Posted on 02/08/2022 7:24:56 AM PST by RandFan
An obscure portion of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that public officials cannot serve in any future federal, state, or military office if they engaged in “insurrection or rebellion.” Would that apply to people who participated in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress?
Some legal experts say the clause could be used against former officeholders — up to and including former President Donald Trump — who supported the events of that day.
In a notable test case, plaintiffs in North Carolina are seeking to apply the clause to GOP Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who spoke at the rally on Jan. 6 just before Trump supporters’ stormed the Capitol. The trespassers temporarily delayed Congress’ official counting of the electoral votes for the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost to Joe Biden. Observers argue this qualifies as an insurrection.
(Excerpt) Read more at denvergazette.com ...
No one will be charged with “insurrection”… but this will continue to be the narrative.
Seems to me that you would have to charge someone with these crimes AND convict them. Without that, the assertion that they committed these unlawful acts has not legal standing.
Desperate loons.
Thanks for posting. I’m sure they’ll try this which makes those SCOTUS picks all the more important.
“Some legal experts,” and they trot out their handpicked bevy of loony law professors. It’s so tiresome
How about Kamala saying she hoped the violent BLM/Antifa riots would continue?
Adam Schiff must be removed to a grave
There is a lot of money that will be lost in the corruption pipeline should Trump get back into office. Not to mention the socialist dreams will be delayed.
Trump is a huge threat to an array of adversaries and they are highly motivated to keep him out of office.
The case for “insurrection” cannot be tried because they will not ALLOW it to be tried, since that would require ALL evidence to be laid on the table, and they cannot allow that.
This is just theater now, and will remain theater.
Can’t see it without some sort of prior conviction on which to base the charge. Just not liking what he said is not enough.
Back in the days of the Republic, before the Empire, this was true. Today, the judiciary is so politicized that the question of a conviction may be glossed over or ignored completely. As for the legal standing that is also irrelevant if the question of conviction is ignored.
Mob rule....
The courts have traditionally let each House decide who can be seated, and who cannot.
Even better, let the voters decide.
just calling it an insurrection is not enough unless the judiciary is in cahoots.
every democrat that votes for infringements on the second amendment are subjected to being in violation of their oath and should be labeled an insurrectionist.
One side, or the other, of the political spectrum just CLAIMING that the someone committed “insurrection” doesn’t cut it from any real legal sense.
“I think she’s a Rapist and therefore cannot hold political office” would be just as valid absent any real evidence or trial to uphold the claim.
However, the Left doesn’t care. It’s not if something is true, it’s all about if they can GET AWAY WITH IT.
At this point, nothing will stop them shy of shooting them.
I cannot be convinced I am wrong.
Or legal analysts, like... Jeffrey Toobin! Wait, he's not handpicked, he is hand.....
They’re progressives in the DNC: lawless scumbags everyone of them. They only care about power and making themselves rich.
The hypocrites would give a Leftwing rioter a proverbial cookie and binky they’d be so understanding when it’s them.
Democrats are enemies domestic.
ROFLOL.
The media never quits.
First, they try him in the press for being with Putin. Turns out all fake evidence via MI-6, CIA, FBI, and Hillary. Zero real evidence. Lied about something that wasn’t.
Then they claim that he tried to hack Joe Biden with a phone call to the President of Ukraine. Turns out, the prosecutor going after Burisma was clean, and Burisma wasn’t. Multiple politician kids on the board of Burisma so that they could run interference for criminal behavior. Joe threatened to withhold State department money until they fired the prosecutor to keep his son in the money. House of representatives used CIA ‘leaks’ and whistleblowers to make false claims, AND they withheld evidence that would have cleared Trump. PS: they never ever looked at prosecuting Biden for his crime. They lied about something that wasn’t.
Then, they said that Trump was a tax cheat. Spent years, and had (probably still do) an entire team of FBI and DOJ trying to find anything on Trump. What came of that......his tax returns were clean. Lied the entire time about something that wasn’t.
Then they blamed Trump because people were angry with a potentially rigged election. Turns out, the election was DIRTY in virtually every swing state. However, the people who were upset about the dirty election were reduced to criminals without basic rights. Withholding video evidence from them, keeping them without legal representation, and lying about what they actually did. All to say that Trump was involved, again with ZERO EVIDENCE pointing to Trump. Appears that government acronyms groups may have been inciting the violence there, and they won’t come clean. They lied again.
Now, the liberals will tell you, again with ZERO evidence, that they are going to try to keep Trump out of the White House using the 14th Amendment. What are they SO afraid of I wonder. Perhaps they are worried that Trump will tell the world that the media is in on the money scam and corruption too.......
Tied of news outlets writing that someone is guilty of a crime when nothing has been proven. Lies, lies and more lies....FAKE NEWS!
The Denver Gazette needs to be sued for libel!
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.