Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in The Hill on the increasingly popular theory that former president Donald Trump is already barred from office under the 14th Amendment. It is a theory that, in my view, has a political appeal that outstrips its constitutional support. In a constitution designed to protect free speech and prevent the concentration of power, this theory would allow for the banning of candidates based on fluid definitions of aiding and abetting insurrection. Such ballot cleansing is common in countries like Iran where citizens await to learn which opposition candidates will be allowed to run. While we are thankfully far from the authoritarianism of these other countries, the implications of this theory for our constitutional system are still chilling.
Here is the column:
The popularity of urban legends is a testament to the will to believe. The desire of people to keep Elvis alive or prove that a Sasquatch could exist furtively in our backyards shows the resilience of fables.
Constitutional urban legends often have an even more immediate appeal and tend to arise out of the desperation of divided times. One of the most popular today is that former President Donald Trump can be barred from office, even if he is not convicted in any of the four indictments he faces, under a long-dormant clause of the 14th Amendment.
This 14th Amendment theory is something that good liberals will read to their children at night. It goes something like this: Donald Trump can never be president again, because the 14th Amendment bars those who previously took federal oaths from assuming office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion. With that, and a kiss on the forehead, a progressive’s child can sleep peacefully through the night.
But don’t look under the bed. For as scary as it might sound to some, Trump can indeed take office if he is elected…even if he is convicted. Indeed, he can serve as president even in the unlikely scenario that he is sentenced to jail.
Democrats have long pushed this theory about the 14th Amendment as a way of disqualifying not only Trump but also dozens of Republican members of Congress. For some, it is the ultimate Hail Mary pass if four indictments, roughly 100 criminal charges and more than a dozen opposing candidates fail to get the job done.
I have strongly rejected this interpretation for years, so it is too late to pretend that I view this as a plausible argument. However, some serious and smart people take an equally strong position in support of the theory. Indeed, conservative scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen have argued for the interpretation and insist in a recent law review article that “the case is not even close. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.”
But some of us like to believe that we are committed to the Constitution and, for that same reason, we say no.
While I have great respect for these academics, I simply fail to see how the text, history or purpose of the 14th Amendment even remotely favors this view. Despite the extensive research of Baude and Paulsen, their analysis ends where it began: Was January 6 an insurrection or rebellion?
I have previously addressed the constitutional basis for this claim. It is, in my view, wildly out of sync with the purpose of the amendment, which followed an actual rebellion, the Civil War.
Democrats have previously sought to block certification of Republican presidents and Democratic lawyers have challenged elections, including on totally unsupported claims of machines flipping the results. If we are to suddenly convert the 14th Amendment into a running barrier to those who seek to challenge election results, then we have to establish a bright line to distinguish such cases.
The 14th Amendment bars those who took the oath and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” It then adds that that disqualification can extend to those who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” According to these experts, Jan. 6 was an “insurrection” and Trump gave “aid and comfort” to those who engaged in it by spreading election fraud claims and not immediately denouncing the violence.
But even the view that it was an “insurrection” is by no means a consensus. Polls have shown that most of the public view Jan. 6 for what it was: a protest that became a riot. One year after the riot, CBS News mostly downplayed and ignored the result of its own poll showing that 76 percent viewed it for what it was, as a “protest gone too far.” The view that it was an actual “insurrection” was far less settled, with almost half rejecting the claim, a division breaking along partisan lines.
The theory that this was a rebellion or insurrection has always been highly contested. On Jan. 6, I was contributing to the coverage and denounced Trump’s speech while he was still giving it. But as the protest increased in size, some of us noted that we had never seen such a comparatively light level of security precautions, given the weeks of coverage anticipating the protest. We then watched as thinly deployed police barriers were overrun and a riot ensued. It was appalling, and most of us denounced it as it was unfolding.
Trump waited to speak, despite criticism from many of us. We now know that many aides called for him to call upon his supporters to pull back, but he waited for a couple hours.
Sulking in the Oval Office does not make Trump a seditionist. Indeed, despite formal articles of the second impeachment and years of experts insisting that Trump was guilty of incitement and insurrection, Special Counsel Jack Smith notably did not charge him with any such crime.
The reason is obvious. The evidence and constitutional standards would not have supported a charge of incitement or insurrection.
Yet these experts still believe that Trump can be barred from office without any such charge even being brought, let alone a conviction. Just judicial fiat that certain challenges were made in bad faith or were rebellious in character.
There is no limiting principle to avoid a slippery slope of partisan disqualifications. Would Trump not be disqualified if he had called for his supporters to withdraw an hour earlier?
Would it have been disqualifying if the security was stronger (as suggested days earlier) and there was no entry into the Capitol?
Putting aside the lack of evidence, there is a lack of logic to these claims. A relatively small number of individuals have been charged with seditious conspiracy, a widely misrepresented charge that can amount to as little as preventing the execution of any law (as opposed to outright rebellion or insurrection).
If Trump supported a rebellion or insurrection, what was the plan? Not only did Smith not charge him with any such crime, but there was little evidence that even the most radical defendants charged were planning to overthrow the nation’s government or were part of a broader conspiracy. There were no troops standing by, no plan for a post-democratic takeover by Trump or his alleged minions. The courts had already ruled against the President and would likely continue to do so. Many congressional Republicans had already joined Democrats in supporting certification and would continue to do so. Military leaders had already said that they would support the transition and would continue to do so.
Trump was clearly not willing to concede. According to some witnesses, there was a despondent and defiant president who may have gotten satisfaction from the chaos in Congress. Yet, even halting the certification, would not stop the certification or result in the seizure of the government.
That leaves us with the argument that any effort to stop a constitutional process is akin to an insurrection or rebellion under the 14th Amendment. If that were the standard, any protests — including the anti-Trump protests and the certification challenges to electoral votes in 2016 — could also be cited as disqualifying. If that were the case, figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) could be summarily purged from office for having sought to overturn an election.
We would be left on a slippery slope, as partisan judges and members would seek to block opposing candidates from ballots, all supposedly in the name of protecting democracy.
There is a simpler and more obvious explanation for what occurred on Jan. 6, 2021: A political protest became a political riot, and a constitutional theory became constitutional legend.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Anonymous: Illegally stopping a government proceeding, such as certifying the elections, is by itself not an insurrection. An attempt to overthrow the government requires much more than that. At best, it results in a postponement of the proceedings which will be continued at some later time the same day or even the next day. I see it simply as a riot. And a modest one. There were close to 500K people in DC that day protesting and a thousand, or 0.2%, of those rioted. Let’s skip the linguistic hyperbole and see it for what it was: a riot that could have been prevented with sufficient security, or expedient deployment of the DC national guard which was asked for and prevented by Nancy Pelosi as speaker.
Attempting to stop a government proceeding thru violence and assaulting law enforcement and issuing calls to hang them IS an attempt at insurrection. Hiding behind semantics and minimizing the true scope of what happened is denying the fact that they wanted to force a change that was not supported by their claims. Trump had been stoking his supporters into thinking they were being cheated even before the election by peddling BS claims. He successfully convinced those with the weakest minds and the most gullible to buy info his lie. Now he’s being held accountable for it.
Oh, so now we have an “attaempt” at an insurrection. Briiliant
The United States has never actually had a “constitutional rule of law” system – it’s never happened, it’s only a really good advertising campaign.
The USA tortured innocent people after 9/11 and blacklisted (for life) more than 1 million persons for more than 20 years. Today in 2023, neither party has done anything substantial in 20 years to correct this.
In 1968, without a legally required constitutional amendment, the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court effectively abolished the 4th Amendment in rulings like “Terry v. Ohio” – creating warrantless “Stop & Frisk” body searches. This illegal practice was allowed to happen for at 30 years, resulting in millions of African-Americans being sent to prison for non-violent offenses. While in prison, these millions of Americans paid little to no taxes, putting a drag in the economy.
Conservatives should also be concerned. If there is no “constitutional rule of law” to outlaw things like torture or warrantless searches – there is also no 2nd Amendment gun rights!
It’s all BS, we don’t have a “constitutional rule of law”, but it’s never too late to start walking-the-walk!
SMA, everything you wrote may be true, but your missing the point, with Turley, Trump is above the laws. no matter what it is.
Trump is not above the law.
The Democrats are subverting the law in an attempt to convict Trump. It is the weaponization of the law. It is turning the US into a banana republic.
I’ve never understood why Trump supporters like to use the term “banana republic.”
First, it is not a correct usage of the term. A banana republic is an economic term for a country with an economy dependent upon a single export, like bananas.
Second, even with the “new” (not originalist) political meaning of a democracy in decline, wouldn’t support for a leader, who tries to impede the democratic change of power, be support for a banana republic? Whether such imposition is legal (as in attempts to use a court to invalidate votes) or extra-legal, attempts to subvert the democratic change of power is the definition of a democracy in decline.
For further reading (to the extent you consider yourself a support of proper use of the English language): https://www.abc4.com/news/what-is-a-banana-republic-and-are-we-even-using-the-term-correctly/
You8 have it perfectly backward. Trump is beneath the law. He is endlessly framed for non-crimes.
Staunton, do you have any issue with people that just entered the Capital on J6 being sent to prison? Does that qualify as going to jail for a non-violent crime or does your theory only apply to black men that had drugs, weapons or both on them when they were frisked and young men arrested in terrorist camps overseas?
I am NOT saying that stop & frisk is ok and I am not saying that black men were fairly treated, but a gun carrying 19 year old is not more innocent than a grandmother entering the Capital UNARMED and allowed in by the cops. BOTH CAN BE WRONG, but a preening, virtue signaling, pony-tailed liberal has more sympathy for a guy picked up in terrorist terriotry than for people protesting for conservatives. .
An insurrection in the United States without firearms. Wow. People must think we live in Canada. If the rioters were all progressive democrats and did the same thing on 1/6/2021 I would still call them rioters and not insurrectionists. Oh that’s right they did do the same thing in the summer of 2020 and killed many people in multiple cities and caused billions of dollars of damages. They were still rioters and in fact with all that damage and killing they were repeatedly hauled in to court, rarely charged, but if charged they were then released on bail so they could go back out and join the riot and perform riotous behavior some more. In fact one could say that with riots breaking out all over the country that summer of 2020, it was a concerted plan to bring down local and city and national governments and force political change without going to the ballot box. And this was not peaceably assembling for the redress of grievances. Firearms were also involved. One could make a far better case that that was a nationwide organized “insurrection”.
On 1/6/2021, 2 people died of heart attacks, another died of an overdose, one policemen survived the riot and then died of a vertebra-basilar stroke (no evidence of trauma to his head or neck on autopsy, or eyewitness sighting of an assault on him) and one unarmed lady climbing through a broken window was shot and killed by a policeman in “fear for his life”. Sort of a reversal of the killing of Crispus Attucks in the Boston massacre.
One helluva insurrection. I’ve seen bigger riots after sporting events.
GEB,
Well said.
Also, there were antifa at Trump inauguration conducting their usual acts of violence. Was that an attempted insurrection too?
This is the second time that the good professor has pointed out two “conservative” law school professors, Wm. Baude, and Michael S. Paulsen.
I looked them up.
Paulsen teaches law at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis in heavily Democrat trifecta-controlled Minnesota (think Ilhan Omar and Gov Walz.). Here’s what I found out about the school:
“In the 2020 election cycle, 90.32% of University of St. Thomas employee donations went to Democratic candidates in federal elections, while 9.68% of donations went to Republican candidates in federal elections, according to data from OpenSecrets.”
Liberal student political organizations outrank conservatives by 2 to 1. https://campusreform.org/article?id=18655
William Baude teaches at U of Chicago, in the Democrat stronghold of Illinois (think Gov. J.B. Pritzker). Baude’s law school is ranked liberal over conservative, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-conservative-and-most-liberal-elite-law-schools/
Hmmmm.
Both are members of the Federalist Society. To assess them as conservatives, look at their writing, not their schools.
Yes, dear. I know that. That is the irony. Perhaps “strategic ambiguity?”
I read their article, and in it they admit to being deranged left-wingers. To wit, in paragraph 400 on page 112:
“In describing these events, we rely generally here and throughout on the public record assembled by the House January 6th Committee. Final Report, Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, H.R. 117-000 (117th Cong., 2nd Sess.).”
Lin , This was posted a few Articles ago on the Blog.
I re-post them here for a refresh:
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧
Does the Constitution permit Donald Trump to be on the 2024 Presidential ballot? The question arises because of a long-neglected part of the 14th Amendment. Section Three provides that no person can hold political office if, having taken an oath to support the Constitution as a state or federal official, they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion. …
By: Kermit Roosevelt III ~ August 15, 2023
https://time.com/6305003/trump-indictment-14th-amendment/
Article’s Point/Counter-Point:: U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3
Argument:
𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐈𝐬 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐲 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐭𝐬
Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment bans anyone from holding any federal office who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and who then breaks that oath by engaging in “insurrection or rebellion against the same.” Donald J. Trump is precisely such a person.
Steven Calabresi | 8.10.2023 6:44 PM
[Link://] reason.com/volokh/2023/08/10/trump-is-disqualified-from-being-on-any-election-ballots/
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞
172 U. PA. L. REV. (forthcoming 2024)
William Baude & Michael Stokes Paulsen ~ August 14th 2023
[PDF://] papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID4532751_code398074.pdf?abstractid=4532751&mirid=1&type=2
Counterargument:
𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟. 𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐌𝐜𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, “𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧,” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩
[Link://] reason.com/volokh/2023/08/12/prof-michael-mcconnell-responding-about-the-fourteenth-amendment-insurrection-and-trump/
Here is a quote from the Baude and Paulsen article.
“covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support.”
Those who raised bail money for those arrested for rioting in Minneapolis, Portland, and Kenosha in 2020 would be disqualified under this interpretation.
Those who botched the withdrawal of Afghanistan (such as FJB) would be disqualified under this interpretation.
The law review article makes pretty good points – this was an insurrection and Trump was a big part of starting it, stoking it and failing to stop it in a timely manner. However, we live in a world where for the last two years people who did their jobs correctly counting and reporting votes that Trump lost have been under death threats, primary challenges, etc.; imagine what would happen to a Secretary of State – particularly a Republican one – who would try to enforce this provision against Trump? No one is going to enforce it if there is any ambiguity whatsoever.
The article conclusively proves that there was no insurrection. All you have to do is plug the facts into the legal framework constructed by the authors, and there’s no way to characterize what Trump — or anyone else — did as an insurrection. There was simply no violence directed in any relevant direction at any relevant time.
This “outsider” has suffered lies and attack after attack from the day he announced his candidacy. It will never stop unless they win and if they win we’ll all lose, especially their supporters.
(Stick with me here, even though you disagree with me…):
As someone who continues to believe there was rampant illegal voting not specifically allowed by state legislatures (but enacted by local voting authorities under the guise of necessary emergency covid measures) and questionable vote totals in some key swing states, I felt and continue to feel that the protesters were at least within their constitutional rights to yell and scream and make as much noise as possible to convince VP Pence and others that many of the states’ slates of elector needed to be rejected and sent back to those state legislatures for reconsideration. I don’t believe that any of them had the right to force government security to allow them into the capitol, and I certainly don’t believe they had the right to physically assault anyone or to destroy any government property.
(It’s hard to blame them though, since they had been seeing the government approve of protesters attacking and destroying local, state and Federal buildings across the Nation.)
But I believe that the impetus of the protest was definitely constitutional IF those people sincerely believed that they might be able to legally effect the outcome of the proceedings inside the capitol that day.
So you can say they were wrong and I am wrong and Trump was also wrong for believing the same thing.
For the sake of argument let’s agree that we were all wrong. But, if that wrong belief was at the core of the protest and if the desired outcome was that the vice president would use his legal position to reject some of the questionable electors, then I simply don’t see how you can turn that into insurrection.
Because there was no intent on the part of Trump or me or the protesters to overturn the government.
The intent was to force the government to behave properly within the bounds of constitutional law.
I don’t disagree with you.
Do you see any validity to the claim from the National Constitutional Law Union that President Trump can’t be charged with crimes he may have committed while in office if he wasn’t successfully impeached for those same crimes?
If someone turned the lights out in the Capitol building, you could say they “interrupted” a government proceeding.
Turley does himself, America, and the LAW a disservice by continually equivocating about Trump and repeatedly tossing red meat to anti-Trumpers with his misplaced criticism of Trump’s J6 speech and Trump’s alleged failure to instantly tell people to go home after the Capitol was breached by rioters that were LED BY ANTIFA and FBI PLANTS, and who were WELCOMED into the Capitol Building by uniformed security guards CLEARLY seen in J6 videos.
The “My client is a scumbag but he’s not a criminal” defense is as played out as yesterday’s reruns of The Fonz jumping the shark on water skis.
Substantively, the Professor’s stifling and repetitive criticism of Trump’s J6 speech is SUBJECTIVE literary criticism and nothing more, and the SOLE intent of such criticism is for Turley to stubbornly maintain his liberal-democrat bona fides despite the mountainous evidence that the tribe known as liberal-democrats went completely extinct years ago but for a few delusional old dementia-ridden souls that have taken up residence in JFK’s imaginary Camelot, only to make the odd occasional public appearance, like Bigfoot unwittingly stumbling out of the forest and onto the cover of the National Enquirer or as the lead story on Fox & Friends along with the latest UFO speculation and grainy videos of the skies over Area 51.
Earth to Turley: There are no more DoDo Birds, Sabor-toothed Tigers, Woolly Mammoths, or Liberal Democrats, and until Bigfoot sits down for an interview with Matt Taibbi on Substack, I would strongly suggest his existence is a figment of someone’s gin-saturated imagination, too.
I unfortunately watched cnn yesterday. In the ~45 minutes I was watching, they had around 4 interviewees all were asked about Trump. Even the republican candidate spent his interview talking about Trump. Progressive clowns have lost their mind. They can’t think.
The American Civil War was a REAL insurrection. A REAL Rebellion. The events of January 6th, while regrettable, wouldn’t even make a slow night during Mardi Gras. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
An insurrection is the hostile takeover of a country. On January 6, 2021, Trump was President. What were the protesters supposedly trying to take over? Trump was still in power. There were plenty of easier ways to stay in power than a riot with a couple hundred unarmed grandma’s at the capitol. If Trump had wanted to stage an insurrection, presumably he would have done it on January 20 by simply refusing to leave office. How are you going to take over a country of 350 million people by occupying Congress? It makes no sense. I can’t think of a physical location in the United States more irrelevant than the Capitol.
There was definitely an insurrection. The real question is when it occurred. Was it when the CIA assassinated Kennedy, forced Nixon to resign, or installed Gerald Ford? Was it when Peter Strzok promised his government subsidized main squeeze Lisa Page that he had an insurance policy to keep Trump from becoming president? Was it when Comey set up Flynn, who fell into the trap like a patsy and not like the world’s top spy? Was it when all of Washington, left and right alike, colluded in the fake Russia collision hoax to attempt to depose Trump? Was it when the totally not stolen election of 2020 was totally not stolen at all?
Pretending that the chaos of January 6 was an insurrection defies all logic. Even if the protesters had taken over the building, which there is no indication they even wanted to do, what would have happened then? The answer is: Nothing.
The truth is that January 6 was a set up. Anyone who wants to opine on January 6 must listen to Stephen Sund. It was meant to prevent Congress from investigating election fraud and break the back of the MAGA movement. We now have people who walked for a few minutes in the Capitol, or who didn’t even enter, sentenced to decades in prison. Ryan Samsel has been kept in a hole with a toilet for a bucket for 2 and a half years with no trial. He has been beaten so severely he lost an eye.
Unfortunately for Ryan and for the other January 6 prisoners, nobody wants to know the truth about that day. Joseph Campbell said Western society is starved for myth and we have seen clearly that Americans will give up their freedoms before they give up their narratives.
John, why do you keep thinking we are ruled by laws and the Constitution?
Fascists Democrats and their out of control judges….don’t bother with laws….they just ATTACK!
Thank You Jonathan for clarify that premise of the Democratic missives (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §§).
Ultimately the Democrats seek an ‘Eye for an Eye’, a cannon of Talion Law. Everything Trump eschews from Trumps “Lock Her Up” mantra to Loosing the 2016 Election is punishable under Their rules.
If you wish to pursue Talion Law (Lex Talionis) here are the legal hurdles to overcome in Our current Legal System.
The Eighth Amendment limits the taking of an “Eye for an Eye” by Government.
When attempting to take an “Eye for an Eye”, your prosecution will run up against the Fourteenth Amendment and the 5th Amendment.
Amdt8.4.5 Limitation to Criminal Punishments
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The Eighth Amendment deals only with criminal punishment, and has no application to civil processes. In holding the Amendment inapplicable to the infliction of corporal punishment upon schoolchildren for disciplinary purposes, the Court in Ingraham v. Wright explained that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause “circumscribes the criminal process in three ways: First, it limits the kinds of punishment that government can impose on those convicted of crimes; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such.”1 These limitations, the Court thought, should not be extended outside the criminal process.2
[Link://] constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-4-5/ALDE_00001272/
[Link://] law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment
Amdt 14.S1.3 Due Process Generally.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[Link://] constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/
Amdt5.4.1 Historical Background on Self-Incrimination
Amdt5.5.1 Overview of Due Process
Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment also protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may “plead the Fifth” and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.
[Link://] constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-4-1/ALDE_00000864/
[Link://] constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt5-5-1/ALDE_00013721/
—
Is ‘An Eye for an Eye’ Revenge Legal?
By: Christopher Coble, Esq. ~ March 21, 2019
[Link://] findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-an-eye-for-an-eye-revenge-legal/
J6 Accused loses and eye and never took one.
Apparently it is an eye for noticing the election was stolen in 2020.
“In an interview with WUSA, Elisabeth Pasqualini said Samsel was “viciously and savagely” beaten by a corrections officer in the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility after the guard zip-tied Samsel’s hands.”
“He has definitely suffered serious injuries, including a shattered orbital floor, a broken orbital bone, his jaw was broken, his nose was broken,” Pasqualini said, adding that Samsel is currently unable to see out of his right eye and may permanently lose vision in it.
Pasqualini said she reported the alleged assault to jail officials, who told her they were conducting an internal investigation. She also reported it to the FBI which, she said, told her it was investigating, as well.” CBSNEWS
JT, you put so much BS in this article it is really demeaning to what good credentials you used to have.
You denigrate “progressives” with trite comparisons all through here. You poo poo the minor hiccup that occurred on Jan 6, 2021 as no big deal. I am sure the people in the Capitol building running for their lives as they shouted for Mike Pense and Nancy Pelosi to be hung might have a different view. JT says…” A relatively small number of individuals have been charged with seditious conspiracy,” Why didn’t you also mention they were convicted of the charge? But it was only a small number, so no big deal. Does the 14th amendment give a number for how many are involved for you to be disqualified? I don’t think so. By JTs own admission, trump is disqualified.Those that attacked the Capitol said they did it at the behest of trump.
JT says…”but there was little evidence that even the most radical defendants charged were planning to overthrow the nation’s government”. Excuse me? Their plan was to keep trump in power after loosing the election. Is that not plan to overthrow the nations government? JT, you twist facts and opinion in this piece so much I really wonder why you have gone off the deep end. Is the filthy lucre from fox really worth it? You used to be for our constitution, now you are just for the 1st amendment part and to hell with the rest. Sad, so sad
JT, have you also drank the trump Kool aid and are now a trump cult member?
“Their plan was to . . .”
Repeating a conclusion is not evidence.
And smearing your host with playground insults is never a good move.
“Their plan was to . . .” Those are not my words. Those are the words of those convicted of crimes related to the Capitol riot. They said they did it because trump told them to. Some of theme were CONVICTED of seditious conspiracy, not just charged as turley so eloquently says.
Turley was full of little tiny jabs at “progressives?, yet you say I am…”smearing your host with playground insult”.
Here are just a few of the “insults” or childish comparisons JT throws out…
“The desire of people to keep Elvis alive or prove that a Sasquatch could exist furtively in our backyards shows the resilience of fables.”
“is something that good liberals will read to their children at night”
“With that, and a kiss on the forehead, a progressive’s child can sleep peacefully through the night.”
“But don’t look under the bed. For as scary as it might sound to some, Trump can indeed take office”
But rest assured that JT thinks trump erred on so many fronts. Yes, JT, trump is a terrible person but. The 14th amendment does not have a clause that says you must be charged or convicted of insurrection. JT ignores that little tidbit. As I said, JT weaves his story with lots of innuendo and false equivalency and it looks like the trump cult members eat it up and love it. It makes so much sense, JT is so smart and everyone else is wrong.
Just take the blinders off and look at what happened In the history of our country not one President that lost the election called his supporters to the Capitol and encouraged revolt to keep him in office until trump. Was this a Keystonion Cops attempt at an insurrection? Yep. It was an attempt to stay in power none the less.
That was payback for the whole “Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election” conpiracy to keep him out, and then undermine, his power.
“Here are just a few of the “insults” or childish comparisons JT throws out…
“The desire of people to keep Elvis alive or prove that a Sasquatch could exist furtively in our backyards shows the resilience of fables.”
This quote demonstrates a lack of neutrality in your mind. Turley’s statement applies to both sides of the aisle, but you can only recognize criticism of others, not yourself.
You close your eyes to the IC’s knowledge of the potential conflict at the Capitol but refused to release that knowledge to Sund, the head of the Capitol Police. You also fail to note the number of agents, FBI, or others there, some pushing for people to break down barriers. Finally, you miss noting that the J6 was a farce, and the three people in charge intentionally excluded from the J6 hearings, Sund, the Sargeant at Arms, and Nancy Pelosi.
Trump authorized troops to protect the Capitol Building, but Nancy Pelosi rejected such protection. It sounds like the left wanted this riot, helped create it, and then wished to cast the blame solely on Trump.
Yes, Trump might be partially involved, but one has to be blind not to see the left’s culpability and Nancy Pelosi as the prime contender for an event getting out of hand.
Your insults toward the host are noted. They show ungratefulness and a lack of grace.
The anonymous person who was deleted used foul language that was abbreviated and then deleted. With people like that it must cost a fortune to keep the place clean.
A relatively small number of individuals have been charged with seditious conspiracy,” Why didn’t you also mention they were convicted of the charge? But it was only a small number, so no big deal.
Bob MCDonnall was tried, convicted and sentenced . Then overturned by unanimous decision by SCOTUS. That means a couple appellate judges and trial judge were in on the corrupt persecution. BTW Jack Smith was the prosecutor. Chief Justice Roberts explained clearly, Smith had stretched the legal statutes far past the words and intent of law. But it took down a Republican politician. Smith is celebrated for his success.
Also see Sen Ten Steven, Gov, Palin
Speaker Tom Delay
Sen Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Your Ignorance of past persecutions allows you to run off at the mouth.
We KNOW no one was planning to overthrow the government because such a thing is literally impossible. You’re an idiot.
A political protest became a political riot? We have a few groups of defendants that have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. There were actual bombs planted which fortunately did not go off.
There is an awful of planning and violence for people who attended a protest and suddenly and spontaneously started rioting.
A few groups, not associated with the other thousand people present does not represent a coordinated insurrection. More like a political protest that became a political riot.
If you call that a planning you are poorly mistaken.
Also the bombs were planted near/outside both the RNC and DNC offices.
Lest we forget how many undercover agents were present?
Those bombs were planted by the FBI and never functional.
The bombs were planted by the government. Pay attention. And how would they be relevant even if planted by someone else? What would the bombs have accomplished?
The bombs are evidence against the incitement narrative.
Would it have been an insurrection if the riot has succeeded in breaching the Capitol, killing some Congresspeople and installing Trump as a re-elected President?
The problem with characterizing anything short of that as “not an insurrection” is that if the insurrection is successful Trump would pardon all the insurrectionists including himself and no one could be held accountable.
Turley always creates scenarios where it is always the wrong time or the wrong theory or the wrong forum to hold Trump accountable for anything, and that pattern continues here.
It could have been an attempt to reach low earth orbit by your wild assumptions.
Step one would be conecting the President to any of it.
WOW!
You really can see into alternative realities and say what would of happened if the so called insurrection succeeded and what Trump would of done?
Amazing!
That reminds me of all the times Clinton and Pelosi have declared that if Trump were re-elected the US would end! But they never say why or how . . .
If treason prosper, none dare call it treason. No kidding!
The problem with your view is that it’s nuts. The killing of members of Congress could not result in Trump becoming President. What the in the world?
And beyond that, it didn’t happen, and no one even attempted it.
“Democrats have long pushed this theory about the 14th Amendment . . .” (JT)
So the D’s are agitating for a “novel” legal theory. I thought that the Left decreed such a theory to be a crime. Or is it only a “crime” if used by one’s leading political opponent?
In recent days, evidence has emerged of Kenneth Chesebro following around and filming Alex Jones on the day of the riot when Jones was directing some of the groups who breached the Capitol. Chesebro is also a codefendant in the Georgia case and an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal one. This seems to tie together the strategies to get the legislators/Veep to overturn the results with creating a riot in the streets to try to force action.
So yes, this looks like an insurrection was part of the plot involving Trump.
Failing to connect any leadership to the actions.
Failing to connect the actions to anything. What the hell is that guy talking about?
That is incomprehensible. So, no, it doesn’t look like there was an insurrection.