Congress, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hears Trump v. Anderson: What To Expect

This morning I will be joining the live coverage of the Supreme Court of the arguments over the disqualification of former President Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot under the 14th Amendment. When I am not on air, I will be doing my usual running analysis on Twitter/X. I have been a vocal critic of the theory under Section 3 as textually and historically flawed.  It is also, in my view, a dangerously anti-democratic theory that would introduce an instability in our system, which has been the most stable and successful constitutional system in the world.

We can expect the justices to focus on the three main questions before the Court:

1. Is the president “an officer of the United States” for purposes of section 3?

2. Is section 3 self-executing?

3. Was January 6th an “insurrection” under Section 3.

You will likely hear references to Griffin’s Case in the arguments. Not long after ratification in 1869, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled in a circuit opinion that the clause was not self-executing. He suggested that allowing Congress to simply bar political opponents from office would be a form of punishment without due process and would likely violate the prohibition on bills of attainder.

You will also likely hear comparisons to other sections and how this case could impact the meaning of terms like “officers” and “offices.” For example, the Appointments Clause gives a president the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” That creates a tension with defining, as do those pushing this theory, that a president is also an officer of the United States. Most of the advocates simply argue that the meaning is different.

You may also hear references to the Incompatibility Clause which provides, “no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6. Critics have noted that the proponents of this theory argue that the Speaker and Senate President Pro Tempore are “Officers of the United States.” Indeed, they reject any difference between  an “Officer of the United States” and an “Office under the United States.” However, this creates tension with members serving as Speakers and Senate Presidents Pro Tempore since those positions are also “Offices under the United States.”

Some of the argument will clearly focus on the history and context for this amendment.

These members and activists have latched upon the long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — the “disqualification clause” — which 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.

Justice Edwin Reade of the North Carolina Supreme Court 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.”

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. While the FBI launched a massive national investigation, it did not find evidence of an insurrection. While a few were charged with seditious conspiracy, no one was charged with insurrection. Trump has never been charged with either incitement or insurrection.

The clause 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.

Conversely, in my view, Jan. 6 was a protest that became a riot.

You will be hearing arguments from:

  •  Jonathan Mitchell, who is representing Trump. He is a Texas lawyer who has previously argued before the Court.
  • Jason Murray, who is representing Republican voters who want to disqualify Trump. Murray clerked for Justice Elena Kagan and also then judge Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit.
  • Shannon Stevenson, who is the Colorado Solicitor General. Stevenson only recently became solicitor general and was previously in private practice.

 

405 thoughts on “Supreme Court Hears Trump v. Anderson: What To Expect”

  1. Crazy Colorado embarrasses itself.

    Colorado’s reception at the Supreme Court was absolutely “glacial.”

  2. Professor Turley,

    You cherrypicked your references regarding the meaning of “officer.”

    The Postal Act of 1799 explicitly lists the President as an “officer of the United States.”

    Sec. 17. And be it further enacted, That letters and packets to and from the following officers of the United States, shall be received and conveyed by post, free of postage. Each postmaster . . .; each member of the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress of the of the United States; the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives . . .; the President of the United States; Vice President; the Secretary of the Treasury; Comptroller; Auditor; Register; Treasurer; Commissioner of the Revenue.”

    How does one square the Postal Act of 1799 with Trump’s brief before the Colorado Supreme Court which inaccurately argued: “President Trump argued, that “despite the many words and citations that treat the President as an officer[,] not one authority holds that the President is an officer of the United States[:] no case, no statute, no record of Congressional debate, no common usage, no attorney general opinion. Nothing.”

    And another reference from legislative history tracks GEORGE WASHINGTON’S OWN UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM: In his Eighth Annual Address to Congress at the end of 1797, George Washington called for “legislative revision” of “[t]he compensation to the officers of the United States,” particularly “in respect to the most important stations.” Congress responded the following March, raising the salaries of sundry government officials, starting with “the President and Vice President of the United States.”

    1. Scotus is interpreting words contained in an 1868 amendment to a document that uses the terms involved in various ways. The way that document (the Constitution) uses the terms is the most informative of the meaning of the amending document (14A). Usages from legislation passed around 70 years prior, or putting together a political speech from 1797 with legislation passed thereafter, are less probative of the meaning.

      1. Two groups of historians filed amicus briefs re: the meaning of the words at the time the Amendment was debated/adopted.

        1. I noticed there was a fairly lengthy discussion on that very subject at the oral arguments this morning.

      2. Unless you think the Constitution was drafted in 1868, this statement is internally inconsistent. Does the language used in 1868 matter or the other language from the Constitution matter?

        1. For an originalist, the meaning of the words is determined at the point that a given part of the Constitution was written. Parts were written at different times, and each part gets interpreted according to the time it was written.

          1. That’s not exactly true, unless you take as a given that Congress does not read the Constitution when it amends it.

            Which if that is the case, is pretty sad.

            1. Congress drafts the amendment based on its understanding of the previously-written words.

    2. The Postal Act of 1799 explicitly lists the President as an “officer of the United States.”
      The appoints clause states only the President can appoint officers.

      1. NO,

        He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

        …”all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,”

        Both YOU and TURLEY get this wrong. It does not give the President the power to appoint officers, whose appointment procedure is otherwise delineated. BIG DIFFERENCE.

          1. iowan3 – ATS is fully of Schiff. There is a reason that Jackson was arguing this – that is because it is SCOTUS precident that taken as a whole officer of the untied states does NOT include the president.

            ATS can make his arguments – the postal act argument is garbage. but the “all other officers” argument has atleast some merit.
            But that is once clause – if he has cited it correctly, and the issue of whether the president is an officer of the united states has been addressed by SCOTUS before and they answer is no.

            They could reverse on that, but it is not likely

    3. ATS – Turley is not cherry picking. He is following the standard understanding of the constitution for almost 250 years.

      The postal act is NOT the constitutiion – and that is what is relevant here.

      How does one Square this with the Postal act ? Quite simply – the postal act makes a meaningless error.
      Statutes do that all the time.

      Nor is the meaning determined by strange interpretations of speechs. What Washington said and what Congress subsequently do not redefine words in the constitution.

      If the president implores congress to pass a law on immigration and they subsequently pass one on trade and tarrifs does that somehow mean the we have redefined the meaning of either trade and tarriffs or immigration in the constitution ?

      Your examples are quite poor.

      While personally I think that SCOTUS is unlikely to decide this case based on the meaning of Officer of the united states – despite the fact that the language of the 14th amendment does not apply to the president, that does not alter the fact that the argument is valid.

      The reason that SCOTUS will not rely on that is that they do not wish to see this garbage again, and the left has been using their distorted understanding of the 14th amendment against others.

      At the top of the list would be that the 14th amendment is NOT self exequting. The citation of Justice Chase is useful, but the more compelling argument is that the 14th amendment SAYS that it is not self executing. A14S5 gives congress the power to put all of the 14th amendment into effect. Further SCOTUS has been consistent – constitutional delegation of RIGHTS to the people are self executing. Constitutional delegations of powers are not. A14S3 does not give ANYONE the power to put it into effect – and that is the lefts basis for claiming it is self executing.
      But that claim is absurd. That claim would mean ANYONE con put it to effect.

      A14S5 says CONGRESS is empowered to put the 14th amendment to effect.

      That would include specifying what constituttes an insurection.

    4. Communists will always create weasel words to destroy their political opponents. And when that fails, have them assassinated. Deny all you wish, we all know is the end game here.

      1. I’m not sure you understood the English above.

        Can you use basic reading comprehension skills to identify how anyone above said we should “pick Presidents based on The Postal Act”?

        Trump’s lawyers are claiming ineligibility because he thinks the President is not an “officer” of the United States. His own lawyers said there is not a single law listing the President as an “officer of the United States.” The 1799 version of the Postal Act was passed with many of our Founding Fathers in attendance and directly proves the falsity of that statement.

        This would not be an issue but for conservatives trying to go beyond the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution.

        If the President holds the office of the Presidency. He is an officer of the United States. That should literally be in the end of the analysis.

        1. The postal act misspoke.
          The appointment clause would control
          The President SHALL appoint officers of the United States.

          Todays oral arguments show a clear majority of SCOTUS do not think the President is an officer of the United States.

          Section 3 intentionally omits the President and Vice President from sec 3
          The drafters were focused on STATE actors coming to DC to sow discord. The drafters Trusted the Nation of Voters, but not the State actors.

    6. The language of the 14th Amendment is unambiguous and thus it is unnecessary to refer to contemporary texts to ascertain its intent. Even when one gives the argument the most generous view the commonlaw rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius dispositively settles the matter.

  3. Justice Jackson doesn’t see any historical evidence that the framers of 14As3 had the presidency in mind as an office from which an “insurrectionist” could be excluded. Interesting . . .

    1. Jason Murray has zero allies on the bench according to their questions. No one is defending any portion of Murry’s argument.

      1. Yeah, he’s facing some major headwinds based on the Justices’ comments and questions.

      2. Justice Jackson seems convinced that Section 3 does not encompass the office of president. That, I would not have predicted. She says it’s at best ambiguous and should not be construed “against democracy.” Wow.

        1. Justice Jackson seems convinced that Section 3 does not encompass the office of president.

          Since Sec 3 specifically omits the President and Vice President. That has always been a huge hurdle

          IF you follow the goals of sec 3, it displays eminent logic that the PEOPLE at the ballot box will judge a candidates qualification for President.
          A check on the People, is Congress. Congress has to power to refuse to seat the President. Congress is now subject to a check on the power of congress, by the People, at the next election. were 1/3 of Senators and all of the House will stand before the people and be held accountable for the Action, or lack of Action taken concerning President Trump.

    2. This accords with the targets of the amendment: former representatives of the Southern states. If the country as a whole elects one of those representatives, it can be said that the country has forgiven the earlier disloyalty.

      1. Edward, you are right, the intent of sec 3 was to stop the States from sending to DC people that were intent on infecting the inner workings of DC, To sew discord, create chaos. The President is elected by the States. IF IF enough people in the individual states could get a person elected, the People should be allowed their candidate. Then Congress can lay their job on the line and vote to not seat the President . . or Do nothing. The voters at the next election would hold those Representatives and Senators to Account.

  4. Dear Prof Turley,

    Like student test scores as ‘successful’ predictors, one could argue whether, or not, America ‘has been the most stable and successful Democracy in the world.’ Is Biden a ‘successful’ politician, is Trump a very ‘stable’ genius?

    They should test for ‘honesty’ .. . but who would administer it?

    1. The appropriate response to J6 ‘Stop the Steal’ rally, if any, was [snap] impeachment.
    2. Trump was acquitted.
    3. There was a ‘peaceful’ (sic) transition of power.

    None of that remotely qualifies as ‘insurrection’. Joe Biden’s 70% Disapproval .. . now that’s an insurrection.

    *in any case, the DCCA has ruled whatever immunity Trump enjoyed as a sitting president no longer applies .. . in this case.

  5. If this SC was so wise the question asked should be “what insurrection, who was charged and who was convicted”. This term “insurrection” has been bandied about without proof of any kind, like Russia Russia Russia. Have these justices not seen the lunacy of the constant persecution of this man? Will this insanity stop or is the country lost. Let the people of the United States of America decide who they want at the ballot.

      1. True, but it delegates to Congress the enforcement mechanism. Congress has determined that the enforcement mechanism is a conviction (see 18 USC 2383).

        1. That’s an open question. Certainly the questioning doesn’t suggest that your interpretation is correct.

          1. I personally believe it’s correct, but my opinion doesn’t count for much. As we’ve said before, we’ll have to see what Scotus says because theirs is the only opinion that counts.

      2. Anonymous says: “The Amendment doesn’t require conviction.”

        It requires an insurrection, not the accusation. There was no insurrection or that would have been proved positive long ago.

  6. Jonathan: What is curious is that DJT will not be at the oral arguments before the SC today in the most important case he has ever faced–whether he should be barred from the ballot. Why is this curious? Because DJT found a lot of time to be present in the E. Jean Carroll case and that was only about civil damages. DJT also found time to sit in Judge Engoron’s courtroom in the NY civil fraud case and to hold many press conferences outside the courtroom. DJT’s absence today speaks volumes about his concern about the outcome of the case. While we wait breathlessly to hear the oral arguments today in Trump v. Anderson let’s look at some interesting aspects of Judge Engoron’s soon to released decision that will take a big bite out of DJT’s real estate empire.

    Barbara Jones, who is the financial monitor over the DJT empire, has issued a number of reports over the last 14 month detailing how DJT has failed to provide timely information. In her last report Jones reported to Judge Engoron that DJT received about $45 million from one of his entities that was labelled a “loan”. Except there was no docs to back up the “loan. A bad sign that DJT continues to engage in persistent fraud.

    And what is interesting is that over this same period DJT has not built one new office building or resort. No shovel ready projects are planned. What is going on? It’s because no bank will loan DJT money for new projects. So what is DJT doing to make money?

    The WSJ is reporting that DJT has morphed from “master builder” into licensing and managing other people’s projects–like hotels and gold resorts in other parts of the world, like Oman, Jordan, Indonesia and India. DJT thinks he “brand” is still worth something overseas. The WSJ reports that DJT just signed a deal to run a $1.7 billion dollar golf resort in Oman, Jordan. The resort will have DJT’s name on it.

    What does this mean if DJT gets back into the WH? Will DJT conduct foreign policy in the best interests of the US or will he make decisions based on his financial interests in Arab countries or elsewhere? Will DJT give India a pass on their dismal human rights record? Based on DJT’s track record protecting the Saudi Crown Prince after the assassination of journalist Jamal Khoshoggi I think the answer is clear. DJT will do the bidding of foreign governments because he knows that if he makes the wrong decision those governments might cancel his licensing agreements.

    The WSJ has performed a valuable service by pointing out all the financial conflicts of interest DJT will have if he gets back into the WH. As I always say: Follow the money trail!

    1. “…follow the money trail” Just as you and your MSM idols have with Biden, right? Don’t bother, it’s a rhetorical question.

  7. Well didn’t you hear. All those insurrectionists on Jan 6 were stockpiling weapons to take to the insurrection. They also were printing their own currency to pay for their transportation to the Capitol. Don’t you know that they brought fire extinguishers to cave in the heads of the police. They even colluded with Britain against their nation. Before they arrived they formed their own government complete with the election of representatives. They did all of these things and declared Trump to be their modern day Jefferson Davis as President of their country. Considering all these things it is just plain to see that an insurrection did indeed happen. Can’t you see that all of these things happened in order to overthrow the government of our beloved United States. Can’t you see that everything was completely organized just like the Confederacy was organized. Trump colluding with the Russians was the beginning of the insurrection. I’ll stop now. My tongue is beginning to hurt the inside of my cheek.

    1. TiT,
      Good one!
      That is the stark difference between what actually happened during the Civil War and what those with TDS try to apply to Jan6th.

      1. UpstateFarmer, we shouldn’t be surprised. In history class all of our leftist lip flappers must have had their heads on their desks. The writing of a new history to fit their goals is just the way they roll. March steppers gotta march.

        1. TiT,
          We could also argue the Civil War set precedent for what an insurrection is. As the good professor points out, the Confederacy created it’s own government, raised it’s own military, minted/printed it’s own currency, and established it’s own diplomatic missions.
          If we hold it to that established standard, Jan6th was none of those.

  8. How many colors (email addresses) will “Bob” use today to circumvent being banned from this forum so as to derail the blog?

  9. Hopefully, the Court will not decide the case on the definition of “Officer of the United States.” Common terms are not used with perfect consistency over decades or even certain by draftsmen, esp. where the legislative text was put together in some haste. Also, a technical ruling would not carry much weight. The effort of Democrats to cleanse the ballot of Republicans they views as threatening must be met head on and rejected as undemocratic and unAmerican. This is a Karematsu moment.

  10. “Conversely, in my view, Jan. 6 was a protest that became a riot.”
    The good professor is correct.

    1. “…became a riot” or “was instigated to become a riot”? I’m not certain of the answer to that question, but I very much think it should be pursued. Won’t happen at this hearing, of course. It might serve the nation well for Trump to pursue it should he be re-elected, but unfortunately, his outsized ego would preclude that happening, as well.

    2. And the “staged” DNC, RNC bomb plot was the insurance policy had that protest been “mostly peaceful”.

        1. Yup, and the russia russia dossier was also real..
          If people can plan that – look what is needed to create that fake document – I would not be surprised that they could place actual pipebombs.

  11. Make the first Tuesday in November a paid National Holiday, Paper ballots, and same day voting with valid government ID.

  12. If the Supreme Court doesn’t allow Trump on the ballot, it is over for our country and one day, the Democrat party will be the agents of our doom. We should all fear for our freedom of choice and individual rights. It truly is time for people to wake up and put country over party and stand with the Constitution. BTW — we are still waiting to hear who did the leak at the Supreme Ct …

  13. The result will be 6-3, as usual. The 3 Trump-hating Lefties will just spout their hatred in the dissent. The 6 majority will be all over the lot on reasoning. Bottom line, the voters win.

    1. 9 – 0. At least two of the liberals will write long concurring opinions excoriating Trump, but will still vote to overrule. No one with an eye to public opinion in the future or around the world would want their name on an opinion upholding a device – ballot cleansing – virtually invented by Lenin and Hitler.

      1. Glad to know that you believe part of our Constitution was “virtually invented by Lenin and Hitler,” despite having been written long before Lenin and Hitler.

        1. Ballot cleansing is not something mentioned in the Constitution nor is the term “self executing” used. The 14th Amendment contemplates an enforcement mechanism to be created OR NOT by Congress. They contemplated the possibility that the whole problem would go away with time, as it did. Only a dictatorial mindset has revived this dead provision.

          1. Again: the device of removing someone from the ballot is part of 14A, not an invention from Lenin and Hitler.

            And “They contemplated the possibility that the whole problem would go away” is an assumption on your part. My assumption is that they wrote it to protect the US in the future as well. We’ll see what SCOTUS says.

            1. “virtually invented by Lenin and Hitler,” despite having been written long before Lenin and Hitler.

              The 14th is not a ballot cleansing amendment. Colorado’s interpretations are the ballot cleaning results. Along with 11? other States.
              Leftist always get the cause and effect screwed up

  14. Libs can’t build anything, so they just tear down, and destroy. Destroying our REPUBLIC, to save democracy, is their goal.

  17. It will be really interesting to see how all the justices rule. Can you disqualify a candidate for a crime of which he has not even been accused, let alone convicted, in a court of law?

    1. The 14th amendment has no requirement for conviction of a crime. Read the Amendment.

      1. I assume it has to be based upon something other than: “It is raining today, so he is due for the 14th amendment”?

          1. Oh, where?
            Based upon what proof?
            Who were the judges, where they – by any chance – all democrats?

            1. What part of “in CO” did you not understand?

              Based on the evidence provided by both sides. Trump got to make his case. There was a single judge, Sarah B. Wallace. Why don’t you know this already?

              You’ll have to look up her political affiliation for yourself.

              1. So now, we have Presidential elections decided by local judges? Why not just abolish elections altogether. It would save a lot money.

                1. If you’d paid attention, you’d know that Judge Wallace ruled that Trump could remain on the CO ballot, on the basis that the President is not an “officer” under the 14As3. It was the CO Supreme court that overruled her, determining that the President is an officer. They both agreed that he’d engaged in insurrection, a finding based on the trial. And then the case was appealed to SCOTUS. The very fact that this column is about the SCOTUS case tells you that you do not have a Presidential election decided by a local judge. Nor is this case deciding the election, only whether a state can remove the candidate from the ballot under the Constitution; people remain free to write Trump in on their ballot, and if you dislike 14A, there’s the remedy of amending the Constitution.

                  The main question here is whether you believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

                  1. But a local judge or election official could remove Trump from the ballot since the ban is “self executing.”

                    1. Yes, and then that ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court and from there to the US Supreme Court. It is not ultimately decided by a local judge, as these very SCOTUS arguments prove.

                    3. Suppose the candidate doesn’t appeal, or files his appeal out of time? Then isn’t what Edward said true?

                    5. I find it hard to believe that that would occur.

                      In a population the size of this country, everything occurs.

                2. Edward mahl,
                  That is the problem with Democrats. They only follow the rule of law when it fits them.
                  If they had their way, the local dog catcher would determine election results.

                  1. “That is the problem with Democrats. They only follow the rule of law when it fits them.”

                    What? Governor Abbot of Texas is a Democrat? News to me. He is defying the Supreme Court with regard to his border stunt. What is this about Democrats not following the rule of law?

                    1. News to me. He is defying the Supreme Court with regard to his border stunt.

                      Explain exactly what Abbot is refusing to do. From memory, Abbott had to allow Border control into the park Abbott has allowed them in the Park.

                      Do you realize from the park you can see the bridge that is legal border crossing point. Why are they risking their life in the river when they can walk across the bridge?

        2. This is the sort of BS that passes for cogent thought? Nobody (except perhaps baby trump) is calling for what you propose to happen. In the 200+ history of our country we have never had a president go after a former president for actions they did as president. Never. So now because of trumps egregious actions in the final days of his term he, and you apparently, are proposing that every president will weaponize his office to punish his predecessor? Only trump is that vindictive. And no, it is not Biden going after trump. Biden has nothing to fear from a trump candidacy in November 2024, trump will loose because he is a looser. Look at how well he did in the mid terms of 2018, he lost 2020, mid terms of 2022 were terrible for the people he selected. The case today is brought mainly by Republicans.

          Don’t conflate what happened on Jan 6, 2021 with a rainy day. Only trump with his kindergarten education makes such crap up.

          1. If there is any travesty of a president regarding insurrection it is the Biden policy at the border. Wake up to the deaths, the rapes, the drugs, the sex trafficking and the terrorists that have infiltrated our border and know that there is ONLY one person to blame and that is Biden. If any of these people were members of your family, you just might find that current action is far more dangerous than what happened on Jan 6th. Call it what you may, the insurrection was called this as a political move — as bad as it was in its concept by the organizers. But never confuse you hate for Trump with the actions to silence him. We are next … do not think otherwise because that is the aim — to silence us into submission. And regarding the border — every registered Dem should be willing to pay for the migrants out of the wages to stand behind their convictions. Let’s really see who stands tall when their own pocketbooks are in the mix!

          2. You wrote: “…Trump will loose because he is a looser…” Flunk English Literacy 101, Bob? Or did you just sashay across the Texas border and ride a bus to Chicago within the last month?

          3. Least the DNC cheats, Biden will lose.
            Not because he is a loser.
            No. He will lose as he is corrupt, weak, and he sees dead people. Two in the past week.
            Minorities of all kinds see the Democrat party for what it is. And that is why they are leaving the Democrat party. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and even Jews.
            That is why Biden will lose.

      2. So, if I, as a private individual, say “Joe Biden committed insurrection for not enforcing our existing border laws”, is that enough to have him removed from the ballot? Who determines the “crime”?, much less the conviction aspect.

        1. It doesn’t require a crime. Trump was found to have engaged in insurrection in a 5-day trial. Good luck getting a court finding after a trial that Biden engaged in insurrection.

          1. It will be easier to find that Biden engaged in ESPIONAGE against the United States…

  18. Here’s an idea. If you don’t want to be called a supporter of an insurrection (as trump is being called by lots and lots of people), don’t sit back in your easy chair and watch your supporters storm the capitol while chanting hang Mike Pence.

      1. Insurrection – an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

        Trump lost the election, Congress was meeting to formerly vote, a mob, supported by the currently sitting president that had just lost the election sent the mob to the Capitol to “fight like hell”. The actions of January 6 sure read like the definition of insurrection to me.

        1. From what I’ve seen, Ray Epps led the protest to enter the capital building. Not President Trump.
          Nancy Pelosi didn’t protect the capital, and Ashli Babbitt is dead.
          We just need the FBI agents that were in attendance to testify as to what happened.

    2. How do you call it then when he explicitly asked for a peaceful demonstration?
      And not only once, but twice?

      1. He gathered them in DC on 1/6. He riled them up with lies about having won the election. He also told them “we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He sent them to the Capitol. And he stood back for hours while rioters were attacking the Capitol before he finally told them to leave.

        1. “He gathered them in DC” and “riled them with lies”. Sounds like a typical Democratic Party demonstration, except without the burning businesses.

          1. Democrats aren’t the ones who broke into the Capitol and forced the evacuation of members of Congress.

            1. Did you sleep through the Kavenaugh hearings?? When your idiots were chasing people into elevators, bathrooms, banging on doors, trying to stop those proceedings??

              1. They went through the metal detectors just like all other visitors to the Capitol. They didn’t break any windows, didn’t do over $1M damage to the Capitol, did not actually stop the hearings, were arrested at the Capitol because they didn’t overwhelm the USCP and MPD, …

      2. Trump was impeached for the second time after the events of January 6. The House passed impeachment charges with a majority of the house, a trial was held in the Senate. A majority of the Senate backed an article of impeachment against Trump for “incitement of insurrection.” The votes did not come to 2/3rd, the required amount for conviction. But it was a majority that agreed he incited an insurrection. Read the articles of impeachment, if you dare.

        Not only did a court in Colorado rule that trump “engaged in insurrection”, both houses of congress concluded the same. The votes included members of both the Republicans and Democrats.

  19. Democrats from across government are committing Lawfare against Trump….and EVERYONE of them should GO TO JAIL! by the 1000’s
    This is Civil War!

  20. only insurrection in history, without weapons or actual power?

    Democrats are Fascists.

    Time to make voting, 1 day, in person, with ID

    I don’t care if you vote, I care if you cheat!

    There are 100’s of clearly documented ballot rigging from democrats.
    Trump needs to set up a Nuremberg like Trial to jail the 1000’s of Fascists Democrats across government and media!

    Anyone go to jail for the Russian Hoax…a CLEAR case of Conspiracy to commit ACTUAL insurrection against an elected president.
    Hillary and her team worked with a foreign spy and a Russian, then Democrats/Rino across government USED this TREASON to JAIL Trump people, prohibit the ELECTED president from running government. THEY COMMITED A REAL Insurrection!

    I want them JAILED BY THE THOUSANDS….Democrats are fighting a CIVIL WAR!

    1. I seriously doubt the Supreme Court has the courage to decide the issue

      The 2nd Amendment is the Remedy.

      700 million guns……….it’s coming.

      Say When

      1. You are proving the point that Jan 6, 2021 was an insurrection. Thank you for showing who and what you support.

        1. No, he is stating that the ‘rules for the, not for me’ will eventually lead to an insurrection.
          See the difference?

        1. So, when well-connected Democrat Robert Kagen recently suggested that someone should assassinate Trump, all Democrats rushed to denounce him? Well, no, that did not happen

          1. Edeardmahl,
            Democrats only follow the law when it suits them.
            In all other instances when they are rioting, burning down businesses, assaulting police, or even killing people, they justify with . . . something.

    2. GuyV says: “Time to make voting, 1 day, in person, with ID”.

      ABSOLUTELY 100%!

Comments are closed.