It's time for Trump to take himself off the ballots = he is disqualified

[merrill]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

 

[MarathonMike]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

Keep dreamin son. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Markle]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

Show us the part of our Constitution that says he is not qualified. List for us the qualifications, all of them; go for it, and show us your brilliance.

 

[Concerned American]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

Can you say President Trump 2024. POTUS #45 and 47

 

[Yarddog]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

Everyday normal people realize that Trump has been prosecuted by ONE political party. Every bit of it was politically partisan, just so a judge could then say something like this. People can see right through the crap.

 

[theHawk]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

 

[1srelluc]

So a former fed. Circuit Court judge and later a lawyer for Boeing has it all figured out does he?

 

[rampart]

Show us the part of our Constitution that says he is not qualified. List for us the qualifications, all of them; go for it, and show us your brilliance.

perhasps "qualified" is not specific enough?

i have heard "unqualified" bandied about in respect to ms harris. does she in some way not meet the art 2 requirements?

i believe that we are not talking about "constitutional requirements" but rater those "qualities"of self discipline and maturity which are demonstrably lacking in the oldest candidate ever.

 

[Moonglow]

Trump is a disgrace to the office

 

[merrill]

perhasps "qualified" is not specific enough?

i have heard "unqualified" bandied about in respect to ms harris. does she in some way not meet the art 2 requirements?

i believe that we are not talking about "constitutional requirements" but rater those "qualities"of self discipline and maturity which are demonstrably lacking in the oldest candidate ever.

Section 3

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.

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

The Grand Old Party of Liars

Republicans aren’t even trying anymore, as they cover for their dear leader, Donald Trump.

www.thenation.com

 

[rampart]

Section 3

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.

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

The Grand Old Party of Liars

Republicans aren’t even trying anymore, as they cover for their dear leader, Donald Trump.

www.thenation.com

thank you, merrill. those are certainly disqualifying after the coup ms harris just pulled on biden.

i'm going to have to make a list of the perfectly good english words that maga has stripped from all meaning. "coup" seems to fit, since the peaceful transition of party leadership is now a "coup" while the events of jan 6 are now a "peaceful tour group"

 

[Concerned American]

Section 3

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.

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

The Grand Old Party of Liars

Republicans aren’t even trying anymore, as they cover for their dear leader, Donald Trump.

www.thenation.com

Let me know when you find one that has been convicted of such, moron.

 

[Dagosa]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

Nope. Trump should be kept on the ballot.how else can you convince his followers he’s a loser ?

 

[whitehall]

If you know you can't win, the Banana Republic strategy is to disqualify the opponent. Lefties are predictable because they are mostly ignorant in the true sense of the word.

 

[BackAgain]

The Judge explained how Donald Trump is disqualified from retaking the White House under the 14th Amendment, why the former president is not immune from prosecution, and what a second Trump term would mean for the country (spoiler alert: it wouldn't be good).

Jordan Rubin: Judge, you’ve been thinking a lot lately about this 14th Amendment issue. Why is it so important to democracy, in your view?

J. Michael Luttig: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment ... disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, thereafter engages in an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, disqualifying that person from holding high public office in the future, including the presidency.

So it’s more than just a proscription and disqualification for anti-democratic conduct by an individual, but, in this circumstance, it is that and it would apply in this instance to disqualify the former president from holding the presidency again, because of his effort, plan and attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election, knowing that he had lost that election to then-candidate Joe Biden.

This is very, very important: Section 3 disqualifies one who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, not an insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or the authority of the United States.

JR: What do you think of criticism that suggests it's wrong to keep Trump off the ballot using this process, as opposed to “letting the voters decide,” as a critic would say?

JML: I have seen that criticism, if you will, of applying Section 3 to the former president. And it concerned me because it’s a legitimate question to be asked. But I’ve responded publicly to that concern by explaining that the disqualification that’s provided for under Section 3 is not itself anti-democratic at all.

Rather, it’s the conduct that can result in disqualification under the 14th Amendment that the Constitution says is anti-democratic. So there’s no question whatsoever that disqualification of an individual who satisfies the conditions of disqualification in Section 3 is not anti-democratic.

Judge Luttig explains why Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency

The conservative retired jurist broke down the 14th Amendment, Trump's immunity argument, and what a second Trump term would mean.

www.msnbc.com

To educate Meryl the simpleton:

Trump hasn’t been convicted of nor even charged with insurrection in any federal court case.

That wraps up today’s edition of shooting down Meryl’s flying shit show of simple-minded sophistry.

 

[Dagosa]

If you know you can't win, the Banana Republic strategy is to disqualify the opponent. Lefties are predictable because they are mostly ignorant in the true sense of the word.

Wait. Trump tried to jail Hillary…..you complaining cause the gop is too incompetent ? Trumps admin was IN CHARGE of federal election integrity when YOU claim the election was stolen….You can’t have it both ways.
He’s an incompetent loser.

 

[whitehall]

Wait. Trump tried to jail Hillary…..you complaining cause the gop is too incompetent ? Trumps admin was IN CHARGE of federal election integrity when YOU claim the election was stolen….You can’t have it both ways.
He’s an incompetent loser.

Trump never tried to jail Hillary. He thought it was fun to accuse her of a crime. The problem for republicans is that lefties have no sense of humor.

 

[Lastamender]

Hey! Trump is still on the ballot.

 

[daveman]

NO WAIT GUISE HERES BAD ORNGE MANS TWEET TELLING HIS PEOPLE TO BURN DOWN DC

 

[Concerned American]

If you know you can't win, the Banana Republic strategy is to disqualify the opponent. Lefties are predictable because they are mostly ignorant in the true sense of the word.

Yeah, it was BS that Heels Up didn't even show up to accept the nomination last night. These fascist bastards will do anything to keep her from talking in public off the cuff.