Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Amendment 14, Section 3

It's just the usual.

Liberal morons see a stupid post on DU, and bring it over ta the 'fire.

There WAS NO insurrection. Period. Not even an "attempted" one.

The transfer of power still occurred. The Demented VEGETABLE Joe Biden STILL became President.


False charges brought by a thoroughly corrupt and Fascistic administration.

People supporting this bullshit should truly be ashamed of themselves and get some mental help for their raging TDS.

Is it possible for the OP to get any stupider..........

It's what happens when the thinking faculties are entirely corrupted with the disease of leftism.

I think your right……I don’t think she’s finished yet…..

You should suck start a shot gun.

I am about to blow some big holes in the idiotic rant of the OP. Buckle up Boys:

1) Nobody, including Trump, has been charged with insurrection. Not one. That means nobody, including Trump, will face trial for insurrection which in turn means that nobody, including Trump, can be found guilty of insurrection. Since nobody, including Trump, can be found guilty of insurrection by a jury of his peers then nobody, including Trump, can be prevented from running for office due to insurrection.

2) Insurrection is, by U.S. statute, a 2 part offense and it must begin by an act of rebellion. Per U.S. statute, rebellions must include the use of arms. Not one of the protesters was armed in any way. The only bullets fired that day were by the Capital Hill police and the only person shot was an unarmed woman. Since there was no ARMED REBELLION, there can be no, per U.S. statute, insurrection.

3) Trump has been accused of "inciting" the violent protest but the actual words of Trump, which were not included in the grand jury evidence, show him (on video and per transcript) calling for peaceful protest in accordance with the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At no time did he call for violence or illegal actions on the part of anybody.

4) There were numerous reports that the FBI and other govt agencies were informed that there were agitators from outside DC coming to cause mayhem. The FBI even arrested several such cells in NYC prior to Jan 6. Because of these reports Trump offered the Natl Guard to Washington DC and the Capital Hill police to help keep order. The mayor of DC and the Capital Hill police (who report to the speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi) turned him down. Additionally, extra forces for the Washington DC police dept and the Capital Hill police were not prepared to be mobilized on short notice, despite the warning of trouble. This is a leadership failure of both law enforcement entities and is not the fault of Trump who offered forces to be at their call if needed and they ended up being needed. The offer of troops renders the accusation of insurrection invalid because the troops were offered to strengthen the govt and not weaken it. Insurrections by their very definition are done to weaken, or negate, a govt's hold on power.

5) There are numerous videos of the Capital Hill police opening the doors to the capital building and allowing people in. The doors of the capital are magnetically sealed and can only be opened from the inside. While there was some breaking into the building via windows (remember the outside agitators) many of the people that ended up being arrested were allowed into the building, and even escorted around by uniformed officers of the Capital Hill police. This is all on video. Additionally there was a news crew (headed by Nancy Pelosi's niece) that just happened to be in the building when it was "breached" through doors held open by the Capital Hill police, who report to Nancy Pelosi. Convenient right?

6) In order for there to be a rebellion and an insurrection it had to be done with the intention of overthrowing the sitting govt. Trump was president on Jan 6 and he was president on Jan 7. Was he trying to overthrow himself? All the members of congress that held office on Jan 6 also held office on Jan 7. There was NO attempt to overthrow the govt. The only day that could have happened was on Jan 20 when the office of POTUS was to be turned over and it was turned over in full accordance with U.S. Law. Since Trump did not attempt to stop the lawful transfer of power, on Jan 20, 2021, legally there was no insurrection.

7) Lastly, the OP is an IDIOT!

An accurate and correct summation MAC. Thank you. +1

Very well said.

The 14th Sec 3 also lists “rebellion” as cause. Is that a statute? Or a description of action(s)? I don’t know, that’s an honest question. If the latter…. then he’s not gonna be on the ballot.

Regardless, this one is heating up, as predicted, and will be tested in the courts. I’m guessing- could be wrong- that there’s precedent for this being used in cases where the person(s) it was used against were never convicted of insurrection.

SCOTUS will be the decider. As I already said, that could actually work to Trumps advantage beyond just the question of whether he can Constitutionally be allowed on ballots because it might amount to a finding of whether fücknut did or did not engage in insurrection/rebellion which in turn could effect Smith’s case. Or not. As I said earlier SCOTUS are masters of very carefully narrowing the scope of their decisions.

But know this. Trump is, at the end of the day, a bullshitter. Courts are pretty much designed to cut through bullshit. Judges are human beings wired to despise bullshit. I don’t think SCOTUS is gonna go out of their way to rescue one Donald J. Trump from the consequences of his bullshit. Could be wrong. We’ll see. Soon!

That’s exactly what seems to happen anymore. Once they’ve made their pledge or oath or fealty to their democrat overlords they stop using logic and critical thinking and go straight to emotionally, often violently, repeating the party mantra.

Trump wins in 2024.

What part of the truth chaps your ass, Jeffy?

Yesterday we got news that an Obama-appointed judge had dismissed a 14th-Amendment-based disqualification lawsuit brought by a plaintiff (is that the right word? JoeBrilliant?) due to lack of standing.

That was a nothingburger. Lawsuits from plaintiffs WITH standing will soon be filed. Two obvious ones are Christie and Hutchinson, but state Secretary of State’s also certainly qualify, and several are deep in the weeds exploring how to proceed. Stay tuned. It’s coming.

In my opinion, the 14th Sec 3 very clearly DQ’s Trump from holding any elected office ever again, minus a 2/3 vote from both Houses to reinstate him. But this being the legal system, who knows. We’ll find out sooner than later; this one plays out on a much faster timeline than his trials for over 90 felonies will.

in your opinion.. LMAO and the world's opinion you're still a dumbass

They fall for the crap Bidet got 81 million votes and open borders and fentanyl trafficking and illegal importation of middle eastern muzzies and destruction of the US Oil Industry is good for America.

Speaking of Lala Land....

Just as Trump and the Patriots suckered them into doing so Trump could, as he's now doing, educate the People as to what treasonous Election Interference is.

Trump is leading the people from Dark to Light and we are privileged to watch the Great Awakening that will lead the people out of the Swamps Matrix box.

You are more of an optimist than I am. I think it's going to be close but could go either way. I am not convinced that democrats will ever not vote democrat. We could have $12 gas and they still will go straight blue.

Bingo.