Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
First, there was no insurrection. The worst I can go with is it was a protest that got out of hand. There were no weapons taken off the protestors. Only liars and dumb motherfuckers call it an insurrection.
Jack Smith would love, love, love, love, love, love and more love, to convict Trump of insurrection. But out of all the charges Smith made, insurrection wasn't one of them. Do you know why? Because there is no fucking evidence. If there was even a sliver of flimsy evidence then Smith would have charged Trump with insurrection. So just fucking forget the insurrection bullshit.
Is Trump trying to delay? First, the prosecution does not have a right to a speedy trial, only the defendent. Next, lawyers have to prepare a defense. In the Georgia case there are 19 defendents. There are thousands of documents involved that they have to go over with a fine tooth comb. It takes months, even years. One of the reasons Smith and his horde of lawyers want a fast trial is so the defense cannot prepare properly. The other reason is a Trump conviction before the election. Everyone knows Smith is railroading Trump.
Now, the 14th amendment. You motherfuckers need to go back to school. Here is Section 3:
Section 3
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, 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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
The first thing is the President takes a different oath than those in Congress. But that's not the big issue. The big issue is Section 5. This is what SCOTUS will focus on:
Section 5.
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
By this statement only Congress has the power to bar individuals from holding national office. They did not give any power to the states on the issue. And there was a damn good reason for them not to give any power to the states on issue. Here's a statement by MDawg:
"In any case, the one real world example we have is Jefferson Davis – he was a Senator before the Civil War and took an oath to uphold the Constitution, then led the South in insurrection against the United States, and was barred from ever being President by the 14th Amendment. Most would say that Grump is equally barred from being President, especially if he is ever convicted of insurrection."
It was not Mississippians that banned Davis. Congress made it clear they would not allow him and other ex-Confederates in Office. Mississippians would have never kicked Davis off of a ballot and Congress knew that. They knew that they couldn't give power to the states on the issue because the southern states would not cooperate and throw ex-Confederates off the ballot. Meanwhile, in 1860 Lincoln was not allowed on ballots in several southern states. So Congress held the power to themselves with Section 5.
SCOTUS will overturn Colorado based on Section 5. You heard it here first.