Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Apples and oranges and you've missed the point again. The SCOTUS decision means it's up to congress to formulate the methodology and rationale to implement 14th amendment and the impeachment process is, of course, a separate and distinct process apart from it. Otherwise, the court could have simply deferred to it in its ruling but its not even mentioned...

I get it that impeachment and the criminal insurrection statute are all different than the 14th Amendment.   They are not apples and oranges though, more like oranges and tangerines.   Each procedure deals with "insurrection" in this instance.  My point, of course, is not that impeachment or a criminal insurrection charge is dispositive of the 14th Amendment issue.   My point is that your statement that Trump's actions "clearly violated the 14th Amendment" is demonstrably wrong.   At least it is wrong if the word "clearly" is defined as normal people define it.   My proof that Trump did not "clearly" violated the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment is that he was acquitted in the impeachment trial and Smith did not bring criminal insurrection charges.  Tangerines and Oranges for sure, but it is more than you got.   If you had said, "in my opinion Trump violated the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment"  then no problem.  The Colorado Supreme Court agrees with you and your opinion is just as valid as theirs. 

"The SCOTUS decision means it's up to congress to formulate the methodology and rationale to implement 14th amendment."

Precisely!  This is what the 9-0 Court said and this is what I said months ago when the CO case was decided.   There is no way we want 50 separate (and ahem...politically motivated) interpretations of the 14th Amendment.

The problem here is that it is not at all clear that Trump incited any insurrection.  There are no memos, emails, strategy papers, and so on  showing that Trump coordinated, instigated, or directly caused the riots in Jan 6.   His speech of that morning was ambiguous and rambling with both problematic statements and exonerating statements all mashed together.  I get it that the entire "stop the steal" lie motivated the rioters.  But this is the United States of America.   We have wide latitude of free speech and we do not bring criminal charges, we should not impeach, and we certainly can not "clearly" invoke the 14th Amendment because Trump lied about the election being stolen and the Proud Boys went on a criminal rampage.   The big lie is political speech, and Trump should pay at the ballot box.   I sometimes want to scream at Democrats - "Quit being distracted by nonsense like the 14th Amendment and go win the Damn Election!!"   "Replace Biden if necessary, but Win The Damn Election!!!!"

Originally Posted by James Lacey

They had more evidence, even at Trump's impeachment, than just a rambling speech. And I'm sure Jack Smith has more than that as well. If Jack Smith had nothing, why would the Trump team waste time on ridiculous stalling tactics like claiming the President has absolute immunity? Why not let it go to trial and then be thrown out or overruled? I hope the SC rules on the immunity claim quickly and that it goes to trial before the general election.

Smith is not charging Trump with criminal insurrection.   I am sure that he has plenty of evidence on the fraud and obstruction charges he brought.  This is why Trump is stalling, he has real exposure in the case - not so much on hypothetical insurrection charges.

I don't want to go all "Richard" on you, but the one count in the second impeachment was "Incitement of Insurrection" and I don't think the House had any evidence other than Trump's speech.   Could be wrong on that though....

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I don't think it's hogwash to say the 14th Amendment is "effectively" dead without some teeth behind it that would have to be put there by Congress. Aren't some Amendments or at least subsections of them, even in the Bill of Rights, considered unenforceable by legal scholars?

I am not aware of any sections of the Bill of Rights that are unenforceable.  Interesting question though.  

You guys sound like the 14th is "dead" because it will not block Trump from office so long as Congress is split on these issues in this particular fact scenario.  I see that as a benefit by the way!   It should not be easy to block a popular candidate from office, no matter how much 1/2 of the population hates him.

Imagine this:

Let's say that on January 6, Trump and a battalion of Proud Boys seized the Capitol with arms.   They refused to leave until Trump was certified President.   Trump went along with the whole show.  Eventually the National Guard rooted them out and Biden was sworn in.  Under those alternative facts, I can guarantee:

1.  Trump would have been impeached and convicted.
2.  Trump would be prosecuted under the criminal insurrection statute
3.  It would not be necessary because of 1, but Congress would nearly unanimously implement the 14th to bar Trump from office.

The problem is that only 1/2 the country/congress thinks Trump participated in an insurrection.  Under those circumstances the 14th Amendment is (and should be) pretty tough to implement, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

The key word in the quote is, "effectively" and, whoosh, it went right by you. It's the result of their deliberations and decision that Luttig is talking about and the Hill accurately reported it.

But, according to you, we're just all being gullible in believing it.

No, I read the concurrences and you did not.   There is nothing like the quoted language in the concurrences, whether moderated by the word "effectively" or not.   Whoosh indeed.   Luttig fed you his editorial slant and you bought it.  If you don't want to be called gullible, read the Court's opinions, not a biased editorial.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I don't think it's hogwash to say the 14th Amendment is "effectively" dead without some teeth behind it that would have to be put there by Congress. Aren't some Amendments or at least subsections of them, even in the Bill of Rights, considered unenforceable by legal scholars?

I want to try to concisely answer this.  The Insurrection Clause of the 14th is not effectively dead because Congress has not acted under these facts in 2023-24.   Far from it.   Under the right facts (i.e. an unambiguous insurrection led by a prospective candidate) I would expect Congress to act.  The burden should be high though.

The Insurrection Clause of the 14th is only "dead" if you hold as unassailable truth that Trump committed insurrection.   I don't think you fellas who think that Trump's insurrection is "clear" have fully considered where that highly jaded political strategy ends.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

It's evident Jim Brown thinks a Republican congress would impeach Trump and a Republican senate would convict in the face of an obvious insurrection on his part. 
To that I say: No Way Jose...

Ya know what's funny?  If I were Rich and you posted the above, I'd go berserk and shout, 'SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT...'  'I'M WAITING'...' etc.   Then I would call you names...

Thank goodness I'm not Rich!   Yes indeed, I do believe that a R (or a D, or a split) Congress would impeach and convict under the obvious insurrection scenario I hypothesized.   I may be jaded, but come on, I was talking about genuine armed insurrection!  Is anyone besides Rod so cynical that they believe some future R Congress would give active participation in an armed insurrection a pass?  I sure hope not.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It bothers me that we tend to have this collective amnesia regarding what Trump has done and said. I looked back at the evidence for Trump's second impeachment, and it was far more than just a rambling speech. Not only that, the Capitol riot was terrible. Not only did the rioters breach the Capitol, but they also injured scores of law enforcement personnel, arguably contributed to the death of others in the aftermath, menaced and hunted for members of Congress and the Vice President, and committed a plethora of other violent and destructive acts. More than a thousand people were arrested, almost 500 were convicted, and sentenced to jail time, some for a very long time. It's incredulous to suggest that Trump did not incite that riot. I'm not in the minority here, either. The latest polls I found still say most Americans think Trump was responsible and blame him.

James:  I agree with everything you posted.  The rioters who have faced the law got what they deserved.   There is also a cause and effect between Trump's lies and rhetoric and the riot.  That said, I do not think Trump is guilty of insurrection under the law or the 14th Amendment.   He is clearly not guilty under the law, since he has not been charged with insurrection.   We can debate the applicability of the insurrection clause in the 14th Amendment all day long, since it has not been used in this fashion before.   My preference of course is to trust the criminal system to prosecute criminals (including Trump) and to trust the voters to elect the president.

Regarding the second impeachment trial.   The Democrats presented lots of social media, video, transcripts, and so on showing Trump's unhinged big lie after the election results came in.  Yes, it was a lot more than just the speech, but it all falls into the category of "fiery rhetoric pushing the big lie" just like portions of the speech itself.  No evidence I am aware of was presented linking Trump to the planning or execution of the actual assault on the Capital.   So, I think several things are true:

1.  Without Trump's big lie (his words) no riot would have occurred...

2.  Even so, there is no evidence Trump coordinated the riot in advance with any rioter.  The rioters are responsible for their own actions!  Under criminal law, conspiracy requires an overt act, not just words.  buying the gun, making the bomb, some sort of action.  For example, Talib is not held accountable in law or under the 14th Amendment when her rhetoric inspires hate crimes against Jews.  The perpetrators of those crimes are responsible for their own actions, no matter who may have inspired them.  Talib may be held responsible by the voters, if they chose to do so.

3.  Because of the disconnect between 1 and 2, Trump has not been charged with seditious conspiracy, insurrection, or treason.  Anyone who thinks Jack Smith would not bring those charges if he thought he had a case is simply not paying attention.

4.  Because of 1, 2, and 3, I personally think the 14th Amendment is inapplicable.   Reasonable people disagree.  Hopefully we all agree that implementing the 14th Amendment on an ad-hoc, politically motivated, state-by-state basis is a bad idea.

5.  Some of the Proud Boys and the like planned an insurrection and even moved guns into Pennsylvania, if memory serves.  (An overt act).  They are paying the price for their criminality with extremely long jail terms.

6.  Other casual rioters moved into the Capital on an extremely ill advised whim.   Hundreds are paying the price with jail terms of various appropriate lengths.  The system is working and in November the system can rid of us Trump forever, if the Democrrats don't drop the ball.

Hi Rod - the long link made the quote button inoperative, but I am replying to the post above.  Yes, like I said twice (I think), reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Trump participated in an insurrection under the 14th.  Interesting that you would bring up Jefferson Davis.  Do you agree that the nature of Jefferson Davis's active participation in the 1860's era insurrection is different in many qualitative aspects than Trump's activities following the election up to Jan 6?  I hope you do.   

This illustrates the point - no reasonable person could say that Davis did not engage in insurrection.  W/N Trump's rhetoric was an insurrection is certainly a debatable point.  As is now clear based upon a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, a CO judge's opinion is no more dispositive than yours or mine.  

Also, a minor final point I keep forgetting to make.   The 14th Amendment requires, "...shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."   Congress's second impeachment was for "Inciting Insurrection."  Congress did not impeach for "Engaging in Insurrection"  We can speculate why not.  In my opinion, Trump's rhetoric is far more reasonably characterized as "Inciting Insurrection" than "Engaging in Insurrection." 

Last but not least, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says in it's entirety, "Section 5.  The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."  

I remain embarrassed that the Colorado Courts thought they could just grasp authority to strike Trump from the ballot under the 14th.  The 9-0 Supreme Court rebuke was the most predictable holding of all time.  Luttig and others like him can whine about it, but what the hell, how can any lawyer think he or she can ignore the Constitution just for political expediency?  Shame on the litigants and shame on the Colorado Courts.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

As in the impeachment hearings, evidence was shown that every single Leftist Democrat politician has said "get out there and fight like hell, we don't give up, we've had enough of Republicans, we're not going to take this lying down, we will fight 'till the end, etc..., etc..."


I guess you missed those impeachment hearings where the Trump attys showed a long video of virtually every prominent Leftist Dem. who holds high political office, saying the exact same things that Trump said, whereby Trump is charged with inciting an "insurrection", while every Dem is given a pass.

When Maxine Waters got out on her soapbox screeching that ".....you need to follow them anywhere you see them, at a gas station, at a grocery story, and you need to get in their face........"

But then the double standard is always in place now isn't it when it comes to Democrats. It is the same old, same old with you Marxist clowns. 

Now then I asked you to define an insurrection.  Care to define it?

All you've offered so far is your usual hysterics. 

Ok, I am wasting my time trying to curb your worst impulses Rich, but just for the record - I agree that Trump is not the only politician to engage in the big lie of "I lost, so the election was stolen"  It happens all the time - HRC and "Russian Collusion" and Stacey Abrahms are good examples.  You have a valid point underscoring that political speech, even knowingly false political speech should not be criminalized.   On the other hand, Trump's lies (and his surrogates lies) were extreme as shown by the Dominion case and many other things.  Of course, I think HRC and her surrogate's lies are just as bad, but that is probably a minority opinion.

Anyway, your point is lost when you resort to name-calling and belittling.  Hysterics?  Rod, James and the rest are posting well thought out arguments and positions without a whiff of hysteria.   Why don't you enjoy the debate without the "Marxist clown" type gratuitous insults?  Your style choices are a huge mystery to me.  It may be that you genuinely vastly prefer on-line enemies to on-line friends, which is too bad.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

And he'll be replaced by a MAGA republican. A conservative with integrity is what we need, not a sycophant of Trump.

We'll see.   Buck's district is overwhelmingly R, but there will be Buck-like traditional conservatives running too.  This is ranching and farming country, so probably pretty MAGA, but they love Buck and his values too.

I hope/doubt Rod's crush Lauren Boebert will win.  She is distrusted by many in the 4th district for carpet bagging into a red district when her antics and boorish behavior have made her unelectable in her purple home district (the 3rd).

https://coloradonewsline.com/2024/01/26/4-takeaways-gop-primary-debate-colorado-4th-district/