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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

A federal judge ruled that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection against the U.S

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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....

Facts Matter:

THE FACTS: He’s (JAY SEKULOW) wrong to suggest that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report cleared the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. Nor did the report exonerate Trump on the question of whether he obstructed justice.

Instead, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared after the report was released.

Mueller’s two-year investigation and other scrutiny revealed a multitude of meetings with Russians. Among them: Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.

On collusion, Mueller said he did not assess whether that occurred because it is not a legal term.

He looked into a potential criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges on that front.

:Facts Matter

AP FACT CHECK: Trump defense misrepresents Mueller findings

WASHINGTON (AP) — In opening arguments of the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump's defense misrepresented the findings of a special counsel's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election by claiming the president was cleared of obstruction of justice.

apnews.com

Now cut the crap.

 

[bripat9643]

A federal judge ruled that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection against the U.S

Link?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Link?

Wake up!

judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,​

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

Colorado first. Federal second -- coming.

 

[bripat9643]

Facts Matter:

THE FACTS: He’s (JAY SEKULOW) wrong to suggest that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report cleared the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. Nor did the report exonerate Trump on the question of whether he obstructed justice.

Instead, the report factually laid out instances in which Trump might have obstructed justice, leaving it open for Congress to take up the matter or for prosecutors to do so once Trump leaves office.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared after the report was released.

Mueller’s two-year investigation and other scrutiny revealed a multitude of meetings with Russians. Among them: Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer who had promised dirt on Hillary Clinton.

On collusion, Mueller said he did not assess whether that occurred because it is not a legal term.

He looked into a potential criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign and said the investigation did not collect sufficient evidence to establish criminal charges on that front.

:Facts Matter

AP FACT CHECK: Trump defense misrepresents Mueller findings

WASHINGTON (AP) — In opening arguments of the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump's defense misrepresented the findings of a special counsel's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election by claiming the president was cleared of obstruction of justice.

apnews.com

Now cut the crap.

You proved nothing. All these claims have been examined countless times, and they are all groundless.

 

[bripat9643]

Wake up!

judge finds Trump 'engaged in insurrection,​

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

Colorado first. Federal second -- coming.

So she ruled where the ruling has no practical effect?

<YAWN!>

 

[Kilroy2]

Well when the Americas (North version) broke away from England then it could be called an insurrection but some called it a revolution. I guess depends on what side of the ocean you live in.

Then the South broke away from the Union , after the beat down, they called it an insurrection against the union

Now the big question is does an insurrection have to be violent or is going against the constitution the real issue

clearly the insurrection clause was added to prevent the union from being torn apart. and the only thing keeping it together is the constitution.

Trump tried to cheat the constitution. Fake electors, Try to get Pence to change the results, and then sending his supports to "Stop the Steal". There was no steal. He lost and as they say , he can't handle the truth. He then sent his supporters to disrupt the proceeding that would name Biden the official winner.

So in a sense, he went against the constitution. President is elected based on the votes and the electoral college. President cannot change that.

He tried to change both.

 

[Independentthinker]

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.

Democrats attack the Constitution all the time. Great way to get all Democrats off the ballots.

 

[Kilroy2]

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....

Russian collusion was investigated.

They found that Trump did not collude with the Russians

They do agree that there was Russian interference that favored Trump. Personally I believe it was more of the Russian government hatred of Clinton and Obama

Still it is not a insurrection. . It was an investigation.

 

[Kilroy2]

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.

Yes it was an insurrection against the constitution and that is the case that they will make

To go deeper then we need to look at other things

The question on whether Trump is an officer is the big question

Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States,

The office of the president is occupied by the president and he has his helpers

he is the head officer of that branch of government. The Executive Branch

Officer definition = a holder of a public, civil, or ecclesiastical office:

Trump would be unable to hold the office of the presidency if found guilty of not upholding the oath of office he took to protect the constitution.

The argument that he is not an officer is incorrect and is something Trump supports will hang their hats on. He is the president and occupies the office of the presidency and head of the executive branch.

Whether he was appointed is irrelevant and just something for his believers to get excited about.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I don't think that someone can engage in insurrection against a piece of paper. I think "same" refers to the Unites States or any state.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

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."

Wouldn't any unconstitutional act by a President be an insurrection against the Constitution? In that case Obama was an insurrectionist. In fact any President who lost a constitutional challenge in court, like Joe Biden has, would be guilty of insurrection. I don't think Democrats have thought this one through.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Wouldn't any unconstitutional act by a President be an insurrection against the Constitution? In that case Obama was an insurrectionist. In fact any President who lost a constitutional challenge in court, like Joe Biden has, would be guilty of insurrection. I don't think Democrats have thought this one through.

That’s always a safe bet, for sure.

 

[rampart]

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....

believing that trump and his minions were crooked is not quite the same as attacking congress with bear spray.

conservatives think that this insurrection began on jan 6 and involved the election.

trump's understanding of his responsibility was revealed at charlottesville, where the insurrectionists met and the "proud boys" trumpist militia was formed.
planning to remain in power began in the summer of 20, stone (militia liaison) and flynn (operation commander) were pardoned and assigned. by november they were ready with the fake electors and "operation green bay sweep"

you can not make this stuff up. it is all sworn testimony and all in the c span archives.

 

[scruffy]

Wouldn't any unconstitutional act by a President be an insurrection against the Constitution? In that case Obama was an insurrectionist. In fact any President who lost a constitutional challenge in court, like Joe Biden has, would be guilty of insurrection. I don't think Democrats have thought this one through.

Democraps? Think?

Democraps have shit for brains. They can't think, they can only ooze.

 

[rampart]

Wouldn't any unconstitutional act by a President be an insurrection against the Constitution? In that case Obama was an insurrectionist. In fact any President who lost a constitutional challenge in court, like Joe Biden has, would be guilty of insurrection. I don't think Democrats have thought this one through.

i'm not sure that losing a case, even on constitutional grounds, is necessarily an "insurrection."

smith just lost a case to speedily review trump's immunity claims. is that insurrection, or a petition for redress of grievances ("the people need to know if the president of the united states is a crook" r m nixon) by asking for the constitutionally guaranteed speedy trial?

 

[rampart]

Democraps? Think?

Democraps have shit for brains. They can't think, they can only ooze.

long overdue. i'm going to ooze you over to the ignore list with so many other brain dead losers. good bye.

 

[scruffy]

long overdue. i'm going to ooze you over to the ignore list with so many other brain dead losers. good bye.

Another leftard running from the truth.

Good. Maybe we can make them all run.

Away.

For good

Like the fucking lying hypocrites keep promising. Then they keep reneging on their word. Which has been a leftard tradition ever since Tip O'Neill.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

believing that trump and his minions were crooked is not quite the same as attacking congress with bear spray.

conservatives think that this insurrection began on jan 6 and involved the election.

trump's understanding of his responsibility was revealed at charlottesville, where the insurrectionists met and the "proud boys" trumpist militia was formed.
planning to remain in power began in the summer of 20, stone (militia liaison) and flynn (operation commander) were pardoned and assigned. by november they were ready with the fake electors and "operation green bay sweep"

you can not make this stuff up. it is all sworn testimony and all in the c span archives.

Dude, it wasnt an insurrection, which no one has been charged with. Why are you stupid fucks, to ignorant to know that?

 

[MinTrut]

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.

It's not 1866; you're wrong.

This lynching judge is a SwampHack.