Let's get this straight.

Judge removes Griffin from office for engaging in the January 6 insurrection
https://www.citizensforethics.org/n...e-for-engaging-in-the-january-6-insurrection/

 

You realize there is absolutely no logic to your belief in that post, right?

 

I can only conclude your inability to answer the following

When did Congress find Trump engaged in an insurrection and ban him from holding the office?
When has a federal court with jurisdiction found him guilty of insurrection?

leaves you with nothing left but to claim I am the one confused and phony claims. LACK of rebuttal noted.

 

Oh well here are a few more for you

Ballot Cleansing: Democrats are Moving to Bar Republicans from Ballots Nationwide


"...Former congressional candidate Gene Stilp, who’s previously made headlines by burning MAGA flags with swastikas outside courthouses, filed the challenge.

Using the 14th Amendment to disqualify candidates like Perry is consistent with Stilp’s signature flag-burning stunts....

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) sought to bar 126 members of Congress under the same theory for challenging the election before Jan. 6, 2021.

Similar legislation from Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) to disqualify members got 63 co-sponsors, all Democrats, including New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman and Ritchie Torres and “Squad” members Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan..."

and of course you ignore

"Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) praised the effort then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) organized to challenge the certification of President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election.

Jan. 6 committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) voted to challenge it in the House.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to block certification of the 2016 election result — particularly ironic since he’s a leading voice calling for Trump to be disqualified."
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/01/...g-to-bar-republicans-from-ballots-nationwide/

And as noted there is already talk of Reps doing the same against Dems and if the SCOTUS upholds it expect a flood of such filings and constitutional crisis to develop. Too bad you guys don't heed that watch what you wish for I always advise.

 

No soldiers were banned unless they were former confederate elected officials.

 

My rebuttal can be found by reading the thread posts that debunk each of your assertions. I have no desire to go over them again.

 

No need just answer the simple questions. Give me the dates and cases.

When did Congress find Trump engaged in an insurrection and ban him from holding the office?
When has a federal court with jurisdiction found him guilty of insurrection?

 

Section 3 adjudications against former Confederates were rare in the aftermath of the Civil War. That is because it was widely understood that former Confederates who took an oath to support the Constitution before the Civil War were disqualified under Section 3 and therefore many likely did not seek office in the first place. In fact, ex-Confederates flooded Congress with thousands of amnesty requests to “remove” their Section 3 disqualification, demonstrating that they understood themselves to be disqualified even without a formal adjudication.

 

Rare perhaps but they were the ones who were banned.

 

I don't think you debunked anything. You posted opposing opinions. I read them all.

 

Challenging the election? The election had already been challenged over 60 times with each challenged being dismissed for lack of evidence. The 139 House Repubs voted to overturn the verified election results. I don't agree they should be removed from ballots but they should have been sanctioned in some way.

 

This comes down to legal opinions. I believe the ones I referenced are superior to yours.

 

I'm sure you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted them.

 

Due process was received. In court. The same place due process is always received. This isn't difficult.

 

Due process involves the "defendant." This isn't difficult.

 

Well, no. In the COSC decision we have these participants.

96292b55-full.pdf (nyt.com)

Petitioners-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees: NormaAnderson, MichellePriola, ClaudineCmarada, KristaKafer, Kathi Wright, andChristopherCastilian, V. Respondent- Appellee: Jena Griswold, inher official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State, and Intervenor-Appellee: Colorado Republican State Central Committee,an unincorporated association, Intervenor-Appellee/Cross -Appellant : DonaldJ. Trump.

It really isn't. Due process is received in court. You can commit a crime, get arrested and plead guilty. Due process isn't complete until a judge accepts your plea. You could be arrested for a crime you didn't commit and plead guilty. The system has guardrails to prevent this. Due process = court decision. Once the gavel comes down, due process has been satisfied.

This is a civil case. There are no criminal defendants.

 

When did Congress find Trump engaged in an insurrection and ban him from holding the office?
When has a federal court with jurisdiction found him guilty of insurrection?

Not asking to to rebut anything the fact is no proper authority has even charged Trump with an insurrection against the United States let alone convict him and that includes a Special Prosecutor and a Congressional Impeachment. The two jurisdictions over the FEDERAL matter.

By this new standard you propose my SecState could declare Biden engaged in insurrection and strike him off the ballot. SecStates would have control over who could or could not be on their state ballots and able to secure their state electors for the EC. Nothing has to be proven the person doesn't have to be offered to defend themselves, there is no review and no holding accountable. Have you REALLY thought this through?

 

What I have asked rhetorically has been debunked?

Are you saying Congress has found Trump engaged in an insurrection and banned him from holding the office? Ahhh I think that failed.

Are you saying a federal court with jurisdiction has found him guilty of insurrection? The Special Prosecutor did not bring any such charge how could he be found guilty if the federal government prosecutors said nope didn't happen not going the charge and a grand jury brought no such charge.

So yes I am confused on how a mere SecState can declare someone GUILTY of a FEDERAL crime and base a legal SANCTION against that person and the person have no recourse. I have seen no rebuttal showing where a mere SecState gets that authority to deny the citizens their desired candidate on their state ballot.

 

Not necessary since he was found to have engaged in an insurrection by the only means required, judicial determination based on the evidence.

 

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This clearly indicates that disqualification isn't enforced by Congress. If a vote of Congress were required, the above clause would make no sense.

 

No, actually it is a political case. He was voted off the ballot because of insurrection. Insurrection is a crime and Trump has never been charged with it. No due process. Not even a hint of it.

 

You can make things up your heart's content. It's still nonsense.

This is an eligibility case. A civil case. Repeating nonsense doesn't change this. Using a fake birth certificate would be the crime of fraud on several levels. Obama was not charged with fraud, yet his eligibility was challenged in court by Orly Taitz. Because it's a civil matter.

You can't change this. Why you can't accept the reality of the proceedings is a mystery.

 

No need to repeat myself.

 

Of course not. Your argument is impervious to reality. Nothing can penetrate it. That sucks, but you do you.

 

My opinions are based on right and wrong, better and worse. Reality is simply thinking inside the box. If you think things as are good as they can be then I can't help.