Below is my column in the Hill on the new push to bar former President Donald Trump under the 14th Amendment in a censure resolution. Various commentators and groups have called for dozens of Republican politicians to be barred from office in the same way, including a “how to guide” for “disqualifying insurrectionists and rebels” under the 14th Amendment. Some have even added a call to put the entire Republican Party on a Domestic Terror list. Rage again has overwhelmed reason. The suggested use of the 14th Amendment raises serious constitutional concerns and could present a compelling basis for a court challenge if actually passed. Indeed, Trump could prevail in court shortly before the 2024 presidential race.
Here is the column:
After a vote suggesting that about half of the Senate has constitutional or prudential concerns over the trial of former President Trump, members are discussing censure as an alternative. I previously supported a censure resolution, but this is censure with a twist. Senator Tim Kaine would add yet another controversy to an array of constitutional issues by electorally barring Trump under the 14th Amendment. With the snap impeachment and a retroactive Senate trial, the country needs another constitutional controversy like Wall Street needs another Reddit stock tip.
Censure is not mentioned in the Constitution because it is a resolution with the view of Congress. Such a statement could allow for bipartisan condemnation. It is also now seen as a type of shadow impeachment. A Senate trial could work to the advantage of Trump if it ends in acquittal. For the first time ever, the House used a snap impeachment and sent the Senate no record to support its article. As before, the Senate can refuse to call witnesses and vote on the record or lack thereof, meaning a brief trial and about half of the Senate rejecting the case. It has led some members back to censure as the effective substitute for conviction.
Part of the controversy of this snap impeachment is using a trial solely for electoral disbarment. The Constitution refers to the trial as to decide on whether to remove “the president” and so that leads some of us to doubt any retroactive trial, while disbarment is an optional punishment for after removal. The Constitution limits the power of the Senate in impeachment trials to “removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.”
Retroactive trials remain a close issue even for most scholars who have reached conclusions on either side. Now Kaine and others suggest the Senate can avoid the need for the trial but achieve the same result by a majority vote on censure. At issue is the 14th Amendment section that bars people from holding office if they “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
According to Kaine, his censure resolution would make two findings “that it was an insurrection and that President Trump gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists.” While this would be a workaround of an unattainable impeachment conviction, it would be defended as part of the authority of Congress over any citizen under the 14th Amendment.
This has never been used to disqualify a former president, and it is not clear Congress has carte blanche authority to bar a citizen from office by majority vote. The Constitution refers to individuals determined to have engaged in treasonous acts. Under this theory, it would be relatively easy to disqualify someone from office and declare him a traitor, but difficult to lift their electoral disbarment. Further, it would also flip the burden of the supermajority vote from a protection for the accused in impeachment trials into a barrier for those disenfranchised by Congress.
Kaine is open about his motivation for “an alternative that would impose, in my view, a similar consequence” without a trial and supermajority vote. But that is why this tactic is so dangerous. The party in control could bar dozens of its opponents from running for federal office. Some Democrats are now demanding such action against Republicans who challenged the election of Joe Biden. This is common in authoritarian countries such as Iran, where leaders often bar their opponents from office.
Kaine could be making a case for Trump in claiming the 14th Amendment as an alternative to conviction at trial. Academics have echoed this view, and some insist Congress clearly has authority to bar Trump from office. Columbia University professor Eric Foner says the 14th Amendment “is very applicable” and “would only require a majority vote in Congress.” Such statements leave little doubt that the motivation is to achieve the penalty of impeachment without the burden of a conviction.
It would be a first impression for a court, but Trump would have a credible case. If he were to prevail, he could cite the decision as vindication and perhaps enhance his claims of being an establishment target. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, it was easy to see its applicability to those who swore allegiance to the confederacy or fought for it. A court today would face the issue of whether Congress has total discretion to make such a finding or if, as I believe, it is subject to judicial review.
The Framers, with their ban on bills of attainder, had opposed individual punishment meted out by Congress. Such bills were used in Great Britain to punish individuals through Parliament rather than the courts. Years ago I had litigated one of the few successful bills of attainder cases in striking down the Elizabeth Morgan Act, which punished my client with stripping him of parental rights. This proposed censure resolution would achieve the same purpose to mete out punishment by popular vote.
Using the 14th Amendment is too clever by half. Our raging politics blinds many to what could be a dangerous precedent of barring opponents from office. When many people call for blacklists and retaliation against anyone “complicit” with Trump in the last four years, such a power would be ripe for abuse. There is an alternative, which is a censure resolution that can garner overwhelming support as a bipartisan condemnation rather than a circumvention of impeachment. We can then leave the Constitution alone, and leave the future of Trump to voters and to history.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law with George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as an expert for the impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Follow him with Twitter @JonathanTurley
Democrats have tried to block the will of the people. They wish to prevent Trump, and other prominent Republicans, from being lawfully elected to a variety of offices.
One should note that when Democrats take power, they immediately seek to gain more. They gather to themselves authoritarian measures while unlawfully seeking to block their opposition, as well as undermining individual rights.
I say unlawful, although they try to use the 14th Amendment. Such a move to impeach a president who has already left office, and then to try to prevent him from ever holding office again, appears to me to be contrary to the limits set upon Congress. Impeaching a private citizen has never before been attempted, to my knowledge. It is my understanding that the goal of a successful impeachment is to remove someone from office. Otherwise, the remedy for bad acts by a private citizen would be the criminal or civil court. They have both houses, so they are moving for a major power play.
Take note how often Democrats shall continue to erode individual rights “for the common good” they so define.
A Christian baker may not decline to custom bake a cake for a Satan worshipper, or a transgender person. Simply selling ready made confections off the shelf isn’t good enough. The baker must be enslaved, in a manner of speaking, and forced to custom create an artistic expression he wholeheartedly does not want to do. Imagine going up to a painter and forcing him to paint a quality portrait of Donald Trump, threatening to impoverish him if he refused.
Biological girls no longer have their own athletic divisions. Mediocre male athletes may declare themselves female for the purposes of wiping the floor with the girls in their own sports divisions.
Store owners no longer have the right to sell goods without their being stolen. In CA, Gascon has declared that many laws no longer apply to drug addicts. Felony shoplifting already was raised to $950. There is virtually no downside whatsoever for stealing $949 in goods. When stores close, communities will decry the systemic racism of food deserts and underserved minority communities, never connecting the dots between activists shielding the behavior of the criminals in the neighborhood.
Federal immigration laws no longer apply. Democrats can apparently think of no reason besides xenophobic racism, to require immigrants to apply to come here legally, go through a background check, and their number to match the logistics of our housing, jobs market, environment, and other resources. No reason at all. Covid and the lockdowns just wiped out businesses and destroyed jobs. Biden just cut a bunch more in oil and gas. What to do? Oh, I know! Glut the job seekers market with nearly unlimited numbers competing for entry level work. Oh, and jack up the cost of that entry level work to $15 to ensure there’s less of it. Brilliant.
Welcome to dystopia. I have no sympathy whatever for Biden voters who suddenly start blinking around, shocked and surprised the his first few days in office he destroyed jobs and continued the anti-law enforcement trend. Ummm. Gee. Duh. What’s this they hear about positive accomplishments by Trump in office? You mean conservatives’ warnings were true? Can’t be. Must be the far right again.
“One should note that when Democrats take power, they immediately seek to gain more.”
So do Republicans. That’s why McConnell refused to allow so many House bills to come up for a vote, why he sent so much energy preventing Obama’s judicial nominees from getting votes, …
Do you think it’s wrong when Republicans do it too, or only when Democrats do it?
“Impeaching a private citizen has never before been attempted”
Trump was impeached while he was in office. The Senate trial is not for impeachment, which occurs in the House, but about removal and disqualification from future office. As JT has pointed out more than once, this is not the first time that there’s been a removal vote on someone who was no longer in office. Disqualification votes always occur when the person is not in office, since they only occur after a removal vote.
“Take note how often Democrats shall continue to erode individual rights “for the common good” they so define.”
So do Republicans. That’s why they work against abortion rights.
“A Christian baker may not decline to custom bake a cake for a Satan worshipper, or a transgender person.”
He can refuse to bake custom cakes entirely, so your “The baker must be enslaved” is BS.
There’s more nonsense in your comment, but I’ll stop here.
Excuse me…..point of order here.
Anonymous stated “The Senate trial is not for impeachment, which occurs in the House…..”.
I am a bit at a loss here….There was no presentation of evidence at any time during this “Snap Impeachment” as the House is relying (once again) for the Senate to do that.
Why is the Snap Impeachment Article of Impeachment valid to begin with?
Does a simple majority vote alone constitute sufficient basis to substantiate a Trial in the Senate?
I am thinking that Dog ain’t gonna hunt as the Senate sure isn’t going to do the House’s work for them.
The lower house certainly forgets itself when dealing with their Seniors (as the Senate Rules are far more adult than the House Rules).
The house is free to impeach in any way on any grounds it wishes.
The Senate is free to proceed, or not as it wishes.
I beleive sending articles of impeachment to the senate requires them to act.
But that action can be as simple as saying – these are not good enough go away.
Anonymous (why don’t you choose an avatar? You can pick one, you know, that is not your real name.):
Republicans do indeed employ the political advantages open to them. We are agreed upon that point. However, what additional powers have Republicans amassed? Have they tried to get rid of the Electoral College in a bid to disenfranchise most states in the Union? No. Really, though, that’s not telling as high density cities trend Democrat. Have they plotted to expand the Supreme Court in order to stuff it? No. They only appointed to open vacancies. Have they flouted federal law, such as election law?
I can think of many times Republicans, just like Democrats, have employed political advantage. But I cannot think of any serious power grabs. I suppose the Patriot Act could have been argued as adding too much power to government, but it does not specifically add power to their party.
Can you think of any recent times when Republicans actually garnered more power to their party? The Supreme Court routinely rules against Administrations. It did so against Trump a time or two, as it did against Obama. But I cannot off the top of my head come up with any instance, let alone a trend, in which Republicans have engaged in a similar, serious power grab like we’re seeing Democrats do now. It seems rather unbalanced behavior.
You claim that Republicans also erode individual rights, and gave abortion as an example. Abortion is not a constitutional right. Trying to make it one is a thorny issue, as it would mean that a fetus has no rights. That also requires the unlawful killing of a fetus, such as in the assault of the mother, not to be murder, over and above the physical injuries to the mother. While Republicans fall along the spectrum on abortion rights, the party itself leans strongly towards providing the unborn child the right to life at least at some point during gestation. It is considered preserving the individual right of a child separate from those of the mother.
Most Americans actually feel the same – that an unborn child has the right to not be killed at some point. Many of hose who support first trimester abortions, for example, oppose late term abortions of healthy children. Support for late term abortion is primarily limited to cases that are actually euthanasia, in which the child suffers from a fatal, painful disease. But that is frankly a euthanasia argument rather than strictly abortion.
The problem is that instead of wrangling out where Americans feel the limits should be on abortion, Democrat activists keep trying to remove all limits, forcing it down everyone’s throats. I actually agreed with RBG’s position, as I understood it, at least in her earlier judicial career. If I recall correctly, she remarked at a speech that she felt Roe v Wade was in error, not because she opposed abortion, but because it did not allow each state to evolve to reflect the will of its voters. Left to the states’ own devices, abortion rights would continually evolve in a way in which the majority of each state agreed with. They would also know that such laws were not permanent, and only a vote away from changing, therefore making it more palatable. She gave Europe as an example, in which the people themselves evolved their abortion laws. She said that Roe v Wade made abortion, in some part, the law of the land. It shoved down people’s throats too much on one side, and too little on the other. By using this method, Democrats keep fighting to remove one limitation after another, at a federal level. Again, this does not allow states to evolve their own position on the matter, nor does it provide their residents the option of moving if they don’t like it.
Now, I believe that I would like more limitations on abortion than RBG did, but I do agree with her reasoning that it should be left to the people of each state to decide. If you live in a more Leftist state, like NYC, there are going to be far less restrictions. You can kill a 9 month old unwanted baby in NY if your doctor declares it is stressing you out. Serial killer Dr Kermit Gosnell made a booming business of what would essentially be legal in NY, if you were careful to follow all the requirements. If you live in the Bible Belt, you would be apt to find more restrictions. While states do have a variety of abortion laws, Democrats seek to make abortion quite easy to obtain through federal laws, even trying to claim that killing an unborn child is a Constitutional right.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party believes that people do not have the right to kill an innocent person. At some point, an unborn child is viewed as a person, and therefor it is wrong to kill them.
Do you believe that women have the right to abortion without any restrictions? At any gestation? Even a perfectly healthy 9 month old? Or at some point, do you believe the unborn child has an individual right for his mother not to kill him?
As a rule, Republicans FOLLOW democrats into lawlessness or norm violations.
If we have not eradicated mailin elections by 2022, we will see significant republican efforts at election fraud.
Karen, Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat from a twice elected president (and those Americans who voted for him) and gave it to a president the voters rejected.
Republicans used the filibuster starting in 2006 when they lost the Senate majority and through the Obama years at rates equal to it’s use over the preceding 75 years.
In 2021 Republicans tried to take the steal the election by disenfranchising 6 states and their millions of voters.
The EC protects no one and no states and is a random system which results through it’s winner take all state contests (that procedure is not proscribed in the Constitution) in a elections where candidates only visit about 10 states, ignoring the most populous, like Texas, California, and NY.
“Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat from a twice elected president (and those Americans who voted for him) and gave it to a president the voters rejected.”
Nope. Was McConnell’s move a political one ? Absolutely. Does anyone doubt democrats would do the same – nope.
Neither Trump nor Obama is entitled to confirmation of a nominee.
We are seeing a mass of democratic judges right now asking for senior status. They were all holding out in the hopes Biden would be elected. A crass political move – but no different from those of republicans.
“Republicans used the filibuster starting in 2006 when they lost the Senate majority and through the Obama years at rates equal to it’s use over the preceding 75 years.”
Again perfectly legitimate. And again something Democrats pioneered. All you are claiming is that after Democrats effectively politicized the fillibuster Republicans did so even better.
“In 2021 Republicans tried to take the steal the election by disenfranchising 6 states and their millions of voters.”
In 2020 Democrats disenfranchised 75M voters by holding lawless and unconstitutional elections.
“The EC protects no one and no states and is a random system which results through it’s winner take all state contests (that procedure is not proscribed in the Constitution) in a elections where candidates only visit about 10 states, ignoring the most populous, like Texas, California, and NY.”
False and so what ? The EC is a deliberately anti-democratic election process. It is the clearest refutation there is that our founders intended a democracy – NO THEY DID NOT, and your railing about the EC makes it clear you grasp that they did not create a democracy.
Not even a representative one.
As to why the EC – go read the assorted notes by the founders.
Or Federalist 68.
http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/federalist68.asp
The EC was specifically there to prevent precisely the lawless mess that we had in 2020 – among other things.
It was to prevent things like pandemics from emotionally pushing our buttons.
It was supposed to add two additional layers to presidential elections – making the kind of lawlessness of 2020 much harder.
Several states do not have winner take all provisions. You are correct that is not part of the constitution.
So change the law in those states.
I believe the national popular vote compact is unconstitutional. but it is clearly constitutional for states to award EC votes proportionately.
If you change the law in your state.
BTW I dl’d the state totals in an excel file and crudely proportionately allocated the EV vote based on populate vote and came up with an even smaller Biden victory – that would have the same fraud challenges and would have been flipped just as easily.
Biden would have had 273EV and a very small swings in 4 states still would have flipped the election.
In fact I think it would be EASIER to flip with even smaller changes.
Though this would likely have changed which states were swing states. Allocating EV’s proportionately means that in close states with even numbers of EV’s Biden and Trump get the same number of EV’s regardless of who wins – as long as the race is close.
While in states with odd numbers of EV’s the winner always gets one more than the loser and would be very hotly contested.
closely divided small states with odd numbers of EV’s would become the swing states.
Only 2 states don’t have winner take all EC delegations (Maine and Nebraska). Changing the system to require proportional allocation would go a long way to solve the problem with EC, but I don’t know if it would take a Constitutional amendment or could be changed by federal law. It could be changed on the state level, but it is in each states self interest to make their selection winner take all as it increases their impact. Proportional allocation by all states would be the most fair and logical solution.
“Only 2 states don’t have winner take all EC delegations (Maine and Nebraska). ”
What you think we do not know that ?
“Changing the system to require proportional allocation would go a long way to solve the problem with EC, but I don’t know if it would take a Constitutional amendment or could be changed by federal law.”
Are you really this stupid ?
All you need to do is change state law.
No proportional allocation would not go a long way to solving the problem with the EC. I noted int he prior post that it would not change the outcome of the election. In fact the election would be even closer. All it would do is change which states were swing states in very odd ways. It would not even change the ease with which fraud could alter an election. It would not change the small number of votes needed to flip an election.
“It could be changed on the state level, but it is in each states self interest to make their selection winner take all as it increases their impact.”
Wow! States might act in their own self interest! Isnt that novel. An you presume you are entitled to force them to work as you please.
The structure of government in the US is deliberately designed to make it difficult to grow the power of government.
All the things you complain about that make it hard for you to impose your will on others by force – these are not accidents.
They are absolutely anti-democratic.
“Proportional allocation by all states would be the most fair and logical solution.”
Bzzt wrong. Life is not fair. There is no agreement on what is fair. Logic has no meaning where there is no objectively correct answer.
I have zero problem with you trying to change the constitution – I will oppose it and you will fail, but you are free to try.
I have zero problem with you trying to change state laws – I will oppose it and you will fail, but you are free to try.
One of your problems is that you falsely presume constantly that there is a problem and that you have the only correct answer.
Quite frequently you try to solve non problems. Even more often your answers as nonsense.
I have pointed out to you repeatedly – this is not a democracy. Our founders for very good reason did not want a democracy. Democracy is the most tryanical form of government there is.
You are ranting about trying to change the Electoral college.
The electoral college and numerous other features of our government are PROOF this is not a democracy.
The electoral college is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. The very existance of state governments is anti-democratic.
The very things you fight against are the proof the country is not and never was a democracy.
You can cite all the dictionaries you want. Myriads of constitutional and structural elements of US government are deliberately strongly anti-democratic.
This is important because it should be a direct challenge to your idiotic assumption that democracy is a good thing.
It is not. It is evil. All the structural impediments to democracy that you wish to tear down are there for a reason – to thwart democracy – tyranny.
You make claims that some change is logical or fair – that is FALSE.
The changes you wish to make are steps toward democracy. I suspect we can both agree on that.
The core issue is that you fail to grasp that democracy is the most tyranical form of government there is.
It is not FAIR. it is not LOGICAL
States don’t have the franchise. People do. It is literally impossible to disenfranchise states.
The Electoral College was created because of slavery. The Southern states had a lot of people, but few who were eligible to vote. James Madison stated that electing the President by popular vote was best, but the Southern states would object because they had fewer people who could vote, even though they had large populations. “The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the N3groes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.” By “diffusive” he meant “extensive” or “numerous.”
It’s past time to do away with it. Everyone’s vote should count equally.
As for “Have they plotted to expand the Supreme Court in order to stuff it? No. They only appointed to open vacancies,” I’ll remind you that McConnell refused to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland when there was a vacancy, lied that he was following a rule set by Biden, then admitted after RBG died that he had no commitment to waiting for the next election and rammed Coney Barrett through. He also bragged about preventing Obama from filling lower court vacancies. The Supreme Court initially only had 6 seats. The number of seats on the court has changed multiple times in the country’s history, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing. It’s not permanently set at 9.
There are plenty of other Republicans besides McConnell who’ve engaged in power grabs, like Brian Kemp disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters when he was GA Secretary of State and running to become Governor, making it easier for himself to win.
As for abortion, personhood starts at birth. If you want personhood to start earlier, amend the Constitution. The Constitution is explicit that not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Privacy is an unenumerated right, and the right to an abortion falls under the privacy right. The embryo or fetus has no rights. Abortion can be limited because the state also has rights, and the woman’s right and state’s right have different weights depending on how far along the pregnancy is and on other factors, like risk to the mother’s life. I generally oppose abortion after viability, but accept it in limited cases. Most late term abortions occur because of risks to the mother’s life or health (hundreds of women still die annually from pregnancy or childbirth complications), or because the fetus will never become viable (for example, if the brain doesn’t develop), or if there’s a complication when the woman is carrying more than one fetus. I have no reason to believe your claim that “You can kill a 9 month old unwanted baby in NY if your doctor declares it is stressing you out.” If you’re talking about a situation where a woman is suicidal, learn the difference between being stressed out and suicidal (if you’d ever lost a loved one to suicide, as I have, you wouldn’t be flip about it).
Or we could let madison speak for himself.
http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/federalist68.asp
I did let Madison speak for himself.
Did you not see the quotation marks and understand what they mean?
If you need a link to the original –
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065
Please read your source. The speaker changes part way from speaking for himself to speaking for another person.
It you wish to claim the third person references are madison – you are going to have to establish that.
“’The baker must be enslaved’ is BS.”
No, her description is accurate.
Two “customers” and the state of Colorado attempted to *compel* the baker to work for them. When you force a person to work for another, that’s called slavery. (That he prevailed at the Supreme Court, sort of, does not change those facts.)
The irony, of course, is that those on the Left keep arguing that Facebook, Twitter, et al. have the right to refuse service. But the owner of a bakery or pizza shop does not.
Amen and Awomen!
“Biden just cut a bunch more in oil and gas.”
And he’s erecting walls of anti-production environmental regulations. And soon will seek to raise corporate and personal taxes.
His statist economic policies are a blueprint to “make America weak again.”
Go for it! Keep it up! Continue this idiotic nonsense!.
Make more enemies, and wreak havoc on the economy.
The really good news is that as we experience the consequences – the blame will be clear.
“There is an alternative, which is a censure resolution that can garner overwhelming support as a bipartisan condemnation rather than a circumvention of impeachment. ”
And what pray tell is President Trump supposed to be censured for? Just how would such a resolution be worded? His defenders wouldn’t accept any kind of censure & his enemies won’t accept anything less than permanent disqualification. There is no middle ground here.
How dare Trump call for “peaceful protest”! How dare he question election integrity!
That is only patriotic, audible, and a civic duty for Democrats, who get the extra leeway to call for “uprisings”, and to bail rioters and looters out of jail.
Karen, don’t play dumb. Trump tried to cancel the votes of 6 states because he lost. He “asked” politicians who owe their elections to him to do it.
By the way, his “peaceful protest” include arrangi it for max pressure while Congress met and promised “It will be wild.” He told his cult members to fight, not be cowards, not let them take what was theirs and said let’s go. He watched without comment as this BS was going on and it is reported to have liked what he saw.
Those 6 states cheated because Democrats orchestrated it, as you know
Hey Joe, so now in your book questioning the conduct of an election is equal to cancelling the election. Stacy Abrams is still questioning her loss in Georgia. Please tell us that she is still trying to cancel the election for Governor. Take some selective info to reinforce some selective pre conceived notion and expect that no holes will be found in your logic. One way Joe to the rescue.
Wallllll, that’s because the multiplex modulator was in synch with the whaddyacallit and doohickey, confounding the electoral college even if Russia is to blame for supercalifragilisciousexpialidocious (sp?)
🤪
Hey Joe, assuming that Karen is playing dumb is sexist. Say three hail Biden’s and you will be forgiven.
+10
Boom
Pelosi publicly claimed the GOP “highjacked” the 2016 election you pathetic hypocrite. High jacking is a federal death penalty crime nitwit.
Federal law defines highjacking for purposes of criminalizing some acts, nitwit. Learn the different meanings of the word and which is and isn’t a crime.
I appreciate the analysis, but supporting the Democratic party at this point is supporting the end of America, and with it, jobs for people like the Professor. I am gobsmacked by the apparently willful obliviousness on the part of so many that were the party of JFK. It ain’t the party of JFK anymore. WAKE UP.
Joe Biden’s White House continues encouraging Big Tech censorship of “hate speech” –including that of former President Trump.
White House Press Secretary today on Twitter banning former President Trump: We support “the need for social media platforms to continue to take steps to reduce hate speech.”
Has the Biden White House defined “hate speech” somewhere?
Of course not. The prefer to have it “flexible”. Like the “living Constitution”.
Yes: anything that hints of factual truths…which they hate.
Joe Biden’s White House. “We support the censorship of an American citizen because we don’t like what he says”. He says bad things about us and gives us a boo boo. We hate you Donald Trump. Oh sorry, we didn’t mean to use hate speech to eliminate hate speech. We hate the Constitution. Damn we did it again.
This is just another admission by democrats that THEY beleive Trump actually won the election.
There is no reason to do this if they are not terrified that Trump will run and win in 2024.
This is incredibly stupid.
Speaking of stupid, no, Trump lost the election AGAIN and this time it wasn’t close enough for the EC to bail him out. I’m sorry you bought his line on this John, buthe has been selling it since before the 1st vote was cast.
The Democrats are performing a public service by trying to ban this scumbag from running again. His blatant attempts to overturn the election results are half of it and the other half is the toxic atmosphere he creates and which appeals to a certain segment of the population. He’s not the first demagogue to head up a mindless cult, but the one we have to deal with now.
Why would Democrats fear a guy who has never won an election among the people and never topped 50% in approval polling?
I have lost all respect for the Democratic Party and MSM. Yes, Trump made many mistakes but Pelosi, Schumer and all the rest are DISGRACED by their hate-fueled Behavior. Biden is almost in La La Land. Good Luck World. Welcome Back China, Iran and Russia. Good Bye Retirement funds and home equity.
We, The People……..Lose.
actually biden will allow the federal reserve to keep on keepin on with its QE that will push up the stock market and housing prices. so dont worry about that one elle
if you’re still working, well, i guess it’s a different set of concerns however. because stay home and quit emitting co2 so much, ya know?
sal sar
Joe, suppose Congress was held by a majority of GOP members, and the President–perhaps a black, female Democrat–has some type of scandal, and there’s not enough votes for impeachment and conviction but the GOP can put together a “disqualifying” majority for censure. So now she can’t run, again. This scenario could easily happen after 2022. Are you ok with setting that precedent?
“Censure” is different from the 14th Amendment path to disqualification, and rather toothless, so no that doesn’t concern me. The 14th amendment path requires participation in an insurrection and 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. Given I believe we get the politicians we deserve, that means that if this become a common event, you and I have screwed up badly in who we elect. Trump was such a case, but almost certainly the worst human being in the presidency ever and the worst president.
I agree. I misunderstood the discussion.
I agree insofar that this is not a majority vote. The rest of your denunciations I don’t subscribe to.
OK
Good point Joe. If there’s nothing to fear from Trump why go to all the effort to keep him from running again. Keep in mind that there are no other more pressing problems facing the nation that need to be dealt with. Never let em see you shaking in your boots.
There are things to fear from dictators like Kim Jong Un and dictator-wannabes like Trump.
I agree. This is the behavior of people terrified of losing favor and control, not confidence. I hate to break it to dems and their complicit allies, there are a lot more than 74 million of us, and we see through you like cellophane.
Speaking of stupid, that describes your reasoning.
Here’s another possibility: Democrats think Trump needs to be punished for lying for months about the election being stolen, and they think he’s already harmed the country enough and should be prevented from running again and doing more damage.
There is absolutely nothing that implies Democrats think Trump won. You’re deluding yourself.
https://www.non-intervention2.com/2021/01/31/democrat-is-the-best-synonym-for-insurrectionist/
“Is there is an insurrection in this country? Yes there is, one of longstanding duration. The foregoing points prove its existence and identifies its leaders, funders, and perpetrators. It is wholly owned and conducted by the Democratic party, many Republicans, the media, and the other subsidiary A Gents”
ah you should have told me that was written by Michael Scheuer, one of the few decent and worthy CIA alumni
Sal Sar
?
he’s a little unhinged these days but i still like him
“After a vote suggesting that about half of the Senate has constitutional or prudential concerns over the trial of former President Trump”
After a partisan vote not to hold their president accountable for a violent invasion of the Capitol…
Now there has been a democratic vote that determined that the trial is constitutionally acceptable, will those 45 Republican senators do their duty in the trial?
Anonymous the Stupid, Constitutionally accepted means the vote complied with the Constitution but not necessarily with common sense or justice. If that is too difficult to understand I will be happy to explain it further.
“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.”
This seems pretty clear to me. There does not seem to be any wiggle room. All we need is a fair and honest process for defining and judging those who engage in such activities for disqualification. Congress debating and voting seems like a decent process to me.
This seems pretty clear to me.
You’re quite adept at persuading people that one of your talents is motivated reasoning.
Congress debating and voting seems like a decent process to me.
On a related note. Not to put you in a vapor lock, but after 40+ EO’s, you may want to encourage your Dear Leader of that, or whoever’s pulling the strings in the White House.
Molly, you and I agree. Congress by a vote of two thirds of the majority is an apt and insightful observation. This article describes an attempt to go around the two thirds majority law to prohibit Donald Trump from running for office again. Thank you for reinforcing Professor Turley’s argument. A well thought out defense of the Constitution. Bravo.
Your correct again Molly. Congress debating seems like a decent process to me. Your thoughts would apply if a debate had occurred. Part of such a debate would have been the hearing of witnesses. Either an innocent oversight or a planned omission by the Saintly leaders in charge. A new breed has been discovered in the court of the Roos. Behold, the Pelosiroo. She carries a big gavel in her pouch.
It is not rage Professor. It is a hatred of every thing that Americans principal. If the left had their way, they would ban speech unless they approved. They would abolish the Constitution as an “antiquated” document. If ever they have an opportunity to re-write a Constitution the Bill of Rights will not be a part of it. They want one party just like in China, just like in any other dictatorship.
jred Dude, your leader and the majority of your party in the House tried to take the election results away from the states, and you have the balls to claim you care about the constitution?
whataboutisms
Sorry, this really does not work – some guy in a Trooper outfit arguing about what is irrational and what is not in a hypothetical world were everything defies real world laws is a bit crazy.
Regardless, Whatabout arguments are attmpts to disprove the reasoning of the other party
They were never an attempt to offer a valid argument.
They ARE however attempts to demonstrate the hyporcacy and failed reasoning of your opponent – and are perfectly valid for that purpose.
Demonstrating that your opponent doe not apply the same standards uniformly discredits their reasoning.
It does not prove them right or wrong in the specific instance. But it does prove that they have been wrong atleast once on the same issue.
Context does matter – to be meaningful the counter example must be sufficiently similar to the original.
(who is this “joe friday” guy? He clearly does not understand either the debateful commentary or the law. Instead, he reduces everything to ad hominen attacks on the commentator.)
Standard procedure for the fascist Left.
Just those states that cheated.
I cannot, for the life of me, why Mr. Turley credits leftists with wanting to, “leave the Constitution alone.” They have been as rebellious of it as Israel was rebellious against God when leaving Egypt, their first visit to Kadesh, the 40 years'[ wandering, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greek, and Roman occupation, …..well, you get the idea.
As for free speech: https://ifunny.co/picture/free-speech-wall-please-visit-student-life-in-room-929-pzYjoB0Y7
Anyone posting ungood, plus-ungood, or doubleplus-ungood materials will be immediately referred to Mr. O’Brien’s office (MoT building, rm 101). Isn’t that right, citizen 6079 Smith W.?
Meanwhile, JT is silent about the fact that Trump’s lawyers all quit because Trump wants to use his impeachment trial to push his election fraud conspiracies and they aren’t willing to play along.
Maybe he should hire Lin Wood and push Wood even closer to being disbarred.
or perhaps they have been intimidated into dumping Trump because they are gutless shrimp who work in biglaw. corporate lackeys
That sounds likely.
This claim has not been established. As is typical much of this is anonymous leaks.
I beleive we KNOW that one lawyer is leaving and another is coming in.
We do not know why.
Ignoring that your allegation is not substantiated.
Why must JT address this ?
It has no meaning.
We do not actually know that what you claimed happened.
If it did we do not know why.
It is clear from this effort to invoke the 14th amendment that Democrats are looking for a way out of this.
That the Senate Trial may never happen.
Trump may not need the lawyers.
And as I think both Derschowitz and Turley have noted Trump’s best legal strategy may be to not show up at all.
Anonymous the Stupid, you might not realize that Trump has legitimate grounds to state that fraud existed in this past election. Lack of knowledge accompanies stupidity.
Allan S. Meyer the Vile Trolling Pr!ck, you might no realize that Trump hasn’t proved any widespread fraud, despite him or his allies filing over 60 cases, and that although some of those cases were dismissed for lack of standing, many of the judges also ruled on the lack of evidence.
You speak from personal experience about your lack of knowledge.
“about your lack of knowledge.”
Anyone can compare the knowledge each of us possesses just by looking at our posts. Stupid posts that are Anonymous are almost always from Anonymous the Stupid, just like this one.
“Trump hasn’t proved any widespread fraud,”
You are too stupid to realize how hard it is to prove fraud and how much time it takes. A lot of times it can’t be proven even using an army of lawyers over decades. Slowly more and more of the details will be uncovered. We already have a lot of illegalities in a number of states that is clear but difficult to prosecute. If you could read with comprehension you would already recognize that election laws were changed illegally. But you cannot comprehend what you read so you continue to post Stupid things that inform everyone when Anonymous the Stupid is posting again.
Allan S. Meyer the Vile Trolling Pr!ck, you can’t even tell the different anonymous commenters apart, so you call multiple people “Anonymous the Stupid.” You also post anonymously on a regular basis, I think your comments are more stupid than mine.
As for “You are too stupid to realize how hard it is to prove fraud and how much time it takes,” actually I know that legal cases require evidence, and if Trump cannot prove fraud, he shouldn’t be claiming it and he’s stupid to file suit.
“If you could read with comprehension you would already recognize that election laws were changed illegally.”
If YOU could read with comprehension you would already recognize that judges have ruled against your claim, and they understand the law better than you do.
Anonymous the Stupid, everyone can tell when you are posting. The Stupid Meter sounds an alarm and it is a frequent occurrence.
I am responding under one name. People can tell the difference between you and me. You are dumb as shite and I am reasonably intelligent. Just look at the junk you post and compare that to what I post.
About the judges rulings, they didn’t deal with the illegalities. They sidestepped those issues. That happens but it doesn’t change the fact that you are too Stupid to see how changes in in the voting process in some states were illegal based on the Constitutions in those states. Deal with that question and stop trying to prove you are smart when you aren’t.
Actually, Allan S. Meyer the Vile Trolling Pr!ck, you use the phrase “Anonymous the Stupid” with more than one anonymous commenter, and you also post comments under more than one name, and you sometimes post anonymously. In fact, you commented anonymously at 9:35 AM, using one of your alternate icons. Here’s an example of you using that same icon to post as Allan –
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/18/is-curing-a-colorable-claim-under-equal-protection/comment-page-2/#comment-2027272
Several of the judges dealt with the legal issues in their rulings. When you falsely assert “They sidestepped those issues,” is that because you’re dishonest, stupid, or only ignorant?
Anonymous the Stupid, you are the Stupid commenter but if you wish to make believe that there is another commenter that posts things as Stupid as you do that is fine with me. We can both be satisfied. I will use the name Anonymous the Stupid referring to you and you can keep blaming your pretend Anonymous friends.
“Several of the judges dealt with the legal issues in their rulings.”
Several of the judges dealt with legal issues. In a fashion they did. They even approved of voting procedures that were not enacted in a constitutional fashion. Keep your Stupidity coming Anonymous the Stupid.
“Several of the judges dealt with legal issues.”
So when you said “About the judges rulings, they didn’t deal with the illegalities,” you weren’t telling the truth.
Anonymous the Stupid the word has more of a meaning than your head can contain. I told the truth in context. And your mother is a liar just like you say Trump is a liar. Your mother said the tooth fairy left the dollar under your pillow. She lied.
Your brain is too small to understand context. We got that Anonymous the Stupid but why do you have to add unnecessary Stupidity.
Illegalities = crimes.
Legal issues = standing, latches, TRO’s.
When you accuse someone of lying – the burden of proof is on you and it is high.
You owe S. Meyer and appology. for saying he was lying as you are doubly wrong.
First even error is not lying.
Second because he is correct, legal issues != illegalitites.
Anon, when the Democrats question elections they declare it to be the greatest act of patriotism of all time. When the Republicans question the way an election is conducted it’s an act of treason. The revealing has already begun.
Democrats have never attempted what your leader and minions did this election.
It’s well passed time to figure out what the Democrat’s end game is. It’s been apparent how they play the game. Accuse the other side of doing exactly what they’re doing. Russian collusion. QPQ. Pay to play. Disenfranchisement. Tyranny. Abuse rights. Dictatorship. Authoritarianism. Racism. Ism, Ism, Ism. This impeachment/censure isn’t about preventing Trump from running again. It’s about canceling a legacy of a President that threw a wrench into the Left’s march to a different form of government. We already have the current administration erasing by EO his signature accomplishments. We already have the Democrats priming the pump to declare 75+ million Americans and their families as enemies of the state. Democrats and the Left want unity, but not the kind of unity that comes through compromise. No, their form of unity is only achieved by force. The green zone they’ve built in our nation’s capitol is a tell. So, End Game? They are intentionally trying to provoke the American people into an incident that would lead Biden to invoke the Insurrection Act. The Courts won’t get in the way…the Senate will impeach or censure them. 2nd amendment…gone. 1st amendment…gone. 4th amendment…gone. 5th amendment…gone. Heck, Bill of Rights…nice idea but…
Is there anything Democrats and the Leftists are doing right now that implies they want to unify this country peacefully and to establish the equal security of rights for all Americans? Anything?
Do you recognize how much of what you wrote applies to Trump, Republicans and the right as much as it does to Biden, Democrats and the left?
Do you recognize how much of what you wrote applies to Trump,
None of it applies to Trump.
You’re willfully blind if you don’t recognize that elements like “Accuse the other side of doing exactly what they’re doing” and “Authoritarianism” apply to Trump.
Take note Anonymous the Stupid, of how you accuse others of being blind but we haven’t heard you provide the elements. Stupidity is your natural response.
No, I don’t. Why don’t you attempt to enlighten me?
Sure, Olly, let’s start with your first claim, “Accuse the other side of doing exactly what they’re doing.”
Trump called Ted Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz sometimes lies, but the frequency of his lies pales in comparison with Trump’s lies. As Cruz said about Trump, “This man is a pathological liar. He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And he had a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook. His response is to accuse everybody else of lying.”
Can you agree that Trump lies a lot?
If not, then I doubt that we’ll make headway. So let’s start just with that.
Anonymous the Stupid, is that all you got? You prove yourself even more Stupid.
LOL
LOL! That’s it? You’re comparing campaign rhetoric to actual governance? The reason conservatives have supported this president is they look beyond political rhetoric to what they value most; actual governance. You can count all the lies you want, but you overlook promises kept. Conservatives understand why Democrats have manufactured pretenses for impeachment and they have everything to do with impeaching (canceling) his anti-progressive accomplishments.
No, that’s not “it,” only a starting point.
Answer the question: can you agree that Trump lies a lot?
Anonymous the Stupid, do you understand what lies are and the nature of their significance? When your mother said that the tooth fairy left you the dollar under the pillow she was a liar. There is no such thing as a tooth fairy.
You have placed your mother in the company of Trump. You did a good thing placing her with good company.
Answer the question
GFY. I don’t take orders from anonymous trolls. Feel free to get back to me when you can tell the difference between rhetoric and action. You know, between promises made and promises fulfilled.
LMAO that you tell me “Why don’t you attempt to enlighten me?,” but you’re not willing to answer questions. Coward. Take your own advice.
Apparently Anonymous the Stupid, you don’t know the difference between rhetoric and action, or what different words mean in different context.
Whatever education you got was a waste. You can’t get out of Stupid mode.
Who the hades are you annoyn? Do you libs not conceive that there was an Attempted Coup agains DT subsequent to him becoming the Repub candidate in 2015 until now 2-1-2021? I will not go into the litany of occurances, but as those people have not and will not be prosecuted; there is now, no rule of law in America. That coup I will wager began with the Meeting” including Obama and Biden. Obama wanted it done by the book, per Susan Rice. The only rules of law are now simply the ones They chose to persue and go against someone. You can disagree and up til now, you have a right to disagree. But those rights under the comimg Socialists siege are dissipating rapidly.
“Who the hades are you annoyn?”
Light, that was Anonymous the Stupid trying to act smart. He is ridiculous but too Stupid to know it.
Most of the claims are very democrat specific.
“Russian collusion.” Clinton’s campaign did unwittingly collude with Russia. Trump’s did not.
“Pay to play.” I am sure there are Republican Pay to play scandals – find them and I will oppose them.
“Abuse rights.” what rights has trump taken from anyone ? The left is after free speech, free assembly, petitioning government – but only if you are on the right.
“Dictatorship. Authoritarianism. Tyrany” – these used to have meaning – how do they apply to Trump ? And how does any warped version that applies to Trump not apply to Biden ?
“Racism. Ism, Ism, Ism.” – accusing both the president and half the country of being hateful, hating haters – usually while openly stating you hate them, is a hypocracy unique to the left.
“We already have the Democrats priming the pump to declare 75+ million Americans and their families as enemies of the state. ”
Again unique to democrats.
“Democrats and the Left want unity, but not the kind of unity that comes through compromise. No, their form of unity is only achieved by force.”
The demand for unity is coming specifically from the left. The country as a whole wants unity. But only the left is claiming to seek unity, and only the left is demanding capitulation as a term.
“The green zone they’ve built in our nation’s capitol is a tell.” again uniquely democrat. When anything remotely like this was discussed by republicans there were screams and rants and claims that it was illegal, unconstitutional, totalitarian.
Yet, democrats did what Republicans did not even conceive without a whimper.
Put simply there is no parity between democratic and republican conduct.
Regardless, Democrats are currently in power. Do stupid things if you want.
But then do not complain when the same happens to you when you are out of power.
Obama should not have accomplished by EO what required Legislation. But he did.
Then Trump undid all of it and then did some new things by EO.
Now Biden is flipping that again.
This will now likely continue until we do something like a constitutional amendment limiting EO’s.
Democrats used the courts and the APA to thwart Trump EO’s
Now republicans are doing the same.
I would note that Biden’s EO ordering a stop to deportations is a violation of his oath to uphold the law and constitution.
It is far closer to an impeachable offense than anything that was alleged regarding Trump.
When republicans retake the house in 2022 – which is near certain and even rampant mailin voter fraud can not prevent,
will it be OK for you if the house impeaches Obama over that EO ?
It is quite litterally a presidential order to not uphold the law.
One wonders if anyone might think Anonymous the Stupid has the ability to respond to this excellent explanation. He won’t. He can’t. Do you know why? Because Anonymous the Stupid is Stupid.
The Trump campaign colluded (non-legal term which means “secret or illegal cooperation”) with Russians under the direction of Putin.
From the GOP majority Senate Intel Comm Report released in August:
“(U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian
effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak
information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow’s intent was
to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the
Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the
U.S. democratic process.
-WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian
influen~ery likely knew it was assistin a Russian intelli ence influence
effort. The Committee found si nificant indications tha
At the time of the
first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile
organization and many treated itas a journalistic entity.
(U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump
Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump’s electoral
prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases,
created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following
thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the
attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and
WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort. The Committee found no
evidence that Campaign officials received an authoritative government notification that the hack
was perpetrated by the Russian government before October 7, 2016, when the ODNI and DHS
issued a joint statement to that effect. However, the Campaign was aware of the extensive media
reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point.
(U) Trump and senior Campaign offici.als sought to obtain advance information about
WikiLeaks’s planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump
and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that
Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone’s information suggested more
releases would be forthcoming. The Committee could not reliably determine the extent.of
authentic, non-public knowledge about WikiLeaks that Stone obtained and shared with the
Campaign.
(U) The Committe~ found evidence suggesting that it was the ‘i~tent of the Campaign
· participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, particularly Dortald Trump Jr., to receive derogatory
information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a soui:ce known, at least by Trump
Jr.,. to have connections to the Russian government. The Committee found no reliable evidence
that information of benefit to the Campaign was transmitted at the meeting, or that thencandidate Trump had foreknowledge of the meeting. Participants on both 0
sides of the meeting
were ultimately disappointed with how it transpired.
(U) The Committee assesses that at least two participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting,
Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have significant connections to the Russian government,
including the Russian intelligence services.
(U) The Committee found George. Papadopoulos used multiple avenues to pursue a faceto-face meeting between Trump and President Putin. Papadopoulos believed that he was
operating with the approval-or at least not the explicit disapproval-of Campaign leadership,
who he kept apprised of his efforts. Papadopoulos never successfully scheduled a meeting
between Putin and Trump.
(U) Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin
Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of
Manafort’s operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort’s primary liaison to Deripaska
and eventually managing Manafort’s office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and
lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf
“Clinton’s campaign did unwittingly collude with Russia. Trump’s did not.”
If it’s unwitting, it’s not collusion.
Trump’s campaign wittingly colluded with Russia. For example, Manafort wittingly passed campaign polling data along to Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the SSCI identified as a “Russian intelligence officer.”
There are more examples in the Mueller Report and bipartisan SSCI Report. That you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge examples like this makes it pointless to discuss it with you, so I won’t waste my time going through your comment point by point.
The report states that the Russians tried to influence the Republican campaign. Did the Russians try to influence the Democrats when they paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for one speech. The Russians would be derelict in their duty if they didn’t look out for their nations interest. The question is, was Bill’s payment a bribe? Now that there’s real spendin cash. Even reasonable people on the left have declared that the Russia hoax was indeed a hoax. By God old Anon will hold on to his them there Russians did it to his diein day
Anonymous the Stupid you say things without facts to back up what you say. That makes you look even more Stupid.
Anons new motto. “With charity to all and malice toward none”. They’ve won the revolution and now it’s time to kick em when their down. A directive issued by one of their great leaders, Eric Holder.
Olly, if your “signature accomplishments” can be reversed by Executive Order”, they were “achieved” through Executive Order. The last time I heard complaints from the GOP about EOs – and the deficit – it was when Obama was President. Can you explain that? I’ll pass on your drama queen, end of democracy conspiracy comments. You didn’t seem to have a problem when your team was trying to disenfranchise the voters of 6 states because Fatso lost them.
if your “signature accomplishments” can be reversed by Executive Order”, they were “achieved” through Executive Order.
However, when Trump issued EO’s, they were to enhance national security, as directed by law. Many of his orders were challenged on policy and were upheld by the courts, as they were within his powers and were in the spirit of the underlying law. Where the courts rightly struck them down, they were modified to be in compliance with federal law and subsequently upheld. Biden isn’t even trying to hide his disdain for the law or separation of powers. His effort to simply ignore immigration law is a clear example. Clearly the President has the authority to issue policy directives, but when the President decides to act where Congress should through their lawmaking role, then we have a President (or more likely his VP and advisors) efforting to make this a unitary government.
“rage over reason”–so now that’s Turley’s grounds for Democrats attempting to address a lying narcissist failure who got voted out of office twice, but who cannot stop lying that not only did he win the election, he won by a landslide? A landslide despite historically low approval ratings? (after just one full week in office, Biden already had a higher approval rating than Trump ever did in 4 years). A “victory” despite trashing the successful economy inherited from Barak Obama and starting a trade war with China that backfired badly? An historic “win” coming after caging migrants and their children and calling them “murderers, rapists, criminals and animals”? A second-termer despite botching a pandemic, resulting in thousands of unnecessary deaths? It is “unreasonable” to try to stop Trump from ever holding office again after he incited his followers to “fight” for their country after weeks of lying about their votes being stolen, and his “lawyer” Giuliani, exhorting them to engage in “combat”, per Turley. The riot he instigated resulted in 5 deaths and serious injury to numerous Capitol Police officers, including fractured bones and loss of an eye. Unreasonable to try to stop this loser from returning office after he tried to bully, then threaten, the GA Secretary of State and Governor to void valid votes and award them to him? The tape of this conversation with Rathensberger was released after Trump called him a liar when he reported what Trump tried to do. Irrational rage coming after Trump tried to bully Pence into somehow voiding millions of valid votes and election certifications and award the presidency to him? No big deal after Trump fired Chris Krebs and Bill Barr for refusing to lie about election security and fraud? Somehow, to Turley, a paid GOP adviser, Congress should just overlook all of this, because taking action against Trump could only be based on “rage over reason”.
How any reasonable American patriot is not nauseated by the mere sight of Trump and his toady Republican brown-nosed syncophants, including one who clearly requires emergency psychiatric care and medication, but only after first being disarmed, is beyond me. How any person claiming to be an expert in the law can conscience this conduct and argue against the duty of Congress to take action to stop it from happening again is unthinkable. Americans are enraged over the chronic failures of Trump, coming after he cheated his way into office and tried everything possible to cheat to stay in office. Any other reaction is outrageous AND unreasonable.
+10
Although there may be more than one of his sycophants that require immediate psychiatric care and medication.
Elvis Bug
Well Natch, perhaps it is beyond your comprehension, because you are exceedingly biased, overheated, and your fundamental premises are in many ways flawed
Garbage in, garbage out
Sal Sar
Natacha, once you write of migrants in cages taking you seriously is over. Everyone knows that the picture of migrants in cages was taken during the Obama administration. Sorry, everyone but you. You’ve made exactly the same comments before. It must be more simple to cut and paste. You just pull up the BS folder on your laptop and it’s off to the races. The reality folder never gets opened.
You’ve been watching Tucker again. No, the photos of the migrants in cages, including children wrapped in shiny mylar blankets like baked potatoes and sleeping on cold, concrete floors, were taken on Trump’s watch. Obama temporarily detained migrants, and some photos were taken, but not these recent ones. And, BTW, after the photos were made public, Trump tried to stop photojournalists from ever going to his concentration camps again, as well as members of Congress, but some got in and took some of the photos. Trump incarcerated migrants and kidnapped their children as punishment and a warning to others not to come to the US. This is per Jeff Sessions, AG at the time. Remember him?
And you have been watching too much Rachel Maddow.
Yes, the policies that you rant about with respect to Trump continued to be done under Trump.
But they started under Obama.
Overall deportations under Obama were slightly higher than under Trump.
The most fundimental differences are that Obama allowed more illegals to get into the US and stay during a weak economy where the impetus for illegal immigration is actually low, And Trump reduced illegal entries and more important illegals staying during a growing economy which is much harder. One of the biggest differences – which Biden is reversing is that Under Trump most asylum seekers wait for a hearing OUTSIDE the US.
I would further note that there is little difference in detentions under Trump than under Obama – because Congress did not fund more fascilities.
If you have 50,000 beds you have 50.000 detainees – whether it is Obama or Trump.