Ed Is Trump disqualified from the ballot by the 14th Amendment?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

As has been poked at elsewhere, there's also the part where organizers knew in advance that Trump would just happen to send the intentionally dangerous crowd to the Capitol building in direct violation to what they had been permitted to do and in direct opposition to what they were officially telling the organizations dealing with security.

Trump deserves absolutely no benefit of the doubt. He's proven himself utterly unworthy of it both in general and in this specific instance.




And defended by useful idiots. Just like usual. It's been quite the pattern that's been especially apparent since the attempts to pass off "Russia, if you're listening..." as a joke. How willfully blind did one have to be to claim that that statement was a joke? It was pretty mind-boggling at the time, but it got worse when people tried to use that excuse even after it was found that he was repeatedly directing his campaign staff to get those pointedly illegal things from Russia for his use. This? All this gaslighting that certain parties are trying to engage in is little different.

The Republicans have gas lighted their party so much, they are nearing suffocating from the Fumes.

 

[Stacyhs]

Protests in D.C. have a long and storied history of not being insurrections. I'm sure that everyone here agrees this is a tradition that should be upheld.

Sure, peaceful protests are not only a tradition, but a right. Jan. 6 was not a peaceful protest.

And I'm sure everyone here who supported the BLM demonstrations acknowledges that a bit of vandalism and trespassing is to be expected and not especially criminalized in such demonstrations.

Your attempt to equate the BLM protests, which were overwhelmingly peaceful with no property damage, to Jan. 6 is an example of egregious dishonesty.

So "Jan 6 was a coup attempt" doesn't ring true for me.

Then I'd suggest listening better and opening your eyes.

It was a demonstration. It was no more an insurrection than the Bonus Army was an insurrection.

The Bonus Army wasn't an insurrection. They weren't trying to take control of the government unlike the Jan 6 participants who attempted to stop the certification of a legal and properly held election in order to keep the loser of that election in office.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Sure, peaceful protests are not only a tradition, but a right. Jan. 6 was not a peaceful protest.




Your attempt to equate the BLM protests, which were overwhelmingly peaceful with no property damage, to Jan. 6 is an example of egregious dishonesty.



Then I'd suggest listening better and opening your eyes.



The Bonus Army wasn't an insurrection. They weren't trying to take control of the government unlike the Jan 6 participants who attempted to stop the certification of a legal and properly held election in order to keep the loser of that election in office.

January 6th 2021 was an attempt to destroy the very Constitution of Course it was doomed to failure it was stupid but that's what you get from a Party who's Leader couldn't understand the holes in the IBM Paper Punch cards that recorded Barack Obama's birth certificate to Magnetic tape in 1961, and Who took advice from Russian useful idiots.
If Republicans want to believe in pink pokadoted purple Flying Unicorns that pee pink Lemonade, releave themselves with Rainbows, and excreat Marshmallows, all the Better for the Sane people in the United States, that will be disenfranchised by the overwhelming stupidity of their conspiracy theories.

 

[Tero]

6) Rule that the 14th amendment does not apply to the presidency.

If the amendment does not apply to the presidency? Because he must be impeached? The other people in the list can also be impeached. I view the impeachment as a quick political solution to a country in crisis. Congress removes the person that is not playing by the rules. The person is also removed from running again. Courts can then deal with him.

If the amendment does not apply to the presidency for some unknown reason, what would be situation where is so important to keep a president in power that such rules do not apply? A nation at war?

 

[Tero]

duplicate

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If the amendment does not apply to the presidency? Because he must be impeached? The other people in the list can also be impeached. I view the impeachment as a quick political solution to a country in crisis. Congress removes the person that is not playing by the rules. The person is also removed from running again. Courts can then deal with him.

If the amendment does not apply to the presidency for some unknown reason, what would be situation where is so important to keep a president in power that such rules do not apply? A nation at war?

If BLM had shown up to counter protest on January 6th 2021, Trump would have declared the Insurrection act to stay in power because he feared the DOJ under Biden might take a closer look at his Foreign Ties and discovered that he Lied to Robert Mueller and Violated the Constitution of the United States! Staying in Power ment Trump would be Imune from any and all Indictments and Legal actions, and that is also he is Running for office in 2024. His only get out of Jail free card is to win the Presidency in 2024.
We have a soon to be convicted Felon Running for the highest office in our land.

 

[Hercules56]

Trump wanted a peaceful coup.

He may argue that he wanted the protestors to peacefully demand that Congress throw out the electoral slates from OH, PA, MI, WI, GA, and that he did not want anyone to engage in violence.

The closest he came to calling for violence is saying "fight like hell!", but we all know that's very often a euphamism for "struggle very hard".

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

He may argue that he wanted the protestors to peacefully demand that Congress throw out the electoral slates from OH, PA, MI, WI, GA, and that he did not want anyone to engage in violence.

The closest he came to calling for violence is saying "fight like hell!", but we all know that's very often a euphamism for "struggle very hard".

He will have to explain his many Lies that feed the Violence and caused the people falsely to believe the Election was stolen, he was essentially yelling Fire in a crowed Room, and he is Responsible for the People attacking the Capitol based on his Incitement alone.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If Section 3 is self-executing and requires no further legislation or criminal code or whatever to be enforced, what's the point of Section 5?


Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"States' rights" was a big thing in those days. Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the 14th amendment that will over-rlde state laws. If the authors had intended Section 5 to mean that Congress would need to pass laws to enforce the 14th amendment, they would have written something like "The Congress shall enact appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of this article".

 

[Hercules56]

"States' rights" was a big thing in those days. Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the 14th amendment that will over-rlde state laws. If the authors had intended Section 5 to mean that Congress would need to pass laws to enforce the 14th amendment, they would have written something like "The Congress shall enact appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of this article".

Possibly.

 

[Aridas]

He may argue that he wanted the protestors to peacefully demand that Congress throw out the electoral slates from OH, PA, MI, WI, GA, and that he did not want anyone to engage in violence.

The closest he came to calling for violence is saying "fight like hell!", but we all know that's very often a euphamism for "struggle very hard".

Sure. Looking at things in larger context is important, though, and focusing solely on one specific thing taken out of context as if it addressed the whole matter is fundamentally dishonest. Even if it did end up "peaceful," which it very certainly did not, he was still actively working to pull off an auto-coup.

 

[Aridas]

"States' rights" was a big thing in those days. Section 5 gives Congress the power to enact laws to enforce the 14th amendment that will over-rlde state laws. If the authors had intended Section 5 to mean that Congress would need to pass laws to enforce the 14th amendment, they would have written something like "The Congress shall enact appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of this article".

Ehh. State's Rights was probably about as big a thing in those days as it is these days. In short, a nicer sounding justification to be used when convenient for one's interests and discarded when inconvenient for one's interests.

 

[newyorkguy]

The Republicans have gas lighted their party so much, they are nearing suffocating from the Fumes.

An example of the gaslighting -- which has even been posted seriously in this thread -- has been to compare the lack of outcry over BLM protests at the U.S. Capitol Building. Except there weren't any. What there was, in June 2020 following the the murder of George Floyd by a police officer, was a peaceful demonstration in Lafayette Park opposite the White House. It was violently broken up on orders of guess-who? He wanted to go for a stroll without being bothered by riff raff.

[imgW=700]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/64594659ad64a65277.jpg[/imgW]

The difference was noted -- among many others -- by UK's Guardian.

The contrast between the law enforcement reaction to the storming of the Capitol on Wednesday and the suppression of peaceful protests in the summer is not just stark – it is black and white. The Black Lives Matter demonstrators crowd outside the White House on 1 June was a block away from the building and made no attempt to breach its security. It was a mostly Black crowd, and it was charged by a force made up of Washington police, US Park police, over 5,000 national guard troops and federal agencies like the Bureau of Prisons. An army helicopter swooped low over the heads of the protesters. Teargas, batons and horses were used to clear a block so that Donald Trump could stage a photo op outside a church across the road. A national guard commander later admitted there had been “excessive use of force”.

The events in Lafayette Park in June 2020 represented a defining moment of the Trump presidency. So will 6 January 2021. The mob that stormed the seat of US democracy on Wednesday had openly talked about such a plan, were explicitly intent on overturning a fair election, and some had hinted they might be carrying guns. They were almost all white. Many were openly white supremacists, and yet the thin Capitol police collapsed in their path. Guardian news link

 

[acbytesla]

He may argue that he wanted the protestors to peacefully demand that Congress throw out the electoral slates from OH, PA, MI, WI, GA, and that he did not want anyone to engage in violence.

The closest he came to calling for violence is saying "fight like hell!", but we all know that's very often a euphamism for "struggle very hard".

Oh c'mon. This is patently dishonest. Yes, he spoke in euphemisms. Trump NEVER personally tells others to break laws but makes it implicit that is EXACTLY what he expects. He MAFIA SPEAKS his way through everything.

He wanted violence. He wanted chaos. He wanted to prevent the counting of the votes. That Turd attacked Pence by tweet as the violence unfolded. Phones throughout the crowd went off with tweet notifications from Dur Leader. The crowd instantly started screaming to "hang Mike Pence."

If Trump tweeted for them to stop and immediately taken to the air waves they would have stopped. That he did NOTHING for five hours but watch it on TV should be enough for any reasonable human to know his intent.

I am so sick of people pretending that they don't know this. In a criminal trial, it is required that the defendant is proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond any doubt. It is not reasonable to believe that Trump wasn't trying to prevent the formal peaceful transfer of power. That is a coup.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh c'mon. This is patently dishonest. Yes, he spoke in euphemisms. Trump NEVER personally tells others to break laws but makes it implicit that is EXACTLY what he expects. He MAFIA SPEAKS his way through everything.

He wanted violence. He wanted chaos. He wanted to prevent the counting of the votes. That Turd attacked Pence by tweet as the violence unfolded. Phones throughout the crowd went off with tweet notifications from Dur Leader. The crowd instantly started screaming to "hang Mike Pence."

If Trump tweeted for them to stop and immediately taken to the air waves they would have stopped. That he did NOTHING for five hours but watch it on TV should be enough for any reasonable human to know his intent.

I am so sick of people pretending that they don't know this. In a criminal trial, it is required that the defendant is proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond any doubt. It is not reasonable to believe that Trump wasn't trying to prevent the formal peaceful transfer of power. That is a coup.

I dont like it, but I think Trump is very good at skimming the very fine line between legal and illegal conduct and speech.

Someone taught him how to do this. I think it gives him a level of plausible deniability.

 

[Hercules56]

The question of whether the amendment is self-executing has not been consistently answered.

Considering their previous rulings and public statements, how do you and your lawyer buddies think the current SCOTUS will rule on the CO case?

Do you think they may simply wash their hands of the issue and say the states can do what they like?

 

[Resume]

I dont like it, but I think Trump is very good at skimming the very fine line between legal and illegal conduct and speech.

Someone taught him how to do this. I think it gives him a level of plausible deniability.

He's a stochastic terrorist.

 

[acbytesla]

I dont like it, but I think Trump is very good at skimming the very fine line between legal and illegal conduct and speech.

Someone taught him how to do this. I think it gives him a level of plausible deniability.

It's not plausible. But that is exactly what he's always trying to do. Create plausible deniability. As for who taught him this, that would be Roy Cohn.

But it isn't plausible.Not when you consider everything. Saying to a hit man, I don't want you to kill someone while at the same time winking and nudging is a sign that is EXACTLY what you want.

 

[Aridas]

I dont like it, but I think Trump is very good at skimming the very fine line between legal and illegal conduct and speech.

Someone taught him how to do this. I think it gives him a level of plausible deniability.

He was raised with plenty of contact with organized crime. His mentor literally taught him to use Nazi tactics. Yeah, someone taught him how to do stuff like this. No, it doesn't grant him plausible deniability. What it grants is a straw to grasp onto for those who want to be willfully blind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He may argue that he wanted the protestors to peacefully demand that Congress throw out the electoral slates from OH, PA, MI, WI, GA, and that he did not want anyone to engage in violence.

The closest he came to calling for violence is saying "fight like hell!", but we all know that's very often a euphamism for "struggle very hard".

I dont like it, but I think Trump is very good at skimming the very fine line between legal and illegal conduct and speech.

Someone taught him how to do this. I think it gives him a level of plausible deniability.

Why is it Trump supporters ignore the fact he refused to call for a stop to the violence for more than 2 hours after it began?
Special counsel probe uncovers new details about Trump's inaction on Jan. 6: Sources

Special counsel Jack Smith's team has uncovered previously undisclosed details about former President Donald Trump's refusal to help stop the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol three years ago as he sat watching TV inside the White House, according to sources familiar with what Smith's team has learned during its Jan. 6 probe. ...

... Scavino wouldn't speak with the House select committee that conducted its own probe related to Jan. 6, but -- after a judge overruled claims of executive privilege last year -- he did speak with Smith's team, and key portions of what he said were described to ABC News.

New details also come from the Smith team's interviews with other White House advisers and top lawyers who -- despite being deposed in the congressional probe -- previously declined to answer questions about Trump's own statements and demeanor on Jan. 6, 2021, according to publicly released transcripts of their interviews in that probe. ...

Trump didn't care that Pence's life was in danger. He watched the news coverage from the Oval Office dining room during that time.

Trump posted a message on his Twitter account saying that Pence "didn't have the courage to do what should have been done."

After the crowd was dispersing, Trump directed another message to be posted on Twitter.

According to the sources, shortly before 6 p.m. on Jan. 6, Trump showed Luna a draft of a Twitter message he was thinking about posting: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously and viciously stripped away from great patriots. ... Remember this day for forever!" it read.

The message echoed what Trump had allegedly been saying privately all day.

Sources said Luna told Trump that it made him sound "culpable" for the violence, perhaps even as if he may have somehow been involved in "directing" it, sources said.

Still, at 6:01 p.m., Trump posted the message anyway.

Trump didn't care. About an hour later, Twitter suspended Trump's account.