Section 3 of the 14th amendment pursued:

@mott-the-hoople said
you mean you cant tell me?
you mention insurrection and rebellion in your post above…Is that what Trump is charged with?

of course not, it is just you being dishonest

Did I mention insurrection and rebellion?

@shavixmir said
Did I mention insurrection and rebellion?

did you post this?

“
SubscribershavixmirView Profile
Guppy poo
1



23 Aug '23 09:44
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.”

@mott-the-hoople said
did you post this?

“
SubscribershavixmirView Profile
Guppy poo
1



23 Aug '23 09:44
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 ...[text shortened]... he enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Yeah… that is a quote, you know… you recognise that by the quote stroke.
And it’s directly cited from the 14th amendment.

@suzianne said
Stop with your BS conspiracy theories. Stop.

We know what the plan was for that day. All Trump had to do was light the powderkeg that day in his speech at the Ellipse. He laid it out for his followers, to march down to the Capitol and to fight like hell.

He certainly engaged in insurrection that day. We all saw it. Don't try to tell us what we saw. It happened, w ...[text shortened]... t or not. None of us liked it, but it happened. You cannot flap your jaw here and make it go away.

Those are facts, not conspiracy theories.
Trump is not being charged with insurrection.

@shavixmir said
Yeah… that is a quote, you know… you recognise that by the quote stroke.
And it’s directly cited from the 14th amendment.

you insinuated that was what Trumps crimes were. was he charged with those you listed? or was you just flat plain wrong?

@mott-the-hoople said
you insinuated that was what Trumps crimes were. was he charged with those you listed? or was you just flat plain wrong?

Still don't get it, do you?

@metal-brain said
Those are facts, not conspiracy theories.
Trump is not being charged with insurrection.

And neither do you.

He doesn't have to be charged to be ineligible to run again.

You can read, can't you?

@metal-brain said
Those are facts, not conspiracy theories.
Trump is not being charged with insurrection.

Many CSA officials were denied such positions even though they were not formally charged and convicted of either "insurrection or rebellion".

@no1marauder said
Many CSA officials were denied such positions even though they were not formally charged and convicted of either "insurrection or rebellion".

For example?

@metal-brain said
For example?

dont expect a straight answer

@metal-brain said
For example?

Can you show me where it says "charged" or "convicted" in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?

@mott-the-hoople said
dont expect a straight answer

You're as stupid as he is. Can't you read either?

I know it's part of the Constitution, but try to make an effort.

@metal-brain said
For example?

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

@suzianne said
Can you show me where it says "charged" or "convicted" in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?

He was already charged with those charges during his impeachment trial. He was acquitted so double jeopardy law applies. You cannot prosecute Trump for the same thing twice.

Most of the indictments are unconstitutional under double jeopardy.

The Supreme Court has affirmed “the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). Because the President has already been prosecuted—twice—for the asserted crimes underlying both of Jack Smith’s indictments, the legal remedy has already been applied: there is simply no other form of legal redress that is tolerable under the Constitution.

@no1marauder said
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/

Most of the indictments are unconstitutional under double jeopardy. Smith is trying to indict Trump for the same things he was acquitted for in his impeachment trial.

The Supreme Court has affirmed “the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938). Because the President has already been prosecuted—twice—for the asserted crimes underlying both of Jack Smith’s indictments, the legal remedy has already been applied: there is simply no other form of legal redress that is tolerable under the Constitution.

The indictments are unconstitutional.