Trump said the 14th Amendment does not apply to him because the oath he took was not to our Constitution. Trump's argument is that the presidential oath does not require a president to support the constitution. YIKES!!! Let that sink in for a moment..
@@swimminginthoughts That is actually what the lawyers for Trump have argued. Specifically, they are claiming the POTUS oath doesn't explicitly say "support". It's dumb beyond dumb They also argue because the article calls out Senators and in other text explicitly calls out POTUS then therefore POTUS is not included and is not an officer or US. It's dumb beyond dumb.
The Dems are trying to rig the 2024 election in broad daylight. They know they can't win at the ballot box. Trump is leading in the polls and pulling away. They must pursue more devious means to stop Trump. The Dems' insurrection story has been thoroughly debunked. They have no case.
We are a nation of laws, not of popular opinion. Every person brought to trial gets to have their measure of the process. This is a huge question we face, and there will be fallout from this decision long after Trump is gone. Regardless of which way the decision goes.
he shouldn't have immunity but that wasn't an insurrection and anyone who wants to argue it was should be ashamed of themselves and move to a country like sudan.
The fact that we have to have such discussions is an ominous sign re: the deterioration of our justice, political, and social systems. Trump's pathology has deeply infected our society. His influence is malignant. A question like this, to sane minds, even to half-sane minds, has an obvious answer.
I disagree. The discussions, even if nonsensical or obtuse or whatever, are vital. This has always been our way. Think of the Federalist Papers. Think of the long hot summer in Philadelphia as the Constitutional Convention delegates argued for weeks over the very document under discussion here.
The questions are absurdly simple. Obvious. Should not be deliberated upon for weeks and weeks, e.g., immunity. Of COURSE, he does not get immunity. He has succeeded in delaying things time and time again, and keeps evading consequences. He does what he wants. He will not pay a dime for the recent civil cases.
Not so. Some have agreed, some have not. At the end of the day, the 9 Justices get to decide. I am prepared to accept their decision either way. Are you?
What I find funny is that trump is the only republican that could possibly lose to biden ( I don't think he would though).. If he isn't able to run, the Republicans will without a doubt win the election. Trump voters will jump to the next republican, and voters that disapprove of bidens ignorance but were still wary of trump will vote republican
They're not voting Trump in spite of the "ordeal", they're voting Trump because of the ordeal. They want Trump to destroy the government. And if he wins, they might be right!
No insurrection. Dems, MSM, FBI, DOJ - Guilty! of spreading a lie to deceive the public. Biden admin - Guilty! of aiding and abetting an invasion of unvetted 'migrants'.
Exactly! If they rule for trump, doesn't that automatically make president Biden immune from sending out an order for Seal Team 6 to visit his political rivals? Of course he wouldn't do that because he's not a madman like trump. Serious question.
Run- fine. He's unable to hold the office unless the Constitution is changed in time or 2/3rds of both Houses removes the disability. Listing him him on the ballot of the general election is voter fraud. Write-in votes are allowed but moot except as protest.
I'm sorry, but yesterday DC Appeals Court was not “shocking”, well, unless one considers following the law and norms as shocking. Since “No one is above the law” has been this nation's mantra and point of pride since the beginning. So no, for me the finding was a relief but not shocking.
@@mitchhills4747 The only definition that counts is the legal one in the applicable federal statute and a person must be convicted in a federal criminal court for any consequences like punishment or disqualification to follow. It's called due process of law and every person, no matter how much you might hate them, is entitled to that.
If I'm not mistaken, ABC Prime time Live just a aired a lengthy segment on yesterday about Clarence Thomas recusing himself. Other media outlets are covering this story as well.
@@Omni0404 Ignore him. "Cry harder." is the war-cry of the ignorant magatoid. They can't make a point. They can't offer evidence. They can't justify their support for Trump in any intelligent way. It's the equivalent of "talk to the hand" or "nah, nah, na-nah, nah."
The "President isn't an officer of the US, even though he's holding an office" argument is made of dust. I can gather up a bunch of 5-7 yo's who could decide on that one pretty quick. They could also decide the 'support the constitution' argument long before they lost interest. This is all a monumental waste of time and MY money--and yours. If I had been the one to stir up a bunch of loons on Jan 06 to storm one of our government buildings, you better believe I'd be so far back in some dark jail...
Given the commitment to textualism by six of the nine justices, this should be a slam-dunk. trump engaged in insurrection and is ineligible to hold public office ever again.
@@swimminginthoughts It's pretty pathetic that you still pretend that multiple courts have ruled that not only was Jan 6th an insrurrection, but that Trump instigated and participated in it.
And yet all of his briefs are so lazy as to be ridiculous. 1. I’m not an officer - and yet used the federal officer defence in the E Jean Carroll case initially. 2. Not an insurrection. Visibly false and he won’t even sign a document agreeing not to take over the country if he loses again, indicating he WILL try again. 3. Not that violent and only lasted a few hours. The insurrection went on from the minute he declared that there’d be a continuation not a peaceful transition to the present day.
emilymcplugger, January 6th was a dress rehearsal. Even if he is kicked off the ballot in ALL 50 states and territories, before the election,his MAGA LUNATICS are going to make January 6th look like "a walk in the park". These folks are NOT playing with a full deck!!
Everyone KNOWS he was the cause and instigator of Jan. 6th. Even MAGA and the proud boys AND all of the GOP know. Most importantly HE knows exactly what he was doing and going to do once he realized he lost the election. Trump is cunning and evil. Whatever SCOTUS decides, doesn't change the fact we NEED to vote 💙🇺🇲 or our country will look and be drastically different and it won't be good...even for MAGA. Shame they can't see beyond their hate and racism.
Jan 6 - No insurrection, a provocateured event. FBI involvement, a set-up. 'Attack on the Capitol' theme -> a sinister psy-op. Jan 6 detainees - political prisoners, held captive to support a fiction. Our government has been hijacked.
So does the constitution at least six times. The notion that the presidency is not an office as contemplated by Section 3 the 14th Amendment is patently absurd.
@@Michaelhendersonnovelist1 spot on. His attorneys should be disbarred for trying to raise such nonsensical arguments and deliberately wasting court time.
To be clear.... the insurrection didn't "happen on Jan 6", it "culminated in the events of Jan 6". There's so much more to his insurrection than just those few hours.
Like the coup his friends were brewing up in the White House right after election! Navarro was one of the chief instigators in that! And whoever came up with fake electors scheme. Think that was chesbro.
I always think that when people are praying around Trump that he's thinking: "these people are losers and weirdos but I need their vote so I'll pretend to care about them."
Here's the Presidential Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It is an Office! Duhhh
Yeah. Remember when Boebert, a US Congresswoman, insisted that "churches tell the government what to do". I suppose getting all the way through the first line of the First Amendment was just too much reading. I recently asked a State Senator something about the Houthi/Iranian attacks leading to war as the Chesapeake Incident had in 1812, blah, blah. The Senator was not aware of any incident on the Chesapeake. It was like Ferris Bueller. The HMS, anyone?..anyone..? Leopard, which fired into USS, anyone..? Anyone..? Chesapeake, was one of the leading causes of the war against the...? Anyone...anyone...The British, which began in...? Anyone...anyone...1812...
As I understand it, the Supreme Court rules on matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution. They do not have to rule on whether Donald Trump is eligible to run rather whether anyone including any President is eligible after engaging in an insurrection. In the past once it is established that someone engaged in insurrection the ban was automatic. Congress is permitted to remove the ban but it is NOT for Congress to impose the ban, the Constitution imposes the ban. The Supreme Court is involved because there is conflict and confusion between the States. So all the Supreme Court is required to do is interpret the meaning of the Constitution! Every court that has looked at this matter agreed Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection! Even the recent Appeals ruling refers to his actions in rebelling against the Constitution. I would have thought any reading of the Constitution would make it apparent that he cannot run for office again!
If the conservative, intellectually dishonest Justice Scalia were still alive, even he would have to agree that Trump is disqualified. Or maybe not, given his distortion of the 2nd Amendment (in Heller, 2008).
I'm wondering if 14th amendment section 3 should also apply to Justice Clarance Thomas. Since his wife was involved in the organization of January 6th and that he probably provided aid and comfort to his wife. Shouldn't he barred from holding office.
Hoping the Justices do their Jobs. It’s not that complicated. If in doubt there is an entire CONSTITUTION available ( even on Google) to follow. Do your Jobs !!
Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment's first two words read, "No Person," meaning any and all are excluded if they engage in one of four disqualifiers (insurrection, rebellion, aid, or comfort).
You forgot the other qualifiers. "No person.....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, etc....." NONE of the Jan. 6 rioters who have never served in any of the offices listed and have never taken an oath to support the Constitution are disqualified by Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment (once they get out of jail) from holding any of the specified elected or appointed offices. That's an awful lot of people.
What if the rest of us stop following the rules, too? That really can happen, over time, that it gets ingrained in our minds that rules and laws mean nothing. It already started, in 2020. The powers that be would be wise to turn it around. 🇺🇸💙
Is not "defending the Constitution" a means of "supporting" the Constitution? And "protecting" the Constitution? And "preserving" the Constitution? This feels a lot like asking the Supreme Court to define the concept of "up" in outer space.
The supreme Court should do what's right. It's really an open an shut case. If they don't get it right then I can safely say that justice in America is Dead
To hold that "To Preserve, Proect and Defend the Constitution" is not to "Support" the Constitution would be twisting the justices into a knot not even a year of yoga could unwind!
If 45 wins and becomes president, and then he pardons people that have been convicted of an insurrection, does that mean he automatically stops holding Office? At that point, he would provide aid and comfort to an insurrectionist.
We are a country of laws or we are not. There is no debate. He is ineligible according to the 14th amendment. Either we follow the Constitution or we don't that simple. It clearly states if given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist which there are several of them in jail that this man gave aid and comfort. His own actions made him ineligible. We can follow the law or we can kiss this. Man's backside I prefer to follow the law
Its rather funny they are discussing the fact if a president is an officer, this to determine if he, according the literal text of the Constitution, can be seen as such in combination with the insurrection accusation. Maybe it would be smart, or even common sense, not to specify, but ban ANYONE that took part or aided an insurrection, from going or sitting for office. End of that discussion
Well he did post a video telling everyone to respect the capitol police officers and go home on Twitter, but Twitter removed the video and banned his account.
If not doing anything is considered aiding insurrectionists, almost nobody in America is qualified to run for president. What a silly argument. @@GeechieDan-uu9wm
@@mattbee293 Maybe I can help: * DOW at all time record high. * Two strongest years of job growth in history * Nearly 14 million jobs created since 2021 * 3.5% unemployment rate - the lowest in 50 years * Millions of Americans are saving $800 per year on health insurance coverage. * More than 40 million borrowers stand to benefit from student debt relief. * Infrastructure investments in all 50 states, D.C., territories, and throughout Tribal nations *CHIPS bill. Major project to improve American electronic chip manufacturing. * Inflation reduction Act -lowered drug prices, clean energy investments, reduces deficit by $300 billions, minimum tax for corporations * Steady reduction of trump era deficits projected to drop by more than $1.8 trillion * Fully vaccinated 79% of American adults against COVID-19 * Produced record amount of oil in 2023. * Increased the maximum value of Pell Grants by $900 * Pardoned and released from jail those convicted of minor marijuana use * Near a record low unemployment rate for African Americans * Near a record low unemployment rate for Hispanics * Brought gas prices down more than $1.60 from there summer 2023 peak * Lowest inflation rate among all G7 countries. Down to 2.3% and still declining. * Signed a gun safety bill * Crime and homicides are down from trump levels * Rallied NATO to support Ukraine against Russian aggression. Helped Sweden and Finland join NATO. * Under Biden's first 3 years, net farm income has increased to $165 billion compared to trump *$35 dollar cap on insulin. *Veteran health "burn pit" legislation the GOP didn't want. Major rural broadband expansion. During Trump's presidency, the U.S. trade deficit increased 40.5%. Chapter 12 bankruptcies, which are designed for family farmers and small fishing operations, increased 20%, with Iowa leading the nation. Chapter 11 bankruptcies increased 14.4%. Trump trade wars had such a negative impact on farm income, the Trump administration provided more than $23 billion in aid to farmers for trade-related losses.
The ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court is “Equal Justice Under Law”! This case in particular is dealing with the Constitution and the laws within it!! They are GUARDIANS of the CONSTITUTION, and must keep that in mind especially during this case!!!!
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require Congress to ENFORCE it, it grants Congress the authority to "REMOVE such disability." with a 2/3rds Super Majority in both Houses.
According to my understanding, the records of the congressional debate on the 14th amendment make the intentions of the framers of that amendment quite clear - no need to speculate. Yes, they considered the president to be an officer of the United States, and yes, they intended that the amendment should apply in perpetuity, not just to the situation they were facing at the time. That record bears much more frequent mention than it gets. I hope that it is brought up in arguments before the the Supreme Court.
Calmly. No agenda. Nobody who has behaved like Flump should be anywhere near Office. This has to take its legal time and be done correctly. There cannot be people who want to be the head of a whole massive structure with worldwide and worldtime importance, who behave like Flump. I'm sure he is a nice guy (not). It is, however, nothing personal. It is simply that we cannot have leaders behaving how he does. I'm sorry to the tROLLS - I have no allegiance to anything but fellow people. Certainly not to proclaiming one horrible specimen to be above the law!
A prerequisite for participating in the democratic process is accepting the majority outcome. Having failed to accept the result in 2020, should the candidate be permitted to participate again?,
“It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,” Three judges wrote, even SCOTUS isn't dumb enough to try to over turn that 3/0 ruling. Trump isn't immune
@@SeeStuDo I actually do make my living from the law. No judge or justice would rule like you predict. I know you just 💩 yourself in public but doubling down is gonna overflow your panties.
I'm always sad to hear from commentators that the Supreme Court's goal is to desperately seek an "offramp". The Supreme Court should have no higher purpose than to provide clarity where clarity is desperately needed by the country.
The irony of the chief justice who administered the oath of office listening to arguments from a man that says he’s not required to follow said oath of office.
Sad to hear the otherwise esteemed panel making excuses for Scotus to bail on this. The "any officer" language is clear and Scotus can not invent a new interpretation of the text to suit it's whims, especially when the authors of the 14th removed all doubts during the voting. A Senator asked why the President was not mentioned and the author replied, that "any officer" covered it. We should be clear headed that Scotus does not have any analog of "papal infallibility". If they rule against this, we have to live with it, but we should not, as some scholars have said, assume the ruling is correct simply because it issues from Scotus.
Off topic, but perhaps of some interest: If you care about commenters being authentic or not before giving them praise for what they've posted, you should check out the uppermost comments on this video: "Beau; Let's talk about the GOP house falling..." This vid is 18-19 hours old, and the comment I'm referring to is just as old. You will recognize it, because you saw it, and replied under it, on a 4-5 hours old MSNBC video. Where it was posted by someone else. This someone is what might be called, a serial "borrower" (one of a few that I see around here), or in other words, someone who is in the habit of copying other people's comments (the more likes they have the better, seemingly) and pasting them as if posting an original comment. I have had 2 (that I'm aware of) comments "borrowed" by this selfsame individual, and have seen the same thing having happened with others. It must now have been at least a dozen times that I recognize something this dude, or dudette, has posted, because I've seen it posted earlier, on a different channel, by another person. I'm not saying "borrowed" comments are all that this individual posts, in fact I do have the impression that he/she sometimes speaks with a proper voice, too. But it doesn't cease to be a tad disappointing, to discover that there are some folks who obviously enjoy garnering likes and praise for writs thought out by others. I'll add this; another one of these "borrowers" (a woman by the look of it), seems to accustom using quotation mark whenever using "borrowed" writs. This is a step in the right direction, though at the very least any such post should include some words clarifying that they are sharing a post they saw by someone else. Just a little basic decency, ya know, would be so cool.
It's only logic and common sense that not being able to hold office leads to the idea of there being no point to running in an election. Some of our states' laws are, unfortunately, not logical or follow common sense.
The simplest way to defeat the "officer" argument is to find all the places where the President would be neuter without being an "officer" for example, there's likely explanations of duties and responsibilities of "officers" which prove to be consistent with the President's role to oversea the Cabinet.
it isn't to decide if someone who engaged in insurrection can run, its to decide if someone who has been accused but neither charged or convicted of insurrection can run
It's even worse than that. The case before the Supreme Court is to decide if state election officials can make that decision on their own, according to STATE ELECTION LAWS, irrespective of what other states decide under THEIR election laws. Consistency be damned.
Under the constitution there is no requirement that anyone has to be accused, charged OR convicted in order to be disqualified under the 14th Amendment. All that is required is that they 'engaged' in such and Trump clearly did, according to 2 courts AND the DC yesterday in its ruling also. It's an administrative requirement, not a criminal one.
@@mitchhills4747 I was listening to the hearing, and plan to finish it tomorrow. at first what trumps lawyers were arguing sounded insane, but as they dissect his argument to determine what exactly is being said, parts of it make perfect sense. However I have yet to finish hearing trumps side let alone the apposing argument so I must wait to form my opinion. I highly recommend listening to supreme court cases. Hearing them, as I said, "dissect" the law is really something else. I appreciate what you said about requirements for being charged, accused, etc, will look into it if its not brought up in the case. Lastly, the cases you mentioned, are those pertaining to the election like the supreme court one or to his guilt. If guilt I would like to hear the audio of them as well if its available.
The election of a president under indictment and facing criminal trial would “create an unprecedented constitutional crisis” and “cripple the operations of government” -- Donald Trump
In rural farming communities there used to be a hilarious event called catch the greased pig. That pig just kept wriggling free, to peals of laughter from the onlookers. Tfg’s lawyers want the following issues answered: Is the pig coated with 50lbs of grease or may it be 100lbs or more, does the challenger have 2 minutes or 5 minutes or 10 years or more to try to catch the pig, does the challenger have to pregrease his hands or not, if the pig is caught how many seconds must the challenger hold it to say it has been caught, when all of the above criteria are met was it really a pig that was caught or must DNA prove the caught object has porcine DNA and if so can one say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the DNA was not planted upon said animal.
Trump said the 14th Amendment does not apply to him because the oath he took was not to our Constitution.
Trump's argument is that the presidential oath does not require a president to support the constitution. YIKES!!!
Let that sink in for a moment..
I think you're twisting what he said.
Let that sink in for a minute.
@@swimminginthoughtsHow is that being twisted?? Trump said that...😮
@@swimminginthoughts
You care to clarify it then?
@@swimminginthoughts
That is actually what the lawyers for Trump have argued.
Specifically, they are claiming the POTUS oath doesn't explicitly say "support".
It's dumb beyond dumb
They also argue because the article calls out Senators and in other text explicitly calls out POTUS then therefore POTUS is not included and is not an officer or US.
It's dumb beyond dumb.
We need him to fix everything joe has ruined.
Has America lost its common sense ? Why there is even a hearing over this is simply pathetic . Look in the mirror America .
It has been over 250 years and now some of them want a king again? Remind me about why they had a revolutionary war in the first place.
The Dems are trying to rig the 2024 election in broad daylight.
They know they can't win at the ballot box.
Trump is leading in the polls and pulling away.
They must pursue more devious means to stop Trump.
The Dems' insurrection story has been thoroughly debunked.
They have no case.
We are a nation of laws, not of popular opinion. Every person brought to trial gets to have their measure of the process. This is a huge question we face, and there will be fallout from this decision long after Trump is gone. Regardless of which way the decision goes.
Ridiculous
America has lost its sense. That has been apparent for 4 years now. We are heading to the abyss.
If they let him walk, they should remove the judges that voted for him. They are as corrupt as him. Starting with Thomas.
*ABSOLUTELY!!!!!*
You know that's not possible without a full, successful impeachment, right? Majority in the House, and 2/3 majority in the Senate. Will never happen.
Thomas should recuse himself due to his wife's involvement in the insurrection.
he shouldn't have immunity but that wasn't an insurrection and anyone who wants to argue it was should be ashamed of themselves and move to a country like sudan.
@@tsmspace tourists?
The fact that we have to have such discussions is an ominous sign re: the deterioration of our justice, political, and social systems. Trump's pathology has deeply infected our society. His influence is malignant. A question like this, to sane minds, even to half-sane minds, has an obvious answer.
Well said, with one suggested edit. A question like this should never have been asked.
I disagree. The discussions, even if nonsensical or obtuse or whatever, are vital. This has always been our way. Think of the Federalist Papers. Think of the long hot summer in Philadelphia as the Constitutional Convention delegates argued for weeks over the very document under discussion here.
The questions are absurdly simple. Obvious. Should not be deliberated upon for weeks and weeks, e.g., immunity. Of COURSE, he does not get immunity. He has succeeded in delaying things time and time again, and keeps evading consequences. He does what he wants. He will not pay a dime for the recent civil cases.
I hope our Constitution is still the law!!! He is not qualified period!! Judges all over the country have said the same!!
Unfortunately, our Constitution means what nine people say it means. For good or evil, this loophole is built in to it.
They expose themselves as anti-American.
Their days are numbered.
Trump-Russia,
Trump-Ukraine,
Insurrection --
All leftist fantasies.
Not so. Some have agreed, some have not. At the end of the day, the 9 Justices get to decide. I am prepared to accept their decision either way. Are you?
@@gksmith5072no
What I find funny is that trump is the only republican that could possibly lose to biden ( I don't think he would though).. If he isn't able to run, the Republicans will without a doubt win the election. Trump voters will jump to the next republican, and voters that disapprove of bidens ignorance but were still wary of trump will vote republican
I legitimately don't understand how any American could vote republican again after this entire embarrassing ordeal.
It's still shocking that this man who incited a violent insurrection still has the option to run for president again.
@@richpomanFUtrump needs money, why are you wasting your time?😂😂😂😂😂
Because they like how horrible he is.
They're not voting Trump in spite of the "ordeal", they're voting Trump because of the ordeal. They want Trump to destroy the government. And if he wins, they might be right!
We understand, that's why we are voting for Trump. You will vote Trump once you know
With clarence thomas refusing to recuse thats a conflict of interest on the supreme court
Unfortunately, SCOTUS are beyond the law. They said so. Which court can we take it to for an overrule?
Trumpsollini has another three scotus judges, who lied on their pre-appointment hearings
Time for SCOTUS to step up. The 14th A is clear on its face. DQ DJT! UNfit!
No insurrection.
No 14-3.
Sorry.
Uphold the Constitution. Rule, or surrender your seat.
Threatening supreme court justices isn't a smart idea.
But they were paid so much for those seats😂
They will rule and make sure djt is on ballots, according to the constitution.
I wonder what AI would predict the outcome would be.
@@user-bb1vq5if7m
Threatening a four star general is a really bad idea.
Tempertantrump pardoned insurrection! “Aided and abetted insurrectionists “ Guilty!
No insurrection.
Dems, MSM, FBI, DOJ - Guilty! of spreading a lie to deceive the public.
Biden admin - Guilty! of aiding and abetting an invasion of unvetted 'migrants'.
I’m always looking for good nicknames for this creature. “Tempertantrump” is great!
It IS NOT Stunning the Court of Appeals Upheld the Constitution and LAW. NO ONE IS IMMUNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly! If they rule for trump, doesn't that automatically make president Biden immune from sending out an order for Seal Team 6 to visit his political rivals? Of course he wouldn't do that because he's not a madman like trump. Serious question.
@babskaz74
Nope, cops are not immune. The killer of George Floyd would beg to differ.
Not even them!!
Omg stop I can’t take anymore! Just lock him up ffs!
"Lock him up!"
/
🤡
Lock him up. Wasting money
@@Eddemnity
"Lock him up!"
/
🤡
Recusals by Thomas and Alito must be presented asap
That's not how it works.
Absolutely absurd to allow an insurrectionist to run for any office, especially president.
'cause, he white.
I like how you're still pretending there was an insurrection! I am too!
Run- fine. He's unable to hold the office unless the Constitution is changed in time or 2/3rds of both Houses removes the disability. Listing him him on the ballot of the general election is voter fraud. Write-in votes are allowed but moot except as protest.
That would be joe.
@@kelperdudedon't you ever see sense
I'm sorry, but yesterday DC Appeals Court was not “shocking”, well, unless one considers following the law and norms as shocking. Since “No one is above the law” has been this nation's mantra and point of pride since the beginning. So no, for me the finding was a relief but not shocking.
He should be held accountable for Jan 6 please stop him being able to run
but, it is VERY important that TFG LOSE the election by a landslide! (just like last time). Some of his supporters MIGHT finally "get it".
The first has to happen before the second can.
@@gksmith5072 Definition of an insurrection: 'Violent uprising against an authority or government.'
@@mitchhills4747 The only definition that counts is the legal one in the applicable federal statute and a person must be convicted in a federal criminal court for any consequences like punishment or disqualification to follow. It's called due process of law and every person, no matter how much you might hate them, is entitled to that.
SCOTUS should respond with..,”Don’t waste my time…”
That part right there. He needs to sit down and take several seats
Hey, why is the press not asking whether Clarance Thomas will recluse himself from this case? His wife was an insurrectionist too.
Hey, I don't care if Mr. Thomas is a "recluse" or a nightly party animal. In fairness, he should recuse himself.
Everyone else has !!
@@jackwegener3484 Apparently you never inadvertantly mispelled a word?
My computer often auto-corrects me, as well. It will change "Seceded" to "Succeeded", for example. @@dawnalawrence6584
If I'm not mistaken, ABC Prime time Live just a aired a lengthy segment on yesterday about Clarence Thomas recusing himself. Other media outlets are covering this story as well.
Thomas has no business presiding over ANY cases regarding DJT!!! He should recuse himself!!!
Cry harder.
@@stoopidpursun8140 Trump lost
@@Omni0404 Ignore him. "Cry harder." is the war-cry of the ignorant magatoid. They can't make a point. They can't offer evidence. They can't justify their support for Trump in any intelligent way. It's the equivalent of "talk to the hand" or "nah, nah, na-nah, nah."
@@stoopidpursun8140 Ignore the Truth, sip some more Trump Kool-Aid.
There is a petition going around to try & get thomas to recuse.
The "President isn't an officer of the US, even though he's holding an office" argument is made of dust. I can gather up a bunch of 5-7 yo's who could decide on that one pretty quick. They could also decide the 'support the constitution' argument long before they lost interest. This is all a monumental waste of time and MY money--and yours. If I had been the one to stir up a bunch of loons on Jan 06 to storm one of our government buildings, you better believe I'd be so far back in some dark jail...
I’m glad the authors of the 14th amendment had the foresight to protect us from idiots.
Why bring joe into this?
Donald joe trump, it's J6 Trump@@kelperdude
Idiots?…do you mean trump, or the Supreme Court justices?
@@kelperdudekelper from Moscow, every day trolling
@Al-oe8ib unfortunately, your question is valid.
Given the commitment to textualism by six of the nine justices, this should be a slam-dunk. trump engaged in insurrection and is ineligible to hold public office ever again.
that would make too much sense. the smart money is on them backing off it as a "state's rights" decision cuz they are already so widely disrespected
It's pretty cool that you still pretend there was an insurrection!
@@swimminginthoughts
It's pretty pathetic that you still pretend that multiple courts have ruled that not only was Jan 6th an insrurrection, but that Trump instigated and participated in it.
Maybe 4 justices are textual. 2 don't read past "legal tender"
Well, that's not true.
And yet all of his briefs are so lazy as to be ridiculous.
1. I’m not an officer - and yet used the federal officer defence in the E Jean Carroll case initially.
2. Not an insurrection. Visibly false and he won’t even sign a document agreeing not to take over the country if he loses again, indicating he WILL try again.
3. Not that violent and only lasted a few hours. The insurrection went on from the minute he declared that there’d be a continuation not a peaceful transition to the present day.
emilymcplugger, January 6th was a dress rehearsal. Even if he is kicked off the ballot in ALL 50 states and territories, before the election,his MAGA LUNATICS are going to make January 6th look like "a walk in the park". These folks are NOT playing with a full deck!!
Everyone KNOWS he was the cause and instigator of Jan. 6th. Even MAGA and the proud boys AND all of the GOP know. Most importantly HE knows exactly what he was doing and going to do once he realized he lost the election. Trump is cunning and evil. Whatever SCOTUS decides, doesn't change the fact we NEED to vote 💙🇺🇲 or our country will look and be drastically different and it won't be good...even for MAGA. Shame they can't see beyond their hate and racism.
Jan 6 - No insurrection, a provocateured event.
FBI involvement, a set-up.
'Attack on the Capitol' theme -> a sinister psy-op.
Jan 6 detainees - political prisoners, held captive to support a fiction.
Our government has been hijacked.
Trump with all his enablers Republicans in congress and senate who helped him on January 6th should be held accountable to not hold office again.
Absolutely!
🎉EXACTLY!!
Jan 6 - an instigated riot, FBI involved, to make Trump look bad.
Fake News - cheering section for the lie.
Taylor Green!
I think they should've been more Aggressive with everyone that aided Trump on Jan 6th, try to overthrow the Capitol by force, should be on trial
Note that the D.C. Circuit Court immunity decision specifically refers to the U.S. president using the term "officer."
Good call!!
yes, they tucked many references of this case in that one. i loved it. he has an office, doesn't he? an oval one, but one just the same!
So does the constitution at least six times. The notion that the presidency is not an office as contemplated by Section 3 the 14th Amendment is patently absurd.
@@Michaelhendersonnovelist1 spot on. His attorneys should be disbarred for trying to raise such nonsensical arguments and deliberately wasting court time.
To be clear.... the insurrection didn't "happen on Jan 6", it "culminated in the events of Jan 6". There's so much more to his insurrection than just those few hours.
Like the coup his friends were brewing up in the White House right after election! Navarro was one of the chief instigators in that! And whoever came up with fake electors scheme. Think that was chesbro.
The ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court agrees with you. Their analysis begins even before the actual election.
The real insurrection actually took place on November 8 2020. When democrats stole the election from the American people.
Judge Thomas should recuse himself for his wife helping in J6
He ought to resign in shame.
@@TomDog5812He has no shame
I always think that when people are praying around Trump that he's thinking: "these people are losers and weirdos but I need their vote so I'll pretend to care about them."
Agree
SPOT ON!! 🎯💙🇺🇸💙👍🎉🎉
He just rambles on and one like a three-year old kid
🎯
At this point getting hired by Trump comes with a mandatory lawyer who will need a lawyer who will need a lawyer.
Here's the Presidential Oath of Office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It is an Office! Duhhh
And he's trying to say that, preserve, protect and defend does not mean "Support" in his oath, good luck Donald Von SchitzinPants, lol
Yeah. Remember when Boebert, a US Congresswoman, insisted that "churches tell the government what to do". I suppose getting all the way through the first line of the First Amendment was just too much reading. I recently asked a State Senator something about the Houthi/Iranian attacks leading to war as the Chesapeake Incident had in 1812, blah, blah. The Senator was not aware of any incident on the Chesapeake. It was like Ferris Bueller. The HMS, anyone?..anyone..? Leopard, which fired into USS, anyone..? Anyone..? Chesapeake, was one of the leading causes of the war against the...? Anyone...anyone...The British, which began in...? Anyone...anyone...1812...
As I understand it, the Supreme Court rules on matters concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.
They do not have to rule on whether Donald Trump is eligible to run rather whether anyone including any President is eligible after engaging in an insurrection.
In the past once it is established that someone engaged in insurrection the ban was automatic.
Congress is permitted to remove the ban but it is NOT for Congress to impose the ban, the Constitution imposes the ban.
The Supreme Court is involved because there is conflict and confusion between the States.
So all the Supreme Court is required to do is interpret the meaning of the Constitution!
Every court that has looked at this matter agreed Donald Trump engaged in an insurrection!
Even the recent Appeals ruling refers to his actions in rebelling against the Constitution.
I would have thought any reading of the Constitution would make it apparent that he cannot run for office again!
Trump is not arguing that he's innocent, he's arguing that he has a right to be a criminal!
Please 🙏 stop showing his picture your feeding his EGO!!!
Yeah seriously.. I flip him off every time I see a picture lol.
It's too late for that. The Left's ONLY issue now is Trump. You did it to yourselves by ignoring everything but Trump for three effing years
...and my nausea!
I like how triggered you are. It's cute!
But it makes you cry.
If the conservative, intellectually dishonest Justice Scalia were still alive, even he would have to agree that Trump is disqualified. Or maybe not, given his distortion of the 2nd Amendment (in Heller, 2008).
The ruling yesterday was only stunning in so far as it wasn't issued the day after argument. The content was fully expected.
how is it possible that someone who attempted a coup try again? This is such crap.
His continued support of the insurrectionists in jail should be enough.
All you need is to convince 3 real justices and dangle a Vacation for 2 pre-purchase justices.
He swore an oath, he broke the oath... Why is this complicated?
I'm wondering if 14th amendment section 3 should also apply to Justice Clarance Thomas.
Since his wife was involved in the organization of January 6th and that he probably provided aid and comfort to his wife. Shouldn't he barred from holding office.
God, take him out now! We pray please!!!!
I'm agnostic and I'm praying too!
God won't take him out, God will allow the American voters to do it peacefully. I have more faith in OUR ability to keep him out of the WH. VOTE 💙🇺🇲
Hoping the Justices do their Jobs. It’s not that complicated.
If in doubt there is an entire CONSTITUTION available ( even on Google) to follow.
Do your Jobs !!
Yep! Bottom line.
It’s time to end this nightmare. This guy just needs to go away. I’m done.
12 hours to go and Thomas still has not recused himself. YIKES!😡
At this point, he's very likely to hold onto anything to escape prison time for the crimes he committed.
that why he put mobsters in place to protect him example cannon in Florida 🤬
Sec 3 of the 14th Amendment's first two words read, "No Person," meaning any and all are excluded if they engage in one of four disqualifiers (insurrection, rebellion, aid, or comfort).
Cool story, you should read section 5.
You forgot the other qualifiers. "No person.....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, etc....." NONE of the Jan. 6 rioters who have never served in any of the offices listed and have never taken an oath to support the Constitution are disqualified by Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment (once they get out of jail) from holding any of the specified elected or appointed offices. That's an awful lot of people.
@@LarryK-jg6iwlots of persons and citizens were there, doubt any of the people were there.
Roger stone should be charged for coordinating militias on Jan 6
I'm looking forward to February 12th.🙂↕️ stay faithful.
What if the rest of us stop following the rules, too? That really can happen, over time, that it gets ingrained in our minds that rules and laws mean nothing. It already started, in 2020. The powers that be would be wise to turn it around. 🇺🇸💙
Is not "defending the Constitution" a means of "supporting" the Constitution? And "protecting" the Constitution? And "preserving" the Constitution? This feels a lot like asking the Supreme Court to define the concept of "up" in outer space.
The supreme Court should do what's right. It's really an open an shut case. If they don't get it right then I can safely say that justice in America is Dead
It was 4-3 in a court of democrat activist judges. How do you think it is going to go in a mixed court?
@@Eternalwarpuppy you only say this because you really don't know anything about court procedure ..
Did the Colorado supreme court not vote 4-3 on this case? @@tsquared4831
To hold that "To Preserve, Proect and Defend the Constitution" is not to "Support" the Constitution would be twisting the justices into a knot not even a year of yoga could unwind!
If 45 wins and becomes president, and then he pardons people that have been convicted of an insurrection, does that mean he automatically stops holding Office? At that point, he would provide aid and comfort to an insurrectionist.
We are a country of laws or we are not. There is no debate. He is ineligible according to the 14th amendment. Either we follow the Constitution or we don't that simple. It clearly states if given aid or comfort to an insurrectionist which there are several of them in jail that this man gave aid and comfort. His own actions made him ineligible. We can follow the law or we can kiss this. Man's backside I prefer to follow the law
Attempting to change the votes in multiple states and swearing to support the Constitution, then trying to overturn it, seems like a losing argument.
People please make time to vote...vote blue down the line
No. I am not voting for communist authoritarianism.
Its rather funny they are discussing the fact if a president is an officer, this to determine if he, according the literal text of the Constitution, can be seen as such in combination with the insurrection accusation. Maybe it would be smart, or even common sense, not to specify, but ban ANYONE that took part or aided an insurrection, from going or sitting for office. End of that discussion
As Commander in Chief, he was the highest Officer.
It does say anyone involved in an insurrection after taking an oath of office.. shall be removed!
All elected officials should be charged with PROVIDING AID AND COMFORT TO THE INSURRECTIONIST....
A bit too far there. Limit it to MANY Republican elected officials.
Trump should also be charged for failure to act, as President he had the duty to maintain order.
Well he did post a video telling everyone to respect the capitol police officers and go home on Twitter, but Twitter removed the video and banned his account.
He only wants to maintain order when it's protesting him
That was brought up when he was impeached for his part in the insurrection, yes.
@@EternalwarpuppyYeah, he aided them by not doing anything and then he gave them comfort by telling them he loved them.
If not doing anything is considered aiding insurrectionists, almost nobody in America is qualified to run for president. What a silly argument. @@GeechieDan-uu9wm
We LOVE! Barbara McQuade Smile!
Is the supreme court going to undermine a unanimous decision of the appeals court?
however the supreme court rules.. there will be lots of upset.
A Justice Department "policy" is not written in stone as the constitution is.
MAGA and Trump are so tired of winning that they can't stop losing. 😅
TDS
Orange man bad?
@@mattbee293He has made America a country for all people and we now have good workers.
@@mattbee293 Maybe I can help:
* DOW at all time record high.
* Two strongest years of job growth in history
* Nearly 14 million jobs created since 2021
* 3.5% unemployment rate - the lowest in 50 years
* Millions of Americans are saving $800 per year on health insurance coverage.
* More than 40 million borrowers stand to benefit from student debt relief.
* Infrastructure investments in all 50 states, D.C., territories, and throughout Tribal nations
*CHIPS bill. Major project to improve American electronic chip manufacturing.
* Inflation reduction Act -lowered drug prices, clean energy investments, reduces deficit by $300 billions, minimum tax for corporations
* Steady reduction of trump era deficits projected to drop by more than $1.8 trillion
* Fully vaccinated 79% of American adults against COVID-19
* Produced record amount of oil in 2023.
* Increased the maximum value of Pell Grants by $900
* Pardoned and released from jail those convicted of minor marijuana use
* Near a record low unemployment rate for African Americans
* Near a record low unemployment rate for Hispanics
* Brought gas prices down more than $1.60 from there summer 2023 peak
* Lowest inflation rate among all G7 countries. Down to 2.3% and still declining.
* Signed a gun safety bill
* Crime and homicides are down from trump levels
* Rallied NATO to support Ukraine against Russian aggression. Helped Sweden and Finland join NATO.
* Under Biden's first 3 years, net farm income has increased to $165 billion compared to trump
*$35 dollar cap on insulin.
*Veteran health "burn pit" legislation the GOP didn't want.
Major rural broadband expansion.
During Trump's presidency, the U.S. trade deficit increased 40.5%. Chapter 12 bankruptcies, which are designed for family farmers and small fishing operations, increased 20%, with Iowa leading the nation. Chapter 11 bankruptcies increased 14.4%. Trump trade wars had such a negative impact on farm income, the Trump administration provided more than $23 billion in aid to farmers for trade-related losses.
@@mattbee293portfolio is the best ever. Yet your man wants the market to crash…
Why do you refer to the court of appeals ruling as “stunning”?
The ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court is “Equal Justice Under Law”! This case in particular is dealing with the Constitution and the laws within it!! They are GUARDIANS of the CONSTITUTION, and must keep that in mind especially during this case!!!!
This Supreme Court is under the God's and the World's eyes.
I say don't fail either!
Again.
God? Who is that? In your head only!
Alito, Thomas, "and other justices of the Supreme Court. "
That knocks out two justices right there.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require Congress to ENFORCE it, it grants Congress the authority to "REMOVE such disability." with a 2/3rds Super Majority in both Houses.
According to my understanding, the records of the congressional debate on the 14th amendment make the intentions of the framers of that amendment quite clear - no need to speculate. Yes, they considered the president to be an officer of the United States, and yes, they intended that the amendment should apply in perpetuity, not just to the situation they were facing at the time. That record bears much more frequent mention than it gets. I hope that it is brought up in arguments before the the Supreme Court.
Calmly. No agenda. Nobody who has behaved like Flump should be anywhere near Office. This has to take its legal time and be done correctly. There cannot be people who want to be the head of a whole massive structure with worldwide and worldtime importance, who behave like Flump. I'm sure he is a nice guy (not). It is, however, nothing personal. It is simply that we cannot have leaders behaving how he does. I'm sorry to the tROLLS - I have no allegiance to anything but fellow people. Certainly not to proclaiming one horrible specimen to be above the law!
Yo Murikah, y'all r making us out here in the rest of the world nervous.
A prerequisite for participating in the democratic process is accepting the majority outcome. Having failed to accept the result in 2020, should the candidate be permitted to participate again?,
“It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,” Three judges wrote, even SCOTUS isn't dumb enough to try to over turn that 3/0 ruling. Trump isn't immune
I'm so scared that the SCOTUS is going to give donal pass😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
Me too it is really scary, if he wins that is the end of our country as know !!!
I think they overrule CO because there isnt a clear process of determination.
That’s incorrect there is a process.
The Colorado court used one of them and found him guilty.
@JaneJetsin I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm saying they will find that, or it happening too quick, will be their excuse.
@@SeeStuDo Those aren’t legal arguments
@JaneJetsin thanks there, law scholar. Wish cast all you want 😘
@@SeeStuDo I actually do make my living from the law.
No judge or justice would rule like you predict.
I know you just 💩 yourself in public but doubling down is gonna overflow your panties.
A corrupt justice WILL READ THE CONSTITUTION WRONGLY just to help their benefactor. FOR SURE.
I'm always sad to hear from commentators that the Supreme Court's goal is to desperately seek an "offramp". The Supreme Court should have no higher purpose than to provide clarity where clarity is desperately needed by the country.
We’re here because the people decided to throw him out and he refused to abide by that.
The irony of the chief justice who administered the oath of office listening to arguments from a man that says he’s not required to follow said oath of office.
Sad to hear the otherwise esteemed panel making excuses for Scotus to bail on this. The "any officer" language is clear and Scotus can not invent a new interpretation of the text to suit it's whims, especially when the authors of the 14th removed all doubts during the voting. A Senator asked why the President was not mentioned and the author replied, that "any officer" covered it. We should be clear headed that Scotus does not have any analog of "papal infallibility". If they rule against this, we have to live with it, but we should not, as some scholars have said, assume the ruling is correct simply because it issues from Scotus.
Reminder - 14th Amendment Section 3 says
insurrection OR REBELLION.
At minimum it was a Rebellion! 💯⚖️🗽🤗
Definition of insurrection: 'Violent uprising against an authority or government.'
Stunning and alarming that these common sense items should even need to be debated. He needs to pay for his crimes.
The text of the Colorado case is well worth reading!
Off topic, but perhaps of some interest:
If you care about commenters being authentic or not before giving them praise for what they've posted, you should check out the uppermost comments on this video: "Beau; Let's talk about the GOP house falling..."
This vid is 18-19 hours old, and the comment I'm referring to is just as old. You will recognize it, because you saw it, and replied under it, on a 4-5 hours old MSNBC video. Where it was posted by someone else.
This someone is what might be called, a serial "borrower" (one of a few that I see around here), or in other words, someone who is in the habit of copying other people's comments (the more likes they have the better, seemingly) and pasting them as if posting an original comment.
I have had 2 (that I'm aware of) comments "borrowed" by this selfsame individual, and have seen the same thing having happened with others. It must now have been at least a dozen times that I recognize something this dude, or dudette, has posted, because I've seen it posted earlier, on a different channel, by another person.
I'm not saying "borrowed" comments are all that this individual posts, in fact I do have the impression that he/she sometimes speaks with a proper voice, too.
But it doesn't cease to be a tad disappointing, to discover that there are some folks who obviously enjoy garnering likes and praise for writs thought out by others.
I'll add this; another one of these "borrowers" (a woman by the look of it), seems to accustom using quotation mark whenever using "borrowed" writs. This is a step in the right direction, though at the very least any such post should include some words clarifying that they are sharing a post they saw by someone else.
Just a little basic decency, ya know, would be so cool.
He's name is Citizen Trump
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👆🏻
Well I call him Diapers, but citizen trump is good too!
@@amberackerson5916i call him snowflake Donnie because he can't handle democracy or softball questioning from CNN
@@amberackerson5916 that's a good one LOL
The amendment says he can not hold any office, it doesn't say he can't run 😮
Well, sounds like word gymnastics here. You 'run' for office. If you cannot hold any office then obviously ,you cannot run for it
It's only logic and common sense that not being able to hold office leads to the idea of there being no point to running in an election. Some of our states' laws are, unfortunately, not logical or follow common sense.
The simplest way to defeat the "officer" argument is to find all the places where the President would be neuter without being an "officer" for example, there's likely explanations of duties and responsibilities of "officers" which prove to be consistent with the President's role to oversea the Cabinet.
Trying to say "preserve & protect" the Constitution is different than "supporting" it ==> INSANE
it isn't to decide if someone who engaged in insurrection can run, its to decide if someone who has been accused but neither charged or convicted of insurrection can run
It's even worse than that. The case before the Supreme Court is to decide if state election officials can make that decision on their own, according to STATE ELECTION LAWS, irrespective of what other states decide under THEIR election laws. Consistency be damned.
Under the constitution there is no requirement that anyone has to be accused, charged OR convicted in order to be disqualified under the 14th Amendment. All that is required is that they 'engaged' in such and Trump clearly did, according to 2 courts AND the DC yesterday in its ruling also. It's an administrative requirement, not a criminal one.
@@mitchhills4747 I was listening to the hearing, and plan to finish it tomorrow. at first what trumps lawyers were arguing sounded insane, but as they dissect his argument to determine what exactly is being said, parts of it make perfect sense. However I have yet to finish hearing trumps side let alone the apposing argument so I must wait to form my opinion. I highly recommend listening to supreme court cases. Hearing them, as I said, "dissect" the law is really something else. I appreciate what you said about requirements for being charged, accused, etc, will look into it if its not brought up in the case. Lastly, the cases you mentioned, are those pertaining to the election like the supreme court one or to his guilt. If guilt I would like to hear the audio of them as well if its available.
Historically, his personal architecture has given him someone else to blame at every level.
'stunning ruling that he is not immune'.. really? Is that stunning?
They believed that they had absolute power and that's why they are absolutely corrupt.
The election of a president under indictment and facing criminal trial would “create an unprecedented constitutional crisis” and “cripple the operations of government” -- Donald Trump
Then he shouldn't have committed crimes then should he?
If the 14th Amendment Section 3 doesn't apply to Trump, it doesn't apply to anyone ever
If he doesn't qualify for 14th, throw out the clause because it's useless.
DOJ policy is not law. The DOJ can change it's policies.
Trump: I never took part in the Civil War, so the amendment doesn't apply to me.
😂😂😂
If you claim that is an actual defense, then there is a ton of proof that it's not just civil war.
Otherwise 😅
3 of the judges appoimted by Trump should have be relouse and or ask to step down due to bias towards Trump
That “we” should make the decision makes me nervous … there are to many of “we” who would vote to end democracy.
In rural farming communities there used to be a hilarious event called catch the greased pig. That pig just kept wriggling free, to peals of laughter from the onlookers. Tfg’s lawyers want the following issues answered: Is the pig coated with 50lbs of grease or may it be 100lbs or more, does the challenger have 2 minutes or 5 minutes or 10 years or more to try to catch the pig, does the challenger have to pregrease his hands or not, if the pig is caught how many seconds must the challenger hold it to say it has been caught, when all of the above criteria are met was it really a pig that was caught or must DNA prove the caught object has porcine DNA and if so can one say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the DNA was not planted upon said animal.