Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rep. Madison Cawthorn Targeted For Reelection Disqualification Over J6 In Precursor To Wider Dem Effort

Rep. Madison Cawthorn Targeted For Reelection Disqualification Over J6 In Precursor To Wider Dem Effort

“urged state officials Monday to disqualify U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn as a congressional candidate, citing his participation in a rally last January in Washington that questioned the presidential election outcome”

https://youtu.be/NoQuSvRHisQ

Last week, we noted that Democrat lawyer Marc Elias has threatened to use January 6th to disqualify Republicans from running in 2022. As if by magic, a group is doing that to North Carolina Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn.

The challenge was filed by 11 people, but has the backing of a national organization dedicated to campaign finance reform.

Gary D. Robertson of the Associated Press, via ABC News:

North Carolina voters dispute Cawthorn candidacy over Jan. 6

A group of North Carolina voters urged state officials Monday to disqualify U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn as a congressional candidate, citing his participation in a rally last January in Washington that questioned the presidential election outcome and preceded the Capitol riot.

Cawthorn’s office quickly condemned the candidacy challenge, filed on behalf of 11 voters before the State Board of Elections, which oversees the scrutiny of candidates’ qualifications. The voters contend that Cawthorn, a Republican who formally filed as a candidate for the 13th District seat last month, can’t run because he fails to comply with an amendment in the U.S. Constitution ratified shortly after the Civil War.

The 14th Amendment says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

The written challenge says events on Jan. 6, 2021 “amounted to an insurrection” and that Cawthorn’s speech at the rally supporting then-President Donald Trump, his other comments and information in published reports provide a “reasonable suspicion or belief” that he helped facilitate the insurrection.

“The importance of defending the bedrock constitutional principle that oath breakers who engage in insurrection cannot be trusted in future office is essential to maintain,” said Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People, a national election and campaign finance reform group backing the challenge.

This is not genuine, and it’s just a tactic, which is all Democrats have left since they can’t run on Biden’s disastrous presidency. Just take a look at the story below.

A producer for Rachel Maddow on MSNBC worried that if they asked Cawthorn for comment, he might want to come on the show and dispute the accusation.

David Rutz reports at FOX News:

‘Rachel Maddow Show’ worried Madison Cawthorn might ask to come on show if they asked him for comment: Email

A producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show” accidentally copied Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s, R-N.C., office on an email Monday worrying Cawthorn might ask to come on the MSNBC program if they asked him for comment about a story.

A senior “Maddow” producer emailed a Capitol Hill NBC News colleague regarding an Associated Press piece about a small North Carolina group disputing Cawthorn’s re-election candidacy because he addressed the pro-Trump Jan. 6 rally last year.

According to Cawthorn’s office, apparently unaware the congressman’s team was copied on the message, he asked his colleague to request comment from Cawthorn for fear that if a “Maddow” representative did it, “he might ask to come on and explain … don’t want to take that risk.”

Image via FOX News:

This is just the beginning of this. Marc Elias floated it into the political sphere, and leftists will run with it. Republicans better have a response ready.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Fuck you, your silly Jan 6 nonsense AND Joe Biden.

This really isn’t that complicated. Not even the idiot with the horns has been charged with “insurrection”–why would anyone simply exercising their free speech right be accused of–let alone found to have participated in–rebellion. While we’re at it, how about all of the democrat politicians who marched around since 2000 alleging that W and Trump were “illegitimate” presidents?

    scooterjay in reply to Disgusted. | January 11, 2022 at 9:12 am

    Exactly why I return the “FU” to them. It aggravates me to no end that they choose to yammer about Jan 6 yet silence regarding the actions we have witnessed for twenty years. Silence over the Congressional baseball game…silence over BLM riots and apologies to the rioters when forced to speak…silence over a curious incident involving a stalled dump truck in the path of a train loaded with Republican politicians. The list is well-documented.

    Milhouse in reply to Disgusted. | January 11, 2022 at 10:06 am

    Whether anyone has been charged with “insurrection” is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that there was in fact no insurrection. The law doesn’t care what you call something, it cares what it was, and in this case what happened simply can’t be shoehorned into the definition of “insurrection”. Words mean things, and “insurrection” means something, and it’s not what happened that day.

    It does however fit CHAZ and the other “autonomous zones”, the attacks on ICE, as well as the “Occupy” movement that set the precedent for them. The attack on the police station in Minneapolis may also qualify., though one could argue that that was only an insurrection against the city of Minneapolis, not against the USA.

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | January 11, 2022 at 11:09 am

      In a wider sense…any opposition to the Left would fit their definition of insurrection. What they believe becomes the definition. Once upon a time malleable but now all encompassing.

I love the smell of Dimocrat desperation in the morning.

2smartforlibs | January 11, 2022 at 8:21 am

If we are worried about politicians and their activity in an insurrection, let’s talk VP Bratwurst funding bail for the riots in 2020.

Lucifer Morningstar | January 11, 2022 at 8:45 am

The written challenge says events on Jan. 6, 2021 “amounted to an insurrection” . . .

But the last time I checked nobody that participated in the Jan 6th rally and that was subsequently arrested has been charged with “insurrection” or even”rebellion” against the United States; so the claim that the events of Jan 6th “amounted to an insurrection” is just a desperate attempt that has no basis in fact.

    Hence the phrase “amounted to”. The law doesn’t care what you call something, it cares only what it actually was. So if the events of that day amounted to an insurrection then legally it was one. But they didn’t; they weren’t even close. They can no more be called an “insurrection” than they can be called a “teapot”. That is what matters.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | January 11, 2022 at 12:26 pm

      Agreed. What Milhouse is essentially saying is that “rape” is not a formal criminal charge but “sexual assault” is even though they can mean the same thing.

      Regardless, neither happened.

Lucifer Morningstar | January 11, 2022 at 8:50 am

As if by magic, a group is doing that to North Carolina Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn.

Wasn’t magic. Elias proposed the action and the democrats found 11 people stupid enough to go along with it. And I’m sure that if you look into who’s bank rolling the effort it will lead right back to the democrat party.

    Somebody at the NSBA independently wrote a letter to Merrick Garland complaining that… woops, never mind, wrong incident of manufactured outrage to order.

    Sometimes you have to laugh. Of all people, the Democrats have decided to target the handicapped guy. The guy with intersectional points. The victim.

    Why, the optics of that are exactly what they need as a party!

If one candidate can be accused of “insurrection” just for being at a rally, why couldn’t another be accused of it for actively promoting a platform of erasing our borders or allowing non-citizens to vote?

    scooterjay in reply to irv. | January 11, 2022 at 9:17 am

    I think it falls under the precedent that allows a politician to make outlandish promises without actually following through with them as it is generally understood that a politician is lying when campaigning.

it’s rediculous until some judge considers it true.

This would be an excellent time to explain why Joe Biden should be impeached for participating in a thinly disguised coup attempt and cheering on an openly run seditious “resistance” within our own government. He was the one who provided the pretext to spy on the successor administration.

Every Republican asked about this should go on the offensive and point out that Joe meets the standard they are attempting to apply far more closely than anyone calling for a rally, or who pointed out that the majority of the people in the country think the last election was not legitimate for one reason or another — including how biased the press is for frothing over baseless charges cooked up in Dem propaganda labs.

Democrats have become awfully USSRish lately.

Democrats emitting yet another foul stench in an attempt to block Republicans. We should be used to this by now.

“who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Hell, that would result in removal of half of the House. Schiff and Nadler would be the first out the door.

This is all just an attempt to buttress the idea that Jan 6 was an insurrection v the reality. It’s done to stoke up their d/prog base, raise funds, keep the Jan 6 narrative in the news and potentially sway some gullible people.

“amounted to an insurrection”

They misspelled ‘mostly peaceful protest.’

This is frivolous in the extreme. Given the quality of some of the judiciary I can’t say what the first judge to look at it will do with it, but any honest judge would toss it immediately, and impose sanctions on any licensed lawyers involved in filing it.

Even if the riot at the Capitol on Jan 6 had been an insurrection, which it wasn’t, the rally had nothing to do with it. The rally was a perfect exercise of the first amendment, and any attempt to punish anyone for participating violates that amendment. In addition, Cawthorn participated in his capacity as a congressman, and is therefore protected by the Speech and Debate clause. (And that’s on top of all the arguments presented here last week, about who can enforce relevant clause, and about the amnesty act that explicitly restored all rights to everyone except a small and specifically named group.)

    stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | January 11, 2022 at 12:46 pm

    One might argue that the ‘Speech and Debate’ clause is in conflict with the 14A ‘Insurrection’ clause. If a member of Congress took to the floor to demand an insurrection, which clause would win out?

    Of course, that’s not what happened here, as Mr. Cawthorn did not participate in nor call for an insurrection, and the Democrats are engaged in an especially venal exercise in lawfare.

      Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 11, 2022 at 5:05 pm

      The 14A clause doesn’t cover demanding an insurrection. It covers only having “engaged” in one. Demanding one is not only protected by the speech and debate clause, it’s also protected by the 1A.

      But even if the demand got so heated as to amount to incitement (i.e. speech both intended and likely to cause people to act on it immediately), it would still be covered by the speech and debate clause. Of course the member’s house could vote by 2/3 to expel him, but he could not be held accountable in any court.

      Even if the 14a clause were enforceable in court, it could only apply to those who physically “engaged” in insurrection, or who gave aid and comfort to the USA’s enemies. Which does not include speaking favorably of them. Aid and comfort means material assistance.

    Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 11, 2022 at 3:20 pm

    “This is frivolous in the extreme. Given the quality of some of the judiciary I can’t say what the first judge to look at it will do with it, but any honest judge would toss it immediately, and impose sanctions on any licensed lawyers involved in filing it…”

    Correct. Which is why this group isn’t taking this to court but instead bringing this idiocy to the state election board. They want a political outcome, not a judicial determination.

    Frankly, I can see this as a precurser to what may well happen when the GOP takes the House. The Democrats will simply refuse to certify the election results and seat the newly elected GOP reps, declaring them “insurrectionists” who are ineligible to serve.

      Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | January 11, 2022 at 5:08 pm

      Except that it’s the incoming congress that votes on whether to seat those members whose election is contested. I’ve never understood how it’s decided whether a contested member gets to vote on his own seating, and whether he gets to vote on other contested members’ seating. But in any event, if the Dems contest enough results to give them a majority without them, all the Reps need to do is contest an equal number of Dem victories.

This is where the efforts of the left to redefine words pays a dividend.
With respect to Cawthorn, all they need to do is survive a motion to dismiss (think left judge), and the lawsuit, and more importantly, discovery, will trash his campaign. Just another very dirty trick from the left.

Designed to simply bleed campaign funds to fighting unsubstantiated charges. Counter sue for legal costs and punitive damages. Including discovery of any and all collusion between Elias and those funding these lawsuits (more are to come.)

Old and cold: Count every vote!
New and bold: Don’t allow the vote!

The vile Dhimmi-crats should take a look in the mirror and apply the same standard to every single despicable Dhimmi-crat currently in office — from dotard Xi-den, to crone-harlot, Kamala, on down — who praised, enabled, lionized and otherwise lent moral, political and financial support to the Dhimmi-crats’ insurrectionist, jackbooted, goose-stepping terrorist-thugs in “Anti-fa” and in “Black Lives Matter,” during their year-long orgy of destruction, looting, arson, murder, attacks on law enforcement officers and desecration of synagogues in year 2020.

Heck, opposition to the promised utopia the left has promised us is insurrection. Speaking out against it is insurrection. Opposing the hate being fed to our kids is insurrection. And, in time, believing in a God not approved by the left will be seen as insurrection. Anyone with even a brief grasp of history has seen this play before. The mindset, the arrogance, the absolute certitude these people have on their own virtue is all the same only time and place are different. We have forgotten what made America great and now we are chasing a failed ideology that promises heaven while delivering a hell.

I would argue that the insurrectionists are in fact the elected Democrats who swore a false oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, when they’ve proven time and again that they are the domestic enemies of the Constitution.

What is this “our democracy” they keep talking about? You can read our founding documents until your brains fall out and you won’t find the word. If you read Federalist. No. 10 you’ll find it. And you’ll find the founders rejected it as perhaps the worst form of government. It’s simply mob rule. When Antifa/#BLM and/or public employee unions such as AFSCME marching (sometimes under the banner of the Hammer and Sickle) chanting “No Borders, no walls, no U.S.A. at all,” while looting, burning, and assaulting people they simply call “fascists,” that is what “democracy” looks like. In fact, when hey aren’t chanting in support of the abolition of the U.S.A. or for dead cops, they often are chanting, “This is what democracy looks like.”

Again, they are right.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178

“The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.1 The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice…”

When Antifa/#BLM march and destroy they are the physical embodiment of the “violence of faction.” And the Democrats are all for it, which is why they refuse to acknowledge these groups even exist, when they’re not actually forming groups to bail them out with Kamala Harris fronting for the effort as she did in Minnesota.

“,,,From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths…”

Hence Article 4 Section 4 declares of the U.S. Constitution declares one and only one form of government lawful under the basic law of the land and it ain’t democracy.

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Since the Democrats are in fact in open rebellion against the Constitution, a document they despise, they not only aren’t interested in protecting the states agains domestic violence they have been actively encouraging it. And again how are the groups chanting “No borders, no walls, no U.S.A. at al” not in open rebellion against the country they say shouldn’t exist at all.

The insurrectionists are inside the Capitol building and in the White House. Not the D.C. jail.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | January 11, 2022 at 2:10 pm

REBELLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

INSURRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Free Speech for People, and your liberal henchmen, is that all you got you fat bastards?

ONE GUN. ONE FUCKING GUN, was found and used on that day. And it was a government racist black man who killed a white girl. But charges? Nope.

Anyone charged for INSURRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ANYONE??????????

Nope.

So, you fucking people want to deprive a free citizen from running for a seat because he had the AUDACITY to speak on the worst day in the history of our nation? A day that pales in comparison to the bitches who crashed the Kavanaugh hearings? These CUNTS get a free pass?

Free Speech for People my ass.

Go fuck yourselves.

Time to take Police/FBI like mugshots of all incombant and candidate Dems, and make posters of them with the caption “The face of Communism”, socialism, tyranny … whatever fits.

George_Kaplan | January 11, 2022 at 5:58 pm

Doesn’t this backfiring badly on Democrats? 4 years of open insurrection by Antifa and Burn Loot Murder, with Democrats openly giving aid and comfort, By contrast J6 was not an insurrection and authorities have denied it was such – media and Democrats claims aside of course.

George_Kaplan | January 11, 2022 at 5:59 pm

Doesn’t this risk backfiring badly on Democrats? 4 years of insurrection by Antifa and Burn Loot Murder, with Democrats openly giving aid and comfort, By contrast J6 was not an insurrection and authorities have denied it was such – media and Democrats claims aside of course.

The Dems have decided that their first attempt at kicking a sitting Republican out of office for an imagined crime is to be against a guy in a WHEELCHAIR!

They’re either insane, insanely stupid, or… No, it’s one of those two.

Has anyone bothered to explain why what Marc Elias has publically admitted to doing around re-election ineligibility is not an insurrection activity in and of itself?

Every time a democrat mentions January 6th, they should be slapped with Afghanistan and how their pedophile shamefully abandoned American citizens behind enemy lines.

WashingtonLawyer | January 12, 2022 at 12:20 am

Can John Durham get to Marc Elias one of these days? Please?

Steven Brizel | January 12, 2022 at 6:15 am

This is the Marc Elias game plan at work

Their challenge in NC relies upon an 1869 case involving a sheriff.

Here is what a friend who is licensed to practice in NC had to say about it:

That complaint hangs its hat on Worthy v. Barrett, an 1869 case about whether the sheriff of Moore county during NC’s time in the Confederacy, was disqualified by the 14th Amendment from being re-elected as sheriff (he was). They cite the case for its holding that anyone who is required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution is an “officer,” to whom the disqualification of the 14th Am may apply. The opinion sets out a long list of state officers required to take such an oath. Then it says:

Any person who held any of these offices before the rebellion and then engaged in the rebellion is prohibited from holding office until relieved by Congress.

3. What will amount to having engaged in the rebellion?

(a) Holding any of these offices under the Confederate Government.

(b) Voluntarily aiding the rebellion by personal service or by contributions, other than charitable, of anything that was useful or necessary in the Confederate service.

So, if they’re going to use that case as providing legal authority about who is subject to the disqualification, they are bound by that case’s definition of what constitutes disqualifying acts, which is explicitly limited to holding office or making contributions to the Confederacy.

https://casetext.com/case/worthy-v-barrett-and-others

This is just part and parcel of a much, much larger endeavor now being put into play to not only demonize all opposition to the Left’s agenda, but to literally criminalize it. It is not a coincidence that there is now a newly created branch of the DOJ devoted to “domestic terrorism”, and that means you, parents attending school board meetings, anyone deemed a threat to them. Just as a small example, Andrew McCabe, who in a saner wold would be serving prison time, is out on the lecture circuit, espousing these very efforts to quash all and any who are deemed to be a threat to the Left takeover of America. And the infamous Marc Elias, CEO of Voter Fraud central and henchman of HRC, is probably one of the most diabolical characters of our times.
This past January 6th they blathered on about the “attack on democracy” whilst in their smoky back rooms they are plotting the very overthrow of the entire American experiment. They are not to be trifled with – they are on a mission.

Can’t wait to see if John Durham can wriggle Mark Elias into his Russia web!

Let them flap their gums in the breeze. All they will do is ensure that Rep Cawthorn is reelected in a landslide.

Accessibility by WAH
Send this to a friend