https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...id=socialshare&ei=23

Snopes 1hr ago

Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) role in contesting the 2020 presidential election often brings viral claims concerning his alleged inability to run for, or hold, office. One claim that has gone viral holds that Johnson's participation in activities related to Jan. 6, 2021, could disqualify him from running for Congress in 2024 under a provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

Stating as fact that Johnson is "disqualified from running for Congress in 2024 due to a violation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment" would be false. That does not mean, however, there isn't at least a theoretical argument to be made for applying this part of the Constitution, known as the Disqualification Clause, to Johnson, based on his association with the events of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

There are, then, two basic requirements for disqualification. The first is that the person has "previously taken an oath" at any state or federal level "to support the Constitution of the United States." Johnson unambiguously meets the first requirement, having taken his oath of office many times following his first swearing in as a freshman U.S. Representative in January 2017.

The second requirement is that the person had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against" the Constitution or had "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." These are not precise legal terms, but U.S. Supreme Court precedent indicates that a person subject to disqualification need not have committed a crime, and that participation in an insurrection can occur without committing a crime, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Johnson played a central role in developing legal arguments behind the discredited theory that representatives could object to the certification of electoral votes. On Jan. 6, 2021, he was one of the 146 Republican representatives to object to the certification of Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Notably, as reported by The Associated Press, Johnson "organized more than 100 House Republicans to sign onto an amicus brief filed in support of a lawsuit from Texas’ Republican Attorney General, Ken Paxton, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Biden’s wins in four states that gave him his winning margin in the Electoral College — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

Does Jan. 6 constitute an insurrection? There is precedent to suggest that the answer is yes. Of the only eight people who have been disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment since it was written in 1868, one of them was disqualified in 2022 for participation in the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

That person, Cowboys For Trump founder Couy Griffin, swore an oath to the Constitution in 2019 when he took office as the county commissioner for District 2 of Otero County, New Mexico. He was later convicted of trespassing when he entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6.

Three residents filed a civil case against Griffin, arguing he was disqualified from holding that office after that conviction. A New Mexico district court agreed, and the Supreme Court of New Mexico upheld that decision on appeal.

Do Johnson's actions before and during Jan. 6 constitute participation in an insurrection? Such a claim would likely need to be adjudicated in federal courts following a civil lawsuit challenging Johnson's qualification for holding office. A move by Congress to deny Johnson a seat following a theoretical 2024 reelection win would, in theory, be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

While there are, in fact, Constitutional mechanisms to prevent politicians from serving in office after participating in an insurrection, no efforts, at the time of this reporting, have yet been made to apply them to Johnson's theoretical fifth term in office.

got a conviction?

From the article:

quote:

Do Johnson's actions before and during Jan. 6 constitute participation in an insurrection? Such a claim would likely need to be adjudicated in federal courts following a civil lawsuit challenging Johnson's qualification for holding office. A move by Congress to deny Johnson a seat following a theoretical 2024 reelection win would, in theory, be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

I have no reason to doubt that analysis.

The govt. "officer" or "office" is moot in his case. He took the oath and was part of the insurrection plot.

As the article said, theoretically it could happen.

This is all ridiculous. I believe the Democrats cheated in that election. I have no concrete proof, but should I be prosecuted for saying what I believe?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is all ridiculous. I believe the Democrats cheated in that election. I have no concrete proof, but should I be prosecuted for saying what I believe?

I quoted your post just in case you decide to edit it later.

I'm tempted to give a smart ass answer, but won't. Instead, I'll treat your question as though you are serious.

The short answer is NO.

There are situations, as I understand cases where precedent has been adjudicated on the question of free speech. IOW saying what you believe as Truth even though it's clear from the best evidence it is not true is protected free speech. That's a common everyday thing - happens all the time with generally no harm done except maybe to yourself. But, when such speech is done with intent to incite violence from others, that's where it's not okay and not constitutionally protected under 1st amendment. It's especially so if you are a famous person who has demonstrated influence on others with speech.

As I understand it, the issues with MAGA Mike aren't so much about free speech, or belief. If he used speech to incite violence, I'm not aware of it. And I really doubt that he believed the election was stolen. I think he did what he did for outcome, which he believed was justified DESPITE knowing the real outcome of the election.

And he's an attorney who has served three terms as a congressman. I'm sure he knew full well that what he was doing was helping with an insurrection plot, and that it was unconstitutional, yet he joined the plot anyway, and wrote some skewed supposed legal brief with some stretched legal theory, and talked over 100 other congressmen/persons into signing it in support, specifically to deny the transition of the office of POTUS to the rightfully elected person. What he did was clearly part of a coordinated and bigger effort to keep Trump in power regardless of the known and real election outcome.

All that is known, or the evidence suggests, in the public record. Someone, or some group, sufficiently motivated and skilled could develop a case sufficient in a civil case and maybe prosecution in a criminal case.

A civil case, with the lower standard of proof, would be sufficient to bar him from office per 14a/Sec 3, as I understand it.

If Trump doesn't overturn on appeal the part where the Judge said (adjudicated) he is an insurrectionist, then MAGA Mike gave aid and support to an enemy of the constitution, per the 14th amendment, in theory until adjudicated.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
got a conviction?

That's what Santos said.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is all ridiculous. I believe the Democrats cheated in that election. I have no concrete proof, but should I be prosecuted for saying what I believe?

Only if you actively participate in a plot to nullify the result of a general election. Other than that, you're free to make up or believe whatever kind of baseless bullshit you choose.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
got a conviction?

That's what Santos said.

false equivalence, and you know it -

On another note, I am thinking about going to Terry Blacks BBQ, want to join me?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
got a conviction?

That's what Santos said.

false equivalence, and you know it -

On another note, I am thinking about going to Terry Blacks BBQ, want to join me?

I love me some BBQ but the wife has other ideas for my time today. Maybe some other time?

“or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. “

Billions to Iran, open boarders to terrorists, trading influence to Xi and Ukraine prosecutor’s firing for cash. ……

Probably provable in some Red jurisdictions.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum and payback is a MF.

quote:

Billions to Iran, open boarders to terrorists, trading influence to Xi and Ukraine prosecutor’s firing for cash. ……

None of it provable anywhere, or the GOP would have gotten it done long ago. Just for starters, the Iran money was theirs to begin with. It's also a bit telling, or more than a little damning, that nearly all of the gov'ts witnesses AGAINST trump are right wing republicans who worked for and with him. They like to talk shit in the press, but a whole different story in court under oath. Even his family.

quote:

Originally posted by close enough:

quote:

Billions to Iran, open boarders to terrorists, trading influence to Xi and Ukraine prosecutor’s firing for cash. ……

None of it provable anywhere,

Hey Close Enough
Over 150 people have been DECLARED to have been caught by The Border Patrol THIS YEAR - proven
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...der-risen-rcna105095

BILLIONS released to Iran - Proven

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/18...explainer/index.html

Biden withheld funding of a deal to Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired - IN BIDEN'S OWN WORDS< saying so - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhrLWL7jzPY Proven

The only thing open is How Hunter was able to sell his "art" to Chinese buyers ---

It's CLOSE ENOUGH to being proven on all counts.

You know how "close enough, works, right? By your own statement, being with 400 miles of GUESSING the right answer is "close enough"

Dude, seriously, go back to the cafe and complain with your friends about your town counsel and your Mayor --

You are GROSSLY out of your element, and laughably under-informed

An actual grown adult would say
" i was wrong, underinformed, and i posted bad information"

i KNOW you won't, mr close enough, as you aren't actually an adult

quote:

BILLIONS released to Iran - Proven

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/18...explainer/index.html

Biden withheld funding of a deal to Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired - IN BIDEN'S OWN WORDS< saying so - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhrLWL7jzPY Proven

I know you just want to wipe out the fact that it was not OUR money and never was. And the prosecutor you refer to was a fucking crook that a whole bunch of our allies wanted gone same as us. As for Hunter, hang his ass if you can prove it. I don't care, he's not even a gov't employee. You might look at Jared 1st, tho, you seem to be a bit on the slow there. As for the open "boarders", assuming you mean borders, those 150 were actually caught, by your own admission, so where's the problem?

Someone here is an apologist for Iran invading sovereign American property. The seized property was subject to valid claims by the U S government and claims of various victims of Iranian terrorism.
And… watch the actual impeachment proceedings. Not the TDS driven press.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
An actual grown adult would say
" i was wrong, underinformed, and i posted bad information"

i KNOW you won't, mr close enough, as you aren't actually an adult

symple can't admit she was wrong -- go back into the home with grandma Ken, symple. they are trying to get ya'll to bed after the pudding snack

I don't apologize to Iran or any other Muslim country. They can all go pound sand, so to speak.
You are referring to 2 billion that courts ruled as reparations for an Iranian attack. Over 100 billion of THEIR assets have been frozen. Math hard for you?

hey, close enough,
were you WRONG? of course you were, so this is where any honorable man would admit it. I doubt you will, as you don't actually qualify

2% is your idea of close enough.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
2% is your idea of close enough.

grandma, if you were within 500%, like, EVER, it would be YOUR definition of close enough.

You need to be an adult here, and say "opps, i was under informed"

oh, you wont - because YOU believe you are close-enough to right, even when you are 99% wrong

you are a pathetic adult male - if you identify that way - in texas, you wouldn't even qualify for working at the DMV

I almost spit my coffee all over the keyboard.
2500 miles from you Jeffe, and we use the same insult for an idiot, with the DMV.

Drooling on the keyboards is what you guys do. Maybe explains some of the spelling......

Wow, what a retort.
But this is pimple. He sucked on the David Wheeler dick, that Boebert was a paid escort. He bet it was true. When I wanted to take the bet he backed out. It has been fact checked and proved bullshit, but pimple is still a believer.

WTF are you guys arguing and insulting each other about.

You let some righteous AH deflect this thread and followed the rabbit hole.

If you want to argue about Iran, Biden, or whatever, with lies and belief therein, or facts, start another thread.

The point is that there are apologists and/or deniers here who don't want to talk about MAGA Mike or the GOP and their corruption, mostly because they approve or worse - they are corrupt themselves.

They blame the media, etc., anything but acknowledge the facts. So, they deflect - look-over-there, what-about-them.

Disgusting.

https://youtu.be/VwzG6egSIys?s...YjZfB2H07Nn4aB&t=334

Liz Cheney's new book reveals confrontation she had with House Speaker Mike Johnson

https://youtu.be/3GeHEHGE_Fc?si=AAdl1UT0jRyOMh8j

'Trump's not eating': Cheney shares chat with McCarthy about Trump's 2020 loss

https://youtu.be/q39MXHUEKF0?si=Nsosb-gX47bxMJ3M

‘Damning’: New Pence notes point to GOP senator's role in Jan. 6 plot

Dont blow a fuse Kabob.
You post so many threads like this, so often, people drift off from them.
It's kind of "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.
You will have another thread on the same lines soon to try and redirect.

quote:

It's kind of "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Don't try and blame me for your attention span, or that your attention is easily deflected, for whatever reason.

The topic of this thread is MAGA Johnson and the GOP, and their roles in supporting Trump's insurrection plot. It's not about me or so much my opinion. It's about the evidence and the conclusions therefrom.

Anything else is rude deflection.

Is rude your thing?

Sometimes.
But you are as guilty of thread straying as anyone else. Especially when things come up against your views.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Wow, what a retort.
But this is pimple. He sucked on the David Wheeler dick, that Boebert was a paid escort. He bet it was true. When I wanted to take the bet he backed out. It has been fact checked and proved bullshit, but pimple is still a believer.

Based on her Colorado theater behavior, I still wouldn't doubt it. You right wingers still think trump is an angel so use a little prospective.

Put your money where your mouth is then pimp.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

Based on her Colorado theater behavior, I still wouldn't doubt it. You right wingers still think trump is an angel so use a little prospective.

Nope, close enough - I am right of you, and think trump would be a terrible candidate

subtlety isn't your thing, is it?

Wow, I just pointed out that the 14th Amendment didn’t only include crimes and behavior alleged against Trump, but also included a broad prohibition against aiding and comforting enemies of the U S. And, I guess the definition of “aid and comfort” is subject to a local jurist’s political bent, at least at the trial level. Pretty much subject to abuse, it would seem.

I didn’t change the subject. I simply gave examples of “aiding” behavior allegedly committed by Biden to point out that opening a Pandora’s Box (with mindless focus on an immediate and shortsighted goal) might come back to bite you in the ass.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Wow, I just pointed out that the 14th Amendment didn’t only include crimes and behavior alleged against Trump, but also included a broad prohibition against aiding and comforting enemies of the U S. And, I guess the definition of “aid and comfort” is subject to a local jurist’s political bent, at least at the trial level. Pretty much subject to abuse, it would seem.

I didn’t change the subject. I simply gave examples of “aiding” behavior allegedly committed by Biden to point out that opening a Pandora’s Box (with mindless focus on an immediate and shortsighted goal) might come back to bite you in the ass.

Like Tlaib?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

Based on her Colorado theater behavior, I still wouldn't doubt it. You right wingers still think trump is an angel so use a little prospective.

Nope, close enough - I am right of you, and think trump would be a terrible candidate

subtlety isn't your thing, is it?

You'll vote trump if God himself were the democratic candidate, just like Lane & the others.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

Based on her Colorado theater behavior, I still wouldn't doubt it. You right wingers still think trump is an angel so use a little prospective.

Nope, close enough - I am right of you, and think trump would be a terrible candidate

subtlety isn't your thing, is it?

You'll vote trump if God himself were the democratic candidate, just like Lane & the others.

never have, never will --

but that's on you, ASSUMING it

You see, close enough, things go way better when you ask QUESTIONS and don't ASSUME

look at the first line in my signature - you might put your readers on, first, though

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Wow, I just pointed out that the 14th Amendment didn’t only include crimes and behavior alleged against Trump, but also included a broad prohibition against aiding and comforting enemies of the U S. And, I guess the definition of “aid and comfort” is subject to a local jurist’s political bent, at least at the trial level. Pretty much subject to abuse, it would seem.

I didn’t change the subject. I simply gave examples of “aiding” behavior allegedly committed by Biden to point out that opening a Pandora’s Box (with mindless focus on an immediate and shortsighted goal) might come back to bite you in the ass.

Like Tlaib?

The rule of law doesn't hinge on opinion or shesaid/hesaid, or belief, last I checked.

If as traditionally the rule of law is based in facts and evidence, then there should be nothing to worry about, regardless of political bent.

BTW, banning Trump, per the constitution, is not shortsighted. It's longsighted.

And its only the one of multiple threads you have started on using the amendment to keep your political opponents out of politics while ignoring that your somewhat minimalist reasoning can be very easily misused by someone of an authoritarian bent.

Remember that part of what sunk HRC was the perception by democrat voters that they rigged it for her over crazy uncle Bernie.

While Trump is horrible and we all should exercise our right to vote against him (preferably in the primary) removing your opposition for one party rule works so well in Russia, N Korea, China, etc. etc.

If one votes conservative, in your mind, they are a seditionist.

How is that any different than your claim that Dr. Easter is authoritarian because he refuses to vote Democrat?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

It's kind of "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Don't try and blame me for your attention span, or that your attention is easily deflected, for whatever reason.

The topic of this thread is MAGA Johnson and the GOP, and their roles in supporting Trump's insurrection plot. It's not about me or so much my opinion. It's about the evidence and the conclusions therefrom.

Anything else is rude deflection.

Is rude your thing?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
And its only the one of multiple threads you have started on using the amendment to keep your political opponents out of politics while ignoring that your somewhat minimalist reasoning can be very easily misused by someone of an authoritarian bent.

Remember that part of what sunk HRC was the perception by democrat voters that they rigged it for her over crazy uncle Bernie.

While Trump is horrible and we all should exercise our right to vote against him (preferably in the primary) removing your opposition for one party rule works so well in Russia, N Korea, China, etc. etc.

If one votes conservative, in your mind, they are a seditionist.

How is that any different than your claim that Dr. Easter is authoritarian because he refuses to vote Democrat?

I can see how the 14th/s3 could be misused. The amendment, sec 3, was originally intended to bar political wannabees who had engaged is insurrection, sedition, secession, violation of the constitution which they had previously vowed to honor by oath.

It has not been repealed or otherwise declared to be null.

Yes, IMO, all Trump supporters are insurrectionists, as well as all who try to whitewash 1/6. Most have not taken an oath of office to honor the constitution, but stretching it - if they have ever declared they are patriots, that's like an oath to me, and it's a lie.

I don't recall saying that Dr. Easter is authoritarian because he won't vote Democrat. That's ridiculous. I think he is authoritarian because of the clues reaped from his posts, and his whitewashing of the significance of what the GOP is up to. I think he knows, and fogging us. I think he sees himself a significant beneficiary of Trumpism getting ahold on the balls of the country, an authoritarian regime. He will thrive in such case - zero-sum.

Watch this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...a144fe50d8fc97&ei=18

Note that he starts by explaining the govt. departments under the EXECUTIVE BRANCH, then all the agencies thereunder. This is why Project 25 WILL succeed. Plus, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks have been plotting this for many years. They are on the verge of success. A basic part of the long term plan was to get far-right leaning justices appointed to SCOTUS. That's why they cooked up a way to deny Obama an appointment, which was an authoritarian move by the GOP. They advertised or promoted Trump's first term on his window to appoint justices, and they had the names already in the hat.

Lane knows all that, and not only approves, but is actively helping facilitate it happening, and has done so for many years.

Serving Conservatives amongst we-the-people is NOT what this is all about. It's about serving the power mongers, the oligarchs, directly at our expense. Trump is just the means, which is why they won't expunge him. He's a nasty tool and they know it, but the end justifies the means.

Normal Conservatives (if there is such a thing) can't admit that they have been and are being conned.

https://youtu.be/xUlRJAGC8jE?si=UF6AOcVUNFxyi3fm

Read history again.

It was written in the reconstruction era.

Its whole goal was to keep ex confederate politicians out of office. Nothing to do with political wannabes or your laundry list of potential exclusions.

Plain and simple, keep confederates who by the war were not charged or had due process filled on them.

And ex-confederate generals. President Johnson’s policies concerning Parsons’s and amnesty kept it from being used.

The Radical Republicans (who controlled Congress) fully anticipated ex-confederate officials to be tried. However, President Johnson (following President Lincoln’s beliefs) intervened. Now, President Johnson was a Tennesseean but of Hillbilly stock. He despised the planter class. I do not know if President Johnson was swayed by the legacy of Lincoln and advocacy of Grant.

Either way policy of trials, convictions, and attending was accepted by President Johnson as causing more harm for the benefit of class of folks he personally did not care for being freemen.

Of course, a few confederates, like Lee, had folks like Grant providing political cover for them. A Federal Grand Jury charged Lee and others w treason. Grant intervened, and President Johnson’s policies of pardons and amnesty caught up. Grant also believed such actions would lose the peace.

Grant threatened President Johnson that Grant would resign if the President did not intervene.

Ultimately, President Johnson was met w Impeachment (one vote short of conviction/removal) for President Johnson’s legitimate use of presidential power.

Hence, given 21st ruling that impeachment is a political issue not to be addressed by the courts, and the President Johnson’s example, I state a President serves at the will of Congress.

quote:

ex confederate politicians out of office. Nothing to do with political wannabes or your laundry list of potential exclusions.

ex confederate politicians were political wannabees.

It's not MY laundry list, but simply a list of those who provided key support for an insurrection, and who specifically aided an enemy of the constitution, and thus the Nation, in a plot to steal the power of the office of POTUS.

In some ways that's more significant than confederates wanting to run for office after having lost the civil war. It's broader in scale, and the confederates after the war probably couldn't have done an insurrection politically. They had already done that with violence and secession.

Trump did it while in office, with the goal to stay in office, despite the constitution.