Trump was a serial violator of his oath—as evidenced by his continual use of his office for personal financial gain—but focusing on three crucial ways in which he betrayed it helps clarify his singular historical status. First, he failed to put the national-security interests of the United States ahead of his own political needs. Second, in the face of a devastating pandemic, he was grossly derelict, unable or unwilling to marshal the requisite resources to save lives while actively encouraging public behavior that spread the disease. And third, held to account by voters for his failures, he refused to concede defeat and instead instigated an insurrection, stirring up a mob that stormed the Capitol.
Should trump be disqualified as president for rebellion against the constitution?
Posts
Total:
288
-->
@FLRW
as evidenced by his continual use of his office for personal financial gain...
Trump lost more money as President than all presidents combined in US history.
-->
@Greyparrot
That is because he is stupider than all presidents combined in US history.
-->
@FLRW
So you should revise your statement to "financial loss"
-->
@Greyparrot
But he did get his son-in-law Jared $2 billion from the Saudi government.
-->
@Greyparrot
Actually Donald Trump reported making more than $1.6 billion in outside revenue and income during his four years as President of the United States, according to a review of his financial disclosures by CREW. While Trump publicly took credit for donating his taxpayer-funded salary, that ended up being less than 0.1% of the revenue and income he disclosed during his presidency. Far from being a sacrifice, the donation was merely a fig leaf to cover up four years of brazen corruption.
-->
@FLRW
But he did get his son-in-law Jared $2 billion from the Saudi government.
Sadly, no 10 percent for the "BIG GUY"
-->
@FLRW
Troll. Start a new thread with this nonsense vs obfuscating this one with your unsubstantiated ignorant opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with 14/3.
JFC, this subject was already covered and I shut it down with actual legal facts and proper analysis of the 14th Section 3. Again…
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
Trump lost more money as President than all presidents combined in US history.
That’s a lie.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
Lol, tell us again what hearsay is. You couldn’t even get that right.
Citing my credentials gives away personal information.
Bullshit. You have no credentials to speak of.
you’re jsut not that special enough for me to waste my time
There’s that highly trained, legal mind attention to detail again.
Tell us again how hearsay works, lol
-->
@FLRW
Ask the legally trained TWS to explain hearsay. He can’t even get that simple concept right.
Back from a short trip.
FanDick is the one who doesn’t comprehend heresay and why it’s more often than not admissible in court.
Go suck a dick, FanDick. Everyone here knows that’s what you love to do when you’re not trolling DART with your TDS issues.
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple: one cannot cross examine the person who is making the statement since that person is not in court. The person in court or the document read is simply repeating what someone else said…and that someone else is not present for cross examination.
Citing my credentials gives away personal information.Bullshit. You have no credentials to speak of.
Easy to claim, harder to prove.
Prove I have no credentials.
Can’t, and you know you can’t.
Enjoy that plate of bullshit you’re vomiting.
FanDick is the one who doesn’t comprehend heresay and why it’s more often than not admissible in court.Go suck a dick, FanDick. Everyone here knows that’s what you love to do when you’re not trolling DART with your TDS issues.
what a surprise that a racist MAGA Moron is a homophobe. Yet no kids for you. Hmm.
And you misspelled hearsay. Because you’re a dummy
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple:
You have already shown you don’t understand what constitutes hearsay. Because you’re a dummy
-->
@TWS1405_2
The definition of insurrection that you provided is factually inaccurate where the 2020 St Floyd Riots are concerned.
And yet I provided the exact same definition from the exact same source you did earlier in post 163.
So when you needed to make your argument this definition was fine, but now that it’s inconvenient for you it’s inaccurate.
But I’m the dishonest denialist eh?
The riots of 2020 were directed specifically at civil authority and the established government in each respective state affected by said violent uprising/revolt against said authority and government(s). "No Justice, No Peace!" Remember.
Yes I do, which is irrelevant to the definition of insurrection we both agreed on till it no longer worked for you.
It really doesn’t matter though. If the only qualifiers are that they are violent and directed at government, then every violent protest is an insurrection. Either way, J6 was still an insurrection.
They didn't need a cult leader to do what they organized and executed. You're pulling straws out of thin air with the Maxine Waters reference
The reference and point clearly went over your head. The rioters on J6 would have never been out there let alone have breached the Capitol without Trump’s months long campaign to convince these people the election was stolen and his telling them to be there in J6. Again, they’ve all said this themselves.
Not one rioter in 2020 burned or looted because Maxine Waters told them to.
Do you understand this difference? If not let me try an analogy… Waters might have thrown gasoline on the fire, but Trump chose the space, set up the wood, poured gasoline, and then lit the match. Both are bad, but these are not the same.
There is no basis in fact to substantiate such an asinine claim as "an organized plot driven by the president of the United States."
The J6 committee already established this.
What part of this did you fail to comprehend?The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.
The part where what “the entire left” is doing has anything to do with our discussion of your legal argument.
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.What in the flying fucktard special needs crap are you babbling on about here!??!
The part where you said this genius:
The entire point of this amendment was to stop americans who engaged in rebellion from holding office in our government…No, double dumbass, it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.
-->
@Double_R
-->@<<<TWS1405_2>>>The definition of insurrection that you provided is factually inaccurate where the 2020 St Floyd Riots are concerned.And yet I provided the exact same definition from the exact same source you did earlier in post 163.
Sure, out of context. The definition I used was provided within the context of the discussion about J6, NOT the St. Floyd Riots of 2020. Big fucking difference. Both events are mutually exclusive, therefore the same definition given (#163) of insurrection does not apply. Dumbass.
So when you needed to make your argument this definition was fine, but now that it’s inconvenient for you it’s inaccurate.But I’m the dishonest denialist eh?
Wrong. It's called lack of attention to detail and lack of reading comprehension skills on YOUR PART!!!!
I used the correct definition for insurrection in relationship to each respective event(s).
That's why there is more than one definition for insurrection, it depends on the context in which it is to be used that determines the correct definition to be used.
The riots of 2020 were directed specifically at civil authority and the established government in each respective state affected by said violent uprising/revolt against said authority and government(s). "No Justice, No Peace!" Remember.Yes I do, which is irrelevant to the definition of insurrection we both agreed on till it no longer worked for you.
Nope. "we" did not agree on anything. I provided the correct definition as it applied in context to J6. You used the same definition as it applied to the St Floyd Riots of 2020, and I correctly pointed out you were wrong. Different circumstance/events requires a different more apropos definition directly applying to the context of said riots.
It really doesn’t matter though. If the only qualifiers are that they are violent and directed at government, then every violent protest is an insurrection. Either way, J6 was still an insurrection.
It sure does matter! Words have very different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. You used the wrong definition of insurrection where the Floyd riots are concerned. Your fault. Your ignorance. Your problem. And now you're making up your own definition to skirt the issue. Pathetic.
They didn't need a cult leader to do what they organized and executed. You're pulling straws out of thin air with the Maxine Waters referenceThe reference and point clearly went over your head. The rioters on J6 would have never been out there let alone have breached the Capitol without Trump’s months long campaign to convince these people the election was stolen and his telling them to be there in J6. Again, they’ve all said this themselves.
Oh bullshit. Your crystal ball is clearly dead and needs new batteries, cause you cannot say with absolutism that not a single person would not be present J6 to rightly protest and voice their grievances in redress to the government. You have heard of the 1A, right!?! And they breached the Capitol due to the egging on by undercover FBI agents and others in the crowds, and Capitol Police moved barricades, opened doors, and just stood around after the breach happened. All of this is documented in video evidence that you cannot refute. Trump did not hold a gun to anyone's head and forced them to breach the Capitol, they did that of their own choosing.
Not one rioter in 2020 burned or looted because Maxine Waters told them to.
Sure, they did, and in every other riot thereafter. She gave them carte blanche to do it going forward.
Just like how the Democrats with their defend the police, no cash bail, no punishment for criminals have given them carte blanche to commit more crimes. Again, all documented video evidence of the crime, slime, and drug addicts ruining democrat ran cities across the nation.
Do you understand this difference? If not let me try an analogy…
Stop trying to use analogies when you do not even know what they are let alone how to use them. They're ridiculous and complete ignoratio elenchi arguments on your part.
There is no basis in fact to substantiate such an asinine claim as "an organized plot driven by the president of the United States."The J6 committee already established this.
No, they did not. Saying so doesn't make it so. Especially with a so-called committee ran entirely by democrats suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome locking out any and all Republican input. It was an entirely one-sided shit show that didn't even include contradictory video evidence that refuted much of their asinine assertions. But hey, keep drinking that Kool-Aid, sooner or later you'll end up in Jonestown.
What part of this did you fail to comprehend?The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.The part where what “the entire left” is doing has anything to do with our discussion of your legal argument.
You're so dense it's pathetic.
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.What in the flying fucktard special needs crap are you babbling on about here!??!The part where you said this genius:The entire point of this amendment was to stop americans who engaged in rebellion from holding office in our government…No, double dumbass, it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.
There's that lack of reading comprehension coming out again.
Nowhere in my statement did I say, directly or indirectly, that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.
You have to be a real special kind of stupid to claim such an asinine thing.
The foreigner part applies to the "aid and comfort" part of the amendment.
And it applies to Americans or those who have had already served in an official government capacity, then acted against the interests of the country/Constitution, would be barred from future office.
You will never prevail in this subject matter.
Everything I posted in my analysis stands as 100% factually accurate.
Your rebuttals are purely childish and amateurish in nature.
You simply couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag where this subject is concerned.
But as everyone here knows, you enjoy trying to look smart with your banal sophistry and never ever will admit you are wrong.
That's why you are, without a doubt, the biggest intellectual coward denialist at DART .
FanDick is the one who doesn’t comprehend heresay and why it’s more often than not admissible in court.Go suck a dick, FanDick. Everyone here knows that’s what you love to do when you’re not trolling DART with your TDS issues.what a surprise that a racist MAGA Moron is a homophobe. Yet no kids for you. Hmm.
So you admit to liking sucking Dick, got it. LOL!!!
And you misspelled hearsay. Because you’re a dummy
Just for you, FanDick. Because I spelled it correctly elsewhere, and I knew if I misspelled it just once you would see it and comment on it. So predictable.
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple:You have already shown you don’t understand what constitutes hearsay. Because you’re a dummy
Quoting out of context fallacy.
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple: one cannot cross examine the person who is making the statement since that person is not in court. The person in court or the document read is simply repeating what someone else said…and that someone else is not present for cross examination.
I know full well what it is, you do not, clearly, and like your buddy Double Dumber, you too are an intellectual coward denialist.
So you admit to liking sucking Dick, got it. LOL!!!
Classic strawman fallacy from the moron who is always incorrectly claiming strawman.
I know full well what it is, you do not,
No, you don’t. You claimed Cipollone and Hutchinson gave hearsay (heresay in your case) evidence, which was incorrect. You literally can’t even spell the word.
They were the ones who witnessed Ivanka Trump trying to get her father to act. Their testimony under oath corroborated each other. You’re a dummy.
This country needs to evaluate if morons like you should be allowed to vote and make some changes.
The reason hearsay is barred for evidence is simple: one cannot cross examine the person who is making the statement since that person is not in court.
Classic strawman fallacy from the moron who is always incorrectly claiming strawman.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Wrong. Trump offered the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Pelosi said no.
This is a complete lie, and a stupid one at that.
The speaker of the house does not make decisions with regards to national guard deployment. That has to come from the White House.
Trump never offered anything. His own Secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff both testified under oath that Trump gave no such order. This is yet another example of Trump just lying repeatedly because he knows people like you will cultishly believe him despite the very clear evidence to the contrary.
But what really make this claim so absurd is how self defeating this ultimately is. To hide behind this claim you have to first accept that Trump was well aware of how dangerous the situation was heading into January 6th is in the first place, something you emphatically deny. And then you have to disregard your own premise as you acknowledge that despite Trump recognizing the danger and knowing the Capitol did not have the security it needed, that he continued to hold his J6 rally where after telling the crowd to “fight like hell” along with Rudy’s “let’s have trial by combat” remarks, he then told the protesters to March on down to the Capitol, again, knowing it did not have the security it needed.
Your arguments refute themselves.
-->
@Double_R
WASHINGTON (AP) — Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter.
Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration.
Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House, officials also were intent on avoiding any appearance that the federal government was deploying active duty or National Guard troops against Americans.
The result is the U.S. Capitol was overrun Wednesday and officers in a law enforcement agency with a large operating budget and experience in high-security events protecting lawmakers were overwhelmed for the world to see. Four protesters died, including one shot inside the building.
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, under pressure from Schumer, Pelosi and other congressional leaders, was forced to resign. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell asked for and received the resignation of the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, Michael Stenger, effective immediately. Paul Irving, the longtime Sergeant at Arms of the House, also resigned.
“There was a failure of leadership at the top,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
“There was a failure of leadership at the top,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
-->
@Double_R
Your arguments refute themselves.
Says the intellectual coward denialist who will never admit they are wrong. Total narcissistic of you.
Your lack of attention to detail and reading comprehension skills refute your banal retorts.
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank you for submitting that evidence that the National Guard was offered by the Pentagon. Who is in charge of the Pentagon? The Commander in Chief.
A baseless claim has resurfaced that former President Donald Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 National Guard troops before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but was stopped by the House sergeant at arms, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Guard troops are generally controlled by governors, though they can be federalized, says William C. Banks, professor emeritus of public administration and international affairs. The online claims “make no sense at all,” Banks says, adding, “The House sergeant at arms, he or she is not in the chain of command. Nor is Nancy Pelosi.”
Read more in the Associated Press article, "NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week."
Guard troops are generally controlled by governors, though they can be federalized, says William C. Banks, professor emeritus of public administration and international affairs. The online claims “make no sense at all,” Banks says, adding, “The House sergeant at arms, he or she is not in the chain of command. Nor is Nancy Pelosi.”
Read more in the Associated Press article, "NOT REAL NEWS: A look at what didn’t happen this week."
-->
@FLRW
Insurrection Act - read it and learn. POTUS has the authority to call up the national guard in order to suppress insurrections.
- STILL INCONTESTABLE!!!
14th Amendment, Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:
"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."
First key legal term in that criteria is "shall": Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive.
Second key term here is "engaged": involved in activity; involved especially in a hostile encounter
Third key term, and its legal definition thereof is, "insurrection": A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.
- Rebellion: The taking up arms traitorously against the government and in another, and perhaps a more correct sense, rebellion signifies the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully issued.
The final legal term (phrase) in that criteria is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy": SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.
"The two branches of treason, "levying war," and "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," are distinct, and do not embody synonymous actions."
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government."
"...whereas giving aid and comfort is generally committed in connection with a war waged against the United States by a foreign power."
President Donald J. Trump did NOT (shall have) directly engage in an armed insurrection "in a hostile encounter" against the United States Constitution for which he gave oath to support. Equally, President Donald J. Trump did NOT give aid and comfort to the enemy since there was no enemy (a foreign power) to give aid and comfort to on January 6, 2020. More importantly, the United States Government via the F.B.I.emphatically declared that J6 was NOT an insurrection. Nor was President Donald J. Trump charged with inciting a riotand/or directly engaging in said riot that was facilitated by FBI agents placed within the J6 crowd and Capitol Police who aided in the breach of the Capitol.
"The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials."
No insurrection, as such no rebellion either.
No enemies (agents of a foreign power) were present at the events of J6 either. Therefore, no enemies for anyone to give aid and comfort thereto.
The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply where President Donald J. Trump is concerned.
He can and will likely serve another term as POTUS.
No Pentagon officials deliberately held off on sending the National Guard to the U.S. Capitol during the attacks of Jan. 6, 2021, the House committee investigating the insurrection said in its final report. Rather, it said conflicting messages caused a delay.
The committee lays blame on then-President Trump for the holdup as rioters attacked the building’s police officers, smashed windows and searched for lawmakers for more than three hours until guard members showed up to help quell the chaos.
The committee lays blame on then-President Trump for the holdup as rioters attacked the building’s police officers, smashed windows and searched for lawmakers for more than three hours until guard members showed up to help quell the chaos.
“President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day,” the committee wrote in the 845-page report it released Thursday evening. “Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist.”
A key focus of the committee was looking into why it took hours for the Pentagon to eventually send the National Guard to the Capitol as the calamity unfolded.
The final report states that Washington, D.C., National Guard head Maj. Gen. William Walker “strongly” considered sending his troops without specific orders from the White House or top Defense Department officials, but ultimately held off.
A key focus of the committee was looking into why it took hours for the Pentagon to eventually send the National Guard to the Capitol as the calamity unfolded.
The final report states that Washington, D.C., National Guard head Maj. Gen. William Walker “strongly” considered sending his troops without specific orders from the White House or top Defense Department officials, but ultimately held off.
-->
@FLRW
AP article say different.