If Trump Is Not an Insurrectionist, What Is He?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Last month the states of Colorado and Maine moved to disqualify Donald Trump as a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In response, Trump has asked the Supreme Court to intervene on his behalf in the Colorado case, and he has appealed Maine’s decision.
There is a real question of whether this attempt to protect American democracy — by removing a would-be authoritarian from the ballot — is itself a threat to American democracy. Will proponents and supporters of the 14th Amendment option effectively destroy the village in order to save it?
It may seem obvious, but we should remember that Trump is not an ordinary political figure. And try as some commentators might, there is no amount of smoke one could create — through strained counterfactuals, dire warnings of a slippery slope or outright dismissal of the events that make the Trump of 2024 a figure very different from the Trump of 2020 — that can obscure or occlude this basic fact.
In 2020, President Trump went to the voting public of the United States and asked for another four years in office. By 51 percent to 47 percent, the voting public of the United States said no.More important, Trump lost the Electoral College, 306 to 232, meaning there were enough of those voters in just the right states to deny him a second term.
The people decided. And Trump said, in so many words, that he didn’t care. What followed, according tothe final report of the House select committee on Jan. 6, was an effort to overturn the result of the election.
Trump, the committee wrote, “unlawfully pressured state officials and legislators to change the results of the election in their states.” He “oversaw an effort to obtain and transmit false electoral certificates to Congress and the National Archives.” He “summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for Jan. 6,” the day Congress was slated to certify the election results, and “instructed them to march to the Capitol” so that they could “‘take back’ their country.’” He even sent a message on Twitter attacking his vice president, Mike Pence, knowing full well that “a violent attack on the Capitol was underway.”
In the face of this violence, Trump “refused repeated requests over a multiple hour period that he instruct his violent supporters to disperse and leave the Capitol, and instead watched the violent attack unfold on television.” He did not deploy the National Guard, nor did he “instruct any federal law enforcement agency to assist.”
Trump sought and actively tried to subvert constitutional government and overturn the results of the presidential election. And what he could not do through the arcane rules and procedures of the Electoral College, he tried to do through the threat of brute force, carried out by an actual mob.
Looked at this way, the case for disqualifying Trump through the 14th Amendment is straightforward. Section 3 states that “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … 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.”
As the legal scholar Mark A. Graberwritesin an amicus brief submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court, “American jurists understood an insurrection against the United States to be an attempt by two or more persons for public reasons to obstruct by force or intimidation the implementation of federal law.” There was also a legal consensus at the time of the amendment’s drafting and ratification that an individual “engaged in insurrection whenever they knowingly incited, assisted or otherwise participated in an insurrection.”
We also know that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not aim or intend to exclude the president of the United States from its terms. In 1870 the Republican-controlled Senaterefused to seat Zebulon Vance, the former Confederate governor of North Carolina. It strains credulity to think that the same Republicans would have sat silent if the Democratic Party had, in 1872, nominated a former Confederate leader for the presidency.
Under a plain reading of Section 3 — and given the evidence uncovered by the Jan. 6 committee — Trump cannot stand for the presidency of the United States or any other federal office, for that matter.
The real issue with disqualifying Trump is less constitutional than political. Disqualification, goes the argument, would bring American democracy to the breaking point.
In this line of thinking, to deny Americans their choice of presidential candidate would destroy any remaining confidence in the American political system. It would also invite Trump’s allies in the Republican Party to do the same to Democrats, weaponizing Section 3 and disqualifying candidates for any number of reasons. Disqualification would also give far more power to the courts, when the only appropriate venue for the question of Trump is the voting booth.
But these objections rest on a poor foundation. They treat Trump as an ordinary candidate and Jan. 6 as a variation on ordinary politics. But as the House select committee established, Jan. 6 and the events leading up to it were nothing of the sort. And while many Americans still contest the meaning of the attack on the Capitol, many Americans also contested, in the wake of the Civil War, the meaning of secession and rebellion. That those Americans viewed Confederate military and political leaders as heroes did not somehow delegitimize the Republican effort to keep them, as much as possible, out of formal political life.
What unites Trump with the former secessionists under the disqualification clause is that like them, he refused to listen to the voice of the voting public. He rejected the bedrock principle of democratic life, the peaceful transfer of power.
The unspoken assumption behind the idea that Trump should be allowed on the ballot and that the public should have the chance to choose for or against him yet again is that he will respect the voice of the electorate. But we know this isn’t true. It wasn’t true after the 2016 presidential election — when, after winning the Electoral College, he sought to delegitimize the popular vote victory of his opponent as fraud — and it was put into stark relief after the 2020 presidential election.
Trump is not simply a candidate who does not believe in the norms, values and institutions we call American democracy — although that is troubling enough. Trump is all that and a former president who used the power of his office to try to overturn constitutional government in the United States.
Is it antidemocratic to disqualify Trump from office and deny him a place on the ballot? Does it violate the spirit of democratic life to deny voters the choice of a onetime officeholder who tried, under threat of violence, to deny them their right to choose? Does it threaten the constitutional order to use the clear text of the Constitution to hold a former constitutional officer accountable for his efforts to overturn that order?
The answer is no, of course not. There is no rule that says democracies must give endless and unlimited grace to those who used the public trust to conspire, for all the world to see, against them. Voters are free to choose a Republican candidate for president; they are free to choose a Republican with Trump’s politics. But if we take the Constitution seriously, then Trump, by dint of his own actions, should be off the board.
Not that he will be. The best odds are that the Supreme Court of the United States will punt the issue of Section 3 in a way that allows Trump to run on every ballot in every state. And while it will be tempting to attribute this outcome to the ideological composition of the court — as well as the fact that Trump appointed three of its nine members — I think it will, if it happens, have as much to do with the zone of exception that exists around the former president.
If Trump has a political superpower, it’s that other people believe he has political superpowers. They believe that any effort to hold him accountable will backfire. They believe that he will always ride a wave of backlash to victory. They believe that challenging him on anything other than his terms will leave him stronger than ever.
Most of this is false. But to the extent that it is true, it has less to do with the missed shots — to borrow an aphorism from professional sports — than it does with the ones not taken in the first place.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
I know one thing for sure about him:
While many came to Washington to enrich themselves, Trump sacrificed billions to fight for us against them.
Sheesh.
Do you know what else I know?
After an 8-year assault by the full force of the US government and the dishonest media, he has yet to be convicted of a crime.
Does this mean that you think the Jan 6, GA, and classified docs indictments are without merit ... that Trump did nothing seriously wrong?
It means that after 8 years of democrats & government officials using any device at hand to oust Trump, I no longer care.
He did nothing more than Hillary Clinton did.
Oh wait; Democrats aren't held to the same standards under the law.
You no longer care if a former PotUS committed felonies??
Got any facts to support that statement?
First of all, I have no use for Clinton. She was wrong to use her private email server and was wrong to destroy the evidence. And she was wrong when she made her (single or very few) claim that the 2016 election was flawed.
That said, ...
The best you have is exaggeration. You will attempt to equate the Clinton emails with the classified docs and will do so by ignoring the substantial, deliberate wrongdoing by Trump. You will attempt to equate Clinton's rare claim that the election was rigged (extremely rare) with Trump's Big Lie campaign. You will attempt to equate the various DNC lawsuits after the 2016 election with the coercion by Trump and his cronies. You will ignore or deny the fake electors scheme since there is nothing at all for you to hang on.
In short, the best you have are feeble equivalences and major league hyperbole.
There is no candidate for the presidency in the history of the USA who has engaged in more dishonest / illegal practices and for any period even close to that of Trump. Trump stands alone, by far, as the only PotUS (or candidate) who attempted to steal a US presidential election through fraud, lying, coercion and incitement.
Amen.
First, that was not a statement, it was a question. Second, the word IF makes the question conditional.
I will pose an equivalent question to you:
If Trump is found guilty of felonies, does that matter to you? Will you vote for him as a convicted felon if he is the GOP nominee?
She didn't have to do any of those things. The House took care of trying to oust Trump. She had at least half of that body working for her. Surely you remember all the witch hunts and false accusations.................
[deleted]
So you agree that Ronin's attempt to compare Clinton to Trump is profoundly flawed.
She was just lazy and let others do her dirty work. So if, big if, Trump had all those intentions, they were basically after the same thing.
He could have handled it better but fomenting insurrection? That’s a bridge too far. Proven so far by the fact that no one involved in the Jan 6th protest has been found guilty of insurrection. Three years later …..
That is a very poor argument, Jim.
Bottom line, nobody in our history can hold a candle to what Trump actually did. If you disagree, then provide the line-by-line evidence that is equivalent to what Trump did.
Broad, abstract generalizations such as saying Hillary wanted the election overturned or that Hillary let others do her dirty work illustrate in clear terms that you do not have an argument.
How do you handle trying to steal an election "better", short of succeeding?
Where do I use the word insurrection?
Here, read my post again:
Proud Boys Leader Sentenced to 22 Years in Prison for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Charges Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
This is a little game certain conservative members are playing. Because nobody has been found guilty of the crime of insurrection ( 18 U.S. Code § 2383) they claim that one cannot refer to the perps as insurrectionists using the common usage meaning of the word:
insurrection : " an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government "
This is the pathetic level of 'argument' some stoop to — playing lame word games.
The reality is that nobody has been charged with the federal crime of insurrection, but many can be properly labeled as insurrectionists using the colloquial (most commonly used in everyday language) usage of the term per dictionaries.
It has become nothing more than background noise at this point. The democrats that cried, and continue to cry, wolf. Big bad Orange wolf.
And nobody has even been charged with insurrection by the DOJ.
She was obviously being cheated out of her turn at the presidency and they were looking at any way to stop that from happening.
Never said you did. I answered your question and expanded my comment to the article topic. Here ….. here’s the topic in case you missed it:
You did not have to say it. You wrote a 'rebuttal' post to mine where you argued 'insurrection'.
If you reply to my post, at least attempt to correlate your response with what I actually wrote. If you are not actually replying to what I wrote then start a new comment thread.
Further: "he could have handled it better" is a platitude ... it offers no value since it is virtually a tautology. In almost every instance of life, a human actor could always have "handled it better". It does not in any way answer the question I asked:
Your comment danced around my question with a platitude.
So, according to your own quote, you feel that "plotting and inciting an insurrection" doesn't count?
No charge there either............next.
Do you consider those who broke and entered the Capitol seditious conspirators?:
Do you consider Trump a seditious conspirator?
What, if anything, do you consider a proper charge for those who broke and entered the Capitol and disrupted Congress in session and threatened the lives of Pence, Pelosi, et. al.?
There were three or four that were charged with this or conspiracy to commit so that has been covered.
"Do you consider Trump a seditious conspirator?"
No
I posted a link to him being charged with Seditious Conspiracy.... [Deleted]
What crimes then do you think he should be charged with?
Another (easier) question would be to look at the 4 counts in the Jan 6 indictment and see if you agree. The counts and the appliable laws in the indictment are:
Count 1: 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
Count 2: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k) (Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2), 2 (Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights)
I only replied to your post of 2.1.18 where to posted a link to the leader of the Proud Boys being sentenced to 22 years in prison, in an attempt to link his sentence to insurrection. That was your point. My post only showed that even the DOJ has not charged anybody with insurrection. I made no other comment and will not play word games.
None of the above because he did none of the above.
You thus hold that Trump has not done anything significantly wrong (unconstitutional, illegal) regarding his actions after his election loss.
I do...And so do many millions of thinking Americans.
So if Trump is found guilty, will you cry foul?
“…thinking Americans.”
Substitute ignorant, or partisan, or just plain wrong and you have a point.
You used to be so much better than this.
I can't help wondering if one of the reasons for this is the lame, circular definition of the crime. Basically, US Code defines "insurrection" as "engaging in insurrection." Legally, it's pretty useless.
Tig, we have to understand that a half dozen, or more , of the conservatives here literally no nothing about the evidence against Trump.
They pre-judged all of this a year or two ago.
Nope. That is what the courts are for. Not public opinion or the usage of certain words.
[TROLLING]
BTW...you prejudged everything you claim Trump has done the day he came down the escalator 8 years ago.
That is possible, it is a vague definition. As vague as 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'.
In actual practice, a court would likely look to written examples of what people thought insurrection was at the time the amendment was written. But when you don’t know how the court would rule, it’s a huge roll of the dice for a prosecutor. It’s simpler for them to prosecute crimes for which they have a solid list of elements. Keeping Trump out of the White House isn’t really the main agenda for a prosecutor. Putting him in prison would be.
To be fair, he was president for four of those years, so investigating and prosecuting him were nearly impossible. Once he became a private citizen again, he could be investigated and prosecuted much more easily. Considering that, it’s not that unusual that the process is taking this long.
To be fair would require calling those investigations what they were.
Vic, do you know anything at all about the Jan 6th findings? If you do you have kept such knowledge well hidden.
Who was held accountable for the collusion hoax that was hatched by the Clinton campaign, with help from the FBI, DOJ, and CIA?
I will take your response to mean that you know nothing about the J6 committee findings. So why do you keep defending Trump on a topic you know nothing about ?
You made an incorrect assumption after I answered your question. You can try to spin it all you want but it will changed nothing.
[deleted]
Wrong, not insurrection.
Next
Comparing Benghazi and Jan 6th?
Wow, just wow.
How, exactly, did Trump sacrifice billions?
And are you suggesting that Trump actually "cleaned the swamp"?
Unfortunately Democrats are still in charge- and the swamp is alive, well, and expanding.
Democrats are seeking to keep all others out of their swamp now.
They were once so confident they could beat him, but after 3 years of Biden's radical policies they aren't so sure. Thus, they are down to removing him from the ballot.
I doubt the SC will allow him to be removed from ballots.
This does all serve a purpose though - he may succeed in delaying the J6 trial until after the election. We need this all to be discussed as much as possible , to make it clear to people what they are voting for. I hope this "ballot removal" is discussed for the next few months.
"We need this all to be discussed as much as possible..."
Yes, but only if the discussion closely follows and aligns to the hard core leftist liberal point of view. Nothing else matters.
Perhaps you will be one of the ones in for a rude awakening when the trial starts. The testimony before the J6 committee was devasting for Trump, and without a doubt led to the indictment.
It is true that Trump has a legitimate shot to be elected PotUS. It is true that those who find him unfit for office want him to not be eligible.
Makes sense, someone who is not fit to hold the office should be ineligible.
But ultimately the SCotUS is very likely NOT going to rule Trump ineligible. Trump being a convicted felon, should that happen, will not remove him from the ballot either. So it will, as always, come down to the electorate.
And that is as it should be. Trump's first presidency was good for the country and his second one will be even better as he cleans up Biden's mess.
US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump's policies
Death Toll Associated With Trump Administration Goes Beyond Covid-19, Says Lancet Report
Damning analysis of Trump's pandemic response suggested 40% of US COVID-19 deaths could have been avoided
Report highlights “devastating impacts” of Trump on every aspect of US health
Please list every bit of credible evidence that Trump organized and orchestrated the events of J6. Videos and audio recordings would be acceptable.
Since the demonstration was spontaneous and led by a small group of far-right radical thugs, it's doubtful Trump could have stopped it.
The general public and likely voters have pretty much disregarded the events of J6 since we have been stuck with Joe for three years now.
He did not even try.
During the middle of the insurrection, Trump used a tweet to throw Pence under the bus. He fanned the flames.
He could have tweeted for them to cease and desist. He did not even do that. He, as PotUS, had the authority to take any number of actions. He did not do so until after three hours had passed.
Reality.
If and when he is tried, convicted, and found guilty I will heartily agree with you. Until that happens, all else is non sequitur.
I think that is part of the little word game they play.
In 2020 a riot was defined as a peaceful protest
In 2021 a riot is defined as an insurrection because insurrection sounds much worse making it easier to get him off the ballot. Rather than use the word riot which almost everyone would agree with they stick with the non legal version of what insurrection means. In other words opinion. It has to make you wonder why it is so important to downgrade in one case but upgrade in the other.
The more Joe fucks things up the less relevant the Jan 6th riot becomes.
No, conspiring to force the United States Congress to delay their Constitutional duties and flee into underground bunkers in advance of Trump's violent mob intent on "Stopping The Steal" was technically and legally mounting an insurrection!
“The more Joe fucks things up the less relevant the Jan 6th riot becomes.”
Like most Presidents, Biden will become a footnote in history. January 6 has already become a watershed moment.
That we are present and living in that moment gives us the opportunity to make a difference in how the ramifications eventually unfold.
That is a sad commentary. Where is the support for the rule of law? Do you not care if someone tries to steal a presidential election and disenfranchise the electorate?
Trump needs to be held accountable for his actions no matter what else occurs in the political world.
How so?
Only to very few LWNJ's who will try to keep it going as long as possible before they are totally ignored. That should be right after the next election when they will have to move on to the next election and they can't get anymore anti Trump milage out of it.
Let him be charged, let him be tried, let the chips fall where they may.
Indeed. Because in Trump's case his indictments have merit. Not holding him accountable for his actions sets a horrible precedent for the nation and thus encourages similar bad behavior by those in power.
Anything he does not get convicted of will bolster his victimhood. That should raise him millions.
Is that an outcome that would please you?
Please me, not really, that would necessitate me caring about the outcome. Amuse me, probably for a day or so or as long as MSNBC cried about it.
As I have said before, indictments do not equal convictions.
1. He sent out the tweet that gathered the crowd, and then on Jan 6 told them they had to fight like hell. But your mistake , like most MAGA, is that you confine your attention to the day of Jan 6 only, and ignore all of Trump's efforts to overthrow the election.
2. The "demonstration" was not spontaneous.
3. Trump's own family and chief of staff thought he could stop it.
Actions speak louder than words. Trump has multiple actions in the post election period that tie him to an illegal effort to subvert the electoral count.
Well said.
I dont think that any of these people here who keep saying Trump is "innocent" are at all familiar with the findings of the J6 committee. They are going to be in for a rude awakening at the trial.
Not sure I have read anyone actually come out and say that Trump is innocent. What they do is imply that he is a victim with comments like @2.1.1 and retorts such as "where is the proof ...?".
They dismiss the J6 committee report entirely because the committee had only 2 R members and thus was not purely bipartisan. But this is an excuse to not deal with the many high ranking, connected, GOP witnesses who testified under oath even though it was detrimental to their political careers.
Rather than debate the damning testimony from Barr, Bowers, etc. they just do a "talk to the hand" move and categorically ignore the entire report.
This is confirmation bias in a grand fashion and blatant intellectual dishonesty. Just goes to show how powerful political bias is. People will forego common sense, ignore facts, lie, etc. simply to be loyal to their party. It is truly pathetic.
“It is truly pathetic.”
Indeed.
And as you outlined…the willful disregard in holding one accountable…in parsing words, in hanging on the nebulous, in not acknowledging the facts, in not recognizing the ramifications… will never diminish the truth.
We truly are at a crossroads and our actions going forward will determine our destiny. It is in our hands. Here’s hoping sanity prevails…the opinions offered here in opposition of reality not withstanding.
"Looked at this way, the case for disqualifying Trump through the 14th Amendment is straightforward."
In other words if you buy my spin you will agree with me. That is shocking
If Trump Is Not An Insurrectionist, What Is He?
IMO he is a person triggers strong emotional responses by many on both sides of the political Spectrum. In some cases he can do no wrong and in other cases he can only do wrong. It makes me question the ability of many people that are polar opposites of this issue to be able to look at it logically or with a non partisan lens.
You act like his actions between election day 2020 and January 6th are just a matter of opinion, which is absurd.
There was a riot at the Capital.
Illustrating: "In some cases he can do no wrong ..."
Illustrating there was a riot in the capital
Obviously, your comment intentionally sidestepped Trump’s involvement per JR’s 5.1
I have answered that question several times before. And every time I say Trump did not handle everything well that day and could have handled it better I make a liberal head explode. I am trying to save liberal heads from exploding. You should be thanking me
Nobody asked you a question.
The platitude “x could have done better” is wishy washy. It offers no value and effectively hides on the sidelines to avoid a direct challenge.
So there you go. Exactly why I sidestepped the Trump part. I answer truthfully but it is wishy washy because someone does not like the answer.
And remember it is only your opinion that I do it to avoid a direct challenge, whatever that is
It is wishy-washy due to its structure. It does not matter what you wrote. I made this clear by showing the structure: “x could have done better”.
You are welcome to your opinion.
I am welcome to mine
What they need is a really catchy bumper sticker.
They have considered and rejected:
Does it surprise you that there are partisan extremists?
Do you recognize that "x is always wrong" or "x is always right" are logically irrational regardless of the party of 'x'?
Some powerful stuff
I think it's time that the left needs to accept the inevitable reality that Trump will be the nominee and defeat Biden.
They are just going to stay with Joes sinking ship, Trump will win and we can look forward to Joes version of Hildabeasts "Why I Lost book".
.
[removed]
I'm pretty sure that most - if not all states - require that for a person to be listed as a candidate on the ballot, they have to actually be legally qualified to hold the office. So, for the president, that would include things like age (minimum 35), be a natural born American citizen, not previously been impeached from the office, and - per the 14th Amendment - not have committed insurrection against the United States.
Who decides if a person meets these qualifications? Generally, the states, I would guess, since they run their own elections. Article II of the US Constitution says that the states choose their own electors. How they do that is up to the states.
Does this potentially thwart the will of the people? Of course! But then so do a lot of other constitutional rules. As a silly example, maybe a majority of Americans would vote for Justin Bieber to be president. But as a 29 year old Canadian, he's not qualified. And we don't need to have a trial to adjudicate that. The state decides. And yes, that would go against the will of people. Too bad.
The real test would come if we went through the whole process, and Trump actually won the Electoral College vote. Then, I don't know how the matter would be adjudicated. The 14th Amendment doesn't give us a process for determining the matter. It doesn't require a conviction.
Since the stakes would involve only disqualification from office, and not jail time, it doesn't need to be in a criminal court, and the standard of proof might be as feeble as "preponderance of the evidence."
Trump is guilty of so much, as seen with all of our eyes, yet the "right" just continues to deny deny deny, and spread more continuous lies the truth, like in a John Wilks phony Booth, shooting the head side
of a penny for your thought less of more ons , cause commentors are NOT being truthful with even themselves, cause to split heirs about they don't have cares, irregardless of what Trump does in his affairs is just plain reckless driving US off the Thelma Loise Cliff or da, a big red dawg dragging US All down , and Biden his time has ruined a country, well, not as far as eyes can FCKN SEE !
Yes there is a border mess, and modifications need be applid but about the rest, the "right" has LIED!
Economy is thriving beyond the expectations' of the experts, the US is pumping the most oil EVER, more than any other year or country, but Trumps first day is become a Dictator and Drill Drill Drill as he is cheered on by those like he that know not, and unfortunately, when ignorance rules, this is what we've got...