Posted on 07/17/2022 1:26:10 AM PDT by RandFan
After the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, is there any doubt that Donald Trump fomented the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021?
There are no longer any innocent explanations for what he did that day. Select Committee testimony has demonstrated that he knew he had no good factual or legal basis for his claim that the election was stolen, that he knew Vice President Mike Pence was not going to save him and that his only chance to remain in the White House was to stop the final ratification by Congress on Jan. 6. The testimony has also demonstrated that he knew some in the crowd assembled to hear him speak were armed, that a mob was heading to the Capitol, and that it was clearly in his power to call off the insurrection — but instead of trying to stop the violence, he chose to do nothing.
The question is: Can anything be done, short of a criminal conviction, to prevent Trump from seeking to recapture the presidency?
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies a person from being president who, while holding a federal office, participated in an insurrection against the United States.
That prohibition must surely apply to Donald Trump, and that is what the House sought to establish in Trump’s second impeachment; however, because the impeachment trial was held before a full investigation of the insurrection charge had taken place, much of the most damning evidence uncovered by the Select Committee was not available. Thus, while the House will not get a second chance, there are other means of achieving Trump’s disqualification, although they have never been tested in a court before now.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I knew it.
There is a reason they keep using the word "insurrection".
They are disgusting treasonous criminals.
Alan should seek help for his TDS.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection
in·sur·rec·tion | \ ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən \
an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=insurrection&type=1
(too lazy to get my black’s right now, lol)
“insurrection” isn’t available in the dictionary.
Alan B. Morrison is an associate dean at George Washington University Law School where he teaches constitutional law.
(Wow)
what would the complaint letter look like?
how about “lack of jurisdiction”? (what jurisdiction btw? lawsuit implies to me civil, not criminal, although insurrection implies to me criminal, not civil... so are some legal wires being hotwired here?)
how about “lack of standing?”
how about “separation of powers”?
that’s all i can come up with in a few minutes, but i note in passing that the terms jurisdiction, complaint, and civil are not used in the essay. without the use of these terms, i am puzzled on how any such lawsuit could proceed... which imho brings up “due process.”
i think that the word lawsuit does not mean what mr. morrison thinks it means...
He called house leaders multiple times asking if they wanted extra police. They turned him down.
He called for the protestors to be peaceful.
There was no attempt to stay in the white house after the stolen election.
If this was insurrection its the weakest most fail of one ever attempted.
Since Donald Trump was President and head of the government on January 6th. 2021, any actions he took on that date could never be an insurrection against his own government.
Leftists contradict themselves yet again. They sure seem scared of Trump winning a (third) general election. Why? I thought they had plenty of “scientific” proof that the American people “rejected” Trump as a “clown,” “insurrectionist,” “racist,” and “incompetent” on the covid issue.
They’re so scared of Trump they have to cheat him and they openly discuss it.
You don’t write something like this about someone who CANNOT win the next presidential election.
Democrats are such a complete failure, they think their only hope is a lawless, desperation move like this.
They can try it but it would backfire and only make Trump more popular than ever. Everybody would instantly see this as the corrupt political move that it is....an attempt at lawfare to take out an opponent they know they can’t beat. The public backlash would be massive.
and even supposing it succeeds which I find extremely difficult to believe but just supposing....are they gonna do any better against DeSantis?
Attempts to disqualify a popular candidate from a Presidential election will surely backfire on the Democrats.
What this amounts to is partisan Democrats trying to telling the voters who they can and can’t vote for - it won’t go over well.
I guess they missed the part about a write-in candidate.
Living rent free in the minds of Leftists, anti-Trumpers, etc.: Confirmed.
What “insurrection”? The only person that was urging invasion of the Capitol was a guy named Ray Epps, who is wandering about free as a bird on the wing. Yet he never owned up to his part in the whole fiasco, and apparently has been given a complete pass by the FBI.
Add to that the security that simply threw open the gates and let the swarm in, the Antifa and BLM masquerading as MAGA, the large crowd on real Trump supporters, and the merely curious at this impromptu tour of the Capitol.
The only death by gunfire was a white female, murdered by a black Capitol police officer.
An insurrection with no weapons. Hmmm, interesting concept.
The only thing Trump was a threat to was their corruption. And those wanting harm to the U.S. Incredible what they’re going through to stop him. (Thank God Clinton Inc. hasn’t been contacted yet)
> Since Donald Trump was President and head of the government on January 6th. 2021, any actions he took on that date could never be an insurrection against his own government.
I think for this they would probably take the tack that insurrection would encompass the executive branch taking unconstitutionally permitted action against the congressional branch... maybe... who knows...
I truly think the USSC, (if not the trial/appellate court/s), would have to struggle with the fact that the impeachment articles were specifically “insurrection” for which he was found not guilty. The way I read the 14th amendment on disqualification it requires a conviction. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
> I truly think the USSC, (if not the trial/appellate court/s), would have to struggle with the fact that the impeachment articles were specifically “insurrection” for which he was found not guilty. The way I read the 14th amendment on disqualification it requires a conviction. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
well if the impeachment articles were viewed as dismissed counts I1C1..CN1 and I2C1..CN2, then anything new would become a new count, but would not per the essay originate from a conviction in an impeachment trial. it would presumably originate from a decision from a civil court.
however it seems at least to me that there would need to be a formal legal definition of insurrection within a civil court jurisdiction. they might for example be relying on a lack of formal definition of insurrection in civil jurisdiction, and they would just go ahead and come up with an ad hoc definition which would of course be tailored to nail trump on a technicality (eg a process violation of some sort). in addition all the formal requirements of a complaint would need to be met, and be able to withstand challenges to standing in a preliminary motion. i am not a lawyer and this is probably the deep end of the pool for me, so YMMV as far as any of my suppositions go.
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.