Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
What a dumb article, who came up with the angle on this piece of shit?
“She said it doesn’t matter if he’s an insurrectionist or not! That means she knows he’s guilty!” is some literal schoolyard logic.
What we should be more concerned with is:
Right. Also, what is meant by “entire nation…should be up to the people”?
If we are jumping to conclusions, this might as well mean getting rid of the electoral college and the unequal representation it enables via gerrymandering. Considering republicans haven’t won the popular vote in something like 30 years, I’m for it. Let the people decide…all of them.
Funny how now it's the "entire nation" that elects the president and not the electoral college.
Especially considering he lost popular vote, twice.
Here to say that the title is factually inaccurate. The argument being made is a hypothetical generalization and does nothing of the sort. Trump is definitely guilty of insurrection, but the editors of the New Republic are guilty of clickbait and malpractice. Shame!
Yeah that was garbage. She's an idiot but that statement is an admission of guilt in the same way that SpaceX makes boats.
Rhetorically speaking, however, you want to limit where the conversation goes. In a debate or, perhaps, a philosophy paper, you might want to head off any avenues of argument before your opponent has a chance to bring them up. Here, just saying it raises the very question from a rhetorical standpoint and creates doubt in those listening.
So you're completely right. At the same time, this was a bad move by the lawyer unless their new tactic is to change the narrative to "insurrection doesn't' matter anyway amirite?".
“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president..."
Hmm yes please, lets abolish the electoral college so that presidents are in fact decided by the entire nation collectively and equally!
Never thought i would agree with a Trump lawyer...
“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”
When was the last time a Republican won the popular vote?
2004, Bush's second term. Which, electorally speaking, wasn't that long ago.
Of course the 2016 and 2000 elections both saw Republican candidates win the presidency, but not the popular vote.
The 2000 election is also special since it came down to a judicial decision and was a 0.5% difference.
The 2016 election however is more clear, since it was a 2% difference.
Also keep in mind this had never happened before. So 2000 was when we should have started to take action, but since every election after (until 2016) it went back to normal, it made 2000 look like an outlier.
Which is all a long was of saying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact is probably the answer here.
2000 was a coup.
It's telling that no member of the Supreme Court was willing to put their name on that decision.
W in 2004.
It warms my soul to see Trump using the least qualified lawyers.
Any lawyer in a position to refuse him as a client will stay the fuck away from the angry orange as possible.
Again, they are no longer arguing that he didn't do it. They are arguing that he should face any ramifications for it.
Hey look, it’s narcissism:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
She also has zero understanding of the 14th Amendment & Constitution in general.
Its a good thing she's pretty, her legal career is likely dead after Trump is incarcerated.
What part of the insurrection clause is so misunderstood?
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. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
edit: I just don't get it. It seems like very clear language to me
Nobody actually misunderstands Section 3. Everybody knows what it means. Some disingenuous fuckwits have tried to pretend they don't actually understand it.
They have argued that what Trump did does not rise to the level of "insurrection". They argued that he did not actually take up arms, but merely "spoke" to people. They argued that he is entitled to "speak" under the First Amendment, and that his "speech" cannot therefore be considered insurrection.
And they have argued that even if his actions did rise to the level of insurrection, the oath he swore as president did not actually include the phrase "support the constitution". The oaths of all other individuals mentioned explicitly do include that phrase, so the argument is that the framers never intended to include the presidency. Since he never swore an oath to "support" the constitution, either as president or earlier in his life, he is not bound by this limitation, and is free to commit insurrection whenever he wants.
And they have argued that even if it was insurrection, and his oath was interpreted in such a way as to apply, the office of "President" is either the United States itself, or above the United States, and not "under" the United States.
And they have argued that even if it was insurrection and his oath was interpreted properly and that the office of President is an office "under" the United States, he is still able to be re-elected because Section 3 is inoperative. This argument relies on Section 5:
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The theory is that Congress has not enacted any law under Section 3 to actually bring it into operation, so the whole section remains dormant and unenforceable.
Heh, funny how the constitution has no problems specifying sole power vs power, which torpedos that final argument entirely.
Who has the "sole power" of impeachment, for instance?
It's literally just childish denial in adult brains. That's it. The people who disagree are either evil shitlords that WANT a strongman ruler, or dumb morons who quite literally do not understand democracy. There are no sane people that believe he is qualified.
They're claiming the Office of the President doesn't technically fit into any of the offices listed in the 14th amendment.
The office of the president is a weird one. For example, the president is the commander of the military, but is not a part of the military. The president is a civilian position (and technically, the president shouldn't be saluting troops.) So if the president violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but not a civilian law, they couldn't be tried for that.
CLEARLY the 14th amendment would include the president, but lawyers do what lawyers do.
I would not say she doesn't understand it, she is paid to understand it in a way that makes trump innocent.
Her statement demonstrates otherwise.
So... No president unless everyone agrees? That's gonna be tough with freedom of speech.
You heard it folks NO MORE PRESIDENTS NO MORE PRESIDENTS NO MORE PRESIDENTS 🎊🎉✨️🎉🎊💜🦀
Lol that's probably the Oompah-iest photo of trump I've seen.