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.
“Trump took such an oath and played a key role in the insurrection”
Dennis, Trump said to do your given right of protest “peacefully. On the other hand, Democrats like our VP Harris encouraged insurrectionists, even working to have the insurrectionist’s bail money paid. Based on the insurrections that summer, even taking over portions of cities and trying to burn down a federal building with almost complete support from Democrat leaders, we should see most Democrat politicians jailed.
Thank you Dennis for agreeying why most Democrat leaders belong in jail.
What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty?
That’s for a court of law.
It’s never been the case for the court of public opinion.
Whatever happened to the first amendment ?
Whatever happened to the rule of law ?
We have a plethora of Trump cases – none of which shoul dhave ever seen the inside of a courtroom.
Most of which do not have the required evidence to even open an investigation.
You are free as a member of the public to beleive whatever nonsense you want.
You are NOT free to use government to violate constitutional rights, to weaponize the courts and legal system.
I find it interesting that you jump to the lower standards of public oppinion as your own allegations become increasingly obviously without any support.
Yet you seem to demand that before anyone can investigate anything you hold dear – that proof beyond a reasonable doubt must exist solely to open an investigation.
There is 10,000 times more basis for the house to investigate The Biden syndicate, than there is to allow any of this Trump nonsense, or the vast majority of J6 cases to see the inside of a courtroom.
You are free to lie and spin naratives as you please to pretend the first amendment away, to ignorre the rule of law or the constitutional requirements of due process in the court of public opinions. You are NOT free to do so with law enforcement or the courts.
It is the absolute right of the people to protest – especially politically. To petition government, and to assemble.
They can not be precluded from doing so for any reason in a government created public forum, and the US Capitol is the most important public forum in the entire world.
People are free to do all of the above – even if they are completely wrong.
They are free to do so even if they are lying.
The excercise of ones rights are not conditioned on the beleif of those in power that those protesting are right.
In FACT the right to protest, to petition government is most important when those in government beleive those protesting are wrong.
The most important aspect of the first amendment is NOT free expression – as important as that is, it is the absolute prohibition against government silencing its critics.
You may not as an example bomb the capitol – even though the left actually did that. But you may protest in favor of those who did bomb the capitol.
You may make claims that Kavanaugh is a rapist – even though you have no proof.
You may march to support actual terrorists who have murdered hundreds of people.
You may protest the alleged murder of a drug addict who ate his own stash while high out of his gord after being arrested for passing counterfeit 20’s.
You may protest whatever you want. ANYTHING AT ALL.
Should a small part of that protest turn violent – it is irrelevant whether that violence was initiated by a protestor or the govenrment,
Only those actually engaged in violence are subject to criminal sanctions , and then only after evidence overcoming the prsumption of innocense is presidented to a jury not taineted by false narratives, and judges who are biased off their gourds.
Anything less that the above is fascist.
When playing with Democrat rules “innocent until PROVEN guilty” doesn’t exist. The Democrats of today are criminals.
After reading through some of the comments, I am simply sorry and sad for our great country.
Any visit to this blog will have that effect.
PbinCa-
You anchor your position with terms that paint the picture of President Trumps “nefarious and seditious “ activities alluding to illegalities during the lead up to the 2020 election. However, you never consider or discuss the conditions for the position that the Trump Administration took as a result of the impact to his abilities to perform his elected duties . The soft coup happened alright but it was orchestrated by Clinton, Obama, DNC and the MSM day one of his swearing in. The COVID crisis and the illegality of certain States use of absentee voting, the Russia collusion crap, two failed impeachments and the total corruption now exposed within the DOJ/FBI you ignore. Your position and argument is flawed due to your inability to understand the mitigating events and circumstances that support Trump’s claims and of course your TDS.
I like the way you broaden the context of the years 2015-20. All those things happened. Trump was treated unfairly, and yet, when he was, he didn’t have the political skills to co-opt or win over his opposition. He just disrespected them and doubled down. Trump’s emotional intelligence is lacking, as are his speaking skills. He has problems with trustworthiness. Not a team player. His ego gets the best of him.
He did some good things while in office, but didn’t do well at making them permanent. He needed folks like Reince Priebus to do that, but used people as expendables. Incompetent team leader with human talent.
He didn’t do the right thing and accept the election results when he should have, fell into self-delusion about having won, “must have been massive ballot fraud” (but there wasn’t). There was infospace fraud (Hunter’s laptop), but Trump chased the ballot fraud phantom instead of something that real that everyone could agree happened. There was some insider gaming of election administration by Dems, yes, but those have to be challenged BEFORE people start voting. The Dems did not hack the ballot counts. Trump got that wrong, and will pay a sad price for his disconnect from reality.
It’s not that different from what happened to Nixon. Nixon was treated unfairly by the press, and likely cheated out of 1960 win by actual ballot fraud by Mayor Daley. Nixon grew paranoid that the Dems were going to cheat in 1972, so he had the DNC’s Watergate Office bugged to spy on them.
Being able to weather unfair attacks without losing one’s balance is a skill all President’s need.
“Not a team player. ”
Pbinca, let us see what your team has done for you and the nation. Killed over 100,000 people from drugs and climbing, substantially increased terrorism in the future, imported criminals, prostitution, and slavery; killed thousands of children at the border; destroyed the economy; caused wars and may cause a bigger one in the near future; destabilized Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, lawfare and weaponization of the FBI, CIA, IRS, etc. Do we really need more team players?
“accept the election results ”
How does one accept election results when there is so much criminality? He had a right to question those results and was probably right that without the unlawful actions, he won the election.
“The Dems did not hack the ballot counts.”
Keep up to date. Even Democrat primaries are suspect. They had to repeat at least one because of the corruption similar to what happened in 2020.
Trump did well despite all the difficulties created by dishonest people. There were no wars.
Unfair attacks to one are considered sedition, subversion and treason to another. President Trump is/was a business man, not a savvy politician that grasped the levels of corruption we have allowed our government to devolve to, not then but he is now. I would not call what President Trump was subjected to as unfair attacks, they were illegal and beyond corrupt. The entire unelected federal bureaucracy along with the DNC criminals and establishment OWO RINOs obstructed his every step. He did a few good things…really, a few good things? He slammed it out of the park, lowered taxes, energy independence, economic growth, lower inflation, NO WARS, and had the border under control. Think of what great things could be done for American citizens if the Nancy Pelosi’s and Lindsey Grahms were gone from our government. If you’re not watching Colonel McGregor on the Ukraine and can’t see the lies we’re being fed, I don’t know what to tell you.
Jonathan: Another constitutional scholar has weighed in on the likely decision by the SC not to disqualify DJT from the ballot. Erwin Chermerinsky had a column in the Sacramento Bee yesterday in which he says:
“The court’s decision effectively erases Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from the Constitution. The text of the
provision is clear. A person is disqualified from being an officer of the United States if, having taken an oath to
uphold the Constitution , they participate in an insurrection. Trump took such an oath and played a key role in the
insurrection of Jan. 6…By ruling in favor of Trump, the Court will be effectively saying that no court can ever enforce
Section 3, and the provision will be rendered a nullity”.
Chermerinsky also points out that other disqualifications in the constitution–like the age or citizenship requirements–might also be in jeopardy. Justice Kavanaugh seemed to express the view of the majority that disqualifying DJT might have the effect of “disenfranchising voters to a significant degree”. If “disenfranchisement” is the standard what is to prevent someone who does not meet the age and citizenship requirements from running for president? Suppose a 32 yr immigrant (not yet a citizen) has a huge following in the US and wants to run for office. But some state or states find this candidate is not qualified. Under the “disenfranchisement” theory such a candidate could go to court to challenge that decision.
Also important in the oral arguments yesterday was only Justice Jackson wanted to address the Q of whether DJT engaged in “insurrection”. That’s because on the factual record of the Jan.6 House Committee, and two courts in Colorado found DJT was an “insurrectionist”. Considering all the facts surrounding Jan. 6 it’s hard to find otherwise. So if the SC finds an off ramp that declares DJT is the leading candidate for the GOP and should not be disqualified from the ballot it will be endorsing the candidacy of an “insurrectionist”. I don’t think that’s what the framers of Section 3 had in mind.
Whatever the SC decides it will have no impact on the criminal cases of DJT. They will go forward. But however the Court decides it will create more chaos that it can imagine. As Chermerinsky points out in his column: “The Court should never fail to enforce the Constitution because of the political preferences of Justices or for the sake of political expediency”. Just as in the 2000 when the Court decided who was the winner in that election, it should not now decide who should be the GOP nominee in 2024. The “political preferences” of some on the Court should not be the the deciding factor. But it seems an “insurrectionist” will be on the ballot. That will not be good for our Democracy!
The J6 Confirmation Bias Committee’s findings are a complete farce.
Dennis – your taste for propaganda has led you astray again. You seem to believe a highly partisan law professor who says: “Just as in the 2000 when the Court decided who was the winner in that election, it should not now decide who should be the GOP nominee in 2024.” These two statements are clearly false. Bush was certified as the winner of Florida by its SOS and that gave him 271 electoral votes, one more than necessary to win the Presidency. And the Court is not now deciding the GOP nominee. Republican voters are deciding that question in actual, live, fair primaries. (Imagine that! Democracy is out of control!) As for the quote of your friend that “The court’s decision effectively erases Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from the Constitution[,]” I would say “yes” it does, because the problem of ex-Confederates coming back to Congress ended some time ago. Insofar as the ban in section 3 still has any validity, it lives on as the federal statute against “insurrection” 18 USC 1823. No other process is necessary.
Jonathan, when you claim ” in my view, Jan. 6 was a protest that became a riot”, you are conveniently removing it from the context of the entire preceding month of clandestine WH activities.
Jan 6 was the messy collapse of a soft-coup plot that began back in early December. I was watching Fox at that time, and clearly remember Rudy Giuliani coming on. It was right after the last post-election court challenges had thrown out as meritless due to no evidence. Rudy was alluding to some “long shot” being considered whereby Trump would stay President. He gave enough hints to suggest it would deny Biden the minimum 270 votes in the EC count.
Listen to what Trump is telling his supporters gathered at the Ellipse: “If Mike Pence does the right thing….I become President, and you’ll all be happy.” Is that not a self-incriminating admission of a coup plot about to consumate later than day?
Think about the imperative phrase “Stop the Steal”. What does it mean? Stop what? How?
A fair and nuanced synopsis of what happened on Jan 6th is: Trump set the expectation amongst the rally-goers that a fight for Presidential succession would be unfolding at the Joint Session. He urged them to demonstrate at the Capitol as a last gasp means to influence Pence to change his mind (it was made up days before). Trump being Trump would not accept Pence telling him to “forget it” on Jan 5th and 6th. His intent was to exert mob pressure outside the Capitol.
Ignoring the ~200 militants who wanted a physical fight with Capitol Police, the main crowd only became violent when at 2:24 Trump tweeted the news that “Pence let us down”. That’s when the major melee broke out. It was not planned, but rather was spontaneous anger at news the soft coup plot had failed, with the most militant in the crowd deciding on the spot to improvise to stop the proceedings inside the Capitol.
That’s what happened. Yes, there remain questions about why Trump threw in the towel 2 hours later, and whether there was additional clandestine coup plotting still alive in those last 2 hours. More about this will come out in the DC trial over the summer.
Insurrection is not a precise word for what Trump did. It was a multifaceted soft coup plot that failed. Is that any less an affront to the Constitution he swore to defend? Should we forget about the attempt because it was foiled?
Didn’t Al Gore Jr. swear to defend the Constitution when he was sworn in as Vice President? Yet he attempted to overturn the 2000 election by mob demonstrations, media pressure and exploiting a partisan judiciary in Florida. Hillary Clinton swore an oath to defend the Constitution as SOS, but created a hoax of Russia collusion to undermine Trump’s candidacy and presidency, using her influence to start an FBI jihad against Trump. After losing the 2016 election, she attempted to persuade Republican electors to violate their duty under state law to vote for the candidate who won their states. Are all of these actions “soft coup plots” too? But I like your phrase: “fair and nuanced synopsis”. Quite amusing.
Edwardmahl,
Ah! Facts! How refreshing!
Article IV Section 4 for starters
Common sense would dictate that if SCOTUS finds Colorado courts cannot disqualify a Presidential candidate, then they need to say who can settle such disqualifications, the standard of evidence required, and by when during the election cycle it should occur.
Unfortunately, I didn’t hear much interest in tackling these questions. Trump’s lawyer was asked how disqualifications should be settled, and he agreed in federal court, but pushed the timing dangerously late in the election cycle, and lamely offered that Presidential immunity would protect Trump from indictment for insurrection.
The lawyers for Colorado won the argument for timing — any disqualifications should be settled before printing primary ballots. That affords due respect to the voters and political parties to know who is disqualified while there is time to adjust to it.
I seriously question whether SCOTUS can come up with a sensible process. I predict they just irresponsibly kick the can down the road, hiding behind the pretense that 14A(3) is too vague to be applied in this era.
“I seriously question whether SCOTUS can come up with a sensible process.” Section 5 says that: “The Congress [not the Supreme Court] shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” If Congress fails to act, section 3 becomes a dead letter. No process, no disability. That is sensible because section 3 was designed to deal with a temporary situation that long ago passed. However, in 1948 Congress did pass a law criminalizing insurrection. 18 USC 1823. If any process to “cleanse the ballot” exists, that is it.
“Section 5 says that: “The Congress [not the Supreme Court] shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Ed, as you know, this is one of the problems being faced by our nation. People do not realize that each branch of government has distinct responsibilities. In order to get their way, the left wants to wipe out the distinctions between the branches. They are constantly pushing toward dictatorship, whether they know it or not.
The SC is firing a shot over the heads of liberals who want to use lawfare to stop Trump. They made the Colorado attorneys look like asses. Jack Smith should be shaking in his boots because n the words of the court, whether there was an insurrection is a subjective opinion. The immunity argument will be decided in Trump’s favor. The Democrats saw the terrible polls and have finally decided to dump Joe. In another Hillary type opinion by the corrupt DOJ, both Hillary and Biden had illegal documents and the DOJ and FBI bailed them out. Two tier justice is on display
Did you not know what Jack Smith’s case is about? It has nothing to do with the riot on Jan 6th. It all takes place in the month before that. Trump is charged with plotting a soft coup using lawyers, Mike Pence, bullying phone calls, false assertions, and culminating in the Joint Session of Congress, where Pence was supposed to declare Trump the next President. It’s about his defiance of the election results, and plotting to overturn them corruptly, though peacefully.
“He didn’t incite the riot at the Capitol” is not a defense, because that’s not what he’s charged with.
PbinCA, your recollection of what happened above is as inaccurate as you claim Buddy’s account is
We now know the election was lawless, and Trump was correct in saying the results of the election were flawed. You can disagree all you wish, but ballot trafficking and lack of ballot security prove you wrong.
A sitting president is immune with reference to his presidential acts during his term, in perpetuity.
Recourse is impeachment and conviction.
Wrong, activities taken toward an incumbent’s re-election are considered campaigning, and are not regarded as official actions of the office holder. The distinction is that actions directed toward trying to regain office are carried often out in secret, whereas official business is subject to record-keeping under the Presidential Records Act.
“activities taken toward an incumbent’s re-election are considered campaigning[.]” Yet Joe Biden and almost all Democrats say that Trump represents “an existential threat to our democracy.” Do they think they are lying? If they believe their rhetoric, then stopping Trump is the most important official duty they can perform.
That wrongly assumes that a sitting President can covertly use official powers to disadvantage an opposing candidate. That is a violation of the Hatch Act. It is what Nixon’s goons did in Watergate, and look how that ended.
Biden can’t go beyond publicly appealing to the voters. It’s up to us voters who the next President is.
“That is a violation of the Hatch Act. It is what Nixon’s goons did in Watergate, and look how that ended.”
PbinCA, weaponizing the federal bureaucracy and indirect censoring of the media and social media, is far worse than what Nixon did. The Democrats have done an excellent job pushing the IRS, FBI, CIA, DOJ etc., to favor the left. Don’t you think this should stop?
“If presidents aren’t immune from being criminally charged for official acts, as SCOTUS seems to be threatening to rule, then Biden and his entire entourage — including much of top DOJ brass — are 100% going down for what they’ve done during this presidency, but especially for the crimes they committed and then excused with this special counsel. And not just Biden: George W. Bush and Barack Obama better lawyer up, too. Those WMDs didn’t invent themselves, and those kids didn’t drone themselves. Nope, it took presidents to do that.
Biden directing his DOJ to indict his chief political opponent for crimes which Biden’s own DOJ says Biden committed, then obstructing justice by intimidating government attorneys and telling them to destroy evidence, and then tying it all up by making sure DOJ let Biden off the hook?
Oh you better believe every single person involved in that will be facing prison time. Every last political appointee, lawyer, paralegal, and department functionary involved was clearly part of an illegal conspiracy to defraud the United States and her people. See how easy that is? And all takes to make it happen is one prosecutor and the right jury pool.
SCOTUS can do the right thing and toss every last one of these idiotic lawless Biden-directed cases against Trump, or SCOTUS can guarantee that the rest of this country’s short history—this republic is careening toward a cliff with a cinder block tied down to the gas pedal—will be consumed with politicians and judges and their government allies and their families spending every last minute and dollar they have fending off criminal charges from their political opponents.
Ruling the “wrong” way on a case? Well that looks like criminal corruption and abuse of office. Appointing the “wrong” person? Clearly that was part of a criminal kickback scheme. Voting for the “wrong” law? Textbook case of being bought off by donor lobbyists. Authoring the “wrong” court decision? Better hope the prosecutor who targets you doesn’t have a hopelessly partisan jury pool in his back pocket that will indict a ham sandwich if it was ordered by someone from the “wrong” political party.
That’s the future if Biden is allowed to indict his opponents for crimes his own attorneys say he committed while refusing to charge him for it. This isn’t theory. It isn’t an intellectual exercise or a fun 3am dorm room. This is reality, and it will happen. That is, unless saner heads prevail, and head this nonsense off at the pass. Do any of those saner heads exist anymore in Washington?
We’ll find out soon enough.”
Sean Davis
@seanmdav
10:47 PM · Feb 8, 2024
The lawyer representing the voters insists that Trump was disqualified from office Jan 7th. At that time, he was no longer President. How is that to be enforced? Who is the enforcer?
What? Who was the President on 1/7/21?
Joe, How did you get on a computer? you know we don’t allow you access to internet. Here, have some nice Ice cream, your favorite>
Not quite. “Self-executing” means more than just opinions and perceptions. Everyone in the Court yesterday believes there must be some official judicial verdict finding “insurrection” against the Constitution. The question was which Court(s) can take that cause of action to disqualify a candidate, state-level vs. federal. There are also serious questions about timing in the election cycle — do the voters and political parties deserve the courtesy of having disqualifications settled in advance of the primaries? The Trump lawyer was arguing that 14A(3) only disqualifies the insurrectionist from taking office, but still allows him to run and be voted for. That is a recipe for total chaos, and 14A was written that way because, back in the 1860s, voting was all by write-in….fill in the blank space. No names were pre-printed on the voting form, so “who is on the ballot?” wasn’t a meaningful question.
It is now, so timing of disqualifications becomes important.
phinCA – You say: “The Trump lawyer was arguing that 14A(3) only disqualifies the insurrectionist from taking office, but still allows him to run and be voted for. That is a recipe for total chaos[.]” The text cannot be interpreted otherwise. Congress is given the right to remove the disability on “being” a Senator, House member of elector by a 2/3 vote. (“But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”) That power would likely, or certainly could be, exercised after someone is elected. It is a bar on being seated, not a bar on being elected. Incidentally, this is another reason for excluding the President from the disability, since the Congress does not decide whether an elected President is allowed to join that august body.
No case can be made that a Moochhell Obama term is not a Barack Obama third term.
At least it’s not a George-ina term.
Oh, my gosh, I hit a nerve again, eh?
America shall not be subjected to “double jeopardy!”
Clearly a Moochhell term would be an unconstitutional third term for Barack O’ineligible.
Trump is going to sweep 49 states in a massive MAGA blowout election.
Joe Biden is going to prison.
Joe Biden is already in prison. Mild / Moderate / Severe Cognitive Impairment – Memory Loss is a prison of the worst kind.
We as Americans are prisoners to a fake presidency, to rigged elections, to a Marxist politburo composed of secretive, unelected Deep State Obama operatives running our country, to a corrupt DOJ, corrupt MSM, castrated Republicans, Communist Democrats, and a citizenry that is largely unfit physically, mentally and spiritually.
OTOH….
🎶 Always look on the bright side of life 🎶
TL;DR: Hay que reír para no llorar
“Mr Biden was emphatic that the documents were “his property”. I did what every President before me has done.”
Now he thinks he used to be President.
Biden has been lying for so long that he believes his own lies.
He still tells the ‘story’ that his son Beau died in Iraq and he and Dr. Jill watched him come back in a flag-draped coffin…
Even before he was demented, he was a pathological liar.
He has always been an entitled scumbag corrupt filthy dirty POS politician.
Don’t hold back. Tell us how you really feel. It’s cathartic. Especially since it involves the truth.
It is!
Apologies for the sloppy punctuation and missing commas:
He has always been an entitled scumbag, corrupt, filthy dirty, POS politician.
Biden’s attitude: How DARE you question ME.
The report is damning. The classified documents were Shared with unauthorized people, removed Willfully, and handled recklessly, and Sen Biden and VP Biden had no legitimate claim to possession.
Further Hurr found not only that Biden is not competent NOW, but that he was not competent 7 years ago.
Watching them roll Biden out for a catastrophic presser tonight reminded me of when Marion Barry
got caught in a sting operation in a DC hotel room…
“B*tch set me up!”
Sure looks like decision has been made to force Biden out…
Who is next up to bat?
Bobby Kennedy could win…
but they won’t touch him, of course….
Greasy Gavin ain’t got “it” to win nationally against Trump.
It’s over 300 pages saying we found nothing criminal.
Thinking he was President was a mistake, but the statement that Presidents used to take classified or sensitive documents with them when they left office is quite true. Trump is only being prosecuted because he is Trump. Impliedly, Biden admits that.
Trump is being prosecuted because he refused to return all of them, even when subpoenaed, and went further by attempting to obstruct their return (e.g., by having Nauta move them, by having Nauta and de Oliveira attempt to erase the security tapes).
The DOJ: “President Biden is incompetent to stand trial but not to control the nuclear codes.”
I’m not sure who’s indicted more by this finding. The DOJ who said it or the crazy old guy it pertains to.
Or you, for lying about what Hur said.
Aninny:
Why don’t you correct it then? Keep backing this loser. It’s telling.
Hopefully Mr. Hur has security detail and a food taster.
Dictator Biden is not pleased with his ‘report.’
What is it that you think M is lying about ?
What part of “lying about what Hur said” do you not understand?
But calm down you MAGA Extremists!
Biden came out to a presser tonight to reassure the country.
He told us that the president of Mexico didn’t want to open the gates to Gaza.
God Save the Queen, man.
I see dead people.
“The ONLY reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends!”
(said Biden, the ‘alleged’ president for the past 3 years)
Stop it, man!
You’re killin’ me!
Am I the first to bring up the 25th Amendment? Surely somebody else already has.
President Kamala Harris, what a thought!
The word salad moron is the reason nobody’s bringing up 25A. In retrospect it was a devilish clever move to have that brainless twist as Joe Bribery’s running mate.
*twit
At least, America will die laughing!
China is laughing as America dies.
News flash:
The president of Mexico was limiting humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Your president. Pathetic.
And this week Speaker Johnson confused Israel and Iran. And Trump confused Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi. Your party. Pathetic.
Trump did not confuse haley with Pelosi.
He did that so that the media would start talking about how it was PELOSI who was in charge of Capitol security on Jan. 6.
He absolutely confused them. During a campaign speech he said “By the way, they never report the crowd on January 6. You know Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley, you know they -, do you know they destroyed all of the information, all of the evidence, everything, deleted and destroyed all of it. All of it. Because of lots of things, like Nikki Haley is in charge of security. We offered her 10,000 people.”
And what the media discussed was Trump’s confusion.
And Nikki Haley responded, “Last night, Trump is at a rally and he’s going on and on mentioning me multiple times as to why I didn’t take security during the Capitol riots. Why didn’t I handle Jan. 6 better? I wasn’t even in D.C. on Jan. 6. I wasn’t in office then.” “They’re saying he got confused, that he was talking about something else, he’s talking about Nancy Pelosi. He mentioned me multiple times in that scenario. The concern I have is — I’m not saying anything derogatory — but when you’re dealing with the pressures of the presidency, we can’t have someone else that we question whether they’re mentally fit to do this. We can’t.”
And that’s not the only time Trump has confused people. He also told Mueller’s team over 30 times that he couldn’t remember. So don’t pretend that this issue is limited to Biden.
Hillary Clinton said that she could not recall nearly 300 times in her interview with the FBI.
The comparison is not meaningful.
Your free to beleive Trump is failing – though you have been saying that for 8 years now.
It is possible, but not likely. Trump has taken the MOCA regularly and there is no evidence of cognative issues.
Do you honestly thing Biden could come close to passing the MOCA ?
My father had vascualr dimensia. Biden likely has Alzheimers which is slower and worse, but the symptoms are similar, just the progression is slower.
Regardless, you are free to beleive what you want.
But Biden is NOT going to get better. You MIGHT get an occasional good day – where he is only half as bad as normal.
Trump is old enough to be concerned – but contra what you beleive there is no evidence of problems.
I do not know what Trumps intentions were – nor do you. Trump sometimes makes mistakes – we all do.
But he also often deliberately bear bates the left.
I suspect refering to pelosi as Halley was a mistake. But it forced the press to repeat Pelosi’s failures on J6, and it created a negative comparison for Halley. It could have been intentional.
Biden is president.
People occasionally mis-speak, especially those who speak alot. It is no big deal when the real meaning is clear.
It is not a sign of anything, my 25 yr old does it.
Biden is almost never clear and according to her that has been true for atleast 7 years.
Mitterand
Kohl
Pathetic
Egypt and Mexico both have pyramids, so it is easy to confuse them.
And Israel and Iran both start with I. You think that’s why Johnson confused them? You think Trump confused Nikki Haley and Nancy Pelosi because Nikki and Nancy both start with N? Why did Trump confuse Hungary and Turkey?
Look at him referring to his binder.
LMAO
Notice Biden doesnt say WHY he had those documents.
Aside from blaming it on his staff.
As a Senator, he was not entitled to possess any of those materials outside of a skiff.
Memo to GOP Campaign. Make bumper stickers with the following slogan, given Special Counsel Hur’s report
Trump! At least he’s competent enough to stand trial!
We are living Weekend at Bernies 24/7. Jill Biden has no shame.
From Special Counsel Report:
In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden’s memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended (“if it was 2013 – when did I stop being Vice President?”), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began (“in 2009, am I still Vice President?”). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he “had a real difference” of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.
In a case where the government must prove that Mr. Biden knew he had possession of the classified Afghanistan documents after the vice presidency and chose to keep those documents, knowing he was violating the law, we expect that at trial, his attorneys would emphasize these limitations in his recall.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
God save the Queen, man.
(Dennis won’t get it)
The SJC should interview Hur and see how many times he says that he doesn’t recall.
It appears Special Counsel Hur may have pulled a James Comey, and thrown the election for Trump, and thrown Biden under the bus. No doubt China, Iran, Russia will delight in an established legal fact: Biden is compromised mentally.
Wow
We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
It’s the same as Hillary – she’s guilty, but nobody would prosecute something like this, and she would probably walk free anyway. So I suggest, try him anyway. Try him in a very conservative Red State, like Oklahoma.
“No doubt China, Iran, Russia will delight in an established legal fact: Biden is compromised mentally.”
Estovir, add North Korea & middle east Alfa males. If Uncle Joe has a health problem, VP Karmela Harris will do what? There are no prime minister females in the Middle East.
More likely, this report will be used as an excuse for pulling a switcheroo right before the Dem convention and giving the Rem nomination to somebody else.
@Estovir,
I have to disagree.
They had Biden dead to rights.
He did pull a Comey to say that even though he was guilty as sin, he can’t be tried because he lacked mens rea and wasn’t competent to stand trial.
This is the first set up so that in Chicago at the DNC, they can bring in another candidate.
Most guess Newsome. I bet Pritzker’s name will be mentioned. If its Michelle Obama, you know the fix is in.
Unlike Trump who also held no political office but had run billion dollar empire. Michelle was a homemaker / former lawyer.
No real experience. read it as aka Barak’s 4th term.
-G
I do not expect Biden to be the Democratic Candidate.
It is entirely possible that this report is a seep state effort to get him out of the race.
Otherwise Trump will win and that will be very bad for the deep state.
But it is increasingly too late. Harris can not win – she would do worse than Joe.
It is very late for anyone to step in, a draft at the convention gives very little time before the election, and Newsome is a disaster, and democrats going with another White Guy will not go over well.
Joe needed to drop out a year ago for Democrats to have a chance.
This also calls attention to the fact that DC trials and juries are corrupt.
They aren’t.