Rich Baris "The People's Pundit"
@Peoples_Pundit
·
Dec 20
But just to be clear, you don't believe in due process outlined in the 14th Amendment, and you don't acknowledge the fact it omits the Office of the President, and you don't acknowledge the part where the President is the only one who declares an "insurrection" etc. etc. etc.
wmcgurn
@wmcgurn1959
~ Congress amended section 3 of the 14th Amendment twice: 1870 & 1948 to show the Judicial branch how it was to be applied. "1948: Congress replaced the 1870 statute with a criminal insurrection law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383.
If convicted under that statute -- with full criminal due process afforded the defendant -- one of the punishments is to be banned from holding office in the United States.
Trump has not been charged under this statute."
An amicus brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf has been filed in the SCOTUS by former Attorney General Ed Meese (under Ronald Reagan), and two constitutional law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, challenging the legality altogether of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel for prosecuting Mr. Trump. The amicus is filed in the matter of Jack Smith’s certiorari petition to the court to schedule Mr. Trump’s DC trial the same day as the Super Tuesday primary —against the defendant’s objections. The amicus presents compelling arguments that Attorney General Merrick Garland acted illegally in appointing Mr. Smith, and if SCOTUS chucks him out of the special counsel job, the whole mendaciously constructed scaffold of the Jan 6 prosecution goes out the window, along with the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
Those of you with a deep interest in blob lawfare treachery may also be interested in the courtroom win, this week, by Brandon Straka, who launched the 2018 “Walk Away” movement to persuade gays to leave the Democratic Party. He was present on the US Capitol grounds the day of the Jan 6/21 riot, and was later sued by eight “black and brown” Capitol Police officers, with the help of a Soros-funded nonprofit law firm, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Straka was accused of causing the officers’ injuries (pepper spray and “exhaustion”) and of conspiring to deprive them of their civil rights (under the KKK Act of 1871). It came out in the course of testimony that seven of the officers were on the other side of the enormous Capitol building from Mr. Straka’s position the entire time alleged, and that one of the officers was not even present at the Capitol or even in the District of Columbia at the time. Such are the sordid dreams of lawfare warriors and their useful idiots. . . .
Rich Baris "The People's Pundit" @Peoples_Pundit · Dec 20 But just to be clear, you don't believe in due process outlined in the 14th Amendment, and you don't acknowledge the fact it omits the Office of the President, and you don't acknowledge the part where the President is the only one who declares an "insurrection" etc. etc. etc. wmcgurn @wmcgurn1959 ~ Congress amended section 3 of the 14th Amendment twice: 1870 & 1948 to show the Judicial branch how it was to be applied. "1948: Congress replaced the 1870 statute with a criminal insurrection law, 18 U.S.C. § 2383. If convicted under that statute -- with full criminal due process afforded the defendant -- one of the punishments is to be banned from holding office in the United States. Trump has not been charged under this statute."
https://twitter.com/wmcgurn1959/status/1737856755047305531
An amicus brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf has been filed in the SCOTUS by former Attorney General Ed Meese (under Ronald Reagan), and two constitutional law professors, Steven Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, challenging the legality altogether of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel for prosecuting Mr. Trump. The amicus is filed in the matter of Jack Smith’s certiorari petition to the court to schedule Mr. Trump’s DC trial the same day as the Super Tuesday primary —against the defendant’s objections. The amicus presents compelling arguments that Attorney General Merrick Garland acted illegally in appointing Mr. Smith, and if SCOTUS chucks him out of the special counsel job, the whole mendaciously constructed scaffold of the Jan 6 prosecution goes out the window, along with the Mar-a-Lago documents case.
I love the mendaciously constructed scaffold going out the window part.