The North Carolina elections board declared this week that it has the power to bar Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) from running for office due to his actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. It insists that it can enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and declared that he is an insurrectionist. It is a position that, in my view, is wholly outside of the language and intent of this provision. Cawthorn is right to challenge any such action as unconstitutional.
In a filing to dismiss a lawsuit by Cawthorn, the board wrote
“The State does not judge the qualifications of the elected members of the U.S. House of Representative. It polices candidate qualifications prior to the elections. In doing so, as indicated above, States have long enforced age and residency requirements, without question and with very few if any legal challenges. The State has the same authority to police which candidates should or should not be disqualified per Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The asserted authority would invite partisan and abusive practices by such boards. It is also wrong on the purpose of this constitutional provision. Moreover, there is a vast difference between enforcing an objective standard on the age of a candidate and enforcing the subjective standard whether that candidate’s views make him an “insurrectionist.”
As I have previously written, (here and here and here), Democrats are playing a dangerous game with the long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause.” The provision was written after the 39th Congress convened in December 1865 and many members were shocked to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, waiting to take a seat with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.
Ironically, it was Justice Edwin Reade of the North Carolina Supreme Court who later explained, “[t]he idea [was] that one who had taken an oath to support the Constitution and violated it, ought to be excluded from taking it again.” So, members drafted a provision that declared that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
The mantra that this was an insurrection does not meet the standard. The Constitution fortunately demands more than proof by repetition. In this case, it requires an actual rebellion. The clause Democrats are citing was created in reference to a real Civil War in which over 750,000 people died in combat. The confederacy formed a government, an army, a currency, and carried out diplomatic missions.
While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell this week called it an “insurrection,” there are ample legal reasons to reject that characterization in court. (I agree with McConnell in his other comments criticizing the sanctions against Republicans supporting the House committee investigating Jan. 6th).
Jan. 6 was a national tragedy. I publicly condemned President Trump’s speech that day while it was being given — and I denounced the riot as a “constitutional desecration.” However, it has not been treated legally as an insurrection. Those charged for their role in the attack that day are largely facing trespass and other less serious charges — rather than insurrection or sedition. That’s because this was a riot that was allowed to get out of control by grossly negligent preparations by Capitol Police and congressional officials. While the FBI launched a massive national investigation, it did not find evidence of a conspiracy for an insurrection. Only a handful were charged with seditious conspiracy, a broadly defined offense.
I still believe that Jan. 6 was a protest that became a riot. That is not meant to diminish the legitimate outrage over the day. It was reprehensible — but only a “rebellion” in the most rhetorical sense. More importantly, even if you adopt a dangerously broad definition of “insurrection” or “rebellion,” members of Congress who supported challenging the electoral votes (as Democrats have done in prior years) were exercising constitutionally protected speech.
Before the riot, Cawthorn declared “The Democrats, with all the fraud they have done in this election, the Republicans hiding and not fighting, they are trying to silence your voice,” he said. “Make no mistake about it, they do not want you to be heard.” While he later voted against certifying President Biden’s victory, he also later signed a letter congratulating Biden on the win.
That does not make Cawthorn an insurrectionist and this Board is not tasked with enforcing the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause. The board’s position is itself a threat to democracy and free speech. It is only the latest first anti-democratic measure being used in the name of democracy.
The board interpretation would allow partisan members to toss opponents from ballots to prevent voters from making their own decisions. That is something that has been a practice in countries like Iran, not the United States. Hopefully, a court will make fast work of any such effort in this case. If Democrats believe Cawthorn to be an insurrectionist, they are free to use that label in the campaign. However, the voters, not board members, should be the final arbiters of such questions in a democratic system.
About 50 GOP-appointed judges ruled that Biden won the election. This constitutional process – that happened before January 6 – removed any doubt that Biden won fair and square.
Trump, Cawthorn and every Republican voter knew this happened. Their own judges told them that. At best they were “subversive” – subverting constitutional due process and then proceeded to not only threaten violence but then breached the Capitol’s locked doors.
Some (not all) Trump followers even stockpiled weapons nearby and had a system of delivery those weapons along with bear spray and zip ties. This was no legal First Amendment protest. In a previous protest Black Lives Matter supporters were treated worse and they never invaded the Capitol. Since we are talking 14th Amendment, which also includes equal treatment, the Black Lives Matter legal protest was treated unequally.
Why doesn’t the 14th Amendment apply to this scenario?
What evidence di you have that Cawthorn participated in the riot.
Ashcroft-Your handle is quite interesting:
Zersetzung (pronounced [t͡sɛɐ̯ˈzɛt͡sʊŋ], German for “decomposition”) was a psychological warfare technique used by the Ministry for State Security (Stasi) to repress political opponents in East Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. Zersetzung served to combat alleged and actual dissidents through covert means, using secret methods of abusive control and psychological manipulation to prevent anti-government activities.
Where did you get this from? The CCP playbook? Or, the AOC playbook? Either way, you are not using facts, but opinions, to support one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard.
Can you please direct me to reliable articles that show weapons were stockpiled with a system of delivery and also that those who did so were Trump followers. I never like to label anything “disinformation” unless facts cannot be found. Thanks.
You can read the indictments here, and if you want to focus on the cases involving weapons, just do a text search on “weapon”: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Sure. Stewart Rhodes admitted that his group, oath keepers, had stockpiled weapons and ammo at a budget hotel in Arlington, VA.
I despise Trump and believe him to be a danger to the US.
I also believe that truthful discussion is important.
It simply isn’t the case that “About 50 GOP-appointed judges ruled that Biden won the election.” Suits were filed in many courts, including courts with Republican-appointed judges, and in the majority of these cases, the judges ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to proceed with the suits. Only in a small number of cases did the judges rule on the merits of the case, and in none of those did the judges rule on who won. We know that Biden won the election because the votes were counted and audited by authorities in every state, and Biden won the majority of the votes in the Electoral College, and the EC vote was certified by Congress.
You don’t have to falsely claim “About 50 GOP-appointed judges ruled that Biden won the election” in order to point out that some of the violent people on Jan. 6 were trying to prevent certification of the EC vote.
Whether the Disqualification Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to Cawthorn will be determined in court.
As Steve Vladeck (UT Austin law professor and sometimes Turley foil) has noted, “One way or another, the Cawthorn suit is going to make some pretty important law about Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment — including to whom its disqualification provisions apply and by which actors it should be (and can be) enforced.”
No. No judge anywhere ruled that Biden won the election. Stop lying.
“About 50 GOP-appointed judges ruled that Biden won the election. “
AZ, you have to recognize that the above sentence is wrong. You lose credibility making such statements, and not correcting them when pointed out.
If Canadian police are acting like Redcoats, then why not shoot them just as the Redcoats were shot? Just saying. Freedom means killing oppressors or it doesn’t.
If this sounds like murder, then I guess that the Minutemen were murderers when they shot Redcoats, and the Allies were murderers when they shot Germans.
Jan 6 was an attempted coup perpetrated by many people on many levels from the White House, to Congress, to the fools in the crowds. The text itself makes it clear that those who engaged in coups and insurrections can be made ineligible. There is zero mention in that text that it applied only to those from the Civil War. The constitution does not always say what you want it to.
The constitution does not always say what you want it to.
The work around Biden administration approves that message. The courts on the other hand say hold my beer.
When was Madison Cawthorn convicted of an attempted coup?
Jan. 6 was NOT an attempted coup. Nor was it an insurrection as many have claimed. Not a single person who was arrested for their actions on that day, were charged with insurrection, or anything close to that. Jan. 6 was a riot, plain and simple. People got out of hand and egged on by the lack of security, which I believe was the plan by Pelosi for that event.
Unless you expand the words “coup” and “insurrection, to include trespass and/or destruction of property, you are totally out of context and pushing for more violations of our constitution.
The stated goal of the Jan 6 trouble makers, including those who broke into the capital, and Trump himself, was to overturn the election and install an unelected president. That is an attempted coup. The lack of criminal charges, and lack of weapons, or lack of well thought out plan, is in no way part of the definition.
Sammy: For the sake of comity, I extend my agreement with you in calling out “Jan 6 trouble makers.” That’s what they were, and they sure made a big mess for all of us to clean up. I agree with the type of charges that some deservedly have received. But I think that pushing the idea that they were trying to “overturn the election” and “install Trump” is REALLY pushing it. In the same way that an appellate court will “stay” a decision by a lower court until the case can be reviewed, it is my opinion that the original intent by Jan 6 protesters was an attempt to “stay” election results pending review of the various outstanding claims of fraudulent voting. Then it got way out of control. I do not defend the rioters at all. But I also believe there were outside actors attempting to foment a volatile situation..
Trump himself said his goal was for Pence to overturn the election. He told his supporters to go to the capital to encourage Pence to do just that. Attempted coup.
But Sammy, Trump used those flawed words that AFTER Jan 6. What he told protesters/marchers AT THE TIME was quite different-and well-publicized. (you can have the last say, because we are off-topic, thanks, Sammy.
lin,
Sammy can still have the last word, but I’m going to interject here.
You’re right that what Trump said publicly on Jan. 6 was well-publicized.
Maybe you should reread Trump’s speech:
“[John Eastman] looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution. … All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.
“And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said: “Mike, that doesn’t take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage.” And then we’re stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We’re just not going to let that happen. … And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn’t, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you’re sworn to uphold our Constitution. Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. …
“They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back. [Audience chants: “Send it back.”] …
“Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I’m not hearing good stories. … So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to. …
“So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they never vote for anything, not even one vote — but we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Trump was quite clear that he wanted Pence to overturn the Electoral College vote (“if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election”), and he wanted his supporters to walk to the Capitol to convince Pence “to come through for” Trump and his supporters, all while lying to his supporters that Pence “has the absolute right to do it” and lying that he’d go with them. Pence did not have that right. Thankfully, Pence upheld his oath of office and refused to do what Trump wanted.
Anonymous: Sincerely, thanks for your “interjection.” First, Trump apparently relied on the advice of “constitutional” lawyers with whom he ostensibly consulted. Second, whether Pence’s role may be more than perfunctory, and may include the implied right to refrain from entering votes for some states in light of pending challenges in those states for fraud, has, to my knowledge, never been adjudicated. That is to say, is it possible that Pence is ministerially obligated to enter on record the electoral votes from states where the results are not being challenged, -but may refrain from final entry electoral votes from states where pending challenges exist? I don;t believe there is case law on this. There are opinions on both sides. That’s all I’m saying. I dunno.
More garbage. It was a protest and far more peaceful than the protests tolerated by Democrats throughout the summer. Anyone looking at all the videos and selfies taken would think most of them were sight-seers. Some violent actors were arrested and treated based on the rule of law, with some going to jail.
But I think some government officials should be paying the price as well, along with some working with the FBI. That will not happen where Democrats who do not care for the rule of law are in control.
Being the most violent protest in a given time period is in no way a requirement for a coup. It is the intent that matters.
The stated goal of the Jan 6 trouble makers, including those who broke into the capital, and Trump himself, was to overturn the election and install an unelected president.
Do you even read what you write? How did you obtain statements from every one of the rioters? How few troublemakers do you imagine there were? Ten? Three? One?
The investigation is ongoing, and I expect that some additional people will be charged with crimes beyond the hundreds already charged.
Not sure who you’re including as “Jan 6 trouble makers,” but I’d include all of the Republicans who signed and sent false electoral certificates to the National Archives, and John Eastman, who tried to provide legal cover for Trump’s attempt to pressure Pence into disobeying his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Sammy says: “Jan 6 was an attempted coup perpetrated by many people on many levels”. He’s interpretation of Jan 6 riot.
Please give us your interpretations of months of rioting, looting, burning and in some instances murder? Oh, here’s one for you three years of Russia Russia Russia leading to a bogus impeachment? You have the floor Sammy.
Intent matters. The BLM protesters did not intend to install an unelected president. They were protesting police brutality. That is what differentiates those protests/riots from the Jan 6 attempted coup. Russia had little if nothing to do with either impeachment. Both were all on Trump doing dumb and really bad things.
And since when was trying to burn d9wn a federal courthouse a form of protest?
They were not protesting police brutality. They were protesting a non-existent phenomenon: Police killing blacks because they were black.
A pretend friend is always there to augment pretend arguments.
Insurrection? Soft coup? How about a run-of-the-mill fundamental transformation of the United States? Because as this author warned back in 2012, that is the real tragedy. In 1984, Yuri Bezmenov told us what the Marxists would do and in 2022, Robert Hall’s predictions of what their efforts would produce have come true.
Unfortunately, his October 30, 2008 promise to set about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” is one he has kept. If he is reelected on November 6, 2012, I believe that the transformation from the free republic we have cherished will be irreversible and permanent. And that the country will then be hopelessly on the road to fiscal, social, and political collapse.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/barack_obama_and_the_fundamental_transformation_of_america.html
Obama and his supporters weren’t the ones trying to prevent Congress from certifying the EC vote on Jan. 6, carrying out what McConnell has called a “violent insurrection.”
Obama and his supporters weren’t the ones trying to pressure Pence into disobeying his oath to the Constitution.
Trump, lying: “Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome… Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!”
Mike Pence: “President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election. The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone.”
Chris Christie: The “Jan. 6 was a riot incited by Donald Trump” specifically to pressure Pence to try to overturn the election. “He wanted the election to be overturned.”
Obama and his supporters weren’t the ones who submitted fraudulent Electoral College certifications from several states.
Obama and his supporters aren’t the ones promoting the Big Lie that Trump won the 2020 election.
That would be Trump and some of his supporters.
Trump is the one trying to put us on the road to political collapse.
Here is what Obama did.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2020/08/01/ethics-quote-of-the-month-andrew-mccarthy-and-the-integrity-test-it-presents/
No, he didn’t.
McCarthy can peddle lies, but I’ll go with the DOJ Inspector General’s conclusions that Crossfire Hurricane was properly predicated: https://oig.justice.gov/press/2019/2019-12-09.pdf
The IG did not determine that.
Yes, he did.
The IG stated in the full report: “On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence investigation to determine whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating or cooperating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government to influence or interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. According to the opening Electronic Communication (EC), the investigation was predicated on intelligence from an FFG [friendly foreign government: Australia]. … we concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation.”
He didn’t have the authority to determine anything. He lacked access to relevant information. He simply reported his opinion of the limited facts he had access to. Or perhaps he lied.
Either way, that’s not a determination. It doesn’t answer the question finally, which is what a determination does.
Nor is it a conclusion, which was the word you used, for the same reason.
He literally said “we concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation.”
IDGAF what your personal opinion is about his conclusion.
“provided by a government the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy…”
But not everything provided was trustworthy and not everything was provided. Knowledge keeps building so no conclusions can be made except that the parties involved in these actions were duplicitous.
You have provided an example where government extends its authority and reach to create crimes that never existed in the first place. You are a fascist and hateful one at that.
You’re a moron.
A “conclusion” that the FFG information was a sufficient predicate is irrelevant to the question of whether it WAS the predicate. But you dishonestly evade the central point: The IG was not in a position to review all the relevant evidence, and of course he did not do so. Beyond that, there’s no particular reason to think that he’s intelligent, diligent, or honest. The conclusion you cite is worthless.
“You’re a moron.”
That is why that particular anonymous is called Anonymous the Stupid (ATS). That way everyone knows who we are talking to.
Correction:
It should read, “A “conclusion” that the FFG information was a sufficient predicate is irrelevant unless it WAS the predicate”
The election was lawless, starting from Trump walking down the escalator. The Obama Biden team used the DOJ, FBI, CIA, IRS and others to gain information or create untrue scandals to affect the election. Lawless voting processes followed this with ballot stuffing and the like. The lawlessness didn’t end after the election. It continued to prevent voting information from being appropriately audited, including hiding or stealing such information. It now culminates with the Jan 6 hearing, which only shows us one side of the magician’s coin to control the flow of information.
Democrats of today are despotic. The rule of law means nothing to them. The Constitution means nothing. Prior rulings mean nothing. Hypocrisy abounds.
Anonymous is ignorant of everything I speak about above. His interest is in a fascistic society ruled by those he has been told to agree with. He has no original thought and no claim to intelligently discuss Left-wing attempts to destroy our Republic and replace it with their own. That type of character caused the death of over 100 million people outside of war in the last century.
SM,
There’s a fundamental problem in the way too many people view things that are going on in this country. For this whole constitutional republic thing to work you need you need a shared vision for where you are going. Conversely and most importantly, if you don’t want it to work, you need to find a way to divide people. At the root of our division are political parties. That has literally been half the battle. The rest of it has been nothing more than convincing voters why they should support one party and oppose the other. That is accomplished by drilling down into the worldview where most individuals live, which is very local to them. This is truly a Forest vs Trees problem. By keeping the individuals focused on their local (trees) issues, they are less likely to see what’s happening on the national (forest) level.
Now none of that is ground-breaking information. What is different is what Bezmonov warned would happen. It’s one thing for politicians to sell people the rope they might ignorantly hang themselves with, but it’s a gamechanger if you can convince them it’s not a rope. That “success” is what Obama knew he was working with. And that’s how you fundamentally transform this constitutional republic into something else altogether.
“you need a shared vision for where you are going.”
There are basically two visions that exist under our Constitutional Republic, Free with the rule of law or unfree without the rule of law. It is that simple. The rest is propaganda that is swallowed without being chewed.
It is that simple.
Not quite. Propaganda will only take ignorant people so far. The trick was to change their perception of reality. Marxists did that to generations of Americans. Ignorant people don’t see rioting, arson, looting, assault, murder and agree that is mostly peaceful protesting. Ignorant people don’t agree men can have babies. Ignorant people don’t see waves of illegal border crossers as qualified residents of this country. Ignorant people don’t believe less law enforcement will improve the lives of law-abiding citizens. That takes someone so demoralized that they cannot see reality until it hits them right between the eyes.
Of course, Olly, there is complexity within the simplicity. The first thing we have to think about is our representatives. Are they looking out for themselves or us? I believe that too many Americans convert everything into a ballgame, my team vs. yours. That means one can enjoy the battle without thinking.
Marx was wrong about almost everything, but his promotion of revolution sticks because no matter what, there are always those that want their way and will use force to get it. When there is no rule of law, force mostly wins.
Will Americans wake up? Yes, when it hits them personally or in the pocketbook. The ups and downs that follow such a methodology invariably lead to a situation where entropy prevails. Related to the world, we are at the top, heading toward the middle.
S, Meyer, you need to visit with a mental health counselor about your delusional state.
David, I did nothing to insult you. Moreover everything I said has been documented except for those things that are pure opinion based on realistically evaluating the landscape..
You don’t like my opinion, That I understand, but first you need to acquire some facts and discuss them instead of reflexively referring one to a mental health counselor. If you wish to act like Anonymous the Stupid, that is your choice.
S. Meyer, those in need of mental health counseling rarely recognize it or admit it.
Seek help.
OK David, you have proven that serious dialogue is something you are unable to have. Pity. I thought things might have changed when you came out of the home.
SM
You reminded me of a New Yorker cartoon….
The first frame shows a man who fell into a river yelling to his dog on shore, “Lassie, get help!”
The next frame shows Lassie lying on a couch in a psychiatrist’s office.
haha
Finally, the truth…thank you.
When did Communist China take over the United States, because it seems like Communists are running things now.
Heads up:
Your long quote of copyrighted material exceeds fair use. Your comment and any replies to it will be deleted.
This conduct by the “new” Democrat party will continue in an effort to manipulate the coming election as they did in 2020. They are going to take all stops out in an attempt to hold on, so buckle up. Notice how now the Dem states are lifting mask mandates, how parents know best? Only a few weeks ago parents were being treated like “terrorist” that needed to be investigated. They know that if they engage in a squared up election Americans will send them packing. The majority of law biding Americans are sickened by what they have revealed themselves to be. **The recent purchase by the FBI of the Pegasus program should run fear through every American.**. Quite amazing how this representative is attacked and Schiff and Swalwell have gone untouched.
Turley used to say that no one had been charged with sedition or insurrection, now he grudgingly admits that it was just a small percentage (the charges and convictions are still coming). The planners and leaders are just coming to the forefront. Next, he’ll have to acknowledge it was planned and coordinated, but since all the rioters weren’t in on the plan that surely won’t count.
There’s a joke here somewhere, “The Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, Florida 3%ers and others met in a garage the day before an insurrection.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-probes-pre-capitol-riot-meeting-far-right-groups-2022-02-08/
Wow. Compared to democrat mayors and governors and their complicity with blm and antifa, who cares? Did the 1/6 protestors scare you? dis they make you feel sad?
They were right and had the right to protest and these NC bumpkins will lose in court.
Now why don’t you and the other democrats get some ideas that real people want to vote for so you don’t have to lie, cheat, and steal elections??? That’s right, because that would entail caring about the populace, which they don’t.
Congrats on the trillions in graft, hope you get some.
You not only drank the Kool-Aid, you’re drowning in it.
I recommend the following blog for anyone who wants a detailed discussion of the various Jan. 6 legal cases and evidence:
https://www.emptywheel.net/january-6-insurrection/
Some interesting stuff in there, not making the Republicans and RNC look good.
A typical left-wing spin site where defense of what is said is based on circular reasoning. Maybe that is why it is called the empty wheel.
Oh, goodie, ad hominem that doesn’t even make a pretense of providing evidence that any of her factual statements are false.
She listens to the court arguments, reads the court documents, and quotes from them in her analyses. You have no counter to the facts she presents.
The proof was demonstrated before. You should have taken the opportunity at that time to prove her reliable. She isn’t and that is why you didn’t spend the time.
To copy iowan2’s lead:
“I don’t like to respond the retarded troll, but. [Meyer], you got something at [emptywheel] that is not true, best pony up or shut up. All of the reporting pieces come complete with govt sourced documents attached.”
Anonymous the Stupid, anyone can quote anything, but not everyone can make sense. You don’t. Wheeler (empty wheel) spins and is not to be trusted. We dealt with her before. Check with one of your other pretend personalities to see if they remember.
Meyer the Liar, you clearly cannot pony up.
As usual, you claim to have done something in the past, but you can’t link to it because it doesn’t exist. As usual, you project your weaknesses onto others: the spin is yours.
That is what you always say ATS, but we have seen this over and over. That is one reason you maintain an anonymous identity. You don’t want anyone to be able to look up what you said.
Several times I have taken you back to the past, but then you ran away. In the meantime your posts under another name are building up. That name is recognizable so perhaps you will be a bit more careful.
Meyer the Liar, you haven’t produced even one example of a false statement made by Marcy Wheeler.
You cannot, or you’d have done it.
You claim to have done it in the past, but you can’t link to it because it doesn’t exist.
” you haven’t produced even one example of a false statement made by Marcy Wheeler.”
Anonymous the Stupid, stop lying. The reason you post a link is you can’t quote and defend what she said in the context of the discussion. You have done nothing but add damage to her name.
Meyer the Liar, you still haven’t produced even one example of a false statement made by Marcy Wheeler.
You can’t defend your claim that it’s “A typical left-wing spin site where defense of what is said is based on circular reasoning.”
“You can’t defend your claim that it’s “A typical left-wing spin site where defense of what is said is based on circular reasoning.”
We have learned that one of Wheeler’s most prominent supporters, Anonymous the Stupid, can’t distill what she says to make the same point on the blog in his own words that he can defend.
That is why he links to her. If she were as good as he says, he would be able to take away the information she provides and present it elsewhere for discussion. You don’t do that because you can’t.
Meyer the Liar, you still haven’t produced even one example of a false statement made by Marcy Wheeler.
You can’t defend your claim that it’s “A typical left-wing spin site where defense of what is said is based on circular reasoning.” Your deflections only underscore your inability to substantiate your claim.
As for your desire to be spoon-fed, that’s an odd kink for an adult, but you can probably hire a nanny.
As I said, Anonymous the Stupid, you are too ignorant to encapsulate Wheeler’s point of view in your own words. That is why you provide a link to her site and keep yourself anonymous. She is not a dummy, but many of her readers are. That includes you.
You fear that you will fail to cover the bases when you repeat what she says in your own words. It’s a rational fear. I don’t mind debating you, but I don’t like to debate deaf, dumb, and blind links.
Meyer the Liar, you still can’t defend your claim that it’s “A typical left-wing spin site where defense of what is said is based on circular reasoning.” Your endless deflections only underscore your inability to substantiate your claim. You run from your claim, unable to substantiate it, and unwilling to admit you’re wrong.
Anonymous the Stupid, you are repeating yourself because you have nothing to say.
Meyer the Liar, I’m repeating myself because my points remains true: You can’t defend your claim that it’s “A typical left-wing spin site where defense of what is said is based on circular reasoning,” and you haven’t produced even one example of a false statement made by Marcy Wheeler.
You keep responding trying to make me the topic because you can’t prove your claim about Marcy Wheeler and her site, and you’re too cowardly to admit your mistake. You’re Meyer the Cowardly Liar.
“Meyer the Liar, I’m repeating myself because “ you are Anonymous the Stupid and refer to a link rather than discuss an issue. You are unable to put her ideas into your own words.
“She” lies her ass off. Or she’s nuts.
Then it should be easy for you to quote something she said that’s a lie. Of course, you’ll need provide evidence that it’s false. (She does occasionally make mistakes, but she’s quite good about correcting them when someone points them out. Mistakes aren’t lies. Unlike Turley, she reads and sometimes responds to comments on her columns, so it’s really easy to test your claim: just post your correction to her site.)
Reuters was wrong on this reporting. Not the first time.
Just saying they were wrong means nothing. What part do you think they got wrong and how can you document it? Were leaders of any of those groups not there? Was it simply a coincidence as one of the leaders that you think either was or wasn’t there stated. If Reuters was wrong, it’s just lazy to say they are wrong with no proof. Do better!
Next, he’ll have to acknowledge it was planned and coordinated
There is no “it”. Even YOU haven’t attempted to tie that pronoun to any antecedent.
The “it” was the planned attempt to keep Congress from fulfilling their Constitutionally mandated duty and certify an election. The “it” was sedition and insurrection. The “it” is treason. People are already convicted of “it.” More are going to trial, and several of the participants in “it,” are refusing to obey lawfully ordered subpoenas and (legally) taking the 5th because they are guilty of “it.”
The “it” was the planned attempt to keep Congress from fulfilling their Constitutionally mandated duty and certify an election.
That’s just stupid question-begging. What did this attempt consist of? Who was involved? Why do you imagine there was ONE attempt, rather than two or twelve, attempts by various individuals or groups?
What is wrong with you people?
Who was convicted of treason?
Turley talks about the NC Elections Board and then says “Democrats are playing a dangerous game with the long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.”
The NC Elections Board is a bipartisan board. Its website says “The Governor appoints the members from a list of nominees submitted to the Governor by the State party chair of each of the two political parties having the highest number of registered affiliates. Not more than three members of the State Board shall be members of the same political party.”
You’d also think that as a law professor, Turley would link to the actual filings, so that readers can see the arguments in full. But he often neglects to do this. Here’s the case docket, which includes both Cawthorn’s complaint and the Board’s response: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62641876/cawthorn-v-circosta/
There goes Anonymous the Stupid, again going after Turley. He wants Turley to be his secretary. Since when does a mouse (ATS) need a secretary?
Remember the old adage “define your terms?” Insurrection is a word now used by Democrats as if they own the word while Republicans will use the same word when they control the house and senate. As far as “blaming,” each blame the other for the same acts… need to fire them all, start all over as none of them know how to run a constitutional form of government by and for the people. The Rule of Law has been relegated to “cuz I said so, that’s why.”
In DC on January 6th he was only cawing a thorn on a rose bush.
when do we investigate
When Joe Biden arrived they shook hands, with Hunter introducing them: This is Tony, Dad, the individual I told you about that’s helping us with the business that we’re working on with the Chinese.’
Surely the board *is* the right entity to enforce the provision, but it has to do so in accordance with the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Cawthorn is accused of engaging in Constitutionally protected speech and nothing else, so the board is flagrantly breaking the law.
That will be decided in court.
We continue our descent to the level of Fascist Italy and Phalangist Spain.
This is what happens when you allow the miseducated and fringe-led left to flee their broken metropolises and infest the heartland.
The left’s “wing” is no longer a wing of the party: It has become the fuselage. (apologies for not being able to find attribution)
and you don’t think Democrats (and their RINO allies) aren’t at war with the country! Free Speech is dead! Not ONE weapon was used in the insurrection?
When the GOP wins in a landslide and tosses McConnell, Graham…they need to go SCROTCHED EARTH…firing the top 500 DOJ/FBI Exec.
Cut 50% of Fed Government around DC and move 40% to the Heart Land!
The Russian Hoax against Trump is the BIGGEST Crime in US History!
GUYVENTER: While I agree 100% with all you said, I think maybe 0% of that will happen. The FBI needs a total revamp, drain the swamp by moving a bunch of it to Minot, ND or similar. As mentioned in the article, the freaking HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATE just said that J6 was a “violent insurrection”! What planet is this clown on? He’s not on my planet…
Not sure what you mean by Not one weapon? Pepper spray and stun guns were everywhere, Pipe bombs were found all around DC and various Oath Keepers admitted they had weapons stashed in VA and MD. I’m not sure what the purpose of all that was but they for sure had them. Also that one lady got shot for refusing orders from the police which is not a smart strategy for anyone hoping to survive an encounter with law enforcement under the best of circumstances; in the middle of a riot it’s downright suicidal.
McDirt,
You undo your own argument. Even if we stipulate to the Oath Keepers having stashed guns in VA and MD…..you have to admit they remained stashed there as no Guns were used at the Capitol.
No Shots were fired except but for a single solitary round being fired by a Capitol Police Officer that killed an unarmed Protestor.
Pepper Spray and Tazers are not firearms….end of that loin of dirt you throw.
The Investigation into the pipe bombs has yet to result in an arrests….so until a Perp is arrested, charged, tried, and convied…..that line is irrelevant.
So as I see it….you just wasted bandwidth by that post.
“you have to admit they remained stashed there as no Guns were used at the Capitol”
No, we don’t. For a counterexample, see my 12:31pm comment.
“Pepper Spray and Tazers are not firearms”
Correct. However, they ARE weapons. Many people used weapons that day. Again, see the link in my 12:31pm comment.
ATS moves the goal posts. Tell us exactly how many Tazers were in the Capital building. Let us not forget, Ashli was murdered and Pelosi won’t release the needed information.
ATS will continue down the Stupid road. A few people were violent and almost all believe they should be punished under the rule of law. But we also know that others were involved even inciting riot and they had a connection with the FBI.
Let 100% of the information out and let the pieces fall where they may.
ATS is a liar. That is something he wishes to deflect from.
And most of those who used weapons were police officers.
Scores of people have been charged with using weapons against law enforcement on Jan. 6: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
How many of the officers used their weapons against the insurrectionists? How many people claim to have been injured by LEOs on Jan. 6?
How many times will ATS confuse the individual issues in order to force things into a place they don’t belong?
No, Free Speech isn’t dead, and multiple people used weapon in the insurrection. You can search for “weapon” in the charges here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
In fact, the first trial of one of the people charged with a weapons violation, Guy Reffitt, will start in a few weeks: “The government has charged the defendant, Mr. Guy Reffitt, with four crimes relating to Congress’s meeting at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, to certify the Electoral College vote for president. First, he is charged with obstructing an official proceeding for allegedly interfering with Congress’s meeting. Second, he is charged with being unlawfully present on the Capitol grounds while armed with a firearm. Third, he is charged with transporting firearms during a civil disorder. Fourth, he is charged with interfering with law enforcement officers during a civil disorder.”
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21199992/2-7-22-pretrial-statement-guy-reffitt.pdf
This is what happens when you allow the leftists flee their scummy cities and infest the heartland.
We have to destroy the process to save it.
A dangerous game indeed.
we’re at the save it stage, try to keep up.
The Constitition also requires an actual criminsl.conviction for insurrection or rebellion.
No, the text of the Constitution — quoted by Turley above — doesn’t say that.
Nor does it say those alleged to have committed..
.
I didn’t say it does.
Michael is still incorrect to claim “The Constitition also requires an actual criminsl.conviction,” as should be obvious from the historical record of people who were excluded under the Disqualification Clause.
So who judges whether or not soneone is guilty of insurrection or rebellion?
I don’t know. This is untested waters, but it is not a criminal case and thus there is no requirement that the standard be criminal conviction. One could reasonably argue that the burden of proof for civil cases would be reasonable.
Since when was there such a thing as a civil insurrection or a civil rebellion?
You are free to read the historical record to answer your question.
One is free to read the historical record because anonymous has no answers.
Nothing is stopping you from reading the historical record to answer your question.
Sorry for the duplicate post. My 12:35 comment took a few minutes to show up and I thought that it hadn’t posted.
Insurrection has a set of elements that must be met, to indict. Those elements are lacking. Precisely why no person has been charged with insurrection.
To invoke the constitution, to disqualify a person standing for election, you first have to meet the standards as set forth in the constitution.
No conviction for insurrection, no constitutional path to deny a persons right to run for office.
You might want to look up the history on that and test your conjecture that the only people ever disqualified under the 14th Amendment had been convicted in court of insurrection.
I’m not your slave. Prove me wrong
It’s not my job to prove you wrong: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#MisplacedBurden
It is not your job to prove anyone wrong, but it is your responsibility to be able to prove yourself right. So far you have been very bad proving yourself right. You have too much reliance on referrals (links) that frequently are out of date, are wrong or prove you wrong. You do not have an open mind so you try to fit ideas and links in places where they don’t fit. When that happens you lie and deceive.
No it does not. Go read the text.
Who has the authority to declare someobe in an insureection or a rebel, if not a court?
Sammy, this is simple. Elementary school simple.
Words have definitions.
“insurrection” has a ‘legal’ definition. You cant deny a citizen the right to run for office, without meeting defined elements.
Yes, it’s simple: the courts will decide whether the NC Board of Elections has a legal right to determine whether Cawthorn can be disqualified in NC based on the Disqualification Clause.
It’s interesting that Cawthorn has chosen to put himself in a position where he will either have to testify or plead the 5th. I sure hope that he doesn’t commit perjury. He has a history of lying about a lot of things.
If the courts decide a conviction for insurrection is not required, mutual assured destruction is assured.
Fascism is alive and well in the Democrat Party.