Posted on 01/13/2021 9:16:02 AM PST by Onthebrink
I have tried to distinguish two issues: whether President Trump committed impeachable conduct (he did), and whether that conduct is accurately described in the article of impeachment Democrats will propose today (the description is problematic). Relevant to that latter point, as I’ve previously detailed, is the title of the article: “Incitement to Insurrection.”
My point here is not to rehash the problems I’ve already outlined. It is, rather, to look at the issue through the prism of my colleague Dan McLaughlin’s characteristically incisive and comprehensive essay on the insurrection-based disqualification from public office in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
As Dan details, top Democrats and influential progressive legal scholars contend that President Trump, and perhaps other Republicans and Trump supporters who can be tied to the events that led to the siege on the Capitol last Wednesday, could be disqualified from holding public office under Section 3. The ban is triggered if a person is found to “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Nothing the left does has to be constitutional, or even make sense. And the public is too stupid to notice, or care.
If organizing a political rally is impeachable conduct, we are fooked
Ok, Andy, what are the words that have put your panties into such a bunch? You an execrable hack.
“Trump committed impeachable conduct (he did)”
Horse apples! Name the crime. I’m waiting. Not reading another word until you name his crime. Remember, there is video, so chose your words carefully.
speech is conduct?
Any such article that does not begin with, "By uttering the words '[verbatim quote]', President Trump became guilty of Insurrection" is worthless.
Regards,
‘
Kamala Harris is an Insurrectionist.
She funded it, too.
‘
The Judicial system has to find someone guilty of insurrection, The Legislature (or the Executive) can’t.
No one has even been charged with insurrection!
This is all silly blather.
Didn’t he write an article recently starting that the President should impeached?
To paraphrase another axiom; you can impeach a ham sandwich 🥪
let alone attending a political rally. Two Seattle cops are suspended because they were in DC but not inside the crapital
NO, HE DIDN'T!
What did he do that was impeachable?
National Review should be a banned site. They’re never on our side.
An insurrection against himself? They seem to forget that he was President.
Another make-believe conservative who, now that the coup has been completed, is afraid of being “cancelled” in DC.
I am so glad they are impeaching President Trump.Coming from the criminal syndicate that stole the election we wear it like a badge of honor.
Haven’t they learned yet? This will make President Trump even stronger than ANYONE can possible imagine.
Whenever President Trump is unfairly and fraudulently attacked like this, his popularity and support grow exponentially.
The pearl clutcher Dems and the pearl clutching RINOs had better stock up on pearls. They will be clutching for another 100 years by the time President Trump gets done with them.
Andy McCarthy and the rest of National Review need to drop their façade of “conservatism.” Their gate-keeping on the Right isn’t even needed anymore by the Deep State. New gatekeepers have appeared. National Review serves no purpose at all anymore.
Lost me at “(he did)”.
I apparently used all my free articles so I couldn’t read the whole thing, but how can they charge Trump with supporting insurrection when they’re talking about charging the rioters at the Capitol with sedition? How can you support insurrection if there isn’t one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.