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
Until Professor Turley is ready to take a good long look at the election fraud that was perpetrated in 2020, none of this will make any sense. I suggest you start with Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai and his case in MA about the weighted race feature, meaning that votes for different candidates were counted as a different percentage. His case is interesting because it’s not Dem vs. GOP. Instead it focuses on the primary vote where Dr. Ayyadurai’s votes were tallied as .66 of a vote whereas his opponent’s votes were tallied as 1.25 votes. If the left truly believed that the worst candidate in their party’s history beat Donald J. Trump fair and square, they would have no need for snap impeachments and pretty much ANYTHING to keep DJT away from the WH. In 2024 they will have AOC who can probably win even without cheating, particularly if HR1 is passed. There was an insurrection in the USA. It started 5 years ago with Peter Strzok’s insurance policy. It continued with Comey’s trap for Flynn and 3 years of Russia Russia Russia which we now know they knew at the get-go was a nothingburger. Obama never left office and the 3 letter agencies have behaved accordingly But nobody had the courage to call it out for what it is, i.e. treason. It’s very interesting to see the power of words. The GOP never used the word “insurrection;” therefore, there was no insurrection by the left (at least in the minds of the public). The left called the carefully staged unsurrection at the Capital Jan 6 an “insurrection” and that has become reality in the minds, not just of Americans, but people world over. If there had been a real insurrection by Trump supporters, if Trump really had called that immense mass of people to arms, it probably would have prevailed. But the left always accuses the GOP of that which they are guilty of themselves. The GOP’s function seems to be that of the straight man in a Vaudeville comedy act. No matter how many pies in the face they take, they still come back for more and then apologize for eating all the pie.
There was an insurrection in the USA. It started 5 years ago with Peter Strzok’s insurance policy. It continued with Comey’s trap for Flynn and 3 years of Russia Russia Russia which we now know they knew at the get-go was a nothingburger. Obama never left office and the 3 letter agencies have behaved accordingly
Game. Set. Match
You mean “Peter Strzok’s insurance policy” that was never utilized? Strzok claimed in that conversation that he had a way to stop Trump from being elected. He didn’t do so.
Ironically Strzok absolutely DID have something that could’ve stopped Trump in his tracks, but didn’t utilize it. He could’ve simply leaked to the press in late October 2016 that the Trump campaign was under an FBI counter-intelligence investigation. That would’ve killed Trump’s chances of winning the election.
This is not about YOUR spin on details.
What is self evident is that the Obama DOJ/FBI became a political weapon.
Had Strzok leaked that Trump was under investigation – Clinton would have been impeached. Strzok would have been fired.
She was the source of the investigation, and here information came from Russian agents.
There was no election fraud. These spurious claims were ‘looked at” by several courts and rejected as being baseless. Bill Barr, then Attorney General, said there was NO election fraud, and got fired for telling this truth. Chris Krebs said 2020 was the most-secure election in US history and got fired for telling this truth. Five lawyers quit Trump over the weekend because they refused his demand to lie that the election was stolen. Laughably, the replacement lawyers are required to refer to Trump in the present tense–that he IS the 45th POTUS. His mental illness will not allow him to admit that he lost. Mental illness explains Trump–what’s your excuse?
And, there is no “left”, either, if you are using that word to describe those opposed to Trump, because most Americans: 1. did not vote for him in either 2016 or 2020; 2. disapproved of him for an historic length of time; and 3. don’t want to see his bloated orange face in our White House ever again. Fox tries to feed you the idea that Trumpsters represent the majority of Americans, but that’s a lie, and it helps explain why people like you cannot believe that Trump lost. Why not just refer to us as “the majority”, which is what we are, and not all of us are left-leaning, either. In fact, true conservatives deeply dislike Trump because he is the antithesis of their values of personal integrity, honesty, honoring obligations and marital fidelity.
Biden has already beaten Trump in approval ratings. The “nothingburger” was the realty TV performer, serial cheater of wives, serial misogynist, serial bankrupter of businesses who wanted to pretend he was important and powerful, plus get free publicity for his brand. Then, there’s the vainglory rallies, the adoring crowds of dumbasses believing the lies, feeding his sick narcissism. He did cheat, with Russia’s help–read the Mueller Report, which is why he will never be viewed as legitimate. Read why Dan Coats was fired for telling the truth about Russia’s help. He didn’t cooperate with the Russia investigation, so he can never be considered “exonerated”.
There’s no “snap impeachment”, either–this was Turley’s phrase, and Turley is on the GOP payroll. What do you Trumpsters expect Congress to do–ignore the invasion and threat to the lives of members of Congress and let Trump get away with lying to these people and stirring them into action to “fight” the “injustice” of his election loss? That is why they stormed the Capitol–in fact, according to their lawyers, that is their defense. As a devotee of Fox, you readily buy into the narrative that Democrats are really guilty of what they accuse Trump of doing. Just how blind do people like you have to be not to see what most Americans see—someone who cheated to get into the most-powerful position in the world, who failed spectacularly and who will stop at nothing to avoid admitting he lost the election?
“There was no election fraud. These spurious claims were ‘looked at” by several courts and rejected as being baseless.”
False. The facts were not vetted overall with few exceptions. Perhaps only one. The cases were dismissed on legal and technical grounds, not factual ones
Quite lying Natch. I believe you that you finished law school and thus you know the difference.
Sal
That is simply NOT true–the most votes Giuliani came up with that could have been fraudulent was possibly 181–nowhere near enough to change the outcome of the election or overcome Biden’s 11 million lead. The rest of the various claims had no factual or legal support, and they were considered by courts on the merits. For example, in PA, the Supreme Court held that expanding mail balloting was constitutional, something pro-Trumpsters still lie about. Trump began lying about fraud BEFORE the election. Every single state CERTIFIED the results. In swing states, mostly under Republican control, the votes were counted, re-counted, re-recounted and in GA, there was signature-match validation. Trump still wouldn’t quit–he demanded that the GA Secy. of State “find” him 11,700 votes, threatened him with criminal prosecution, and then threatened the GA Attorney General. GA makes no sense–even if he got them to knuckle under and invalidate votes, he would still lose the election. He commanded Barr to investigate, which he did, and found NO fraud, so Barr was fired. Chris Krebs was fired for saying that the election was the most-secure ever. The dismissal on “legal and technical grounds” included the spurious lawsuit brought by Texas, attempting to challenge the votes in several other states, which the SCOTUS held it had no standing to do. This lawsuit came after the swing state Secy. of States certified the results of the election. One of yesterday’s headlines was that Trump’s lawyers drafted the lawsuit and the TX AG went along with it and filed it. In each state, every voter had his/her ID checked by Republican and Democratic poll workers, the ballots were fed into counting machines which were secured by representatives of both parties, and the tallies were counted in the presence of representatives of both parties, all under the scrutiny of poll watchers and vote count watchers. Dominion Systems refuted Giuliani’s claim that the counts could be manipulated remotely, and is suing for defamation. THERE WAS NO FRAUD.
Where’s your proof? Trumpsters have had 3 months to come up with something, anything, and there simply isn’t anything other than lies and spurious allegations. Trump’s mental illness persists, but it’s time for any potentially reasonably disciples of his, if any, to take a look at the facts. Trump was predicted to lose. He was the most-unpopular POTUS in recent history. The country devolved into economic and health crises under his watch, and yet, the disciples keep believing that he won by a landslide for no reason other than his inability to accept reality. This needs to stop.
It is not Guilini’s job to prove there is no fraud int he eleciton – and BTW your numbers are crap.
There are more than 181 proven instances of fraud, there are hundreds of thousands of identical probable instanes of fraud.
Regardless it is a requirement that govenrment prove to the people – not Trump, but absolutely his supporters that the election was conducted lawfully – which it obviously was not, and that it was not rife with fraud.
That is not a 2020 specific requirement – that is something that is required EVERY election.
Much of what Trump is demanding and the courts have stalled are things that should ALWAYS be done.
We should ALWAYS have an independent random audit of the entire election process after every election.
Our election processes are open loop – the results are in reality unchecked.
That is worse in 2020 – because the election was mailin.
But our normal election process is highly insecure and could easily be much better.
Sal, Natasha and Anonymous are singing the same song. Neither will make anyone proud.
You Trump cultists like to say that no courts of looked at the evidence, but that argument’s a smokescreen for the fact that no evidence of voter fraud EXISTS for courts to look at.
Even Trump’s own lawyers repeatedly admitted in court that they weren’t actually alleging fraud, even though in press conferences they absolutely did allege fraud. Why is that? Because it’s not illegal to lie to the media and the public. But it’s very much illegal to lie to a judge.
Evidence does exist.
Courts did not look at the evidence.
There were no court hearings.
There was no witness testimoney.
There was no discovery.
There was no investigations.
The courts made it clear BEFORE the election they were going to allow massive fraud and lawlessness.
This is why trust in govenrment and courts is at the lowest point ever.
This is why the current government is not legitimate.
In SOME cases Trump’s lawyers were NOT alleging Fraud.
They were alleging that the election was lawless.
The TX equal protection claim is NOT a fraud claim. It is a claim that every state must be able to trust that other states will follow their own laws. That is a legal challenge to the lawlessness of the election – that the Time article openly admits.
Just to be clear – there are allegations of fraud and large scale error and these are before some courts.
There is a large case against Fulton County in GA that the GA courts have been stalling, but that they MUST ultimately hear.
There is a case proceeding in Antrim county MI quietly that is looking at the voting machines.
And there are serious problems that have been found many places.
What has so far NOT been allowed is serious scrutiny in the places most likely to alter the outcome.
There has been no scrutiny todate of Fulton County, Philadlphia County, Detroit, Milwaukjee, or Maricopa county.
Right now despite massive allegations, we are all obligated to just “trust” that these places did not make consequential mistakes or allow or participate in significant fraud.
We must accept this on FAITH not evidence. – because leftism is religion.
Courts have looked at evidence and have dismissed it. This is another big lie the GOP echo chamber repeats over and over, and is picked up by zombies like John Say, along with “no collusion” and “the vote was rigged”.
“Courts have looked at evidence and have dismissed it.”
Nope.
“no collusion”
Correct.
““the vote was rigged”.
I have not said that – thought it is likely true.
I have said the election is lawless – which is absolutely true.
The lawlessness alone likely “rigged” the election.
The Fraud was just frosting.
What do you Trumpsters expect Congress to do–ignore the invasion and threat to the lives of members of Congress and let Trump get away with lying to these people and stirring them into action to “fight” the “injustice” of his election loss?
1. i expect Congress to allow law enforcement to investigate and charge crimes appropriately. As they have been doing. And the accused must have due process trials.
2. Trump stirred them up, yes. His words were fully, 100% within the range of free speech. You should read the following 2 cases since you obviously were asleep during constitutional law class
Terminiello v Chicago; brandenberg v ohio.
Congress may not rewrite those cases. That is a violation of ex post facto clause, and probably this faux impeachment violates the bill of attainder provision too.
Justice Douglas wrote: “a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” -from Terminiello. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/337us1
3. “threat to the lives” you have to prove to me that these tresspassers and rioters were any serious threat to Congresspeople lives. I do not agree., I watched hours of it and saw a bunch of hooligans. Where is your proof of this allegation. You bear the burden of proof. And you have not proven anything of the sort with your ramblings.
Sal Sar
Where is there any law to support the notion that substantive criminal law principles apply to impeachment proceedings? They don’t–members of Congress decide whether Trump’s conduct warrants a prohibition against ever holding office again, since he lost and is removed from office. Is that some slop you heard on Fox? The issue isn’t freedom of speech, either. Yes, Trump is free to lie his enormous ass off, which he has done all of his life, but if his lying and exhortation to his disciples stirs them to insurrection, he is answerable. This was a planned, last-ditch effort to stop his loss to Biden, coming after threats and lawsuits couldn’t overturn the election. Josh Hawley even said, before the Trump Insurrection, that it wouldn’t be known whether Biden would assume the presidency until January 6th. Since neither Pence nor members of Congress has the power to invalidate certified votes from the states, what was he referring to? What do you think he was referring to?
As to threats, I know you watch Fox and didn’t see it, but AOC discussed how a group of the Trump Insurrectionists were combing through offices, looking for her and she wasn’t able to get to the bunker in time, so she hid out in Congresswoman Katie’ Porter’s bathroom, behind an open door, and because she is so slim, they didn’t see her. They were shouting “where is she”? What did you think they wanted from her–an autograph? How about the fact that the bludgeoned to death Officer Sicknick and beat other officers, one of whom lost an eye, and several others who suffered broken bones, and one, a concussion? How about the gallows they erected amid shouts of “Hang Mike Pence”? They almost got him, too. Why do you think these people were there, other than to hurt Congresspeople and prevent them from accepting the state-certified election totals?
There can be no law governing impeachment, it is subject only to the constraints of the constitution, and those the house and senate impose on themselves.
But there is good reason to follow the constitution narrowly.
It is likely that Republicans will retake the House in 2022.
And if there are no constraints on impeachment, they can impeach Biden daily.
If you want impeachment to be used as you are – remember that turnabout is fair play.
It would be trivial to impeach Pelosi and Schumer on the same basis as Trump
I think they do expect 1/6 to just be forgotten. They seem shocked there might be consequence. They were a basic lynch mob and they’re like “what???”
Elvis Bug
I do not want the capital protests to be forgotten I want Biden. Pelosi and Schumer to understand that there are people out there with pitch forks waiting for them.
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
I want government to fear the poeple.
I want congress to be worried that voters and militias and citizens with guns may come for them if they further infringe on peoples liberty.
https://youtu.be/VzjrIk05YyU
And the Warren Commission declared that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy – not the CIA, FBI, JCS, ONI, USSS, Mob, Texas Oilmen, etc.
And Flight 800 exploded from “spontaneous fuel tank combustion” – never happened before; hasn’t happened since.
And on 9/11, massive skyscrapers, including the unscathed Bldg. 7, were brought down precisely in their own footprints by a few gallons of JP-1A – not the obvious detonations of controlled demolitions employing thermite.
[eyeroll]
“There was no election fraud. These spurious claims were ‘looked at” by several courts and rejected as being baseless. Bill Barr, then Attorney General, said there was NO election fraud, and got fired for telling this truth. Chris Krebs said 2020 was the most-secure election in US history and got fired for telling this truth.”
Do we have to keep this idiocy up ? Your very claim is a huge part of the problem.
NEarly every claim you make is either false or ludicrously stupid.
The court fights did not “look into anything” – they fought over points of law. There was no investigation.
Please read the actual remarks but Barr – they are NOT what you claim.
Kebbs is an idiot – mailin elections are inherently insecure. Claiming this election was the most-secure only made him – and you look like an idiot.
If you wanted thos to go away – you should have FOLLOWED THE LAW and CONSTITUTION.
After you did not – you should have supported meaningful investigations to rebuild the trust of the voters.
You do not have that trust – YOU FAILED. Whether the election was fraud ridden on not – you failed to get the trust of the electorate.
Your assertion that mail-in elections are insecure is not merely false, it’s also insane.
Your assertion that mail-in elections are secure is not merely false, it’s also insane.
Extremely few places in the world use mailin election.
Mailin election violate state constitutions in 28 of 50 states – these constitutions were changed as a result of massive fraud.
And yet most of those states had mailin elections in 2020.
Such notables as Jimmy Carter, Obama, and Pelosi have spoken out against mailin elections in the past.
Fraud is not thwarted by magic.
It is stopped by election processes that make fraud difficult or impossible.
Mailin voting makes fraud easy.
Give me your legal name and the state that you live in and I will vote for you in 2022.
Snap impeachment is Turley’s phrase, But it is accurate,
Would you prefer Faux ? Rushed ? Stupid ?
“What do you Trumpsters expect Congress to do”
Their job.
First do not confirm an election that is not trusted.
Next demand a meaningful audit of the election to restore trust int he outcome.
Next, not to shutdown the capital to thwart protests against their certification of a lawless election.
Next, not to make stupid an hypocritical claims of incititement when there was no such thing.
If we are going to impeach politicians for incitement – lets start with Pelosi and Schumer
If you can not apply your own bogus standards without drowning in hypocracy – YOU are the problem.
There was no election fraud. Shiva Ayyadurai is a lunatic, and his deranged “case” about a “weighted race feature” is nonsense.
You’re probably also a lunatic, given your bizarre assertion that Biden was “the worst candidate in their party’s history.” You don’t seem to understand that Donald Trump is incredibly unpopular. He’s not merely disliked but outright HATED by most Americans.
“You’re probably also a lunatic,”
We have someone else on the blog that you ought to meet. He too insults people and doesn’t know what he is talking about. Maybe you and Anonymous the Stupid should be a couple.
Because you say so ?
The election was conducted lawlessly – that is without a doubt.
There are plenty of examples of actual fraud. As well as serious problems that may or may not be fraud, but are all certainly serious problems.
In one County in new hampshire 5 separate machine Recounts produced exactly the same results.
But a hand recount found that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN was shorted 300 votes.
85% of new hampshire used the same equipment. The error rate was nearly 10% and would have tipped just about ever federal office in NH if true for other precincts using the same equipement.
In GA there is still one country that has not certified the results – they recounted by machine several times and got significantly different results every time. Raffensberger forbid them from doing an actual hand recount.
There are myriads of other examples of either actual fraud of fraud and error.
There are an enormous number of anomalies in the 2020 election. Some will ultimately be explained. But the odds of all of them being explained without fraud or serious error is small.
Trump’s popularity among left wing nuts is incredibly low.
But your broad claims are bogus.
If Trump was hated as widely as you claim – it would not have been necescary to go lawless to win the 2020 election.
Read the Time article – Democrats grasped that to Beat Trump they had to get people who barfely cared about the election to vote.
They had to get couch potatoes to vote. They had to subject people to massive peer preassure.
The left understood that in an ordinary election Trump was going to win in a landslide.
This is more Trumpist nonsense. The Constitution is not clear on impeachment for many reasons, so the claims about what is and what is not Constitutional are all based on politics, not law. The Congress is given much leeway in making charges and impeaching. It is up to a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict, a feature which the framers thought would eliminate partisan witch hunts. But there are no provisions which claim that a fully formed case must be presented to the Senate. So the complaints from Republicans and Trump supporters are only so much hypocritical whining.
Then again, the Republicans have claimed that simultaneously that the impeachment was too swift and that you can’t impeach a former president. Their argument suggests that any president in his final months of office (let’s be honest, the Republicans really mean any Republican or Trump) can do whatever he wants since there is no time left to impeach and he should not be charged after leaving office. Given the length of impeachment trials (the precedents are few) and the ability of Trump supporters to line up en masse to testify to any delusion which their addled brains have created, it is possible a Trump impeachment could take six months. That means that any president not seeking or unlikely to win a second term can commit any crime he chooses during his last six months in office, a rather dangerous precedent.
Censure is the Republican way of saying that Trump got caught and that should be enough. I rarely see such humanitarianism from Republicans when they are talking about black criminals or illegal immigrants. It seems leniency, clemency and Christian charity only apply to Republican leaders and Wall Street billionaires. Censure does nothing to stop Trump and Trumpism.
Republicans appear to stand for Trump, racism, violence, xenophobia and anti-constitutionalism. Anything short of an impeachment or a criminal trial shows that to be true.
Please take your meds. Nowhere in your ramblings did you make any sort of coherent argument, except you don’t like conservatives or Trump.
“People will do what they do”.
We have the notes and debates of out founders on the issue. And contra the left they most definitely did NOT want impeachment of the kind we are increasingly seeing.
They did not want to empower congress to use impeachment for political purposes.
I will agree with you on only one thing. While they made clear in their discussions that this is NOT what they wanted. They created no check on impeachment. There is no judicial review of impeachment. Ultimately that means congress can interpret impeachment however they want.
There is however one final check on impeachment – and that is voters.
You are correct in many of your assements but you fail to grasp that the same logic goes both ways.
There is no constitutional requirement that the house provide the Senate with evidence.
There is also no consitutional requirement that the Senate accept what is provided by the house without evidence.
If you assert that impeachment is political – which is most defintitely NOT what our founders wanted, If you assert that it is constitutionally poorly defined and therefore the house can do as it pleases – then so can the senate. Further so can those in the minority.
Republicans have already voted against this as the sham that it is. it is not going to get better.
Personally I am happy to see democrats proceed.
Attempting to impeach Trump serves absolutely no purpose beyond attempting to bar him from running in 2024.
That alone not only makes this clearly political, but it makes it clear how terrified they are that he will run in 2024, which makes it clear how anxious they are that they did not win this election.
So keep puhing to preclude the person that you seem to beleive won in 2020 from running in 2024.
Americans should know that Hitler was elected to office. He did not just take over. Yet after elected he became a dictator.
If Trump runs again and Americans elect him then we are on the same course as the Germans were in the 1930s.
Heil Donald!
Really ?
Do you have a clue what the word dictator means ?
Please tell me which one of your authoritarian nightmares came true under Trump ?
Did trump sic the FBI on the Press ? no that was Obama.
Did Trump sic the CIA, FOJ. FBI on political opponents based on Russian disinformation ? no that was Obama Biden.
Did Trump give the National Guard a political puriry test ? No that is Biden.
Did Trump lose in the supreme court regularly 9-0 ? No that was Obama.
Did Trump start a war during his presidency ? No that was every other president since Carter.
What exactly is it that Trump did that was dictatorial ? Totalitarian ? Authoritarian ?
I doubt we will see Trump again in 2024.
But Trumpism is foourishing.
And the left is doing everything in its power to grow it every day.
Biden has already sent troops to Syria. Why aren’t we LEAVING Syria. Afghanistan, Iraq, …. ?
As I recall Hitler started wars. Obama started wars. Biden seems to be trying to start a war as fast as possible.
Trump fought the entire government to END the wars we are in.
John say,
“ What exactly is it that Trump did that was dictatorial ? Totalitarian ? Authoritarian ?”
If you have to ask you then you have either not been paying attention or are being willfully ignorant.
But I can give you the most recent example. Trump, like an authoritarian, tried to subvert the election he lost. He claimed voter fraud without proof. He claimed states did not follow the law when they did. Two state Supreme Courts ruled against his claims as baseless or without merit.
Trump, the authoritarian, incited his supporters to assault congress by claiming the election was “stolen” like any two bit authoritarian would. He tried to force state governors to overturn their elections. He tried to force his VP to overturn the election by refusing to accept the certified electoral votes. A power he did not have. That was just within a span of two weeks.
Calling for the ouster of state governors because they didn’t bow to his demands. Come on John, surely you have seen these examples before your own eyes.
Fun fact. Hitler’s supporters also didn’t see him as a dictator until after the truth came out. The hardest part for those supporters was the realization that they were part of it too. Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol came to that realization when Trump deliberately threw them under the bus as soon as he knew he didn’t pardon them like they expected. He could have, easily. Now they are going to jail because trump left them hanging in the wind. Dictators tend to do that a lot too.
But I can give you the most recent example. Trump, like an authoritarian, tried to subvert the election he lost. He claimed voter fraud without proof. He claimed states did not follow the law when they did. Two state Supreme Courts ruled against his claims as baseless or without merit.
There is one stupid judgment and three lies in this statement. Correct-the-Record is not sending us their best.
Your parents aren’t sending us their best.
His parents are fine. Your parents are fine as well except for their nasty insulting offspring.
Says the ‘special’ child.
None of what he cites – even frames as he cites is authoritarianism.
Svelaz can not seem to grasp that just because he disagrees with something does not make it improper, immoral, or authoritarian.
Legitimacy, morality, legality are not determined by ideology.
Every single action that Svelaz cites was the speach of Trump the individual, not acts of the president.
“Fun fact”, indeed!
“If you have to ask you then you have either not been paying attention or are being willfully ignorant.”
There is no evidence that is why I am asking
“But I can give you the most recent example. Trump, like an authoritarian, tried to subvert the election he lost. He claimed voter fraud without proof. He claimed states did not follow the law when they did. Two state Supreme Courts ruled against his claims as baseless or without merit.”
Just to be clear – so everyone who claims election fraud is authoritarian ? Need I show you video of Clinton or Pelosi claiming election fraud after 2016 ?
The states clearly did not follow the law or their constitutions – that claim is complete idiocy.
Again after the incredibly poor court decisions of the past 4 years (and before) why should people trust the courts ?
Your very example – that the courts claim the election followed the law and state counstitutions is just evidence of why the courts are not trusted.
If the state supreme court rules that the sun will not rise tomorow – who is right ? The person that challenges that ? Or the court ?
Regardless, even if every single word of your statements was true – rather than completely wrong – that is not authoritarian.
Nor is it subverting an election.
It is the right of every citizen to go to court over pretty much anything they wish. They are not entitled to succeed at their claims.
But if you wish you can go to court and sue your neighbor because his grass is green. You will get laughed out of court. you may even be required to pay your neighbors court costs, But you have an absolute right to challenge anything you want in court.
Authoritarian is the courts operating with blinders, ignoring the evidence, failing to operate blind to the parties involved.
Authoritarian is president that issue EO’s directing government employees not to uphold the law.
It is not exercising their rights to challenge an election.
All you have done is demonstrate that you do not know what authoritarian means.
IYI – intelectual yet idiot,
“Trump, the authoritarian, incited his supporters to assault congress by claiming the election was “stolen” like any two bit authoritarian would. He tried to force state governors to overturn their elections. He tried to force his VP to overturn the election by refusing to accept the certified electoral votes. A power he did not have. That was just within a span of two weeks.”
Incitement to violence is has extremely specific requirement – or Pelosi and Schumer would be in jail long ago.
Trump’s remarks were not incitement.
Beyond that – you again do not know what authoritarian means.
It most defintiely does NOT mean holding or advocating views that you disagree with.
It does not mean mean advocating or holding views that are wrong.
It does not mean claiming an election was stolen – how many videos of democrats saying that about 2016 do I need to link before you grasp your own hypocracy.
You do not grasp the meaning of FORCE. Did Trump beat someone up ? Did he knife them ? Did he send men with guns ?
Did he use or threaten to use the actual power of the federal government ? All of those would be force.
Asking for something is not FORCE, demanding something that you have no power to demand is not force.
Force is when the VP of the united states say – “Fire the prosecutor or you do not get the Billion in loans.”
All you have done is demonstrate that Trump does not beleive the election results – like almost half the country.
That he does not trust the courts – like almost half of the country.
That he did everything inside his power AS A CANDIDATE to challenge those results.
There is absolutely no evidence at all that Trump used the power of the president in his own interests – THAT would be authoritarian.
Again you do not know what authoritarian is.
“Calling for the ouster of state governors because they didn’t bow to his demands. ”
So is very democrat who has called for the ouster of a govenor, or an other elected official authoritarian ?
Many democrats are currently demanding that members of congress elected by their districts or states be expelled – would that be authoriatian ?
Again you do not know what authoritarian means.
“Come on John, surely you have seen these examples before your own eyes.”
Absent the spin I have seen everything you have seen.
With or without that spin none of it is authoritarian.
“Fun fact. Hitler’s supporters also didn’t see him as a dictator until after the truth came out.”
The truth is out – your examples are not examples of authoritarianism. Do you have an instance where Trump used the power of the president outside the law or constitution ?
Every example you cited involved Trump using legitimate court processes or legitimate free speech.
Clinton challenged election results in court too. As did Al Gore. No one accused them of being authoritarian.
Gore’s claims were far worse that Trump’s Gore did not allege fraud, He really did not allege anything. He merely went to court to try to force endless recounts until he got the answer he wanted. And the courts let him until the supreme court stepped in.
Gore did not make any actual claims – his case was far weaker than Trump’s, and yet the courts in FL gave Gore what he wanted in contravention of FL election law. Gore was VP at the time.
So was Gore an authoritarian ?
“The hardest part for those supporters was the realization that they were part of it too.”
Is there some reason anyone should expect that you have a clue regarding Hitler and WWII ?
Do you know who Dietrick Bonhoeffer was ? Martin Niemoller ?
“Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol came to that realization when Trump deliberately threw them under the bus as soon as he knew he didn’t pardon them like they expected. He could have, easily. Now they are going to jail because trump left them hanging in the wind. Dictators tend to do that a lot too.”
Wow! What are you watching – Rachel Maddow ?
45% of republicans suport the capital protests – including ransacking the capital.
Regardless, many are going to jail – and unlike members of Antifa and BLM that engaged in real looting, arson, violence, rather that breaking some glass or putting their feet on Pelosi’s desk, these guys are likely to see real jail time.
I am better that more years in jail will be doled out to the capital protestors than to those who blinded police at the Portland federal court.
I fully expect the DC courts to levy egregious sentences.
And all that will do is prove to half the country that the courts are not to be trusted. That actively trying to sabotage a US election, that spying on political candidates by defrauding the courts that is acceptable. But putting your feet on Pelosi’s desk – that is a heinous crime.
I fully count on the DC courts to further prove that the LEFT is authoritarian, using govenrment power to punish or reward based on ideology not law.
“45% of republicans suport the capital protests – including ransacking the capital.”
Because the Republican Party is a fascist party.
Shin, thank you for informing us that you know nothing about the political process or the political economy.
You do not know what facism means.
I would suggest reading Musolinin and Hitler.
Facism is an authoritarian political philosophy that arose out of socialism.
It is inherently anti-capitalist, and socialist.
It is about as unrepublican as you can get.
From Britanica
Authoritarian: In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various competitors in elections. The freedom to create opposition political parties or other alternative political groupings with which to compete for power with the ruling group is either limited or nonexistent in authoritarian regimes.
Authoritarianism requires the use of power outside the constraints of the constitution or law.
It does not mean the constitutional and lawful excercise of power.
It does not apply to actions that you are entitled to by right as an individual.
You have not presented a single authoritiarian action by Trump – even if we accepted your spin as fact, which it is not.
Conversely Pres. Biden ordering DHS to ignore the law on deportations is authoritarian.
Courts including those state supreme courts you cited refusing to apply the laws and constitution of their states – that is authoritarian.
Contra your nonsense the impramatur of the courts does not make lawlessnes lawful.
You often ignore details that contradict your arguments. The National Guard “purity test” you refer to occurred under Trump, not Biden. The Supreme Court didn’t rule against Obama 9-0 any more than it did Trump. Etc. Etc.
Right, Anonymous the Stupid. …And your mother lied just like Trump. She told you that the dollar under your pillow was left by the tooth fairy. Your mother is in good company with Trump.
New dictionary words for Anonymous the Stupid
Inconsequential vs Consequential
Some Obama 9-0 losses
Horne v. Department of Agriculture
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States,
United States v. Jones,
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/The%20Legal%20Limit/Report_5.pdf
So can you produce Trump 9-0 losses ?
Liberty?,
Big Tech oligarchs are working closely with Democrats to control pretty much everything. Think Krupp-National Socialist German Workers Party and you might figure out who is really leading us onto the Hitler path.
Hitler took office, he used power to constrain his opponents, he used power to restrict peoples rights.He used the military to control people and to put down dissent, He confiscated guns, he engaged in censorship, and then he got the country into military conflicts.
None of that describes Trump.
All of that describes Biden and democrats.
No, Hitler did not confiscate guns. He REPEALED the German gun control laws.
And the rest of what you listed there absolutely does describe Trump.
More leftist rewriting of history.
The Weimar republic required Gun Registration.
When Hitler came to power he used the registration records to disarm jews and political opponents.
The Gestapo banned gun clubs.
In 1938 Hitler signed new firearms law that liberalized gun ownership for Nazi’s but confiscated weapons from everyone else.
Even restricting working in firearms industries.
In the months immediately prior to KrystalNacht the Nazi’s systemically confiscated the Guns of Jews.
This is among the most compelling evidence that Krystalnacht was planned in advance.
When the Nazi’s took over the rest of Europe they confiscated guns in occupied countries – and papers like the New York Times reported on it.
How ignorant of history ARE YOU ?
1984 is a Warning, not a howto guide.
Is there a Special Counsel appointed yet?
‘Hunter Biden hired a new attorney to assist with his federal criminal defense a month before his father became president. On Inauguration Day, one of that lawyer’s close colleagues was tapped to temporarily lead the Justice Department’s criminal division.
Why it matters: The moves put the new DOJ official atop a powerful arm of the justice system as his former colleague represents a client fending off a criminal probe. While their connection will fuel scrutiny of a politically charged matter, ethics experts say strictly adhering to conflict-of-interest rules can address any legitimate concerns.
What’s happening: In December, Hunter Biden hired former federal prosecutor Chris Clark, a partner at the firm Latham & Watkins. The president’s younger son is said to be under investigation for possible tax and money laundering activities, with a potential counterintelligence component.’
https://www.axios.com/hunter-biden-ex-colleague-doj-job-be5c0c8e-c65d-4ce0-a2f9-761a118e7b08.html
“Possible” money laundering? Bribes? Sure thing. Watch the media ignore this, and the investigation of Jimmy Biden, as it all quietly goes away, just like Bill Barr made the Spygate crimes and FBI wrongdoing just disappear as if nothing at all had happened. It’s outrageous, really. The Department of Injustice.
There will not be a Hinter Biden SC – but by all rights there MUST be.
This is just about the most consequential conflict of interest you can have.
I do not care about collegues going to DOJ.
The big deal is that a Biden administration DOJ can not investigate the presidents son.
It just can not be done.
This is far more clear cut than any prior SC appointment.
I would absolutely expect Joe Biden to do everything possible to help his son.
And frankly I would in the same position.
But as president he CANT.
It is in Joe Biden’s interests to have an SC.
That would free Joe to be 100% behind his son without claims of obstruction.
Or using his influence.
“a Biden administration DOJ can not investigate the presidents son.”
The DOJ is currently investigating the president’s son, doofus.
That is correct. And that is an enormous ethical violation. This circumstance is precisely what Special Counsel and conflict of interest laws were created for.
No sane person expects Joe Biden to be silent as his family is investigated.
All that is expected is that He is not in a position to influence that investigation.
Any potentially criminal investigation that involves the president, vice president or AG or those related to them or those with which they have strong ties requires a special counsel.
The Mueller SC appointment was improper – not because an SC was needed to investigate allegations regarding the Trump campaign.
But because the actual FBI/DOJ investigation had fizzled prior to Trump being inaugurated.
If the DOJ can demonstrate that the investigation of the Biden Family fizzled before the inauguration there is no need for an SC.
If it did not – there must be.
Would you accept it if the DOJ found no crime or conflict of interest? Or would you demand another investigation to make sure this investigation was as thorough as you want it to be?
“Would you accept it if the DOJ found no crime or conflict of interest?”
I would not accept anything that the DOJ found after the inauguration.
There is a clear conflict of interest.
BTW I would note that the Senate already found more than enough to demonstrate a conflict of interests.
“Or would you demand another investigation to make sure this investigation was as thorough as you want it to be?”
No I am demanding the DOJ stop RIGHT NOW, and that an SC is appointed.
Even if that accomplishes nothing more than to insulate those currently investigating from the rest of the DOJ and whitehouse.
I will note – that is not likely to satisfy half the country – and it should not.
There is very little difference between the Biden family conduct and that of Paul Manafort EXCEPT – the actions of the Biden’s are more egregious. The actions of the Biden;s go beyond lobbying into possible/probable pay for play schemes.
If Don Jr. was getting paid by Russian Oligarches for anything the Trump’s would be in prison now.
There is no possibility that the same standards will apply to those on the left. But the least we can do is apply the law as actually written.
I would note that the inability of the DOJ to treat Manafort. Stone, Papadoulis, Flynn with real justice, is why no one will trust them with the Biden’s.
The slap on the wrist that Klinesmith just got is damning.
Klinesmith lied under oath – warrant applications are SWORN, falsified evidence, and this resulted in a bogus investigation that the courts never would have authorized otherwise that drug the nation through 4 years of hell to find zip, nada, nothing.
And yet the same DOJ Sent Papadoulis, and Stone to Jail for much less serious offenses, and would have sent Flynn to jail for no crime at all.
Half the country does not trust the DOJ, does not trust the courts.
We spent the past 4 years watching the courts behave in a massively biased fashion – and you wonder why no one trusts the courts on the election ? When Horowitz found that XFR and XFH were no longer predicated after FBI interviewed the Steele Dossier primary subsource, the flynn prosecution should have ended immediately Sullivan should have ended it.
Failing to do so undermined half the countries faith in the courts.
Regardless, you reap what you sow.
Half the country does not trust the courts – BEFORE the election.
I think Democrats should remember that although they might have won the election Trump got the second most votes in the history of the nation in that loss. They are acting as if he got 7 votes and that is incredibly dangerous. What is legal, constitutional, or right are not always the same and aren’t going to mean much to us filth peasants if we go down the criminalizing of politics road. So do Democrats want to lead, or rule. If it’s rule you might want to stop calling Jan. 6th an insurrection, because you may see something that you aren’t going to like more.
Some of those 74 million people don’t care whether Trump was lying about Democrats cheating in an election, we listened to Democrats and the media claim Trump colluded with Russia and stole an election for 4 years even though it has been debunked. No one has to pay for that. One lawyer falsified evidence and he got probation and gets to keep his law license. Some of us see that the only difference with what happened at the Capitol and what has happened for months in some cities is that the media and democrats support one and not the other. One got close to people with actual power and one terrorized innocent people with no real power. I guess terrorising innocent people is acceptible and most politicians don’t care about you or me, just them, they are the important ones right? Conservatives atleast denounced both.
For a party that spent 4 years calling others fascists Democrats seemed to have forgotten their own deeds and whole swaths of the Constitution. How can you stand with a straight face and say Trump incited an insurrection based on saying the election was stolen after the 4 years of progressive ugliness which was far more bitter and destructive? The Collusion hoax alone with Democrats and the media making some weird pledge to push it even after being debunked was a breath taking coup attempt. To expect prosecution for “obstructing Justice” when not only did Trump not obstruct anything, he was right about the FBI spying on his campaign, people in the FBI’s investigations being biased against him, and the FBI and others leaking information to make him look guilty was jumping two sharks. A media that claimed Trump was a threat to their freedoms then applauded the new social media oligarch class for locking the account of a fellow media outlet and not allowing anyone to share or link to its story. One Guardian columnist even said social media didn’t go far enough which is comical because a whole lot of stories in the Guardian would have to be blocked for their shoddy reporting.
But don’t worry. The Biden Admin. is populated with the same geniuses that populated the Obama Admin, minus Obama himself. I don’t know how smart it is to put the same people in your Administration that also led to the nation to electing Trump President…
Yep, voters rejected Obama’s policies (approval number for his policies were in the 20s when he left office) and elected Trump in 2016 in a direct repudiation of Obama’s policies that Hillary vowed to continue. And these Obama 3.0 retreads actually think they have a mandate? They don’t, so they will ram it all through as fast and furious as they can get away with….again.
The majority of voters in 2016 voted AGAINST Trump.
Elections are supposed to be conducted according to the law – in 2016 Trump won a lawful election.
In 2020 he would have easily won had the election been conducted according to the law.
If you do not like the law – LAWFULLY change it. Elect representatives and enact new laws.
The executive enforces laws – it does not make them.
The Judiciary assures that the ececutive follows the actual laws – it does not make laws.
Yet, in 2020 – the executive and judiciary manufactured laws from whole cloth or repudiated existing laws.
That is LAWLESS.
Every Trump vote was real – we are far from certain of that with Biden.
John Say, “ Every Trump vote was real..”
Correct, Trump got 71 million votes. However Biden got 7 million more than Trump.
“… we are far from certain of that with Biden.”
Incorrect. Votes for Biden are just as valid as Trump’s. Claims of widespread fraud have been debunked by multiple Republican authorities including Trump’s own DOJ.
Ironically the Trump campaign’s own demand for a recount in one state produced more votes for Biden than for Trump. Two hand recounts verified it.
According to ABC Biden got 81,283,098 votes and Trump 74,222,958 votes
If you are several million off on those – why should anyone Trust the rest of what you claim ?
Almost all of Trump’s votes were in person votes. A real person showed up at the polls in most cases presented photo ID proving they were who they were and then voted.
As Democrats say – inperson voting fraud is rare – and it is. While it is far larger than democrats claim, it is still unlikely that election victories of 10000 votes will be the result of inperson election fraud.
But we should be very worried about in person election fraud – because of many events like the 2000 election were less than 500 votes determined the outcome out of millions.
While it is near certain that the amount of inperson fraud in Trump votes is miniscule At worst maybe 50,000 out of 75M.
Conversely election fraud in mailin voting is common place.
Ulitmately there are myriads of forms of fraud that are just not detecable or preventable in mailin voting.
Forms of fraud that are not even possible in inperson elections.
The likelyhood that there are 50,000 fraudulent mailin ballots for Biden is near 100%
The likelyhood that there is 5M fraudulent mailin ballots is quite small (there are people claiming that Bidens actual vote count is below 60M, but fraud on that scale is not credible) – but that is an enormous dynamic range.
Why do you think ballots for Biden are as credible as those for Trump ?
Trump voters were mostly inperson. Biden ballots were not. How is it you know that a Biden ballot even came from a real person ?
No one stood infront of an election official and presented ID.
Even if you called up all 81M biden voter and got through – how do you know that they are telling the truth, how do you know the person you phoned is actually the person who filled out the ballot ?
John Say, Jesus, do you even listen to your own arguments?
Anonymous said, “ Almost all of Trump’s votes were in person votes. A real person showed up at the polls in most cases presented photo ID proving they were who they were and then voted.”
You said basically the same thing.
“ Trump voters were mostly inperson. Biden ballots were not. How is it you know that a Biden ballot even came from a real person ?
No one stood infront of an election official and presented ID.”
You’re equating in person voting as more credible than mail in voting despite the fact that those who chose to use mail-in voting are also registered voters. States that allowed it AG’s those that have done so for decades have systems in place that verifies these people are actually real.
Trump himself used mail in voting to cast a vote. How do we know he really did? How sure are you that Trump voters didn’t vote by mail too?
To use your own logic you don’t know for sure that those in person voters actually voted in person. How do we know that these in person voters were actually the persons on the ID they presented? It’s a silly argument obviously, just as silly as your assertions that mail-in voters cannot be verified that they were eligible because the majority voted for Biden.
No single Trump lawyer has admitted proof that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. Believing it can be is very different than actually showing that it is. This is why they couldn’t present it in court.
What if there were thousands of trump votes sent by mail? Would they be deemed fraudulent as well? Because it would involve subtracting thousands of votes from Trump as well. Or just those that were Biden’s fraudulent?
This is why these arguments don’t hold water. They are based on logical fallacies that fall apart easily when they are scrutinized. That’s what happened in the courts.
“You’re equating in person voting as more credible than mail in voting despite the fact that those who chose to use mail-in voting are also registered voters.”
There are 32M registered voters int he US who are not real. I have argued here for completely eliminating voter registration, and replacing it by an absolute requirement for voter ID.
” States that allowed it AG’s those that have done so for decades have systems in place that verifies these people are actually real.”
This sentence is so mangled that god alone knows what it means. Regardless, There are problems with voting and voter fraud in those states that have had mailin voting for decades. In those states the normal ballot rejection rate for first time mailin voters is 20% and for regular mailin voting is 6% It is these high ballot rejection rates that keep mailin voting fraud somewhat under control.
Though this completely ignores efforts to coerce or induce voting which is nearly impossible in inperson elections, and trivial and unpreventable in mailin elections.
The left continues this nonsense about “voter supression” – what you call voter supression has a completely different name – fraud reduction.
I will absolutely agree that efforts to thwart fraud sometimes interfere with legitimate votes – I doubt that 100% of the ballots that are rejected by states with “decades” or mailin voting experience, are fraudulent. But the signifiers that we have for fraud are unfortunately also prevent in a small portion of legitimate ballots. You have a choice – allow rampant and ever growing fraud and have every single legitimate vote count, or impose measures that limit fraud but also reject a small number of legitimate voters.
You can never get close to perfect on that with mailin ballots. But you can get very close to only thwarting fraud using ID in inperson elections.
Finally, those states that have had mailin voting for many years – did not do so lawlessly nor did they do so as stupidly as we did suddenly in 2020 accross the country. Those states have anti-fraud measures that were not present in these states that suddenly addopted maiin voting in 2020.
“Trump himself used mail in voting to cast a vote. How do we know he really did?”
Technically Trump voted absentee by mail, which is NOT the same thing.
That said the way Trump voted was only marginally better than mailin voting.
“How sure are you that Trump voters didn’t vote by mail too?”
Did some Trump voters vote by mail ? Sure. Did some Biden voters vote in person ? Sure.
But the distribution is incredibly loppsided – and you know it.
By midnight on election night all the in person votes – and alot of the mailin votes accross the country were counted – and it appeared trump had a resounding victory. After midnight nearly all additional counting was of mailing votes and they went loppsidedly to Biden, and Biden pulled off a narrow victory.
Are you really arguing that the overwhelming majority of Trump votes were not in person ?
Or that the overwhelming majority of Biden votes were by mail ?
It ius pretty inarguable that Trump won the inperson vote by a landlside and that Biden won the mailin vote by a similar landslide ?
Are you actually trying to debate that ?
If you are claiming that both mailin voting and in person voting were distribtued equally – then eliminating mailin voting accomplishes nothing except fraud reduction.
If malin voters and inperson voters are indistinguishable – then just run the election inperson and you will have far less fraud.
“To use your own logic you don’t know for sure that those in person voters actually voted in person.”
This is ludicously stupid. Of course we do. Have you ever voted in person.
“How do we know that these in person voters were actually the persons on the ID they presented?”
In voter ID states they presented ID – it is a requirement of the law. In non-voter ID states they still showed up in person.
We may not know for certain they are who they claim to be, but we do know they are a real living breathing person.
Wit mailin voting we have no idea whether the ballot came from a living breathing human. All we know is that the name is on voter registration rolls. And we know that those are full of millions of errors and people who do not exist.
“It’s a silly argument obviously”
Absolutely – defending mailin voting is Silly. Prior to the start of the pandemic – no credible person – not even democrats would do so.
Mailin voting was foist on us in this election as a mechanism to steal the election. Without mailin voting Biden would have been wiped out.
He likely would have lost the popular vote by millions. Democrats saw the writing on the walls, and they rushed into place insecure, lawless mailin voting systems, as the only means of saving any hope of wining the election.
“just as silly as your assertions that mail-in voters cannot be verified that they were eligible because the majority voted for Biden.”
Not what I said. Only partly true.
“No single Trump lawyer has admitted proof that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. ”
This is a nonsensical statement – and also false.
There are 50,000 affadavits of assorted fraud in this election – they are actual evidence.
“Believing it can be is very different than actually showing that it is.”
That is correct – that is why we actually investigate, have discovery cross examing witnesses, present evidence. That did not occur.
” This is why they couldn’t present it in court.”
Because they were not allowed to.
“What if there were thousands of trump votes sent by mail? Would they be deemed fraudulent as well? Because it would involve subtracting thousands of votes from Trump as well. Or just those that were Biden’s fraudulent?”
I do not want any lawlessly cast votes to be counted – that is all mailin ballots regardless of who they were for.
The courts should have followed their state constitutions and rejected mailin voting BEFORE the election.
I do not want any ballots that do not have verified Voter ID information provided ONLY by the voter to be counted in voter ID states.
Whether those ballots were mailin or not. It is not sufficient that a voter is on the voter registration lists – we know those are hopelessly corrupt. The burden of proof that a person is a legitimate voter rests with the Person – not the state. However you vote YOU are required to prove you are who you say you are and that you are eligable to vote. If you did not provide sufficient information to verfiy your right to vote – your vote should not be counted.
I do not want ballots that do not have a clear chain of custody to be counted. Any ballot that is ever in the hands of a voter and observable by others is potentially fraudulent and should not be counted. Voters come to the polls where they are given a ballot and vote in secret.
The secrecy requirement is NOT a waivable right of the voter, it is a requirement for fraud free voting.
Regardless ballots should absolutely never be circulating in public. Not in the mail. not in drop boxes, Not anywhere outside of polls.
“This is why these arguments don’t hold water. They are based on logical fallacies that fall apart easily when they are scrutinized. That’s what happened in the courts.”
I would suggest gaining some familiary with election history as well as experts on voting – including people like Jimmy Carter.
What you claim are fallacies – are in fact FACTS.
You and I are dealing with the specific problem with mailin elections – because that is the focus of the problem in 2020.
But even without mailin voting there are plenty of opportunities for election fraud. I have been dealing with trying to improve election integrity since 2000. This year was an absolutely disasterous step backward. I have no doubt there was significant fraud.
I fully expect over time we will find that. Though I expect few prosecutions – because as you fail to grasp there is a huge difference between proving fraud and proving that a specific person committed fraud. We have thousands of instances of provable fraud in in person elections in every state in the country, in every election. We have few arrests and convictions – because even when we can prove that somehow mickey mouse managed to vote, we can rarely prove that a specific person cast mickey’s obviously fraudulent vote.
I would further note that 2020 fraud is not just about mailin fraud – nor is the lawlessness confined to mailin ballots.
The other massive problem in 2020 was the complete lack of meaningful oversight of the ballot handling process.
No election official should EVER be alone with ballots. Every step of the ballot handling process must be done under observation – preferably public observation – and that observation must be sufficient to allow the detection and adjudication fo claims of error, bias or shading of judgement.
Further every single election process should have checks and balances on it. Every single election process should have random outside audits. And the process should be designed to be auditable.
Finally the entire process of elections should be done at the lowest scale possible.
We want bottom up not top down systems. In person ballots are typically counted at the precinct as they are cast. There is no opportunity for fraud or error larger than a single precinct. Mailin ballots should be counted at the precint in which that voter resides – not county wide, not state wide. The smaller the scale of counting opperations the less the ability for a single persons’s fraud or bias to have a signficiant impact.
Error and fraud are real – we can do things to minimize them – we can not eliminate them.
But we can increase the odds those committing fraud will get caught, decrease the scale of the impact a single person committing fraud can have.
You keep this nonsense up – completely ignorant of reality and history.
Few countries in the world allow mailing voting – BECAUSE it is fraud and error prone.
Nearly all countrie in the world require secret ballots – which a mailin ballot can not ever be – because secret ballots are an important antifraud measure.
Election fraud has been common place – in the US throughout the world, and over time.
Pretending it does not occur is just complete idiocy.
Pretending it is a thing of the past is idiocy.
France shifted to in person paper ballots counted by hand in the modern era. they did so because of election fraud.
France is rarely a world leader, but in this they are. And they manage to count their elections in less than 24hrs – without machines, in a process that has very little oportuntiies for fraud.
One that is pretty much the opposite of what you foist on the nation this year.
You keep relying on the thin record of courts.
But the courts failed – before the election. They lost trust BEFORE the election.
Further their decisions are clearly nonsense.
Was their massive fraud ? It is NOT the burden of candidates to prove to courts that fraud flipped the election.
The burden to conduct a trustworthy election is on the state, and it is owed to the people not the candidates.
The courts are an element of ensuring that trust. But it is not their job to demand that candidates prove compellingly that fraud occured.
It is their job to establish to the satisfaction of all citizens that it did not.
Trust in govenrment is something that government must earn from the people – not that it can impose on us by force.
Which state was this ? I have been following challenges fairly well.
I have not seen a single instance of Biden gaining votes in a state.
I have seen only a single instance in all the checking where Biden did not loses votes.
He picked up 300 votes in one county in GA.
There have been no hand recounts of an entire county anywhere yet. Much less and entire state.
The only quasi recount was GA, and that was far closer to a re-canvas than a recount. There are few if any places that have actually gone back to the actual paper ballots at all.
No claims have not been “debunked” – this is just idiocy. Please read the actual statements by Barr as an example.
They are extremely narrow. I would further note that DOJ has not conducted ANY independent investigations – they have little authority to.
They have dealt with claims that have been brought to them – by the states, and the states have brought few claims.
Their is limited ability for private parties to initiate an investigation with DOJ.
Further to this date there is extremely limited access by ANYONE outside of state election officials to any election data.
Currently the only outside access much less review of any election information has been very limited access in Antrim county that has preliminary disturbing results, but nothing even close to final yet.
It has taken 3 months and probably will take atleast 1 month more, but SOON we are likely to see an actual forensic review of Maricopa County AZ. That is one other place where there has been a small amount of access to actual ballots – the AZ Senate has been provided with 100 originals of duplicate ballots – a random sample of the 20,000 ballots that had to be duplicated because they were unreadable.
The found 2 Errors – both adding Trump votes. That is not sufficient to tip the election. But if anything even close to that pattern continues through all the 20,000 duplicate ballots – that is absolute proof of fraud.
There also will likely be an independent audit of Fulton County, but that is going to take months to work its way through the GA courts.
However if current patterns continue – Democrats are in very serious trouble. While the patterns so far do not indicate sufficient fraud to tip the election, the current patterns if they continue mean there is a pattern of election fraud by election officials favoring Trump.
Contra your claim – nearly all findings so far have been gains for trump. That is not possible without fraud by those running the election.
Where there is no bias by those running the election, errors will be found, but they will come close to canceling each other out.
I would further note – it is not the number of votes that are found that matters, it is whether the errors cancel or not.
You’re “far from certain of that” because you’re a lunatic.
Someone as clueless as you is calling anyone a lunatic ?
Please bother to actually learn about the things you post FIRST.
You are completely mistaken about everything you say regarding Facists or Nazi’s or gun control or really pretty much everything.
I am hard pressed to think of a left poster here that is so completely clueless.
The overwhelming majority of Trump voters walked to or drove to a poll.
They presented ID – in most instances photo ID proving they were who they claimed to be, and that they were a legitimate voter.
THEN they were given a blank ballot and taken to the poll where NO ONE could see or influence their vote.
They then either scanned their vote and it was counted immediately or they deposited it in a ballot box.
It is incredibly difficult to vote fraudulently in an inperson election conforming to secret ballot and voter ID requirements.
Conversely Biden voters – asked for an received ballots by mail.
Once you have actual ballots outside of polling places they are easy to counterfeit. Counterfeit ballots can be injected into the election myriads of ways.
Many states had unattended ballot collection boxes. Inside counting fascilities ballot handling procedures were lax. And forged ballots could be injected easily.
Today you have absolutely no clue whether the mailin ballots counted are fraudulent or not. there are dozens of different ways to conduct fraud in a mailin election.
We know that operatives representing Ilhan Omar were paying for ballots – that is one way to engage in fraud in a mailin election.
Another is forged ballots. Another is counting the same ballots over and over.
There are many many ways to engage in election fraud. They can all be thwarted in some way.
But not merely by wishing fraud away.
Mailin voting can not be made secure. Once ballots are routinely handled in public, you have all the fraud techniques used in the 19th century and then some – on steroids because modern technology makes many easier.
For about $1/ballot I can flood any state with hundreds of thousands of undetectable fraudulent ballots.
Nor is that the only thing that can done.
Unattended ballot boxes are incredibly stupid idea. There are so many ways to manipulate an election with an unattended ballot box.
Would you leave thousands of $20 bills in an unattended box ?
$15B was spent on the 2020 election – that is $100 for every vote cast.
‘Are we just going to ignore the fact that Pelosi gave BLM terrorist Cori Bush a Judiciary Committee assignment knowing she led a mob on private property to harass an innocent couple and scream about revolution through a bullhorn?’ ~Debra Heine tweet
‘Cori Bush, whose organization vowed to kill me and my wife and burn our house, who stood in front of my house chanting “you can’t stop the revolution”, has just been appointed to the House Judiciary Committee! A Marxist who advocates murder and arson to decide what’s just.’ ~Mark T. McCloskey
Republicans need to keep sounding the alarm and calling attention to this outrageous appointment by Pelosi.
Cori Bush isn’t a terrorist, and BLM isn’t Cori Bush’s organization.
McCloskey doesn’t quote anything to show that Bush “advocates murder and arson.” Do you have a quote, or are you and he just making it up?
Cori Bush is a Marxist revolutionary. The McCloskey quote was his own words in his own tweet.
I could just as easily say that McCloskey “advocates murder and arson,” but asserting it doesn’t make it true. Either he (and you) can present evidence that she “advocates murder and arson,” or he (and you) can’t present evidence for it.
Try rereading McCloskey’s quote….he says ‘Cori Bush, whose organization vowed to kill me and my wife and burn our house…’ and he concludes (rightly so) that she ‘advocates murder and arson’…..get it?
Again, BLM is not Bush’s organization. Get it?
No, I don’t. She’s a Marxist revolutionary aligned with BLM which is a Marxist organization.
“We already knew Black Lives Matter are radical neo-Marxists and the co-founder confirmed it during an interview this week.
Patrisse Cullors, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter proudly admitted she’s a radical, anti-white Marxist.
“We actually do have an ideological frame,” Cullors said. “Myself and Alicia are particularly trained organizers — we are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories…”
Black Lives Matter is seeking to transform America by defunding the police, dismantling capitalism, ‘destroying the patriarchy,’ breaking down the nuclear family unit, emptying prisons, redistributing wealth in the form of reparations among other far left objectives.
Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters have destroyed small businesses, targeted churches and razed buildings to the ground.
Their goal is to bring chaos where there is order, fan the flames of class warfare and demonize Christians and conservatives.”
And now Pelosi has placed this Marxist revolutionary on the Juciary Committee? What the hell is happening to the Democrat Party?
Most of the ‘theories’ they are well versed in are poorly understood by these dime store revolutionaries. ‘Trained Marxists”? trained by who? the FBI Counterintelligence school? The BLM media partisans squawk a lot about surveillance and harassment. The playbook is not that sophisticated and it’s been in the public domain for almost half a century. They just added social media tracking to the toolkit. You better believe the FBI has deeply infiltrated BLM top to bottom and when they have outlived their usefulness of drawing out US nationalist elements deemed hostile to the Great Reset, then you will quickly see BLM be shut down hard just like the Panthers
Cori Bush isn’t a Marxist, and BLM is not her organization. You just pointed out that she’s not one of the founders, and BLM doesn’t even have formal membership.
She is a self decribed revolutionary aligned with and marching with BLM that day the McCloskey’s and their property were threatened by protestors associated with the BLM movement. Same thing. BLM is a racist movement as well.
Yes, we understand this leftist game. And the people at the capital on the 6th did not speak for any organizations, or Trump or anything else either.
You have impeached Trump for the acts and presumed intentions of others.
Sorry the rest of us can equate Cori Bush to BLM
I fail to see how the 14th Amendment applies to Mr. Trump ….
“, 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 … ”
Mr Trump “took the oath” only as POTUS;i.e. he was never:
a) a member of Congress,
b) an “officer” of the US, (per Appointments Clause, Article II, Section 2, POTUS is NOT an “officer”),
c) a member of a state legislature,
b) an executive or judicial officer an any State
The President is an officer. The DOJ notes that “The text and structure of the Constitution reveal that officers are persons to whom the powers “delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” U.S. Const. amend. X, are in turn delegated in order to be carried out. The President himself is said to “hold [an] Office,” and the Constitution provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in” that office.”
so.. when he left the Office he left it behind! He is not the office. The office stands on its own. It’s always been that way. When a king died the commoners called out long live the king, the new king that is. Admit it… these persons just hate Pres Trump. It’s a mental condition. They will probably hate him so much that they will oppose his burial in the US.
He is the new Akhenaten.
not even close. but, i got your point lazy cat. lightening and the sun.
That’s irrelevant to the point I was addressing. The 14th Amendment’s text about “having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States” applies whether or not he’s still in office. I bet you understand what “previously” means.
The 14th ammednment requires and actual insurection against the unitied states.
That is not what occured on the 6th.
There was no effort at succession.
This was a demand for congress to not certify the election.
That is in the power of congress. No one asked congress to do what they did not have the power to do.
They asked congress to do what they did not wish to do.
This is no different from demanding that the sanate not confirm Kavanaugh – if this was an insurrection – so was that.
Further, the 14th amendment allows congress by a 2/3 vote to remove such disability.
It does not empower them to vote to bar a single person – that would run afoul of the bar on bills of attender.
To bar Trump congress would have to disenfranchise everyone who participated in the capital protests.
Go for it you idiots.
Regardless, this is just stupid. You are making it ever so obvious that you do not beleive you legitimately won in 2020, and that you are scared shitless that Trump is running again in 2024 and will win easily.
I keep telling you all how perilous it is to have illegitimate government – this is why.
Fearful government acts stupid.
John Say,
“ This is no different from demanding that the sanate not confirm Kavanaugh – if this was an insurrection – so was that.”
That’s FALSE.
The two incidents are very different. You’re conflating two very different issues. Those protesting Kavanaugh were acting if their own accord. There was opposition to his confirmation. It wasn’t an opposition with the intent to overturn his appointment by force.
Those protesters were disruptive. Those people weren’t openly threatening to kill lawmakers who supported his confirmation and made claims his appointment was illegitimate.
Trump spent weeks sowing and encouraging his supporters that his election was stolen without any credible proof. Trump openly denigrated his own VP and demanded he do an illegal subversion of a state’s electoral votes.
His own supporters chanted “hang pence” and sought to round up lawmakers to hold hostage. That is the very definition of an insurrection. It was organized by individuals INTENT on overturning a legitimate election.
Your false equivalencies are awful, amateurish, and a poor grasp of reality.
The only difference between the incidents is your personal view of the actions that congress was prepared to take.
The capital protestors were demanding that congress act by not certifying.
The FORCE used was to gain entry to the capital – which never should have been closed.
You can not deprive people the opportunity to assemble, engage in free speech, protest, and petition government – ESPECIALY at the capital and then claim their protest is an insurrection because they overcame your lawless condut BY FORCE.
FORCE is justified when government is lawless – read the declaration of independence.
You really are clueless as to the consequences of your own lawless actions.
The US capital is currently circled by razor wire, demanded by the same people who find no need for walls on our southern border.
Every representative opposed to the southern wall, should be forced to live on the southern border.
I would note that kavanaugh protestors tried to FORCE their way into the supreme court – and Schumer was their goading them on.
They only failed because there were too few and the doors were too strong.
Further democratic protestors have used FORCE all over the place all the time.
The Federal court house in Portland was partially occupied BY FORCE.
Chaz, Chap or whatever you wish to call it in Seattle was occupied BY FORCE.
Police stations were burned BY FORCE.
The Capitol insurrectionists were not deprived of “the opportunity to [PEACEABLY] assemble, engage in free speech, protest, and petition government.” They remained totally free to peaceably assemble, engage in free speech, and protest outside the Capitol building, and to petition the government inside the Capitol via Congress’s online system, by US mail, or by making an appointment with one of their members of Congress.
They broke the law. Shame on you to excuse it by misrepresenting what occurred.
Also, learn the difference between capital and capitol.
When before has the capital closed down to prevent assembly, speech, petitioning govenrment ?
The government is not permitted to treat some speech differently than others. It is not permitted to do so particularly when that speech is political.
Pretty much the entirety of the violence associated with the capital protests was undoing an improper lockdown of the capital.
“They broke the law. Shame on you to excuse it by misrepresenting what occurred.”
No misrepresentation at all.
It is always possible for those in control to shape things such that legitimate opposition is precluded from legitimate means of expression and then blame the opposition for reclaiming their rights.
Actual lawlessness would be BLM/Antifa protestors Burning down target and ransacking macies or St. John’s church in a protest against government.
Breaking through or circumventing unusual barriers to preclude legitimate protests is legitimate.
The existance of mail or email does not preclude in person protest.
The Boston tea party was not done online.
There is a reason that people protest in person in the place of government while government is in session – and why they do so often loudly.
Because it is their right and because it is effective.
The left is well aware of this and constantly uses it to their advantage.
We have often had grevious infringements on liberty because a small number of rowdy loud protestors coerced legislators into acting badly. Those protesting the election are free to do the same.
Your dislike for that changes nothing.
Regardless, you are advocating a violation of equal protection.
Apparently in your world – Kavanaugh protestors are allowed to roam the halls of the capital while in session accosting Senators without appointments. but stop the steal protestors may only “persuade” their congressmen by email or appointment.
Sorry JF – that does not fly.
Shame on you for double standards.
“learn the difference between capital and capitol.”
When you are paying for my writing, you can critique my spelling.
“When before has the capital closed down to prevent assembly, speech, petitioning govenrment ?”
LMAO. The Capitol is generally closed to the public without appointment right now because of the pandemic.
The Capitol is closed to visitors every evening and on multiple days, including Sundays and select holidays. Try walking in during the State of the Union and see how it goes.
If you want to visit the House or Senate galleries, you must obtain a pass first. You also need a permit for certain activities elsewhere on the Capitol grounds, including rallies.
I’m not Joe Friday, and now you’re making up false claims about me by saying “Apparently in your world – Kavanaugh protestors are allowed to roam the halls of the capital while in session accosting Senators without appointments. but stop the steal protestors may only “persuade” their congressmen by email or appointment.”
The Kavanaugh protesters broke the law and were arrested. They did not enter when the building was closed to visitors. They did not break windows, they didn’t break into offices, they didn’t kill anyone or bring prohibited guns, they were not chanting things like “hang Mike Pence.” Yours is a false analogy.
“Shame on you for double standards.”
Shame on you for imagining double standards that don’t exist and pretending that your imagined beliefs are anything more than your imagination.
“When you are paying for my writing, you can critique my spelling.”
I can critique your spelling whenever I want.
Then it should not be open to the public.
There is no Covid exception to constitutional rights.
“The Capitol is closed to visitors every evening and on multiple days, including Sundays and select holidays. ”
And congress is not in session.
“Try walking in during the State of the Union and see how it goes.”
There were protests at Trump’s 2017 SOTU.
“If you want to visit the House or Senate galleries, you must obtain a pass first.” So ? That is to control numbers.
I have no problem with reasonable limits to the number of people.
Not talking about the galleries – though I would note that the Kavanaugh protestors got into them. as do others all the time.
“You also need a permit for certain activities elsewhere on the Capitol grounds, including rallies.”
There were permits, and requiring a permit does not mean government can deny one.
We have been through this argument at Charlottesville. Learn something about the first amendment.
I know the constitution does not aply to lefties.
“I’m not Joe Friday, ” I have no idea who you are. Any claim about you must be made up – there is no way to tell one post from the next,
Each stands alone.
“The Kavanaugh protesters broke the law and were arrested.”
Very few, Only a tiny portion of those who entered the capital.
“They did not enter when the building was closed to visitors.”
And congress must be open to the public when it is in session.
We do not have a secret govenrment. This is not a start chamber.
“They did not break windows, they didn’t break into offices,”
They did break into offices – and they did damage.
“they didn’t kill anyone”
The capital police did not murder any of them either. The capital police did not get out riot gear and clubs to prevent them from entering the building.
“or bring prohibited guns,”
And amazingly they had better gun discipline than the capital police.
Bringing a gun is not automatically a crime. Many with guns had permits. Regardless, the capital police are free to bar people with guns from entry WHEN THE CAPITAL IS OPENED.
“they were not chanting things like “hang Mike Pence.” Yours is a false analogy.”
Go play some video of the Kavanaugh protests. Even Schumer crossed the line farther than Trump did in front of the supreme court.
Many of the anti-Kavanaguh chants and signs were violent. And the protestors at the Supreme court tried to break down the doors.
They only failed because the doors were too strong.
“Shame on you for imagining double standards that don’t exist and pretending that your imagined beliefs are anything more than your imagination.”
I have refuted pretty much every claim you have made.
I will concede that the Kavanaugh protestors did not carry Gadsden flags.
Do you think that is a meaningful difference ?
Regardless, this is trivial. The Kavanaugh protests were not the first protests at the capital.
You are correct that those who went past protest to actual lawlessness were arested – though none were actually charged – catch and release. I have no problem with doing the same with respect to the jan 6. protestors – but we must start on a level playing field.
If Covid closes the capital – Fine, then it also closes congress.
There is no right to protest congress in the capital when congress is not in session.
Nor is government free to use Covid as an excuse to limit protests. Those on the left made that point all summer.
The analogy is fine. Your hypocracy is not.
Shame on you for double standards”
““When you are paying for my writing, you can critique my spelling.”
I can critique your spelling whenever I want.”
Not and expect me to care.
The DOJ has expressed an opinion; it carries almost as much weight as does mine. OTOH, The Supreme Court has issued a RULING (Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010)) which contradicts the DOJ. CJ Roberts observed that “the people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.'” Rather, “officers of the United States” are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an “officer of the United States.”
A more thorough review can be found at https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/20/is-the-president-an-officer-of-the-united-states-for-purposes-of-section-3-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/.
It is worth noting that the House impeachment article claims “Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits ANY PERSON who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States …”.
Which is quite obviously wrong. Section 3 does not apply to “any person” or even “any person who committed the offense”. The House may have assumed the President is an “officer of the United States” It could not have naively assumed that the phrase “officer of the United States” is equivalent to “any person”
“The DOJ has expressed an opinion; it carries almost as much weight as does mine.”
What an arrogant comment.
Thanks for the link to Blackman’s and Tillman’s discussion.
“Roberts observed that “the people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’” Rather, “officers of the United States” are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an “officer of the United States.””
When you quote someone (in this case, Blackman and Tillman), you should put quotation marks around the entirety of the quote. Roberts did say “the people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’” However, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. wasn’t attempting to address whether the President is an officer, and earlier in the opinion, Roberts makes clear that by “Officers of the United States” (in quotation marks), he’s referring to officers appointed under Article II. So I disagree with Blackman and Tillman that “It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an “officer of the United States.”” Rather, we can only conclude what is already obvious: the President is not an Article II officer.
Blackman and Tillman themselves say that the question of whether “the President meet[s] the jurisdictional element” is a “difficult and novel legal issue[],” and their conclusions are more limited and more nuanced than yours or mine.
Trump’s lawyers are free to make these arguments at the trial.
Turley: Trump’s Election Claims Would Be “Destructive” Impeachment Defense
The collapse of Trump’s legal team could “force the president now to turn to a better strategy,” one that would save him “from self-immolation,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University who declined an offer to represent the president at the impeachment trial.
If Trump insists on arguing that the election was stolen, he would be on a destructive path, Turley said.
“That claim is viewed by many senators as one of open contempt for their institution,” he said. “As it stands now, he would be acquitted by a fair margin. If he pursued that path, it could change the view and the votes of some senators.”
The former president’s allies have also urged him to move forward with a defense based on constitutional questions.
In a recent interview with The Washington Post before Trump split with his lawyers, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said the legal team planned to argue that impeaching a president who had already left office was unconstitutional, without getting into any battle over who won the election.
Edited From: “Trump’s Legal Team Exited After He Insisted Impeachment Defense Focus On False Claims Of Election Fraud”
The Washington Post, 1/31/21
Only lazy cult members of the left read Wah Putz. Was Marvel Comics not at your finger tips?
+1
😜
You aren’t Svelaz, only a troll using Svelaz’s name, as is clear from your icon.
Stop plagiarizing while masquerading as a holy source of logic and morality you pathetic hypocrite. You are supposed to include links to the original sources and only copy and paste a brief excerpt.
JT doesn’t read the responses, let alone engage.
That requires a subscription which you have not paid.
Otherwise he sits down with paying members, drinks latte and braids our hair.
You get what you pay for
Not proposing this but what if the US Department of Justice (or other agency) decided Jonathan Turley was no longer allowed to perform the occupation of his choice? One might say is this Russia or America? Is this a despotic banana republic or an American republic?
Likely hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans have not had this right of citizenship, to choose their occupation, for almost 20 years – not based on any criminal conviction or ever being accused of any wrongdoing.
Jonathan Turley really needs to expose the Cointelpro style tactic of “Employment Tampering” – it’s the most evil program voters have never heard of. Unlike McCarthyism, this felony crime (under federal law) is COVERT. Former AG John Ashcroft was exposed publicly for doing precisely this tactic but missed that it’s been happening for nearly 20 years. This is felonious practice – that betrays the oath of office – is way more dangerous than the 2021 insurrection.
Ex-cons convicted by unanimous jury opinion can run for President, but anybody censured by a mere majority vote of his political enemies in Congress cannot run. That does not compute. I’m willing to bet the Supremes would kill this.
Diogenes, read MollyG’s post on this. First, the office holder must have participated in an insurrection against the US and then must be convicted by a 2/3 vote of each house. That’s a high bar and even in this case, not likely.
I see your point. I misunderstood the discussion. It is unlikely.
Agreed. Tim Kaine should be held accountable for the insurrections he encouraged across the nation.
What to do about Kamala though?
Kamala is responsible for the insurrection she funded and resultant increase in 2020 violent crime. She should be tried for treason
https://www.foxnews.com/us/murder-rate-increase-2020-no-modern-precedent-crime-analyst-group-finds
America’s murder rate increase in 2020 has ‘no modern precedent,’ crime analyst group finds
New report analyzes crime rates amid coronavirus pandemic, civil unrest across U.S.
Murder rates saw a “historic” increase in 2020 compared to 2019, with more than 1,200 additional killings year-over-year in a sample of 34 American cities, according to a study released Monday.
Homicide rates jumped by 30% from 2019 to 2020, while gun assault and aggravated assault rates climbed 8% and 6%, respectively, experts found.
“Homicide rates were higher during every month of 2020 relative to rates from the previous year,” the report states, calling the 30% surge “a large and troubling increase that has no modern precedent.”