“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 Disqualification Clause has also been used by Democrats like Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) who demanded the disqualification of the 120 House Republicans. Democratic lawyer Marc Elias also pushed this absurd claim.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has fueled these efforts and declared that “it is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th.” Part of that narrative is that this was not a riot but an “insurrection,” an actual “rebellion” against our country. Pelosi’s concern over the viability of that narrative is well-based as shown by a CBS News poll. The majority of the public does not believe that this was an “insurrection” despite the mantra-like repetition of members of Congress and the media. The public saw that terrible day unfold a year ago and saw it for what it was: a protest that became a riot.
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 have largely faced trespass and other less serious charges — rather than insurrection or treason. Only a dozen or so individuals have faced seditious conspiracy charges, which is a broad crime that covers intentionally interfering with an official proceeding.
Trump has not been charged over his role on January 6th. Nevertheless, Reich views the necessity of a charge, let alone a conviction, as a triviality.
“Can any of us who saw (or have learned through the painstaking work of the January 6 committee) what Trump tried to do to overturn the results of the 2020 election have any doubt he will once again try to do whatever necessary to regain power, even if illegal and unconstitutional?”
Reich believes that this is all that is required to bar the leading candidate running on the Republican side. Imagine the implications of what he is suggesting. He would bar candidates based solely on how he viewed their conduct in prior years as fostering insurrection.
“Filing deadlines for 2024 presidential candidates will come in the next six months, in most states. Secretaries of state – who in most cases are in charge of deciding who gets on the ballot – must refuse to place Donald Trump’s name on the 2024 ballot, based on the clear meaning of section three of the 14th amendment to the US constitution.”
While consistent with someone who warned that free speech is tyranny, this is not the defense but the denial of democracy. Under Reich’s approach, Republicans could bar Hillary Clinton or others from the ballot for what they viewed as treasonous acts. No criminal charge or conviction is needed. It is just based on “what we saw” in prior years.
Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” From his call to limit free speech to his effort to bar opposing candidates from ballots, Robert Reich is rapidly becoming one of those dangerous men of zeal.
While consistent with someone who warned that free speech is tyranny, this is not the defense but the denial of democracy.
Nothing new here. With the Left in America, everything is the opposite of what it really is. They’d say the sun rises in the west and sets in the east if it would help them get power and destroy their political opponents.
I’m on the left, and you and I had a long exchange where I did nothing the sort. Do you really think that kind of hyperbolic caricature is helpful?
A.N.D.
Anon – When I say “Left” with a capital L, I’m talking about things like CRT, in which “anti-racism” means racism, Antifa, in which anti-fascist means fascist, radical trans activists who consider it a “human right” to deny women’s rights, people (including commenters like Svelaz) who say that preventing others from speaking is free speech, and people who – as Professor Turley points out – advocate anti-democratic methods supposedly in service of democracy. Those are examples of the opposite world I was referring to.
I surmised from our earlier conversations that you would probably call yourself liberal, but I see a big difference between liberals and “the Left.” The former (such as yourself) are people of good faith with whom I have honest disagreements; the latter are not at all of good faith.
Do you have a suggestion of how I could be more precise in my terminology?
No, I don’t have a suggestion. I also don’t agree that anti-racism means racism, that anti-fascist means fascist, or that trans activists are denying women’s rights.
If you watch the video of the Antifa thugs in the other article the professor posted today, you’ll see what I mean about Antifa being fascists. Today, “anti-racism” means dividing and defining people by race. Swimmer Riley Gains tried to promote women’s rights in athletics at San Francisco State University but she was assaulted and prevented from speaking about women’s rights by trans activists shouting “trans rights are human rights”.
Due to some tech glitch, my reply was decoupled from your comment:
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/04/27/destroying-a-democracy-to-save-it-robert-reich-calls-for-blocking-trump-from-ballots-as-a-traitor/comment-page-4/#comment-2283513
Old man from Kansas and Anonymous.
I hope you two keep it up.
You’re engaging in something that I thought was impossible today:
a conversation.
(Different Anonymous)
Statements like this make me question what you believe CRT is: “… CRT, in which “anti-racism” means racism”
CRT is not “anti-racism” – those are two concepts that are often erroneously conflated. CRT is a legal theory. When I was in law school, it was a course (that I did not take). Ibram X. Kendi’s “anti-racism” is not a legal theory, and he doesn’t want it to be.
(Side note: I am not a proponent of either, but I have a problem with arguments that fail to properly define the terms with which they attempt to attack.)
I also don’t know which radical trans activists you claim consider it a “human right” to deny women’s rights. Perhaps there are some, but that is hardly a mainstream position. I do know that Montana legislators denied a trans legislator her free speech rights by kicking her out of the state house for her speech, which, despite their claims, was not in violation of any “decorum” rules. All it did was, perhaps, poke holes in their “safe space.” I am anti-safe spaces and would think that conservatives would agree with me. If you don’t agree with her arguments… perhaps respond with… speech rather than kicking her out.
Which brings me to your last claim… Do you think that kicking her out of the Montana legislator = thus preventing her from speaking – advances free speech? Does this advance democracy? If it doesn’t, perhaps you may want to revise your attribution of this claim as a trait of the “Left.” As a proponent of free speech, this happens on both sides of the aisle.
“CRT is a legal theory.”
You’re conflating CLT and CRT.
CLT is racism and collectivism applied to the law. CRT is racism and collectivism applied to, well, everything.
CLT is not specific to race. CRT is an offshoot of CLT that focuses on race. Here is an example from Duke law. Under critical legal studies are courses on CRT and women/gender for example.
So I am not sure where you are getting this misconception. Regardless, old man from Kansas still is incorrect but does not want to stand behind his diatribe above
https://law.duke.edu/apply/focus/legaltheory/
Reich must be experiencing the same mental deterioration as Biden.
Jonathan,
It’s time to open up a dialog about the 2024 Election Candidates, particularly Biden and Trump. We need to speak about Other Candidates as well,
maybe more importantly.
Personally I’ve been chomping at the bit to get to this.
Perhaps: Category: Politics > Election 2024 ( substack)
Daren can manage this with a simple Menu addition
The 2024 United States elections are scheduled to be held, in large part, on Tuesday, November 5, 2024
That is 558 Days from Today.
[Calculator: https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=4&d1=27&y1=2023&m2=11&d2=05&y2=2024%5D
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Millions of Americans are in fear this morning after U.S. President Joe Biden announced his reelection campaign with a terrifying threat to the nation, pledging he would “Finish the Job.”
“I’m running for re-election, not because we’ve done enough – but because we haven’t done enough!” President Biden’s social media team stitched together just over 1 minute and 37 seconds of coherent speech from a 45-minute presser that he gave in the Rose Garden announcing the campaign, which has been posted to the official White House Twitter account.
The speech snippet emphasized that citizens could only finish the job if they acted together, with the President acknowledging the many outstanding tasks. “We still need to vaccinate every American against novel diseases we invent, evacuate every U.S. embassy worldwide after international humiliations, enlist every able-bodied non-birther to get killed in Russia, reduce the dollar to nothing, sterilize and mutilate every last birther and non-birther in Generation Z, and spark a Civil War here in the states. We can’t do any of this alone, and we won’t stop ‘till it’s done, folks – not a joke!”
“Please no,” said one citizen who asked to remain anonymous. “Please don’t finish the job! Leave us alone! Have mercy! Pleeaaasssee!”
At publishing time, Americans were relieved when President Biden clarified that he had only been talking about his most recent bowel movement.
https://babylonbee.com/news/in-ominous-threat-to-nation-biden-says-he-will-finish-the-job
I implore all Democrats to vote on Wednesday, November 6, 2024. (Oops, now the FBI is knocking on my door. 10 years in jail, isn’t it?)
Recall Biden’s histrionics re: Jim Crow laws being passed by Republicans to prevent blacks from voting.
US Court of Appeals rebukes the claim by Biden and a prior court decision by Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee, Fl. Ron DeSantis wins, Biden loses yet again in Federal Courts
“Federal appeals court backs most of Florida’s election law”
The district court relied on fatally flawed statistical analyses, out-of-context statements by individual legislators, and legal premises that do not follow our precedents,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote in a 79-page decision joined by Judge Britt Grant. “On the contrary, examining the record reveals that the finding of intentional discrimination rests on hardly any evidence.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-appeals-court-backs-florida-election-law-20230427-oiqbivi6kzh2nldamzucplkzoa-story.html
More than a few commenters have referred to Reich’s lack of height. That type of insightful commentary is something you don’t see every day.
Here’s what l think Professor Turley’s point is: A Man For All Seasons. There’s a line in the 1966 movie where Paul Scofield says after you have torn down the last law in pursuit of the Devil, what is there to protect you when the Devil turns on you?
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
The vote was restricted to allow “cooler heads” and rational, capable, ambitious and self-reliant people to prevail and support the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Franklin et al. ended the era of the dominion of dictatorships.
They ended the era of the dominion of the dictatorship of the monarchy.
One man, one vote democracy imposes the dominion of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
One man, one vote democracy is pure communism and pure communist dictatorship.
Quick results: Mike Pence testified before the J6 grand jury for most of the day today.
Abraham Lincoln backed into the presidency with 38.9% of the vote, took his imperceptible mandate, seized power, started an unconstitutional war, imposed unconstitutional martial law, suspended habeas corpus, smashed the printing presses, jailed the opposition, nullified the Constitution and destroyed the country, all to “Save the Union” and “fundamentally transform” America into communism.
What did the brave and courageous “Traitor Pence” do to Save the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to Save the Nation?
Nothing, Comrade.
He’s neither brave nor courageous. But he did his job on 1/6/2021 and presided over the confirmation of the Electoral College vote count, as the Constitution required.
Ohhh! Pence…chasing the phony insurection scam.
You willfully ignore the revelation that the FBI has engaged in 3.4 million illegal 702 FISA searches on us citizens.
This has been going on for more than a decade. Citizens being stripped of the constitutional rights.
But yea, lets obsess about a protest that got out of hand.
https://cyberscoop.com/fbi-3-4-million-warrantless-searches-nsa-odni/
Not a lot are but I imagine some are old enough to remember the old shows like Gidget and Patty Duke, I am and I think Jonathan is. A common theme was Gidget or Patty wanted their father to like a boy, so she’d trick her dad into believing she didn’t like him. The more she didn’t like him, the more her Dad liked him. Worked every time.
I can’t understand why so few see it, some do now and are openly talking about it but so many don’t see it.
Its a show. You’re watching a show. Trump is a diversion. They could care less which of the two hand picked oligarchic stooges that they put out on the stage actually gets applause from the audience. The point is to keep the audience watching. Keep them engaged.
I’ve said it several dozen times, I’ll say it again.
This isn’t politics we see. Its the WWE.
“They could care less…”
Who is “They”?
OT
PARADOX
“The most dangerous person in the world is Randi Weingarten.
– Mike Pompeo, Former Secretary of State
__________________________________
Fellow communist, colleague of Robert Reich, and effective American Communist Child Czar, Randi Weingarten, with merely violence, the sole tool of unionists, entirely without legal basis, arbitrarily, without scientific acumen, authority or constitutional “emergency powers,” closed the schools as a result of “China Flu, 2019,” doing irreparable damage to American children, solely for the financial benefit of the illegal, intractable and inordinately greedy, communist teachers unions – the teachers’ phantom flu threat was never real.
Ironically, no American delivery point missed even one day of service from the United States Post Office which employs 600,000 workers. Not a word of compliant was heard; they dutifully made their rounds, period.
De facto, the traitors amongst us are Randi Weingarten are the wholly antithetical and unconstitutional communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The Postal Service employs more than 600,000 workers nationwide, making it among the largest employers in some states.”
– Governing.com
https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/ctu-leader-who-vacationed-while-claiming-its-unsafe-to-return-to-school-apologizes/
Jonathan: There are a lot of “free speech” controversies around the country. Here’s another one you probably won’t cover. Dem. Rep. Zooey Zephyr is a freshman transgender lawmaker in the Montana House. She represents the college town of Missoula. This week she got up on the House floor and passionately argued against a GOP bill that would bar gender-affirming care for minors. She told her GOP colleagues they would have “blood on their hands” if they passed the bill. How did the GOP majority respond? They banned her from the chamber–although she can vote by Zoom. GOP members of the “Freedom Caucus” called for Zephyr’s expulsion. The bill passed 68-32.
Critics of Zephyr’s ban say it is an attempt to silence her. House GOP Speaker Matt Regier said Zephyr would be banned until she “apologizes”. During Zephyr’s speech the House gallery was filled with her supporters who chanted their support. Seven protesters were arrested. Republican lawmakers described the scene as a “riot” or “insurrection”.
So if Republicans in Montana can call protests in the their House an “insurrection” why can’t Republicans in the US House of Representatives and you call Jan. 6 an “insurrection”? What happened on Jan. 6 in the Capitol was a way lot worse then what Zephyr and her supporters were engaged in that did not involve violence. And why are you not standing up for the “free speech” rights of Zooey Zephyr? It seems there is a double standard at play here–again!
Dennis – you can’t complain about Montana Republicans abusing the word “insurrection”(as they are doing) when Democrats have abused it for over a year, and put hundreds of innocent demonstrators in prison on the absurd accusation that they were “threatening to overturn the government.”
+1000
They broke into the Capitol and interrupted the certification of the EC vote count. They’re not innocent. Some have pled guilty, and others have been found guilty by juries. The jury in one of the Proud Boy seditious conspiracy trials is in the midst of jury deliberations. I bet you didn’t read any of the reporting on the long trial.
Like Chansley? We have learned that there has been a lot of lying by the left as to who caused destruction and you continue to do so.
I have no doubt that a small number of people caused destruction inside the Capitol building, but some of them might have been from Antifa or elsewhere. We don’t know because the investigation was incomplete stopping where others outside of the right might be implicated.
Can you list the names of those inside the Capitol building that caused destruction? Since there were video cameras all over, can you show that destruction on video. Why were some in the vicinity shown on video advocating ‘riot’ or actually destroying things not identified?
We saw the Chansley video that makes those on your side into liars. Start proving things instead of talking. The more we see the more lies from the left are disproven.
Anonymous – Who exactly “broke into the Capitol”? The video shown by Carlson suggests that most people were let in by the police and walked peacefully through the hallways of a public building.
“Some have pled guilty and others have been found guilty by juries.” The kind of people who entered the Capitol do not have the financial resources to fight the DOJ. And in the frenzied atmosphere created by the Democrats and MSM, there is little chance that any of them could get fair trials in Washington DC, esp since the video shown by Carlson was apparently withheld from their counsel. As to ongoing the Proud Boy trial, I expect that the DOJ will get the same guilty verdict that they have gotten from other juries. The minds of the jurymen were poisened and twisted long before the trial began. It was not hard to predict that Bukharin would be found guilty.
Here you go: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Or if you prefer: extremism.gwu.edu/capitol-hill-siege-cases
“The kind of people who entered the Capitol do not have the financial resources to fight the DOJ.”
Anyone who wants a public defender gets one.
“there is little chance that any of them could get fair trials in Washington DC, ”
You can have that opinion, but it’s not a fact, and my opinion is different than yours.
“I expect that the DOJ will get the same guilty verdict that they have gotten from other juries”
How do you explain the mix of guilty and not guilty verdicts, sometimes from the very same jury?
“the video shown by Carlson was apparently withheld from their counsel.”
IIRR, all but a few seconds had already been turned over. As the DOJ noted in a case after Carlson showed video, “The United States has provided voluminous discovery in this case. As of March 6, 2023, over 4.91 million files (7.36 terabytes of information) have been provided to the defense Relativity workspace. These files include (but are not limited to) the results of searches of 759 digital devices and 412 Stored Communications Act accounts; 5,254 FBI FD-302s and related attachments (FD-302s generally consist of memoranda of interviews and other investigative steps); 395 digital recordings of subject interviews; and 149,130 (redacted or anonymous) tips. Over 30,000 files that include body-worn and hand-held camera footage from five law enforcement agencies and surveillance-camera footage from three law enforcement agencies have been shared to the defense evidence.com video repositories. All of this information is accessible to the defense, as well as camera maps and additional tools that assist any defense counsel with conducting their own searches for information that they might believe is relevant.” (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.227549/gov.uscourts.dcd.227549.218.0.pdf)
Are you too blind to note that the most prominent figure, Chansley had to be released after the videos came out. Until you can explain why he was railroaded, you have nothing worthwhile to say.
Steps for conclusively resolving all conflict in America:
– Throw all actual Americans in prison (as Lincoln did).
– Rename the country: Union of American Socialist States (UASS).
– Remove the Constitution and Bill of Rights from the National Archives Museum.
– Erase, remove and irretrievably destroy any and all remaining vestiges or memories of the nullified and now comical Constitution and Bill of Rights in America.
– Deposit Marx and Lincoln’s Communist Manifesto in the National Archives Museum.
Last night, the appeals court panel unanimously rejected Trump’s emergency bid to block Mike Pence from testifying to the Jan. 6 grand jury.
That GJ is hearing a lot of testimony.
The jury in the Proud Boys J6 seditious conspiracy trial has now started deliberating.
For some reason, they’ve asked to see the stolen police riot shield the Dominic Pezzola used to smash the Senate window and the megaphone Joe Biggs used to rile up J6 crowd.
I would say an actual conviction for insurrection or treason would be required but who needs to follow the elements of the law when conjecture is all that is required.
It is almost aas if there is due process of law.
Jonathan: So Robert Reich is “becoming one of those dangerous men of zeal” for arguing that Donald Trump should be barred from running for president next year under the plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Reich is not a “dangerous” man but pointing out the obvious. However, there are other factors at play that won’t involve the 14th Amendment.
You falsely claim Jan. 6 was not an “insurrection” but a “protest that became a riot”. This flies in the face of all the evidence. The Jan. 6 House Committee showed in detail how Trump and his allies inside the Congress and outside were involved in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. The storming of the Capitol was the logical consequence of that conspiracy. If Jan. 6 was just a “riot” how do you explain that Stewart Rhodes and other members of the Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other felonies? Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys has been similarly charged and is awaiting a verdict after his trial.
18 USC Section 1384 defines “seditious conspiracy” as 2 or more people plotting “to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States…or by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States”. Isn’t that what the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys were attempting on Jan. 6? At least that’s what the jury found when they convicted Rhodes. The logic of your argument falls apart in the face of those convictions.
The Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys were the foot soldiers. They were simply carrying out the plans of their “capo”–Donald Trump. Do you think Special Counsel Jack Smith is not looking to charge Trump, the leader of the insurrection, with seditious conspiracy as well? It’s fanciful to think Smith would not charge the guy who planned the insurrection–especially after the successful prosecution of Rhodes and others.
And it’s laughable to think DOJ charging decisions should be based on polls. Besides, I doubt the average citizen could legally distinguish between a “riot” and an “insurrection”. No, no prosecutor is first going to look at the polls when deciding to file criminal charges. Charging decisions are based on the facts and the law. That how the criminal justice system works–something you missed when you took criminal law classes!
While I agree with Reich, that is not how things are going to play out. AG Fanni Willis in Fulton County is preparing to charge about 20 people with voter fraud–probably including a RICO conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia–sometime in July or August. Does anyone think Trump will not be charged? That alone might seal Trump’s fate as a viable candidate for president–at least with the majority of voters. With all the criminal charges around the country against the Trumpster do you think he will have time to campaign? Do you think the GOP wants a “criminal defendant” as its candidate? If it does the GOP is on a death spiral!
Proud Boys were the foot soldiers. They were simply carrying out the plans of their “capo”–Donald Trump
What a lie.
Evidence?
Iowan2: You were obviously not paying attention to the closing arguments of the attorney representing the Proud Boys. He tried to throw Donald Trump under the bus. He told the jury his clients were simply carrying out the wishes of the Trumpster. That’s the attorney for Enrique Tarrio saying that–not me.
All the “evidence” is now before the jury. They will decide whether the Proud Boys were just innocent pawns in Trump’s game plan or should be held equally liable for Jan. 6. Don’t expect me to provide you with anything!
Closing arguments are not evidence.
Like I said. all you do is spout lies.
If you’d paid attention to the trial, you’d know that the defendants testified about it too.
When did Trump express a wish that anyone enter the Capitol Building? Trump reserved space on the Capitol grounds for a lawful demonstration, and told people to proceed there peacefully.
Did you read any of the reporting about how the defendants interpreted Trump’s statements in their testimony? Why do you ask me instead of listening to *them*?
What were the exact quotes fo thsoe alleged statements?
Much better. Testimony is evidence. Not proof.
Like you can testify Trump raped you….but its not proof. Charges and trial determine guilt. Not accusations.
Testimony under oath IS evidence. Testimony is the most common kind of evidence presented at trials. Jeez, how can you not know that?!?
The distortions you render are incredible.
You can testify you are not the bank robber even though they have you on video.
Evidence provided by an individual can be true or false. Accurate or erroneous.
It’s time to start thinking.
Iowan2: You need to go to law school. Of course, closing arguments are not “evidence”. The job of the Proud Boys attorney was to summarize the “evidence” and put it in a light most favorable to his clients. The verdict in this case will determine whether he was successful. Did you read the defense attorney’s closing argument? Probably not. That’s why you can “spout lies” of your own!
Dennis and Anonymous – It is not a “summary” of the evidence to say that Trump told ANYONE to go into the Capitol Building. It is a complete fabrication to make any suggestion. It is also silly to say that the defendants “interpreted” his remarks as calling on them to enter the Capitol Building. They cannot “interpret” his remarks to suggest the opposite of what they explicitly mean.
He told them to march to the Capitol (despite having explicitly rejected getting a permit that’s required for marches in DC). He said “And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” and also “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,” and also “you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong,” and also “if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election,” and also “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 of course, don’t forget things he said in the lead up, like “stand back and stand by.”
Not sure why you think your personal interpretation of these conflicting messages is the only way that someone might interpret them. You could listen to how other people actually did interpret them, and accept that people can hear the same things and interpret them differently.
You like to leave out , Trump told them to peacefully march. Let’s compare that to Antifa, Kavanaugh hearings, Tennessee, etc. Only a few of the marchers weren’t peaceful and some of them were leftists and agents for the FBI. Despite the lies from the left about deaths that weren’t protestors, 4 protestors died. Ashley Babbitt was shot and killed by a CP officer. It was a bad shoot from an officer who already had difficulties. Ann Boyland died in a tunnel and the video’s show a black female police officer hitting her with a stick or baton while on the ground. Two men died that we close to an explosive fired by the CP. Their deaths might be questioned but are also suspicious.
It seems the violence comes from the left and those who are killed are on the right. You seem unable to grasp that the left is violent and that may be because you might be violent as well either physically or mentally.
Wow, you just discovered this?
So if Kevin Clinesmith actually went to trial, his attorneys would have had the duty to put as much blame on Hillary Clinton as possible?
A defense attorney deflecing blame.
That is quite a novel strategy.
if this defense attorney’s tactic works, the attorney would be known as a trailblazer in trial practice!
I would suggest that you read the entire trial transcript.
While I suspect that DOJ will get its conviction – this is DC, and the Judge was biased in favor of the DOJ.
Overall the trial went very badly for DOJ.
They did not even come close to providing the evidence needed for a conviction.
The judge actively thwarted efforts to cross examing and introduce exculpatory evidence.
And who knows – The jury is asking good questions. It is possible they may hang on some or all of the charges.
I would note in many of these cases many attorney’s have raised this “Trump made me do it argument”,
the political prisoners were convicted, sentenced served their time, and at the first oportunity disowned the remarks of their attorney’s and made clear they were never guilty of anything.
There are less than a dozen people who should have been convicted of anything.
This was a gross miscarraige of justice.
With all the criminal charges around the country against the Trumpster do you think he will have time to campaign
You said the quite part out loud. That is the plan. Judges are going to require Trump be in the court room. Interfering with fair and free elections.
Republicans could use the same technique, except judges nominated by Republicans are not corrupt political operatives.
The J6 Committee LIED to you.
They knowingly and intentionally lied to the American people.
It was a Fedsurrection. It was a setup. And they ALL know it.
“ROBERT REICH CALLS FOR BLOCKING TRUMP FROM BALLOTS AS A TRAITOR”
_____________________________________________________________________
And Barack Obama and Kamala Harris will never be eligible for the office of president per the constitutional requirement that a candidate be a “natural born citizen.”
And the entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional having been precluded in every aspect and facet by Article 1, Section 8, and the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property.
And everything last thing that Lincoln did was unconstitutional subsequent to his initial unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession, which is clearly not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution, which the American Founders availed themselves of, and which is ubiquitous globally and throughout history.
Oh, —- yeah, let’s talk Constitution!
Nay, let’s READ the Constitution.
The only question for America is: Where the —- is the Supreme Court and why hasn’t the Supreme Court dutifully wielded its power of Judicial Review since 1860, the year Lincoln ended American freedom and commenced the incremental implementation of the principles of communism, the valiant efforts of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney notwithstanding, and understanding that reprehensible slavery must have been fully abrogated through legal means and methods in a society of laws.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE UNITED STATES
Annotation
The legitimacy of judicial review and the judge’s approach to judicial review are discussed.
Abstract
The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government.
– Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs
_________________________________________
Marbury vs. Madison, 1803
Conclusion
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.
Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.
In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
– The Oyez Project
_______________
Secession As Cell Division
“Cells need to divide for your body to grow and for body tissue such as skin to continuously renew itself. When a cell divides, the outer membrane increasingly pinches inward until the new cells that are forming separate from each other.”
– National Institutes of Health
_______________________
Robert Reich’s psychosis derives from his immutable incapacity to achieve any measurable degree of success, or to consummate a date in college; he turned to communism for help.
Robert Reich and all the other members of the communist party do not hold dominion in America, the Constitution and Bill of Rights do.
Reich always had the makings of a monster.
Has anyone told Reich to “grow up?” 😉
You can’t tell him to grow “UP” without being accused of “shortism”.
By this standard, Reich should be fired and disqualified from ever working in any government funded institution. He was a traitor to the US when he took an oath for the Clintoon administration.
Eventually they will come for you too, JT, as exhibited by Taibbi. This is fascism. The DNC is fascist organization. Period. Period. Period. Period. We had better wake up and pay attention, and right now.