Is there really ---i mean, really---actually---in real life---anything more necessary before we---

[Atticus]

GAWD DAMMIT!--- INSIST that Trump and Meadows and Perry and over a hundred other traitorous sonsabitches be BARRED from ever again holding ANY public office? Is that not what any sensible application of the 14th Amendment requires?

I leave aside for the moment whether or not----!!!!!----- they should be indicted, prosecuted and eating off trays for many years as punishment for their crimes against America. I ask only the very simple question: "Should these thugs ever be permitted to occupy any governmental office from dog catcher to POTUS?"

I say "Hell No!"

Can i get an "AMEN"?

[debm55]

1. AMEN

[ck4829]

2. Amen. The fact that so many people just roll over for these Republicans is disgusting.

[ForgedCrank]

3. We have

a system for that and I believe in it.
All those things will come to pass if it can be proven in a court of law. That is the bar we set.

[Atticus]

6. It will be "proven in a court of law":only if WE insist on it. If the PTB think we don't care---

they won't.

[ForgedCrank]

10. I still

have 100% confidence that the DOJ will do everything they are capable of with the evidence they have.
Only time will tell us if they have anything we aren't yet aware of. If they can prove he broke laws, they will prosecute him.
My demands are far simpler. Treat the ass the same way any one of us would be treated, and hold him accountable using the system as it is designed. I expect nothing less.

[Atticus]

14. Good for you. Now, if you will READ the OP, it specifically "leaves aside" whether they should be

indicted, etc.

"Should they not be barred from ever again serving in any public office?" Is the sole concern of the OP.

[brooklynite]

18. Then the OP should also be concerned with abiding by the law on OUR side...

Nobody gets to decree that someone else is ineligible to run for office based on "we know he's guilty". The Constitution is the sole determinant as to who can and CANNOT be a candidate.

[ForgedCrank]

31. Sorry to

ruffle your feathers.
As far as I'm concerned, the demand is implied, always.

[SouthernDem4ever]

50. I am total agreement with you

The problem is harder to handle when those enshrined with making and upholding our laws are the very same people that are breaking them. It gets even more difficult when stupid voters keep voting the lawbreakers into office.

[Beastly Boy]

52. Us insisting on legal outcomes is the death of a civil society

I believe it was Hamilton who was most concerned with protecting us from tyranny of the mob. This is the main reason why we have a republic with independent judiciary and not direct democracy

[Atticus]

53. I think many are not of the opinion that we currently HAVE an "independent judiciary". If that was

the consensus of opinion, there would be much less concern

There wasn't a "Nixon Court" or a "Ford, Carter, Bush, or Obama Court". But, we now quite obviously have the "Trump Court" that MAY be just craven and cowardly enough to be influenced by massive public pressure.

What's to lose by trying?

[Beastly Boy]

55. I think this is not for "us" to decide either

How do you define “many” anyway? How many are many and who are they?

[Atticus]

58. You have nit-picked, deflected and avoided the question posed. Isn't that called a "hat trick"? nt

[Beastly Boy]

59. I have not deflected, or nitpicked or avoided.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, just come out and say so. Or say nothing at all. Don’t get personal. It makes for bad optics, and it brings conversations to an inglorious end.

Good bye.

[Atticus]

60. . nt

[Deuxcents]

4. Amen!

If we’re a country of laws, let’s prove it.

[nightwing1240]

5. Amen!

Preach it Atticus!

[NewHendoLib]

7. Exactly - and indeed. How we can allow election deniers to serve is totally beyond me.

[2naSalit]

8. AMEN!!!

[Tbear]

9. Amen

As soon as you get them all.

[unweird]

12. Amen

[czarjak]

13. Lock. Them. Up.

[intrepidity]

15. Fuck yeah. KnR

[Grasswire2]

16. Who do we insist to, Atticus??

Merrick Garland??

Where do we take our rage and our fear and our sleepless hours of worry and sorrow and rage???

There is not yet a path by which we can communicate what we are feeling -- a path that seems it will bring some action.

[brooklynite]

17. Answer: You need to convict them of insurrection first.

Nothing else will block his ability to run for office. Even a conviction on other charges.

FWIW: The Jan 6 Committee's referrals did NOT recommend "insurrection" as a charge to investigate.

[Atticus]

22. FWIW, 'insurrection" is not the sole reason set forth in the 14th Amendment that can bar

a person who has sworn the oath of office from ever again so serving.

A conviction for "insurrection" would be nice, but it is not a requirement for the lifetime e bar to public service.

[brooklynite]

26. 14TH AMENDMENT, 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.

SOMEBODY has to be convicted of Insurrection or Rebellion, and I'm not seeing DOJ or the J6 Committee going in that direction.

[Atticus]

46. I'll just say what anyone who can read might say: you know better than that. nt

[rlegro]

47. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment....

... does not preclude Congress from acting on its own, based on un-adjudicated evidence. It's a high bar, a two-thirds vote, just like impeachment, but it's possible. However, that option is presently quite improbable as long as today's breed of Republican congress sheeple maintain a strong plurality. Mitch McConnell clearly dislikes Trump and thinks he's hurt the party and done wrong by the country, but the Mitchster insists that he will back Trump if he wins the 2024 nomination for president. And he says he's not being inconsistent. No, he isn't he's just being craven and situational in his politics.

[spooky3]

28. According to multiple sources, including The Guardian,

The committee DID recommend insurrection as a charge to investigate.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/19/trump-criminal-charges-jan-6-panel-capitol-attack

Opening pgh, with more detail in the article:

“ The January 6 committee has referred Donald Trump to the justice department to face criminal charges, accusing the former president of fomenting an insurrection and conspiring against the government over his attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election, and the bloody attack on the US Capitol.”

[republianmushroom]

19. You are correct , but I don't think it will happen.

23 months and counting

[bringthePaine]

20. in earlier days, a "necktie party" would be over, new laws implemented by now - just sayin'...

traitorous fuckers have no idea how lucky they are to
be breathing

[Joinfortmill]

21. Amen to that

[Arkansas Granny]

23. Amen!

[flying_wahini]

24. AMEN brother.

[wendyb-NC]

25. Amen

It's insane that they are still there, they are unfit because they were supporting a plan to over throw our democracy on January 6 2020.

[Iris]

27. A-dayum-men!

[AllaN01Bear]

29. "" including that floating fatman trump.

[Initech]

30. Fuck all of those traitorous scumbags!

[calimary]

32. Sure as shootin' works for me! AMEN!!!

[Justice matters.]

33. AMEN. What's the difference between aiding and abetting?

Posted on July 22, 2022

What’s the difference between aiding and abetting?

The term “aiding” and the term “abetting” are similar legal concepts. But each has a slightly different meaning.

Aiding a crime means helping someone else commit a crime.

Abetting means to encourage or incite a criminal act. Although to abet does not necessarily mean that you help or facilitate its execution.

Both aiding and abetting are crimes and forms of accomplice liability. A conviction usually comes with the same penalties as the underlying offense.

While the crime is often referred to as “aiding and abetting,” either one suffices.

You can be liable if you aid a criminal activity, or if you abet in it.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/criminal-defense/difference-between-aiding-and-abetting/

The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause Can Be Enforced Today
BY LIZ HEMPOWICZ & DAVID JANOVSKY & NORMAN EISEN | FILED UNDER REPORT | NOVEMBER 15, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Background on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
Existing Enforcement Mechanisms
How the Select Committee Can Encourage Section 3 Enforcement
Red Herrings
Conclusion
Introduction
The attack on the United States Capitol complex to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021, led to the first application of the disqualification clause contained in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in more than a century. Section 3 prohibits public office holders who have taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or who give aid or comfort to enemies of the United States, from serving in public office.

The analysis in this report will build on the established collective understanding of Section 3 to guide contemporary application of the clause. The report will specifically prescribe how the disqualification clause can currently be enforced against individuals involved in the January 6 attack.

https://www.pogo.org/report/2022/11/the-constitutions-disqualification-clause-can-be-enforced-today#:~:text=Section%203%20of%20the%2014th%20Amendment%20was%20ratified%20shortly%20after,voted%20to%20allow%20such%20service.

[lees1975]

34. Amen!

Indict. Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

However the 14th is enforced, do that.

It's long past time.

[summer_in_TX]

35. AMEN!

Just so you know:

The DOJ has a contact form at this link.

Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Department may be contacted by phone at the following:

Department Comment Line: 202-353-1555

[Artcatt]

36. The entire gang needs to be in the slam

Makin’ potholders.

[Hope22]

37. Would any country of laws

permit them to continue to hold office? I highly doubt it! Our system has held together by expecting the majority to be honorable unfortunately one party threw honor and truth to the wind.

[ShazzieB]

38. I'm not sure I understand the point of this question.

I have a feeling most of us here don't think those thugs should "ever be permitted to occupy any governmental office from dog catcher to POTUS." If all you're asking is whether we agree on that, my answer is yes.

If you're looking for anything beyond a statement of "Yes, I agree," I'm at a loss. Regardless of what we want to see happen or what we think "should" happen, it's not like there's anything concrete we can do about it. Whatever is going to happen regardless if our personal opinions. Even those of us who believe the DOJ is eventually going to do something are aware that they are going to do whatever they're going to do when THEY are ready to do it, and not one second sooner.

I will therefore say "Amen" to your "Hell, no!" and then I will go back o waiting and watching and hoping, because I see no other course of action open to me.

[Boomerproud]

44. I hear you.

You stated it better than I could have done. The lack of justice weighs on me daily.

[bsiebs]

39. Amen....

[marieo1]

40. agreement

AMEN>.....I agree with you totally!!

[Meowmee]

41. Imo should have been stopped from running for inciting

Violence during his nazi campaign rallies. And certainly now without doubt. But there are no real standards for who can run. One of the fatal flaws of the seriously problem filled and unfair system.

Lets see what happens, it is not looking good.

[Stuart G]

42. AMEN....K and R also

[stopdiggin]

43. wait one moment while we direct you

to the 'Sensible 14th Amend' department ...

- click -

[Silver Gaia]

45. AMEN!!!

[Permanut]

48. Double amen to the googleplex power!

[1WorldHope]

49. AMEN!

[MiHale]

51. Amen!

People seem to be especially worried that if TFG gets indicted and convicted there will be untold acts of violence in protest from MAGAT’s.

Well…ok…

How will we react if NOTHING is done? Nobody cares about that. Are we to roll over and get our collective bellies scratched, thinking, ‘it’ll be alright just you wait and see’?

[Beastly Boy]

54. Perhaps it's just me but

... washing hands before leaving a public bathroom?

Seriously though, there are only three ways of accomplishing what you are asking for, and none require an amen. One is for Congress or a state legislative body to pass a law barring the violators from being nominated, the second is for one aggrieved party or another to challenge their nominations in court and the third is for a state or federal law enforcement body to prosecute those individuals.

The latter two require an invocation of the 14th Amendment. The former requires an act of legislation. With all due respect, “we” as citizens have only two effective ways of “insisting” on the matter. We can either elect representatives who will honor our wishes, or we don’t interfere with due process of law. Anything else will require that we
disregard our responsibilities as citizens. And if that should be the case, we have to be careful what we wish for.

[WVreaper]

56. Amen

[Paper Roses]

57. Amen!

[Cherokee100]

61. Amen, Praise Jesus

Amen, Praise Jesus, send me ur Social Security Check, so u can go to heaven.. (sarcasm, sorta)..

[del19713]

62. Amen

[dai13sy]

63. AMEN

go directly to jail, do not pass 'GO', get your orange jumpsuits and start running

[usaf-vet]

64. Amen!!