section 3 of the 14th amendment is not necessarily about the attack on the capitol says Judge Luttig

[Rumpole]

Judge Luttig appeared on Nicole Wallace's 'Deadline Whitehouse' today (it's not been uploaded yet, so we'll have to wait for the link).

All along I, and others, have been debating whether or not Trump 'engaged in an insurrection' meaning a violent uprising against the authority of the united states. I,, as well as many, have been debating this point.

However, Luttig points out that that is not what section 3 says, it says 'engaged in an insurrection against the constitution and aided and abetted the enemies thereof. (The enemies of the constitution, the insurrectionists).

so, whether he engaged in an insurrection with the insurrectionists is not where the argument lies, it lies on whether or not he engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. He tells us that the distinction is important.

See, as Luttig explains. there's a lot of things he did that were an 'attack on the constitution', many things for which he is now being indicted. These are the things Luttig asserts constitute 'an insurrection against the constitution' not just or necessarily just the helter skelter attack on the capital or Trump's relationship to it.

Now, we can debate the definition of 'insurrection', but that IS what the constitution says.


"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think Luttig is correct, for if you examine the syntax/grammar, 'same' refers to the constitution mentioned prior. "Enemies thereof' where 'thereof' refers to the constitution also mentioned prior. So, 'insurrection or rebellion against the constitution".

Let's discuss.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Judge Luttig appeared on Nicole Wallace's 'Deadline Whitehouse' today (it's not been uploaded yet, so we'll have to wait for the link).

All along I, and others, have been debating whether or not Trump 'engaged in an insurrection' meaning a violent uprising against the authority of the united states. I,, as well as many, have been debating this point.

However, Luttig points out that that is not what section 3 says, it says 'engaged in an insurrection against the constitution and aided and abetted the enemies thereof. (The enemies of the constitution, the insurrectionists).

so, whether he engaged in an insurrection with the insurrectionists is not where the argument lies, it lies on whether or not he engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. He tells us that the distinction is important.

See, as Luttig explains. there's a lot of things he did that were an 'attack on the constitution', many things for which he is now being indicted. These are the things Luttig asserts constitute 'an insurrection against the constitution' not just or necessarily just the helter skelter attack on the capital or Trump's relationship to it.

Now, we can debate the definition of 'insurrection', but that IS what the constitution says.


"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think Luttig is correct, for if you examine the syntax/grammar, 'same' refers to the constitution mentioned prior. "Enemies thereof' where 'thereof' refers to the constitution also mentioned prior. So, 'insurrection or rebellion against the constitution".

Let's discuss.

If that is the case, then every Democrat who believe in the Russian Collusion hoax, is guilty of insurrection. Maybe this is why the Marxists are so hell bent on removing President Trump....

 

[Clipper]

Trump played with himself in the W.H. during the insurrection & refused to do anything to stop it for over 2 hours. It was only after he realized that the coup attempt had failed that he released his half assed statement telling the insurrectionists that he loved him but to go home.

That son of a bitch should not be allowed within 100 miles of D.C., let alone in the W.H.

 

[Rumpole]

If that is the case, then every Democrat who believe in the Russian Collusion hoax, is guilty of insurrection. Maybe this is why the Marxists are so hell bent on removing President Trump....

Incompetent rebuttal. Rants consisting of weasel words aren't arguments of merit.

Offer me a competent counter argument and I will be happy to engage.

 

[Clipper]

If that is the case, then every Democrat who believe in the Russian Collusion hoax, is guilty of insurrection. Maybe this is why the Marxists are so hell bent on removing President Trump....

It was might white of Trump to pardon Manafort for keeping his mouth shut & for dummying up about what he knew regarding Trump's involvement in Russian collusion.

The same Manafort who gave voter info to Russian intel operatives.

 

[Kondor3]

(1) That is the opinion of one FORMER judge who is not sitting on any of these cases - background noise from the peanut gallery.

....but, for argument's sake, let's say, for a moment, that he's correct in this, so...

(2) Rump's actions - and those of his minions - WERE an Insurrection against the Constitution.

He and his family-members and minions and familiars summoned, incited and aimed a riotous mob to assault the Congress of the United States in a highly un-American effort to halt the formal process of certifying the November 2020 election in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

Commit large-scale, planned, organized violence to stop a Constitutional Function - directly or indirectly as a planner or supporter or inciter - and you engage in Insurrection against the Constitution.

Full stop.

But all this word-play isn't going to signify in the criminal law courts.

Your Orange Baboon-God is phukked.

Deservedly so.

 

[MarathonMike]

Judge Luttig appeared on Nicole Wallace's 'Deadline Whitehouse' today (it's not been uploaded yet, so we'll have to wait for the link).

All along I, and others, have been debating whether or not Trump 'engaged in an insurrection' meaning a violent uprising against the authority of the united states. I,, as well as many, have been debating this point.

However, Luttig points out that that is not what section 3 says, it says 'engaged in an insurrection against the constitution and aided and abetted the enemies thereof. (The enemies of the constitution, the insurrectionists).

so, whether he engaged in an insurrection with the insurrectionists is not where the argument lies, it lies on whether or not he engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. He tells us that the distinction is important.

See, as Luttig explains. there's a lot of things he did that were an 'attack on the constitution', many things for which he is now being indicted. These are the things Luttig asserts constitute 'an insurrection against the constitution' not just or necessarily just the helter skelter attack on the capital or Trump's relationship to it.

Now, we can debate the definition of 'insurrection', but that IS what the constitution says.


"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think Luttig is correct, for if you examine the syntax/grammar, 'same' refers to the constitution mentioned prior. "Enemies thereof' where 'thereof' refers to the constitution also mentioned prior. So, 'insurrection or rebellion against the constitution".

Let's discuss.

Are you still here? I thought you moved onto some Left wing echo chamber.

 

[Rogue AI]

The use of 'insurrection' without a conviction, of anyone, much less Trump only opens the door to remove dozens of Democrats from office. If all that is required is silly accusations then all the insurrection from the summer of love to the most recent insurrections in DC will be valid reason to start going after Democrats. Go for it!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Making a speech is an insurrection against the Constitution? Expressing an opinion? Taking cases to court?

Aren't all those things protected by the Constitution?

Nobody who says that Trump "engaged in an insurrection" actually believes it. If they were that dumb, they could not type a whole post.

When the say that they believe it, they are not "wrong," they are "lying."

 

[Lakhota]

Judge Luttig appeared on Nicole Wallace's 'Deadline Whitehouse' today (it's not been uploaded yet, so we'll have to wait for the link).

All along I, and others, have been debating whether or not Trump 'engaged in an insurrection' meaning a violent uprising against the authority of the united states. I,, as well as many, have been debating this point.

However, Luttig points out that that is not what section 3 says, it says 'engaged in an insurrection against the constitution and aided and abetted the enemies thereof. (The enemies of the constitution, the insurrectionists).

so, whether he engaged in an insurrection with the insurrectionists is not where the argument lies, it lies on whether or not he engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. He tells us that the distinction is important.

See, as Luttig explains. there's a lot of things he did that were an 'attack on the constitution', many things for which he is now being indicted. These are the things Luttig asserts constitute 'an insurrection against the constitution' not just or necessarily just the helter skelter attack on the capital or Trump's relationship to it.

Now, we can debate the definition of 'insurrection', but that IS what the constitution says.


"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think Luttig is correct, for if you examine the syntax/grammar, 'same' refers to the constitution mentioned prior. "Enemies thereof' where 'thereof' refers to the constitution also mentioned prior. So, 'insurrection or rebellion against the constitution".

Let's discuss.

 

[Oddball]

 

[ThisIsMe]

Judge Luttig appeared on Nicole Wallace's 'Deadline Whitehouse' today (it's not been uploaded yet, so we'll have to wait for the link).

All along I, and others, have been debating whether or not Trump 'engaged in an insurrection' meaning a violent uprising against the authority of the united states. I,, as well as many, have been debating this point.

However, Luttig points out that that is not what section 3 says, it says 'engaged in an insurrection against the constitution and aided and abetted the enemies thereof. (The enemies of the constitution, the insurrectionists).

so, whether he engaged in an insurrection with the insurrectionists is not where the argument lies, it lies on whether or not he engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. He tells us that the distinction is important.

See, as Luttig explains. there's a lot of things he did that were an 'attack on the constitution', many things for which he is now being indicted. These are the things Luttig asserts constitute 'an insurrection against the constitution' not just or necessarily just the helter skelter attack on the capital or Trump's relationship to it.

Now, we can debate the definition of 'insurrection', but that IS what the constitution says.


"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think Luttig is correct, for if you examine the syntax/grammar, 'same' refers to the constitution mentioned prior. "Enemies thereof' where 'thereof' refers to the constitution also mentioned prior. So, 'insurrection or rebellion against the constitution".

Let's discuss.

Discuss away, just don’t forget the rest of the 14th ammendment, specifically clause 5

 

[OKTexas]

It was might white of Trump to pardon Manafort for keeping his mouth shut & for dummying up about what he knew regarding Trump's involvement in Russian collusion.

The same Manafort who gave voter info to Russian intel operatives.

Good God man, you are mind numbingly stupid. Mueller said that "no American knowingly cooperated" with the minimal Russian election interference, including Trump.

.

 

[OKTexas]

View attachment 852916

If only Tribe was educated enough to read and understand the last sentence of the 14th. Congress passed various laws to implement the parts of the 14th. Those laws control what does and does not constitute a violation. Of course Tribe won't quote the laws since they don't support his propaganda.

.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Incompetent rebuttal. Rants consisting of weasel words aren't arguments of merit.

Offer me a competent counter argument and I will be happy to engage.

Dude, if people being invited into the capitol, by the capitol police, is insurrection, then trying to remove a sitting president by lying to a FISA court to have him removed, is "insurrection". Especially when it is in the attempt by the Marxists, to destroy Democracy.

 

[Rumpole]

(1) That is the opinion of one FORMER judge who is not sitting on any of these cases - background noise from the peanut gallery.

....but, for argument's sake, let's say, for a moment, that he's correct in this, so...

(2) Rump's actions - and those of his minions - WERE an Insurrection against the Constitution.

He and his family-members and minions and familiars summoned, incited and aimed a riotous mob to assault the Congress of the United States in a highly un-American effort to halt the formal process of certifying the November 2020 election in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

Commit large-scale, planned, organized violence to stop a Constitutional Function - directly or indirectly as a planner or supporter or inciter - and you engage in Insurrection against the Constitution.

Full stop.

But all this word-play isn't going to signify in the criminal law courts.

Your Orange Baboon-God is phukked.

Deservedly so.

There are legal maneuvers and illegal. Just do the legal and no one will complain.

Here is the pertinent video of Judge Luttig stating the distinction about section 3.

 

[bripat9643]

Judge Luttig appeared on Nicole Wallace's 'Deadline Whitehouse' today (it's not been uploaded yet, so we'll have to wait for the link).

All along I, and others, have been debating whether or not Trump 'engaged in an insurrection' meaning a violent uprising against the authority of the united states. I,, as well as many, have been debating this point.

However, Luttig points out that that is not what section 3 says, it says 'engaged in an insurrection against the constitution and aided and abetted the enemies thereof. (The enemies of the constitution, the insurrectionists).

so, whether he engaged in an insurrection with the insurrectionists is not where the argument lies, it lies on whether or not he engaged in an insurrection against the constitution. He tells us that the distinction is important.

See, as Luttig explains. there's a lot of things he did that were an 'attack on the constitution', many things for which he is now being indicted. These are the things Luttig asserts constitute 'an insurrection against the constitution' not just or necessarily just the helter skelter attack on the capital or Trump's relationship to it.

Now, we can debate the definition of 'insurrection', but that IS what the constitution says.


"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. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think Luttig is correct, for if you examine the syntax/grammar, 'same' refers to the constitution mentioned prior. "Enemies thereof' where 'thereof' refers to the constitution also mentioned prior. So, 'insurrection or rebellion against the constitution".

Let's discuss.

Progs attack the Constitution on a daily basis.

 

[JBG]

(1) That is the opinion of one FORMER judge who is not sitting on any of these cases - background noise from the peanut gallery.

..

Let's see what the DC Circuit Court of Appeals or SCOTUS says.

 

[Kondor3]

Let's see what the DC Circuit Court of Appeals or SCOTUS says.

Yep. That's where it will actually matter.

 

[JBG]

Yep. That's where it will actually matter.

Especially with 98% conviction rates in Federal criminal trials.