Comments by "yankee2 yankee" (@yankee2yankee216) on "WUSA9" channel.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 3, aka “the “disqualification clause” or the “insurrection clause,” says that no one who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution or who has “given aid or comfort” to its enemies can hold any federal or state office unless given a waiver by (a 2/3 vote by) Congress…” (Wikipedia) Note that that consequence is not qualified, i.e. it is not optional, nor is it dependent on anything else, i.e. Trump would not have to be convicted of a high crime to be disqualified. Donald Trump, as we all witnessed with our very own eyes, incited insurrection, and is therefore an insurrectionist, a traitor to his country and the Constitution. Furthermore, if Trump committed such crimes, according to the 14th Amendment, it is not optional. He MUST be barred from holding any public office. I should think that would apply perfectly to Trump and the presidency, the very office he so disasterously abused!
14
Apparently, the SCOTUS is going to argue that it wasn’t an insurrection, it was a riot, which is a BIG, FAT, LIE. The POTUS instigated it. He called the rioters to Washington, and then he called them to the Capital. He told them they had to fight, and he told them “it was going to be wild.” It was televised, and we ALL saw it ourselves, with our own eyes. ANY rational, honest observer knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 1/6 insurrection was just that, and insurrection, organized by Donald Trump and his cronies.
1
@cdg715 THAT is a BIG, FAT LIE. The SCOTUS is corrupt. From now on, it’s tyranny. It WASN’T a riot. It was INSTIGATED by the POTUS, who played the key role of provocateur. The INSURRECTION was PROVOKED by the POTUS. It was CLEARLY an insurrection, and the SCOTUS is now INSANE, or EVIL, or both.
1
The possible fact that the Constitution fails to specify the mechanism for enforcement means nothing. The state should be expected to provide one. The meaning of the 14AS3 Is PERFECTLY CLEAR. The only reason it would not be enforced would be political.
1
@mscolli3 It does. The presidency falls under the category of “officer of the United States.” The POTUS is certainly an “officer of the United States,” and it makes no sense that the POTUS alone would not be so sanctioned for violating his oath to the Constitution. Several sophisticated arguments (he’s not an officer of the United States, he has blanket immunity for all crimes, etc.) have been proposed, but they are all invalid if not ridiculous.
1
@mscolli3 Not specifically, but it makes no sense that the POTUS alone, amongst all officials, would be permitted to violate his oath to the Constitution, and commit insurrection, and still be permitted to hold office, including the presidency. The POTUS belongs to the “officer of the United States” category. The presidency is certainly an office, which is not specifically excluded from the category, so therefore must be considered to be part of it.
1
@cdg715 No, there is only an argument to that effect. We all know that the POTUS called for his supporters to come to the Capital on 1/6, telling them that they needed to “fight,” and that “it was going to be wild” and much more. He criticized the VP for doing his duty, leading the mob to call for his death. He did nothing, for many hours, to control the riot! Furthermore, Trump made a number of other efforts to try to stay in power. His intentions are clear, he was attempting to suspend the Constitution and stay in power beyond his term. He was committing insurrection, plain and simple.
1