) was one of the more high-profile Democrats to float the possibility prior to the start of the Senate’s trial. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said he was “intrigued” by the idea.

Though the bill Kaine spoke of at the time was a censure bill, his bill would’ve also involved what a conviction might lead to in the Senate’s impeachment trial: effectively barring Trump from running for office again:

Kaine is still gathering input but has drafted a resolution that would formally censure Trump. It also includes provisions that would mirror language in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment on barring officials from holding future office.

“In a way I view it as kind of censure-plus because it has these two factual findings that could have the same consequence as an impeachment conviction,” Kaine said. “It’s not just, ‘hey you did those things and that’s bad.’ ”


In addition to condemning Trump, the resolution makes two findings, according to Kaine: that Jan. 6 was an insurrection and that Trump gave “aid and comfort to the insurrection.”

“If he ever were to decide to run again, which may not happen, then likely a court or somebody would say OK what about your behavior in January of 2021 including the congressional fact finding,” Kaine said, predicting that “Congress finding the facts would be given great deference by a court.”

After Trump’s acquittal Saturday, talk of either censuring Trump or invoking the 14th amendment again reached fever pitch.

As far as the censure option goes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made clear after the Senate’s vote that she was not interested:

But what about invoking the 14th Amendment? Before we go further, let’s read the language from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

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.

Former Clinton Labor Sec. Robert Reich, Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway, and numerous anti-Trump legal analysts brought up the possibility again of taking this route in the aftermath of the Senate’s vote to acquit, suggesting it can and should be done immediately:

Their arguments, however, are flawed. There is no evidence that Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” nor that he “gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” It’s just not there.

Congress would first have to pass a statute that essentially stated Trump was guilty of aiding/abetting and/or providing comfort to the Capitol rioters, which would then theoretically mean Section 3 was applicable in their view. At that point, Trump’s defense team would almost certainly ask that the courts become involved.

That being said, Sen. Majority Chuck Schumer appeared to suggest in a speech yesterday after the vote that invoking the 14th Amendment was off the table. Note his language about letting the American people decide the future fate of Trump (my emphasis):

So let me say this: despite the results of the vote on Donald Trump’s conviction in the court of impeachment, he deserves to be convicted—and I believe he will be convicted—in the court of public opinion.

He deserves to be permanently discredited—and I believe he has been discredited—in the eyes of the American people and in the judgment of History.

Even though Republican Senators prevented the Senate from disqualifying Donald Trump from any office of honor, trust, or profit under these United States, there is no question that Donald Trump has disqualified himself.

I hope, I pray, and I believe that the American people will make sure of that.
And if Donald Trump ever stands for public office again, and after everything we have seen this week: I hope, I pray, and I believe that he will meet the unambiguous rejection by the American people.


Prior to Saturday’s vote, Schumer had left the door open to invoking 14th Amendment, but judging by what he said yesterday, it doesn’t appear that Senate Democratic leaders have the appetite to pursue it anymore.

As they say, stay tuned.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


LOL, no matter how much ice cream she eats, Nancy Pelosi will never get the taste of Trump’s nuts out of her mouth.

    gonzotx in reply to Paul. | February 14, 2021 at 3:26 pm


    UserP in reply to Paul. | February 14, 2021 at 4:06 pm

    Pelosi is characteristic of Trump hated exemplified by Democrats and many new posters on this website.

      “New posters.” You mean: paid trolls.

      With LI’s growing notoriety, it’s becoming a target of these otherwise unemployable useful idiots.

        I was reading an article about LI and Prof Jacobson on another site. I made a comment that there is one person who comments on here that is a real piece of work. I like messing with this person.

        Someone replied to me with the name of the person!!

        They knew exactly to whom I was referring!!

        I got a real chuckle over that.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to UserP. | February 14, 2021 at 7:35 pm

      There is a high probability that those new posters are all Rags. Aka. RumpRags had a bad case of TDS and the worst case of LPS (Little person sydrome) I have ever seen.

        I don’t think it is the Jacobin Cat Lover. The posting style is not the same. He use to like to use a lot of toilet comments with swirls. These are different. I think the paid trolls come and go. They like to use terms like “Ad hominem”.

        They usually have no substance or sources for their post either, so they are purely editorialized.

    fscarn in reply to Paul. | February 14, 2021 at 5:24 pm

    The solution – give the Ds in Congress more Trump. Florida has 27 House seats, 16 R, 11 D.

    Donald chooses to run for that R seat where the current holder is further away from Trump principles, meaning who is a RINO or near RINO. You do not have to live in the district. Trump gets elected in 2022. Biden’s policies will result in misery so the likelihood of the Rs taking the House in 2022 is good.

    Trump wins his seat and then runs for Speaker.

    That’s how you take over the GOP-e.

      stutterfingers in reply to fscarn. | February 15, 2021 at 8:41 am

      No way. PDJT is a real alpha male. He’d never do well as a foot soldier in any organization. He has to be in charge Day One. Anything else is a waste of time – his and ours.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to stutterfingers. | February 15, 2021 at 6:00 pm

        The concept is interesting. Trump is not a foot solider. He runs for congress and wins. At the same time, he stumps for and gets Republican majority in the House. Then, if he can swing being elected as Speaker, that’s a coup. In addition, there are no term limits to being a member of congress. Even if he should lose the majority, he is still minority leader, and, if no president is of his party, effectively the leader of the Republican party. It would allow him to shape the party in a way not possible from being on the outside, and a powerful force for as long as he wishes to serve – but he would need to be elected Speaker or minority leader and hold it.

        Normally I would discount a former president attempting to serve in congress, but this is an interesting course of action.

      bhwms in reply to fscarn. | February 15, 2021 at 1:09 pm

      Ooo, I like it.

      The Speaker does not have to be a member of Congress. Would DJT be happy as “just a Congressman?” Although his floor speeches would be epic.

      I would have liked it more if the idiot GOPe had kept Gingrich as speaker. As soon as the arrows flew at him, the RINOs dove for cover. Very few stood up for him, and no one fired back at the leftists. When they attack you with a overstretched ethics charge, you file 5 against them. And you keep that going until they cry “enough!” You have to play hardball, or they will keep doing it.

        fscarn in reply to bhwms. | February 15, 2021 at 10:22 pm

        Trump would be anything but just a Congressman. All attention would be on him. If the Rs take the House in 2022, Trump can get himself appointed to all the important committees.

        And if he gets the Speakership, he can set the table for what legislation gets voted on, all the while setting up the 2024 election, either for himself or as kingmaker.

“Congress finding the facts would be given great deference by a court.”


“Their arguments, however, are flawed. There is no evidence that Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” nor that he “gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” It’s just not there.”

Two impeachments…no facts presented. If the Democrats arguments are so sound, why do they have to lie?

Morning Sunshine | February 14, 2021 at 2:16 pm

that is a can of worms the dems *might* just be afraid to open. As much as they would like to, they cannot YET.

By that standard anyone saying we can’t talk about the fraud, coup, and stolen election must be presumed to be conspirators.
And thusly disqualified.

Why is that not a kind of double jeopardy? I don’t get it. These people are insane.

    CommoChief in reply to amwick. | February 14, 2021 at 2:54 pm


    Impeachment is an exercise of Congressional Authority. It isn’t a criminal proceeding.

    That said, attempting to convict DJT for ‘insurrection or treason’ is not only politically stupid but also going to lead to another disappointment for the d/progressive.

    Those terms have specific legal definitions which are not met here.

      Ironic: it isn’t a criminal proceeding, yet almost the entire Congress is comprised of people guilty of crimes – from mcconnell, to omar, to sandy smoellet, to pelosi.

      Congress has about the same zero credibility as biden/harris, who have about the same zero credibility as the democrat media.

        Very few members of congress have committed crimes. Omar yes. Not most of the others.

          bhwms in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 1:13 pm

          So when the vote for something that is clearly unConstitutional, that isn’t a violation of their oath? I thought I heard House Impeachment Managers use this argument when they pushed the “dereliction of duty” theory.

          In my state, if you swear an oath and violate it, or swear it under false pretenses, that is a crime. The same should go for any elected or executive official that swears an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..”

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 2:39 pm

          1. Violating an oath is not a crime, in your state or any other.

          2. Most of them do not believe the trial was unconstitutional.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 8:12 pm

          This may be true, but the only politicians I know with convictions are in jail.

    Milhouse in reply to amwick. | February 14, 2021 at 11:45 pm

    How would it be double jeopardy? He has not yet been in jeopardy of life or limb, and this wouldn’t put him in such jeopardy.

    But it would be a bill of attainder, for the reasons I explain at length in a separate comment.

Bucky Barkingham | February 14, 2021 at 2:31 pm

So far, in both impeachments, Trump has been cleared in what are political votes. If Congress should pass the statute mentioned above Trump’s lawyers would make a court case out of it. The danger there for the Dem’s is that a Federal court, or SCOTUS, ruling that the statute is illegal would be an actual judicial vindication of Trump. The Dem’s don’t want to risk that, just like they did not want to risk having Miss Nancy and Mayor Bowser under oath answering questions about Jan 6.

Who killed Ashli Babbitt?

The Great Capital Trespass is the smallest ant hill ever turned into a mountain, with 1(IMO murder) by a Government officer and a couple broken windows done by Antifa people it sure is a being used to chase DJT into the corn field.

If there is no difference between a riot and insurrection next time we have the house and senate lets disqualify every Democrat who gave support to the BLM riots, or 2016, or Jan 2017 riots.

The other point to make is that the Democrats are figuring out (even as the mainstream media isn’t) that going after Mr. Trump just isn’t popular, and isn’t getting them anywhere.

A bill that would invoke 14A-3 against Mr. Trump would take weeks to put through the House and Senate. There are enough Pubs with a spine in both chambers to ensure that this would be a long, drawn-out circus. And an enterprising Pub with a spine might find ways to introduce all sorts of interesting points, including a) why the Antifa protesters in DC in 2017 were let go unscathed b) why the House Managers apparently doctored evidence c) what killed that one police officer and more.

While the rabid House Speaker might be all for going after the White Whale one more time, Mr. Schumer apparently sees the trap and wants none of it.

This will be gone by Tuesday.

Why are Democrats so reluctant to allowing the voters to choose the candidate, and then the winner?
Oh wait, I already know the answer!

Would be about the stupidest thing they could do. Then again, they are Democrats.

amatuerwrangler | February 14, 2021 at 3:52 pm

So they are really that afraid of a Trump comeback???

This is intriguing. If they had any confidence in their position they would be saying “Bring it, bro!!”

They’re not doing that.

Just a couple of problem here.

There is no evidence that the Capitol Incursion was, in legal fact, an insurrection. However, in its broadest form, an insurrection would include, not only the Capitol Incursion, but all the attacks against US government facilities and agents. This would essential make all of the “demonstrations”, which included any violence against any government, an insurrection. And, any person who supported such a demonstration would be guilty of engaging in activity in support of an insurrection. Those government officials, who either did not address these insurrectionist acts or encouraged them, would be subject the provisions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. There would be a pile of bodies, at the bottom of THAT slippery slope, that would decimate the political class of this nation.

While the Progressive Democrats would love to use it against Trump, to do so, without applying it uniformly to the rest of the political class, would likely set off an insurrection.

    mark311 in reply to Mac45. | February 14, 2021 at 4:13 pm

    It’s easy to show that it was an insurrection it was a direct attack on the Capitol building during the transfer of power. That’s fundamental to what happened. The issue is Trumps involvement was incitement of the insurrection I don’t think it can be claimed that he was actively involved with it. It’s seems to me the wording is quite specific on that front.

      alaskabob in reply to mark311. | February 14, 2021 at 4:51 pm

      The incursion was by about two hundred and not the crowd that gathered outside and was caught up in the turmoil. Conflation.

        mark311 in reply to alaskabob. | February 15, 2021 at 10:02 am

        What difference does that make it was still Trump supporters who disrupted the Capitol. That isn’t a conflation

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 15, 2021 at 6:34 pm

          It was criminal trespass, malicious destruction of property, and assault. I cannot speak for all those assembled, but my impression is the protestors were not seeking to overthrow the US government or the constitution, but the converse, that is, to preserve it and keep a person they legitimately thought to be improperly elected and elevated into the office of the presidency from assuming office. They did not seek to take control of the government themselves. They contested an election, not the government, and were seeking, in an inappropriate and futile manner, to influence the government to act on their concerns. This is not insurrection, and the term should not be lightly thrown around as it legitimizes the use of the US military against civilians, which contrary to the rhetoric of George Bush is not designed to build nations but rather to destroy them, and the removal of civil rights from various regions or groups of people. The use of the term “insurrection,” is a call for the use of government sanctioned violence and suspension of liberty against an opposing party and is overwrought, dangerous, and reprehensible.

          As delusional as he may be, the guy in the fury hat with horns sticking out of it did not possess the delusion he was going to supplant the US government.

          So let’s get real and call it what is was, that is, an inappropriate , poorly reasoned, and futile gesture to right a perceived wrong and preserve the US government and the US constitution during which trespass, destruction of property, and assault was committed. It was not, however, an act of insurrection.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 16, 2021 at 10:33 am

          @Brave sir robbin

          You make some good points there, certainly some merit in what you say. The intentions of the participants is a key point in your reasoning. Anecdotally there is some evidence that the entire point of the break in was to disrupt the electoral college counting thus in effect it was an insurrection of a sorts even if poorly planned and manifested. I do appreciate that the haphazard nature of the events paints a chaotic picture. For clarity I blame Trump and his inner circle for the events, I think the followers so to speak were foolish but in general well intentioned.

          I shall ponder what you say, need to mull that one over

      If there was an ‘attack’ on the Capital building, it’d be in the shape as the buildings attacked by the psychos your voting has enabled.

      You’re so full of crap, it stinks even over the Internet.

        BLM and Antifa protests/riots aren’t the issues being discussed. Another crime doesn’t justify this crime. And even then the nature of the crime is quite different, interfering with the transfer of power is a different kind of offence.

      Mac45 in reply to mark311. | February 14, 2021 at 5:41 pm

      In the first place, there ws NO transfer of power, underway, at the time. The transfer of power occurred on January 20, 2021. Until Joe Biden accepted the oath of office, on that date, all Executive power still resided in the hands of Donald Trump, the then sitting President of the United States. All the Congress was doing was ACCEPTING the slates of electors, as presented by the states. Any disruption to this process, by a demonstration or incursion would not affect the transition of power at all.

      Now, by your definition of insurrection, the physical attacks upon the federal facilities, including the White House, and federal agents, engaged in their duties to the nation, would constitute an insurrection. Therefore, all of the politicians, who supported these attacks, during the Summer of Burning Love, would be equally guilty of aiding, abetting and/or inciting insurrection against the United States. And, that is grounds for expulsion from Congress

      See the problem? No evidence that DJT encouraged any illegal actions, in this case. However, there is plenty of evidence that several prominent Democrat politicians did exactly that during the riots during the summer of 2020.

        mark311 in reply to Mac45. | February 15, 2021 at 10:07 am

        The counting of electoral college votes is part of the transfer of power process. Its an important legal process that acknowledges the electoral votes and how they have been counted. So yes in effect it is a transfer of power because it’s the final tally post election and post legal remedy(s) for votes.

      DaveGinOly in reply to mark311. | February 14, 2021 at 5:47 pm

      If the purpose of a body of people is the restoration of constitutional principles, the preservation of the Republic, and support for a government that respects the law, then that body is not involved in an insurrection and nothing it does is seditious. In this country, sedition and insurrection are not acts against an individual, those in power, or a particular political party. Nor are they acts against de facto governments. Sedition and insurrection are acts against lawful governments and in opposition to rule by the Constitution.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 14, 2021 at 11:54 pm

      It’s easy to show that it was an insurrection it was a direct attack on the Capitol building during the transfer of power.

      You keep harping on this. Neither the Capitol, nor the “transfer of power”, are special. (Also, the transfer of power happens on the 20th, not the 6th.) Attempting to disrupt it is not insurrection.

      The rioters’ stated goal was not to rebel against the USA or the constitution but to protect them from what they perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a coup. That is the very opposite of an insurrection.

      However Antifa/BLM is explicitly engaged in insurrection; they say so openly. Their stated goal is to bring down the USA and the constitution. And in pursuit of that goal they have staged a series of attacks on government buildings and officials, especially in Portland. And many prominent Democrats, including the vice president, have openly supported them and given them material assistance, e.g. in the form of raising bail money.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 10:11 am

        I do yes because that’s the reality. Why do you think Trump spent his time ringing around senators whilst they were being over run. He was trying to prevent the democratic process. I don’t get how you can see it any other way. You’ve basically said that preventing due process is acceptable. Government doesn’t function and therefore the republic doesn’t function if a mob can actively prevent it’s role. That’s a fundamental breakdown in governance.

          Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 15, 2021 at 3:10 pm

          You are unreal. How do you know Trump “spent his time ringing around senators whilst they were being over run”, let alone what he said in these alleged calls? Are you referring to the lies the Democrat managers told about Senator Lee? But even according to their baseless claim, which is pure speculation, the call was to try to persuade Tuberville to make a motion. That is not “trying to prevent the democratic process”, it’s lobbying, which is part of that very process, and is explicitly protected in the first amendment.

          You still haven’t addressed the fact that the transition of power is on the 20th, and there was no attempt to disrupt it.

          But since we’re on the topic, tell us what your reaction was four years ago, to the riots on Jan 20 2017, which were designed to disrupt the transfer of power? Not a single one of those rioters, or those who planned it, ever paid a price. All charges were dropped. Did you say one word about it? One word at all? I don’t believe you did.

          You’ve basically said that preventing due process is acceptable.

          I have said no such thing, and I will thank you to stop lying.

          Government doesn’t function and therefore the republic doesn’t function if a mob can actively prevent it’s role. That’s a fundamental breakdown in governance.

          That’s rich coming from you. Nothing that happened on Jan 6 had anything to do with government functioning. Government functioning is not what happens in the Capitol, it’s police protecting people from crime. You know what prevents that? BLM riots and “mostly peaceful protests”, and BLM’s open allies in the Democrat Party defunding police, threatening police, bringing frivolous charges against police, discouraging police from doing their job. And that whore Kamala Harris openly giving the rioters aid and comfort by bailing them out of jail so they would pay no price for their crime and could go right back to rioting.

          And it is very relevant, because nobody who has supported BLM has any right at all to condemn the Jan 6 riot. There must be one law in this country, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 16, 2021 at 7:20 pm

          Trumps phone calls have been verified by a number of parties, nor has Trump denied the contents of those calls. In particular the call to McCarthy is well documented. With regard to Senator Lee and the alleged calls in those instances it seems like Senator Tuberville disagrees. So that appears to be up in the air in terms of credibility.

          Overall given the number of reports and the lack of denial it seems reasonable to say that Trump made calls.

          Some lobbying! whilst Trump supporters were threatening to lynch Pence. Seriously! Even without that aspect on what basis was he lobbying, not a legal one that’s for sure.

          The 1st amendment doesn’t protect against incitement. This is evidence that Trump only cared about one thing, the election result. He didn’t care about his VP, nor those participating in the Capitol Riots they are just tools to him.

          As I’ve explicitly said the counting of the electoral college votes is part of that transition process. Disrupting it would prevent a transition.

          My view om 2017 is the same as here, if there was a crime, go after the criminal(s) and after due process assuming they are found guilty punish them. AS I understand it the charges were dropped because they lacked evidence. That’s the nature of the standard of proof; sure its a tough break but I’m not sure what exactly you expect? Did I speak about the stupidity of the violence and destruction of property yeah I did, as I’ve posted here many times on things I don’t like whether its on the left or the right. And besides what relevance does that have to the argument at hand, none.

          “You’ve basically said that preventing due process is acceptable.” That’s exactly what you have said by saying that disrupting the electoral college vote doesnt matter. The transition would not have happened were it not for that legal and constitutional process. You’ve diminished and minimised that.

          “Government doesn’t function and therefore the republic doesn’t function if a mob can actively prevent it’s role. That’s a fundamental breakdown in governance.

          That’s rich coming from you. Nothing that happened on Jan 6 had anything to do with government functioning. Government functioning is not what happens in the Capitol, it’s police protecting people from crime. You know what prevents that? BLM riots and “mostly peaceful protests”, and BLM’s open allies in the Democrat Party defunding police, threatening police, bringing frivolous charges against police, discouraging police from doing their job. And that whore Kamala Harris openly giving the rioters aid and comfort by bailing them out of jail so they would pay no price for their crime and could go right back to rioting.

          And it is very relevant, because nobody who has supported BLM has any right at all to condemn the Jan 6 riot. There must be one law in this country, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

          Except that you’ve ignored all the posts and comments saying explicitly that I have never condoned any violence or criminal acts from anyone. That still doesn’t make it relevant. And yet again you minimise the fact that the business of government was disrupted.

          The way you attack Harris is pretty disappointing, sure go after her policy positions but to call her a whore that’s just distasteful and wrong.

          As for the other points about the police well I think there are issues with the police in the states. I’m not sure what the right answer is on that front.

        mark311 in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 10:14 am

        I’ve never seen a stated goal like that from Anti fa or BLM. But I haven’t looked into it. Nor is that particular relevant. As I’ve pointed out some other crime or crimes don’t justify someone else committing a criminal acr.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to mark311. | February 15, 2021 at 6:48 pm

          Actually, there is a long history of something called “precedent” and fair and impartial administration of justice. Therefore, if group “A” engages in activity “1”, and the government refuses to prosecute group “A” for that activity, then, by precedent, it cannot prosecute group “B” for engaging in the same activity. So, if you let BLM and ANTIFA riot in DC, you basically have to let everyone do it. To do otherwise is called selective enforcement and prosecution.

          It may be bad precedent, but it’s still precedent, and you really cannot be amazed when group “B” is surprised when the government drops the hammer on them for engaging in like activities other groups engaged in, and not only a clear pass, but literally bent a knee towards.

          Group “B” watched, and learned. Then, when the government did not grant them the same deference, they learned something anew, and it is not an inspiring lesson to that group.

          mark311 in reply to mark311. | February 16, 2021 at 7:25 pm

          No, precedent is set by court decisions not prosecutors. Those precedents involve a set of decision principles based on the merits set out.

          I’m also not exactly sure any group got a free pass. Due process was carried out and nothing came of it in some cases. That’s a function of the burden of proof not some kind of prosecutors preference.

          The idea that BLM got a free pass somehow doesn’t bear scrutiny since it was on Trumps watch. He had all the means to go after them and he did; he just couldn’t make a case.

      DSHornet in reply to mark311. | February 15, 2021 at 9:52 am

      You post here the same way as on COTR, and draw derision in both places for the same reason. What is wrong w/you?

Well, it would be a bill of attainder and therefore be expressly forbidden by Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3.
Naturally, Pelosi and Schumer will in due time try to go down this route. /s

    Thats an interesting point. How is the section actually invoked? The suggestion of having it formed like a bill makes it look like a bill of attainder so I’m not sure at all how the framers intended that clause to come into effect?

      felixrigidus in reply to mark311. | February 14, 2021 at 5:21 pm

      I have no idea what “invoking the 14th Amendment Section 3” means. I would assume that it is self-executing.
      Apparently, the idea is something like a bill that “finds” that in the case of Donald John Trump the conditions of this provision are met. That would be exactly what “bill of attainder” means (as used in the Constitution, not as used in England at the time).

      The only ‘point’ is on your head.

      The votes of you and people like you has directly resulted in the oppression, corruption and chaos erupting throughout our nation.

      Milhouse in reply to mark311. | February 15, 2021 at 12:04 am

      How it’s supposed to be invoked is obvious: Someone who once took an oath as one of the officers listed (which does not include the president or vice president) violates that oath by engaging in insurrection or by giving aid or comfort to the constitution’s enemies. (By the way, “aid or comfort” does not include first-amendment-protected speech; it means much the same thing as “material support” in anti-terrorism law.) That person is automatically barred from all the offices listed(which does not include the presidency or vice presidency). They then file their candidacy for such an elected office. Either the board of elections with whom they file their candidacy rejects them and they sue, or it accepts them and a rival sues. Either way, the courts determine the facts and decide whether the person is disqualified. Congress plays no role.

    With that rat William Barr selling America out, and with biden/harris psychos running the “justice” department – and a chief justice of the Supreme Court who is about on par with Sandy Smollet in character

    Who will enforce it?

    We don’t live in ‘America’ anymore, bud. It’s over.

Of course, there’s nothing more important these people coiuld be doing with their time and energy.

Trump’s policies must have throttled a s*load of yuan away from these people’s purses to engender this kind of everlasting hate.

    You’re wrong. They are trying to protect an ongoing criminal scam, and they are trying to cover their ongoing treason.

    When you’re a treasonous criminal, you have NOTHING better to do than cover your ass.

Whether Trump is guilty of insurrection is a question of fact and law that must be found by a court. It is true that congressional factfinding is given deference, but only in the context of upholding statutes that enforce constitutional provisions. So Congress could enact a statute now that says if you make a speech that a mob reasonably might interpret as license to attack the Capitol, then that shall be considered in insurrection under the 14th Amendment. But Congress lacks the power to impose that kind of definition by statute either specifically for one individual or retroactively; that is what the Constitutional prohibitions of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are all about. So senators like Tim Kaine who profess to be educated lawyers and should know better should stop grandstanding.

So a couple hundred unarmed civilians was going to have a chance to take over the US Government?
If it’s that easy maybe fortifications and a division of troops are needed permanently in DC.

    Milhouse in reply to Skip. | February 15, 2021 at 12:08 am

    Whether they had a chance of succeeding isn’t directly relevant. An insurrection doesn’t have to be well thought out to count. Antifa has no chance of bringing the USA down either, but it’s still an insurrection.

To be more specific about congressional factfinding, it is a device to tie in the text and effect of a statue to an underlying constitutional provision in order to demonstrate and justify that the statue is necessary and appropriate to enforce that constitutional provision and is not beyond Congress’s legislative power. But that’s all. For example, Congress has no power to legislate additional conditions for whether someone can hold an office, so they would not be able to pass a law that says that anyone who was not born in the United States could not be a member of Congress, no matter how many cogent facts Congress found that such a person might not be a particularly good representative. Nor is congressional factfinding given unlimited imited deference. For example, no court would accord a shred of deference to a congressional finding that anyone who tweeted in support of Trump was guilty of insurrection.

The very idea that 51 Senators can foreclose on the people’s choice of their president is an absurdity.

Those clauses in the Constitution’s body and amendment 14 would apply to APPOINTED OFFICES. Trying to apply that to elective office would be legislative tyranny.

We the people have the final word. PERIOD.

    Milhouse in reply to CDR D. | February 15, 2021 at 12:12 am

    No, you’re wrong here. Section 3 of the 14th amendment specifically bars certain people from certain offices, including “senator or representative in congress, or elector of president and vice president”, all of which are elected offices.

    But it’s not congress that determines who’s disqualified. And for some reason the disqualification doesn’t extend to the presidency or vice presidency.

First time I’ve seen Democrats actually trying to read the constitution.

If the Democrats want to convince the American people the election was stolen, then they should just go ahead and finish shredding the Constitution by attempting to pass an unconstitutional bill of attainder attempting to tell the American people they can’t vote for Trump.

Depriving Trump (really, the American people, but Trump will be the individual targeted) of the ability to run for office with NO CRIMINAL or any other conviction for insurrection will simply demonstrate they are willing to do anything to stop Trump from getting elected. Whether it’s legal or not.

So if they’re willing to do anything, even it it’s illegal/unconstitutional, to stop Trump, because of course “#OrangeManBad is literally Hitler,” why wouldn’t they steal an election to stop him? Wouldn’t they be “morally” bound to stop “literally Hitler” from getting elected?

That they’re even considering this is evidence they will stop at nothing.

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | February 14, 2021 at 5:46 pm

    If a cabal of special interests were to set out to steal an election, then they would have done exactly what the establishment left/NeverTrumpers did in 2020. Now with the idea that they can simply declare Trump guilty of a crime without even bothering to allow him his day in court demonstrates they have ample motive to do exactly what they are accused of doing in November.

    Meanwhile, they will continue to ignore leftist attacks on citizens, which deprive them of their ability to make a living, and they will continue to bail out those committing violent attacks against private citizens (when the Soros DAs/AGs don’t just release them gratis) so they can commit their crimes all over again.

    And Trump is supposed to be the danger? Hardly.

Everybody step back for a moment: do you see the big picture? Our nation’s capital is occupied by soldiers, we have a moron in the White House who has been corrupted by half the world – but more ominously, Communist China, about 80 percent of Congress is has been corrupted by foreign powers, and the treasonous criminals infesting Congress are making up laws as they go to target a man.

They’re not coming for Trump. They’re coming for YOU and I.

There is one man to blame for this situation. ONE MAN: William Barr. He could have stopped it all. But as we’ve seen, he’s in on the conspiracy. So was Sessions.

    Of course they’re after us; we “bitter clingers.” Going after Trump is simply the classic move dictators always make. Strike the shepherd, they think, and the sheep will obediently get on board with the “new sheriff’s” program.

    I found it ironically amusing Kamala Harris and her secular Jewish husband attempted to co-opt Chanukah as a social justice holiday. When it was the Hasmoneans leading a rebellion against the Greeks who were trying to force the Jews to give up their religion.

    You know, like the left wants to force observant religious people to give up their religion and replace them with politically correct leftist pieties. Why do you think they’re cracking down on religious observances from coast to coast?

    The MFM thinks that observant Catholics will somehow think abortion-on-demand Biden is a role model. And Kamala Harris doesn’t know she and her husband are playing the role of villain since she’s never read the books of Maccabees.

    Brian Stelter and company at CNN think if we don’t have Trump calling us the “enemy of the people” we won’t recognize them for who they are. I haven’t believed their lies since the 1990s; decades before I heard of Trump, and I didn’t need Trump to know they were my enemies considering that as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States I was in a group that they were lying about for decades.

    Everything the left is doing; cancel culture, the impeachment farce, the hysterical shrieking about how discussing the obvious 2020 voter fraud is off-limits, the military occupation of D.C., is an exercise in intimidation and it’s aimed at us.

    Three documents I recommend everyone read:

    I found this part particularly prescient as Orwell described our current situation exactly.

    “…Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible…”

    Does anyone want me to cite all the current examples of leftists insisting that saying 2+2=4 “reeks of white supremacy.” In Oregon the Dept. of Education held a workshop on “ethnomathematics.”

    “The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) recently encouraged teachers to register for training that encourages “ethnomathematics” and argues, among other things, that White supremacy manifests itself in the focus on finding the right answer.

    An ODE newsletter sent last week advertises a Feb. 21 “Pathway to Math Equity Micro-Course,” which is designed for middle school teachers to make use of a toolkit for “dismantling racism in mathematics.” The event website identifies the event as a partnership between California’s San Mateo County Office of Education, The Education Trust-West and others.

    Part of the toolkit includes a list of ways “white supremacy culture” allegedly “infiltrates math classrooms.” Those include “the focus is on getting the ‘right’ answer,” students being “required to ‘show their work,’” and other alleged manifestations…”

    Funny, isn’t it. The Chinese and Indians (note: not the Muslims as they simply stole other people’s work, gave it Arab names, and claimed credit) who made great strides in the various mathematical disciplines also insisted on getting the right answer and showing their work. Because, that’s kind of important for such purposes as engineering. Who knew? The Chinese and Indians are unrepentant white supremacists.

    And screw the “tyranny” of biology. We’ve freed ourselves from that. How many genders are we up to now?

    This, by the way, is how cults operate. They destroy the rank-and-file members’ confidence in their own ability to recognize reality. In fact, they destroy the idea there is anything like objective reality. From the description of the “ethnomathematics” workshop:

    “’The concept of mathematics being purely objective is unequivocally false, and teaching it is even much less so,’ the document for the ‘Equitable Math’ toolkit reads. ‘Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers PERPETUATE OBJECTIVITY as well as fear of open conflict.’”

    Cult members, and I’m including members of “cults-of-personality” that dictatorships (and that Orwell wrote about) establish, are indoctrinated to suppress thoughts should one cross their mind. Their leaders will tell them what to believe from one day to the next. If that means 5 y.o. Billy is a boy today, a girl, tomorrow, or 2+2=3 today or 7 tomorrow, so be it.

    Recently Natan Sharansky wrote:

    “…Everything had to serve Communist ideology: every institution, every medium, every art form. Lenin particularly appreciated the propaganda potential of movies, declaring, “Cinema for us is the most important of the arts.” So while all creative artists had to subordinate plot, character, and complexity to advancing the Bolshevik political agenda, movie-makers endured extra scrutiny. The term “politically-correct,” which is popular today, emerged in the late 1920s, to describe the need to correct certain deviants’ thought to fit the Communist Party Line. Any positive characters with bourgeois origins had to eventually check their privilege, condemn their past as oppressors, and publicly take responsibility for their sins…”

    Sound familiar?

    “…Fearing for his life, my father fled the film industry, Odessa, and his beloved creative world, in 1929. Landing in an obscure Ukrainian industrial center, which today is known as Donetsk, he spent the rest of his writing career as a journalist celebrating the proletarians building the new Soviet world in a series of industrial journals. Every article he wrote perpetuated his double life, as he took whatever facts there were, and massaged them all into upbeat news that would make him look loyal and the Revolution look successful. Knowing that any deviations from the ideological vision would be dismissed as “bourgeois lies,” my father became part of a vast assembly line manufacturing the Soviet version of “fake news.” He understood that—as would be said a century later by an activist Member of the U.S. Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—more important than “being precisely, factually, and semantically correct,” he had to be “morally right”—meaning in line with the official ideology…”

    Remember comrades. There was no fraud in the 2020 presidential election! Zero, zip, nada. Anyone who says so is a capitalist running dog enemy of the revolution.

    “…In 1943, he interviewed more than 100 witnesses to recreate the story of a small group of young heroes in a marginal Ukrainian town who resisted the Nazis until all were killed. The book, The Young Guard, became wildly popular, and was turned into a film. But, at a certain point, Stalin himself supposedly objected, snapping at Fadeyev: “You have written a book that is not just worthless but ideologically harmful.” Stalin wondered how these young people could “have dealt effectively with the enemy in the occupied territory without Party leadership?” Such insolence suggested anarchy.

    It wasn’t just truth that had to be faked, history itself had to be changed, becoming putty in the hands of the Party. A serious ideological flaw had been identified in Fadeyev’s work, by no less an authority than Stalin himself. Understanding that these criticisms could be life-threatening, Fadeyev rewrote and republished the book, with wise, heroic, completely-made-up Party hacks inspiring his heroes.

    The humiliation was worth it to him…”

    Abraham Lincoln has been cancelled. Soon, in service to the “1619 Project” false narrative this country will never have fought a civil war to free the slaves. Because this country is irredeemably racist to its very racist founding documents. Only Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” and perpetual collective white guilt can fix what’s wrong with it. That and socialism.

    “…The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

    I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life “in harmony with society,” as they say.

    Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: “I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.” This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

    Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan “I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology…”

    Where your masks, comrades. It shows you are compliant, obedient. Because, science! Of course, there’s no such thing. There are party apparatchiks like Fauci who have contradicted themselves on every major point, moving all the goal posts. For months Fauci has said schools can safely reopen. Now, because like 2+2=5, the party needs him to say schools can’t reopen until Biden gets his leftist wish list posing as having something to do with COVID through Congress.

    If tomorrow Fauci said that to stop the pandemic everyone needed to drink dog piss straight from the bladder, Gov. “Granny Killer” Cuomo needs to ritually bang your wife at the Temple of Wokeness, and we need to start throwing virgins into volcanoes, the enraged Twitter mob would show up accusing you of LITERALLY KILLING people if you don’t wrap your lips around a dog’s penis, dragging your wife away, and beating you with a “Love TRUMPs Hate” sign until you gave up your kids.

    Of course they’re coming for us. They’ve unpersoned us, and the Antifa/#BLM mob is no different from the Hitler youth or Maoist Red Guards. Perfect guards for the Gulags and reeducation camps that, fortunately, they don’t have the work ethic to build.

But, if a person is guilty of insurrection or treason, in addition to not being eligible to run for public office, wouldn’t they also be sentenced to prison or the death penalty?

    Milhouse in reply to jolanthe. | February 15, 2021 at 12:17 am

    Not unless they were charged with the crime, given a trial consistent with the fifth and sixth amendments, and a jury found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And in the case of treason there would have to be an overt act with two witnesses, or their own confession.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to jolanthe. | February 15, 2021 at 6:54 pm

    There is no death penalty for insurrection in the federal code I am aware of. Long prison sentences are specified, that is, up to twenty years.

They seem to think that the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to try someone for sedition and insurrection for the specific purpose of barring the person from future office holding. That is not what it says. The amendment imposes a penalty (apparently not in federal law at the time, otherwise it would be superfluous) on persons who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution.

How does one determine who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”? Why, a trial and conviction for same! This, of course, is accomplished in a criminal court, under the laws (that already existed at the time of the amendment’s ratification, and still exist today) concerning sedition and insurrection.

The 14th Amendment does nothing more than impose an additional punishment upon certain people (those who had taken an other to support the Constitution) who are found guilty of sedition and/or insurrection. Contrary to the seeming belief that it allows Congress to impose a penalty, it does exactly the opposite, authorizing Congress to “remove such disability” “by a vote of two-thirds of each House.”

    TheOldZombie in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 14, 2021 at 8:36 pm


    It’s hilarious that the Democrats think they can pull this 14th Amendment stunt off without actually charging Trump with a crime and holding a criminal trial in a court.

    I suspect that Senator Schumer understands that point which is why he’s not really into the 14th Amendment maneuver.

    Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 15, 2021 at 12:24 am

    The amendment imposes a penalty (apparently not in federal law at the time, otherwise it would be superfluous) on persons who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution.

    Federal law couldn’t have such a penalty, at least as regards eligibility for congress. It would be unconstitutional were it not in the constitution.

    How does one determine who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”? Why, a trial and conviction for same! This, of course, is accomplished in a criminal court

    Not necessarily. Since this is not a criminal penalty, there’s no need for finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or any of the protections of the fifth and sixth amendments that apply to criminal trials. Someone would sue, and the courts would examine the evidence and decide on the balance of probabilities whether the person is disqualified.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 6:59 pm

      I fully believe the government could charge someone with “insurrection against the government,” and have done so in the past. I suspect the next step of Democratic misuse and abuse of the law will be to charge Trump and certain others with insurrection and rebellion under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection. It would be preposterous, but absurdity has not restrained them in the past.

It’s odd that so many Representatives and Senatorsate trying to get out of their actual work and/or maybe they need only a six month legislative year.

If the repubs take the house in the next election they should demolish every democrat (maxine waters to start) and remove them from every committee and leave them with no power of any kind.
Then they need to cut the budget bigly so all those blue states suffer for their ridiculous spending binges of the past 60 years.

    Milhouse in reply to 4fun. | February 15, 2021 at 12:27 am

    Yes. Do it for as long as the Dems applied it (hopefully only two years), and then offer them a truce; we go back to the old rules and both parties agree not to break them again.

Nancy Pelosi’s tantrums have damaged this country enough–more than enough.

This is ridiculous. Let’s assume, just for lulz, that Trump had given aid and comfort to enemies of the constitution. This idea would still have no legs for several reasons:

1. Trump has never 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. He has taken such an oath, but not in one of these roles. That means the clause doesn’t apply to him.

2. Nor is the presidency one of the offices barred to someone who did so. If he were disqualified under this clause, he could not 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”, but he could still be president or vice president.

3. If the clause did apply, he would be automatically disqualified. Congress would have no role in disqualifying him. Some boards of election would refuse to put him on the ballot, and he would take it to court; others would agree to put him on the ballot and his opponents would take it to court. Either way, the courts would decide the matter, without reference to what Congress might have to say about it.

Kaine’s fantasy that “a court or somebody”, in making this decision, would refer to a “congressional fact finding”, and that “Congress finding the facts would be given great deference by a court” is too ridiculous for words. Courts do not defer to Congress as a fact-finding body. Congressional “findings of fact” only matter as evidence of its own state of mind when it passed a law; they don’t substitute for the judicial branch’s own fact-finding.

When congress makes a law and bases its authority to do so on a “finding of fact”, courts tend to defer to it, because that’s within congress’s competence. But here there would be no law made; Congress would simply be expressing an opinion on a matter that is not its business, so there’s no reason to suppose the courts would defer to it.

Congress would first have to pass a statute that essentially stated Trump was guilty of aiding/abetting and/or providing comfort to the Capitol rioters, which would then theoretically mean Section 3 was applicable in their view.

That wouldn’t be a statute. It wouldn’t accomplish any legislative result. It would just be an expression of opinion, and Congress’s opinions are no more interesting than anyone else’s.

If it purported to actually bar him, i.e. “Whereas Donald John Trump has done such and such, therefore he is hereby barred from being a candidate for the presidency”, that would be a bill of attainder, and the courts would reject it.

    Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 12:37 am

    Yes, it’s ridiculous. It’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional. Schumer is currently posturing as if he’s not entirely sold on the idea, but when it first came to my attention it was because Schumer was floating it. So in addition to being ridiculous, illegal, and unconstitutional he may have also decided it’s just a bad idea politically.

    But even being all of the above, it doesn’t mean the Democrats as a caucus won’t try it.

    On another thread when I mentioned Schumer was contemplating an unconstitutional bill of attainder you seemed to think I was making things up. Obviously, I wasn’t.

    Pop quiz: Who was involved in the following exchange?

    Person 1: “Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!”

    Person 2: “We’re just the guys to do it.”

    A. House impeachment manager Rep. Eric “Nuke American gun owners” Swalwell (D-Fang Fang Bang Bang) and Sen. Tim “The Joker” Kaine (D-BlackfaceCentral) responding to Trump’s second acquittal.

    B. Eric “Otter” Stratton and and John “Bluto” Blutarsky after the Delta Tau Chi frat’s charter is revoked, they’re kicked of of the Faber College campus, and Dean Wormer expels all the members.

    C. Both A and B.

    Publius_2020 in reply to Milhouse. | February 15, 2021 at 12:44 pm

    This seems precisely right to me, with the small caveat that I think the Fifth Amendment and Article III power arguments in favor of requiring a judicial determination of guilt are non-trivial. The notion that Congress can unilaterally accomplish this with majority vote seems absurd in light of Powell v. McCormack and City of Boerne v. Flores.

      After the civil war Confederates had to take amnesty oaths, and sign notarized versions (the original kept by the Union Army Provost Marshall, the Confederate keeping a copy) of those amnesty oaths. Certain individuals, such as high ranking Confederate Army and Navy officers, high ranking civil officers, individuals from states that didn’t secede that crossed the lines to join the Confederacy, etc., didn’t have their rights restored under the general amnesty but had to request an individual pardon.

      Since judicial precedent clearly states that an amnesty/pardon means the individual who requests one committed the behavior, then I am persuaded that those individuals didn’t have to be convicted in a court of law of the crime of insurrection or rebellion for section 3 of the 14th Amendment to apply. The very act they applied for the general amnesty or the individual pardon suffices as an admission of guilt. And then it would be entirely up to the discretion Congress to remove the bar on their service in certain offices listed in section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

      But this has nothing to do with Trump’s situation. And nowhere does the 14th Amendment give Congress the power to “invoke” it. Someone is already subject to the disabilities detailed in section 3, either by their own admission or by a judicial finding, or they’re not.

      Since Trump hasn’t been convicted on anything resembling insurrection or rebellion (or providing aid and comfort to those who committed such crimes) nor could he ever remotely be convicted of that as long as words have definitions, then he’s not subject to the disabilities of section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

      End of story.

2022. Democrats investigating allegations that Donald Trump jaywalked.

2023. Democrats investigating allegations that Donald Trump cheated on a math test in high school.

2024. Democrats investigating allegations that Donald Trump used card-counting at casino.

2025. Democrats investigating allegations that Donald Trump used a plastic cup once.

    Arminius in reply to Stuytown. | February 15, 2021 at 7:57 pm

    2021 isn’t over yet. And Trump is gloating over his second acquittal (he is not the most acquitted President in U.S. history).

    Because he’s figuratively spiking the ball and dancing in the end zone, the Dems may just try to impeach him again this year for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Yeah, Schumie, you go right ahead and try that so that we patriots have precedence to use to convict you.

These are not the actions of people who think they can easily beat Trump again, should he choose to run. Even with their…advantages…they should want Trump to run again.

I never bought this argument before, but I’m coming around to it.

The First Amendment consists of five “freedoms,” which are: Religion, Free Speech, Free Press, Assembly, and Petition.

The Petition section of the first amendment, also commonly referred to as the Petition Clause, states that “People have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or in which they feel strongly.

Does the 1 M people in DC on the 6th represent this?

As witness, I be 200K of people that attended the event on the 6th would agree to this.

Congress is trying to deny the 1st Amendment.

I bet we could flip this thing based on the 1st Amendment requesting that election fraud be investigated.

The actual concept of petitioning the government is said to reach at least as far back as the Magna Carta, one of the first documented formal legal systems that was composed by Kingdom of England in 1215. In the Magna Carta (as translated into modern English), it states, “If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice—to declare it and claim immediate redress.”

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | February 15, 2021 at 1:23 pm

    Could we not at a state level as each state for a full forensic audit. This would put every Congressman and Senator case under the microscope. I think we would discover problems in Raskins district too.

      Senator Hassan’s election in 2016 – she won by 1000 votes, and we know there were around 8000 out-of-state “student” voters who had not established a domicile in NH, but were allowed to vote by affidavit.

There is no basis for an impeachment as President Trump did not break the law, nor incite any riot/violence, and you cannot impeach him as he no longer is a sitting President. You liberals are a bunch of fools with TDS. America is tired of this crap and you need to focus on the People’s business rather than your idiocy. Since when do you need a defense against NO EVIDENCE?
Per the Constitution – “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Note – AND DISQUALIFICATION, not OR DISQUALIFICATION. This very simply makes this whole proceeding unconstitutional as he is no longer in office.
The subsequent acquittal of former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial is a fitting outcome to a case that should not have happened. This was a show trial, an attempt by Democrats to humiliate Trump after his election defeat and force Republicans to side with him or against him. While the president’s speech before the Capitol riot was at times too angry and bitter, there was nothing in it that could reasonably be seen as intending to incite an insurrection, as the single House article charged.

Myron J. Poltroonian | February 15, 2021 at 5:34 pm

With Schumer’s and McConnell’s speeches after the impeachment trial, Trump is smiling like the proverbial Cheshire Cat. Eventually they’re going to trip themselves up and have him charged in open court with lying and “Pushing a ‘False’ Narrative about the 2020 Election Results” and causing the events of January 6th, 2021 at the Capitol in open court. At that point, Rudy and Sidney are going to have the Left for Lunch. All the sworn evidence they’ve gathered from witnesses and all the rest of their experts regarding computer hacking and statistical analysis, etc, will be finally presented and judged on its merits, not on politics.

“‘Their arguments, however, are flawed. There is no evidence that Trump “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” nor that he “gave aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.’ It’s just not there.”


Touch an added good base here:

I think the trick is to focus right.