Posted on 02/14/2021 8:50:09 AM PST by USA Conservative
McConnell and the GOP elites (GOPe) worked against President Trump for years preventing him from passing his wildly popular agenda to protect America, its workers, and its citizens.
McConnell did not hold back as he ripped Trump apart for a “disgraceful dereliction of duty” and attempting to “overturn the election.”
He claimed that the protesters stormed the Capitol because they had been “fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth,” and that Trump was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”
And then Mitch McConnell suggested that President Trump can still be charged in the criminal justice system!
The Dems who also try to prevent President Trump from running again in 2024 came with another plan that would only need a simple majority to succeed.
(Excerpt) Read more at usasupreme.com ...
The Government can do anything since they do not follow either the Constitution or the law. Who is going to stop them? SCOTUS, lol?
I don’t know how the mechanism for this would actually work. Bills of Attainder are prohibited by the Constitution and Trump has been acquitted by the Senate of promoting an ‘insurrection’.
But this opens up all kinds of paths for tyranny. According to the dems, Congress can, by simple majority vote, disqualify just about anyone from holding office.
If they think this is going to ‘calm things down’ or unite the country they are delusional.
Yeah, that’s not going to delegitimize the government at *all*.
It could happen. The Constitution is just decoration; in fact, it has been for many years, but now the violations (and gloating) are brazen and in-your-face.
The Chief Justice will approve, and now and it seems he can force the other justices to go along.
lol
In addition, by its terms, while Congress may restore ones right to hold office once it's been taken away for "insurrection", there's nothing about how the fact of one taking part in an "insurrection" within the meaning of XIV Section 3 is established in the first place. Congress was in no way tasked in making that decision in XIV Section 3.
I would think that would require some judicial finding, like a criminal conviction for insurrection, or maybe even a simple declaratory judgement in a civil case (sound farfetched, but still it would be something). Certainly conviction for insurrection in the Senate yesterday would have made a stronger case for denying Trump future office, but that failed.
I don't see how they can do this short of filing criminal charges in DC District Court for insurrection and getting a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck with that is all I can say.
In short, Congress can't do this. They're simply don't have jurisdiction.
>>So, McConnell is going to pass a bill of attainder?<<
If they do this, it will:
1) DEMAND the same be done to every single democrat on the highlight reel shown in Trump’s defense who supported violence
and
2) Open the floodgates against EVERY OTHER ex President, starting with BJ klintoon and of course obozo. Until now no one has touched ex-Presidents legally, not even Nixon, as that is what happens in banana republics. If they break that rule then you can expect every Bush I, II, klintoon and of course obozo (easy conviction) to be next.
Normally, that’s what would happen. But, one thing I learned from the Gen. Flynn fiasco is that the DC Courts are not operating under normal order when Trump is involved.
The government in the Flynn case said they couldn’t ethically continue the prosecution and the judge said: Don’t worry fam, I’m gonna be the judge and prosecutor on this one. It was INSANE. But, it happened and would still be happening if Trump didn’t pardon him. And, even after the pardon was issued, the Judge made noises about whether the pardon was enforceable...which is even more insane.
Honestly, if they arrested Trump in the middle of the night and sent him to Guantanamo, it wouldn’t shock me at this point.
The only Constitutional authority the Congress has to sit as a judge and jury is in cases of impeachment and trial. That’s it. Nothing else is constitutional and no, Senator Burr, just because the Congress takes unconstitutional actions, they do not set precedent that unconstitutional actions are now constituional.
I hate to repeat myself, but ...
Congress does not have the power to “convict” anyone of any crime against the United States (or any other crime). They simply have the power to impeach, remove and bar from office an officer of the US WHILE that person is in office.
Senate “precedent” does not change this (i.e. they now claim that since THEY determined their actions were constitutional, that it is then so).
If they want to bar President Trump from any further office under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, some judicial body will need to hand down a guilty verdict.
Of course, that won’t stop the Anti-Trumpers from going through all kinds of silly motions - but that is the only way it can be done.
IOW - this is being played up for the gullible masses who either:
a. demand that “something be done”, i.e. to placate and/or
b. demand he be left alone, i.e. to rile / provoke a second “erection”!
An impeachment is not a criminal trial so double jeopardy does not apply. But doesn't there have to have been a rebellion and/or insurrection first to trigger Section 3?
KenMatthews
@KenMatthews
20h
·
PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP.
ELECTED TWICE.
2 Nobel Peace Prize nominations.
2 Fake Impeachments.
ZERO CONVICTIONS.
https://gab.com/KenMatthews/posts/105725974842757632
The majority leader of the MI senate already revealed that Mitch McConnell was part of the planned break in and riot at the Capitol so they could impeach Trump.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment says that you can under certain circumstances.
Alcee Hastings says, “Hello”
What insurrection did he participate in?
If we are talking about the 14th Amendment clause that was put in against CSA (Confederate States of America) officials and officers, the predicate offense was that they were in rebellion against the US Government and Nation. Trump, as President, was not in rebellion against the very Government he was the Chief Executive thereof.
Thus, despite the earnest wishes of the Uniparty and the LEFT, this effort would, instead, be using the color of the law, to deny the voters a US Constitutional Right to vote for a chosen candidate. Regardless of the law in question or whatever vote in Congress, I remember prior cases where a duly elected person won the judicial case to take office.
Adam Clayton Powell (D), was ‘excluded’ from his elected seat in the US House (1967 90th Congress, NY-18). In 1969 he was re-elected but with the US Supreme Court (Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)) requiring his seating. While this individual case was based upon Article I and the Qualifications Clause therein, It is no stretch at all for this to apply to a Trump repeat run.
Also, this carries the stench of the Constitutionally banned “Act of Attainder” in the form of ‘Attainder by Process’. Attainder by process resulted from a legislative act outlawing a fugitive / person. This is Section 9 of Article One of the United States Constitution, which provides that no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed by Congress.
For a party whose candidate allegedly won with a good sized majority of votes the 'rats sure seem to be concerned about President Trump running again. One could be forgiven for thinking perhaps the 'rats know their candidate actually lost by a significant amount, and that it was only through rampant fraud they were able to illegally install him to occupy the office.
I mean really, if President Trump was so bad, so onerous and so hated... You'd think the 'rats would welcome him running again so they could win again with ease... Unless of course their "win" was anything but a real win or easy...
There is the stench of fear and desperation about the 'rats these days.
They do not have the authority to do that. SC would strike it down.
...”FED FALSEHOODS” .... The whole “trial” that the House managers put on was PURE FALSEHOOD and manufactured “evidence.” It was disgusting. I don’t know how a Senator could have come out of that trial and say that the manufactured evidence and news media reports proved that Trump was an insurrectionist. They were proven to be lies by Trump’s lawyers. If they lie in one thing they lie in everything! The trial was a joke and the House managers don’t deserve to have a seat in the House! The Senators who voted for conviction don’t deserve the title or seat of a US Senator! They have proven that their vote was one of emotion and not one of following the Constitution!
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.