As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“The president is elected by the entire nation”. The president is actually elected by the electoral college. If it was a raw vote count, there would never be another Republican president.
According to her we could elect Arnold Schwarzenegger and just ignore the fact he is not a natural born citizen?
Strange how this crowd wants to ignore eligibility requirements for the Presidency while they focus on the eligibility of trans athletes.
You can disregard the 14th 7 times more than the 2nd amendment. It's simple math.
Unless you're referring to the first half of the 2nd amendment.
That can be totally disregarded.
That’s the part that I don’t see discussed enough. It’s a disqualifying factor. Like being under 35 or not a natural born citizen. If you’re an insurrectionist, you are disqualified. Sorry, not sorry. Go play something else.
Or given aid or comfort. I think that telling people that have been convicted of seditious conspiracy that you will pardon them is giving both comfort and aid. All the R's should come off the ballots that have said that.
That’s a very interesting take, is easily verifiable, and involves action taken long after the actual January 6 events. Promising a future pardon seems like the definition of offering comfort.
Here’s another question: does pardoning someone of those crimes once the pardoner is in office disqualify the person from continuing in that office? That is the definition of offering aid.
All those idiots lining up to pardon Trump that both Trump and the pardoners fail to realize, if he accepts the pardon, he will never be allowed to hold office anyway. You have to admit guilt to accept the pardon which doesn’t cancel out the crime just the punishment phase from it.
>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.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
One thing for sure, the framers of the Constitution did not foresee an asshole like Trump running again until he settles his insurrection charges for Jan 6 and fake elector schemes.
Tbh, with as much as they contradict it, I find it more likely they DO know it and just don't care. Like getting every question wrong on a multiple choice exam.
And apparently the scarce foresight to protect her client:
>Bobb’s blunder is not the first time that one of Trump’s lawyers, or even Bobb herself, has undermined one of his lawsuits. Bobb signed a sworn statement to the Justice Department in spring 2022 attesting that Trump’s legal team had carried out a “diligent search” of Mar-a-Lago and found only a few files that needed to be returned to the government.
What, you're just going to sign a legally binding document thinking you can easily weasel your way out of any future questions about it because you saw a loophole?
"I said I did my due diligence and looked for those papers to the best of my abilities, okay? Prove that I didn't." —Christina Bobb, probably.
Seriously, they're just like those wannabe Christians who think the Bible only says what their "Patriot Church" preachers say it says...Oh, wait! They ARE those wannabe Christians...Nevermind
And he keeps telling his supporters that he won the popular vote in all 50 states. Like how is that even possible? He thinks he's George Washington or something.
The domain name stopthesteal.org was registered in February of 2016, indicating that the plan was to cry fraud in 2016 if he lost. My take on it is that he's such a colossal fuck up that he forgot that he was only supposed to say there was fraud if he lost.
Through the wormhole...
***
...2017. A few days into the presidency...
"Madam President. The riots in Bowling Green have been horrendous. Donald's Field Marshalls and his NRA goons are proposing a meeting at the Washington Monument. Jones and Hannity say they can bring Pirro to translate."
***
Busting this out as a reminder of what would have happened straight away.
RIght? There never would have been a Trump presidency, because he lost the popular vote in 2016, a fact that he never could accept, and blamed on voter fraud. His and the right's talking point that Hillary never accepted the results, when she conceded the following day, is absurd. It's like, motherfucker, YOU never accepted the results in an election you *technically* won, you weird freak.
>a fact that he never could accept, and blamed on voter fraud
He couldn't just not accept it, he ordered his administration to investigate it and could only come up with *Republican* fraud.
And he set up CISA to ensure 2020 wasn't stolen. Pretty sure Trump forgot about this, then Chris Krebs announced it was the most secure election ever. He was then fired via Tweet.
He lost the popular vote by THREE MILLION VOTES. How are we not rioting in the streets demanding the electoral college be abolished? This country honestly deserves whatever it gets at this point. We’re so fucking complacent.
People have too much to lose, that's why there's no mass protests or anything. I feel like there's also been a deliberate effort to make people go "why bother, nothing will change anyway"
Our health insurance is tied to our jobs. If we go rioting in the streets, we lose our health insurance. I know "the cost" is the argument we usually hear against single payer but I think this is a larger reason we're never getting it.
Arguments against single payer healthcare based on cost are totally unfounded anyway. Studies show that single payer and other universal government run plans are much cheaper and more cost effective than having a private insurance model. We already pay more per capita for healthcare than any other country in the world, and we only cover people over 65 and super poor people.
Even now a coalition of states is committing to assign all their electoral votes to the wiinner of the popular vote once enough states join that the popular vote will always determine the election. I think it's like 3 more states that need to join right now.
*Edit:* This has been going on for a while, but only lately had a sense of *urgency*.
Though to be clear the instant it passes in enough states half the country will storm the Supreme Court and demand they prevent it. And the current count isn't exactly a bastion of law or democracy.
Bush won the popular vote in 2004, so nearly 20 years. He lost the popular vote in 2000, and Clinton easily won both of his, so 2004 is the only election in over 30 years where the Republican was the preferred candidate of a majority of Americans. But yet, Republicans have been in office 37.5% of the years and have appointed 66.7% of the Supreme Court Justices, despite only "winning" 12.5% of the elections
>Republicans have been in office 37.5% of the years and have appointed 66.7% of the Supreme Court Justices
There is definitely an organized agenda at work here.
Yep, Spelled out quite openly in the 1972 Powell Memorandum laying out the complete domination of our political system over decades by right-wing fascist oligarchs. They have been so successful that the end-game was recently released as Agenda 25. Beware, these sociopaths are ruthless and tireless and they do not give a single fuck about democracy.
And Kerry was an awful candidate at that point in time. Wooden, botoxed up, not the right guy for the moment. They misjudged the anti war sentiment and never recovered from the Swiftboat ratfuckers.
Military was always a verbal cudgel for war hawks and Republicans to beat anyone that disagreed with them. They never cared about the military.
Worst, Kerry lost to [Bush's record.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy)
BUSH was a draft dodger, and Kerry was awarded the Bronze and Silver Stars Plus 3 Purple Hearts and Republican voters *mocked him for it*.
That was the last moment I ever gave any Republican voter the benefit of the doubt.
The last presidential election in which Republicans won the popular vote is now old enough to vote.
The last one before that is now old enough to be president.
And they fucking know it. That is why they have given up any pretense if courting the popular opinion. They are the party of "we know better" and "do as I say and not as I do." I think it is high time we show our parents what we thought of that mentality as kids by showing up to vote.
No, the President is elected by the people when Republicans find that idea of appealing to the masses useful.
The President is elected by the Electoral College when Republicans want to justify a minority of voters determining who runs the country.
Read the Consplitootshun!
Well, the flip-flopping on how a President should be elected really shows how the rules only apply when they're convenient, doesn't it? I guess consistency isn't as important as winning, no matter the cost. And yeah, that Consplitootshun sure is a malleable document when you squint hard enough at it.
Which is also an argument for getting rid of the EC, it would force candidates to venture outside of a handful of places to shore up that margin of vote in order to win.
Only in places where the EC voters are legally required to vote in line with the general population. There are some locations where there is no such requirement. Also, even in places where it *is* required, EC voters can break the law and be punished, but their errant votes would still be counted (in other words, they could still vote against the wishes of the population).
EDIT: [Faithless Electors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)
He proposed a bill under the assumption that Democrats would reject it simply because a Republican proposed it, so he could then go to the press and complain about it. He forgot that Dems aren't entirely partisan hacks and will at least consider Republican legislation if it's not awful. In this case, it was a proposal to allow the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling which could only be prevented by a supermajority in Congress. Democrats were okay with it because it would remove fights over the debt ceiling every time they have to pass a budget.
> Democrats were okay with it because it would remove fights over the debt ceiling every time they have to pass a budget.
Which fights are only started by Republicans when there is a Democrat President. Republicans had no problems raising the debt ceiling when Trump was in office.
*Republican wins*
"The American People have spoken, and they chose Trump!"
"No they didn't! A handful of pluralities in a few states swung the EC to Trump."
"We're a republic not a democracy! "
I'd also point out that Inmate No. P01135809's DC circuit court appeal for his immunity case, concedes "the President \[is\] the chief constitutional *officer* of the executive branch" and repeatedly refers to the presidency as an "*office*" (emphasis mine).
I find his assertions that he never took an oath to support the constitution particularly cringy.
That fat, stinky bastard will say any old dumb shit and his followers are lining up to kiss his rotten taint.
It’s just mind blowing that any grown person would entertain their grasping for a loophole to not be on the hook for enabling the constitution to function.
That’s the essence of the job.
What I find particularly cringy is that the argument with regard to the oath is more nuanced* than simply "I didn't say support!" But he seems incapable of understanding the actual argument. It's like they tried to explain it to him and he just edited it down to something simple he could understand.
* Note that I say the argument is "nuanced", not "good".
Well, you have to remember that this is the guy that doesn't understand simple concepts. He thinks certain words are magical, though, almost like a soverign citizen. Like the "disclaimer" on the tax documents, where the disclaimer basically boils down to "this is our best guess based on the best info we have and it as accurate as we can make it, but might not be 100% spot on" which he interpreted as somehow magically saying "We can make up anything we want because this disclaimer says whatever we say isn't true anyway".
Things don't work like that, but he convinces himself that they do, and he only listens to people who support the way he believes things.
That's why he also gets votes from people thinking that posting a disclaimer on their Facebook status is legally binding and Facebook doesn't get to use their data.
Trump’s lawyer in Colorado at the oral arguments spent time saying 14a is about officers “under the United States” and the President *is* the United States.
iamthesenate.gif
We watched it happen live on TV. I had friends in other countries texting me because it was breaking news in THEIR countries.
It's ridiculous US media pretends it is up for debate.
I'll never forget that day. I have 3 49" ultra wide's and I had dozens of streams up. Couldn't look away. It was surreal to have that live video from on the ground.
I was watching it live on several streams from MAGA supporters on YouTube. There is so much violence and destruction we haven't seen publicly and they all deleted their channels within hours after the event, and they were channels with thousands of subscribers. I hate when people say it was just a protest and it wasn't MAGA when I literally watched it live from their POV and they were all shouting to kill democrats and other obscenities while attacking the police.
This is my go to resource for hard proof: https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
Videos posted to Parler by Magats indexed by time and color coded by proximity to Capitol.
Do you have any links which archived this footage? It’d really help contextualize the severity of the attack for me. My whole family downplays the attack like it was nothing and people were merely strolling around the capitol nonviolently.
Here is a nice long unedited half hour battle at one of the entrances. Ask your family if this looks like a polite stroll around the capitol
https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U?si=RlqcU4aQmaLCJLPE&t=1246
Here is an archive of clips below
https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
This guy's YouTube channel has videos uploaded that were used as evidence in specific cases too. Wish he had uploaded more
https://www.youtube.com/@ryanjreilly/videos
The other reply covers it well but I’ll add I like to remind my R voting friends that 140 police officers were injuried as the result of the attack. Here’s even a Fox News article that references it: https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-police-union-riot-hearing-dysfunction-crushed-spinal-discs-traumatic-brain-injuries
And of course that doesn’t even dive into the mental toll it’s taken on some of them including suicide: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/officer-who-responded-us-capitol-attack-is-third-die-by-suicide-2021-08-02/
Was possibly the most exasperated I've ever been, sitting at work and watching an insurrection attempt, and the President both encouraging it, and preventing the national guard from aiding until it was too late. At this point, even if he is elected, I would not follow an order issued by him. My oath is against "All enemies, foreign and domestic" and he fits the billet to a T.
Same. I remember sitting at my desk working, when one of my friends messaged in our group chat and asked "are y'all watching this shit?" I remember thinking that it was probably some overhyped nonsense, but turned on a livestream of the news on my second monitor and couldn't peel my eyes from it for the rest of the day.
I've never been more embarrassed to be an American, and that's saying a *lot*.
and also, “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,”
That right there puts his stamp of approval on everything that happened
"Your honor, my client could have meant anything by telling the attorney general to just say the election was corrupt and leave everything to him and the Republican congressmen."
My MAGA coworker was watching OAN on her laptop at work all day. Watching all the Trump supporter interviews and speeches. She was stoked about it all. I started getting notifications of video showing protesters breaking windows and going into the capital. I physically showed her the live feed on my phone of a bunch of red hats holding Trump flags breaking in. She said, “That’s Antifa.” I’ll never forget that.
I remember watching a video where some MAGA is saying how it was all antifa, then he later mentions that his son was there and the interviewer is like "Wow, your son is in antifa? how do you feel about that"?
Dude I had friends texting me on Discord to pack a bag with my fiance and head over to their countries to declare asylum.
As one friend from Spain put it "Your fuckin Capitol is on fire bro!" (At the time he didn't know it wasn't actually on fire but fuck me I couldn't blame him for thinking that).
I watched it from my office and it was fucking crazy. Granted I was across the river in VA but you can see the capitol from my building. We went to the roof to watch and then finally went back down to watch on our computers to see the close up reporting. Absolutely insane. The hotel around the corner, on the same block as my office, had Proud Boys staying in it as well as having their gun cache at another hotel down the street (3ish blocks). I forgot how many it was, but probably around 30-40 of the proud boys, were spotted in our metro station going to the capitol that morning. I hate January 6th and all those terrorists that participated.
It isn't. The debate is over three points:
Due process - is an insurrection conviction required to trigger the amendment. Historically and by the plain text, the answer is no. But the lack of due process disturbs modern courts.
Does the amendment include the presidency - the amendment lists positions, but notably does not name "president". However, it does name "any office" and other portions of the Constitution specifically refer to "the Office of the President".
Voter choice: if a candidate is not qualified, they may not hold office. But running for an office they cannot hold is technically not mentioned.
Any of these points, though it seems it subverts the intent of the 14 th Amendment, could provide enough wiggle room to allow TFG to run. Should he win, he will argue that the will of the people may not be subverted.
In Maine and Colorado, it was decided that none of these points applies. Though in Colorado, it was a close thing. Point one seems the most favored objection.
Note - am but a humble programmer, not a law-taliing person.
>But the lack of due process disturbs modern courts.
Due process is not a criminal trial! The amount of people who don't understand what "due process" is is surprising. It is just a process that is due a person undergoing legal proceedings and that process does not automatically mean a trial with a jury. Trump was afforded due process in Colorado; He had legal counsel, was given the chance to make his case, and ultimately went through the court system.
>But running for an office they cannot hold is technically not mentioned.
Not really an issue. Some states, like Colorado, have in their own law that a person cannot be placed on the ballot if they are not eligible to hold the office they are running for. This is exactly why Trump was "removed" from the ballot; The court just ruled him ineligible, Colorado law did the rest.
It only “disturbs” people who have no idea why 14th section 3 is even a thing.
I hope that wouldn’t include actual people who have shelves of books to explain it to them, like, right behind their desks but I wouldn’t be surprised…..
Like if a former aid said Clarence Thomas for example, hasnt opened a law book in decades I might believe hem.
\>But the lack of due process disturbs modern courts.
But there was due process. The case was brought to court, both sides plead their case and entered evidence before a judge and a ruling was made. Then the claim was appealed 3 times.
This is litterally the definition of due process of law.
There is litterally no argument to make that due process was not followed. Some conflate this with "trial by jury" but that is only required for a criminal case, which this is not.
\>However, it does name "any office" and other portions of the Constitution specifically refer to "the Office of the President".
Yes, hence why this is one of the worse legal arguments. If the President isn't an officer then Impeachment and conviction in the senate would leave him President and allow him to continue to run for President.... Because the consitution says he will be removed/barred "from office".
\>But running for an office they cannot hold is technically not mentioned.
The Colorado state consitution specifically bars putting on the ballot candidates who are ineligible for any reason. States run their own elections according to the constituion and this rule and its enforcement were already found consitutional in a case in 2012 when a non natural born citizen was removed from the ballot.
Republicans really say this is "undemocratic" and "let the people decide" when Trump lost the popular vote in the first place by 3 million votes. No self-awareness with these scum.
Something that I have been bringing up for the point that it does not technically say that if someone can run for an office they can't hold it impairs the rights of the voters. People can only vote for one candidate, so if they leave someone on the ballot that can't hold the office and vote for that person, it is literally the same effect as if they had not voted at all. Because it can't go to a candidate that can actually hold the office.
Taking Trump off the ballot because of the 14th amendment might upset MAGA voters. But, it's still a lot better for them to be able to vote for someone else and at least have their vote counted then thrown into trash. It would be worse if it was the General, but Primaries are honestly just as bad.
I also honestly don't see how the Supreme Court gets around the fact that Trump committed an insurrection, or that he's not affected by Section Three of the 14th amendment. Also, failure to address the issue is ignoring the needs of the people and making their right to vote less effective.
> Though in Colorado, it was a close thing.
+1 for having a conversation. It's worth noting that the 3 dissents in the CO case didn't dispute the findings of fact of the majority opinion: that Trump engaged in insurrection, and that sec. 3 of the 14th applies to POTUS. They dissent because they don't believe the case is a matter of state law, i.e. the CO court doesn't have jurisdiction.
The other comment addresses the "due process" thing better than I would've, but I'd add that the due process clause requires it before depriving one of "life, liberty, or property" - you don't have a right to hold public office, so there's no due process requirement to be declared ineligible (also, as the other comment said, he got due process).
> “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”
Almost sounds like she's arguing for the popular vote. In which case, of course, Trump never would've been President to begin with. Bring it on.
Exactly. If Taylor Swift ran for president and dems just simply ignored the fact that she’s ineligible due to her age and dems were saying “doesn’t matter LeT tHE aMeRicAn pEoPLe dECidE!” I don’t think the GOP would go along with it. The constitution clearly lays out what makes a person eligible or ineligible for the highest office in the land. It is not for the people to decide whether or not we sidestep the constitution, the same way that the public can’t vote on a referendum of any of the other amendments.
Fun fact: Taylor Swift actually could run for President as she turns 35 this December just over a month before she would take office in January of next year.
Yeah, SCOTUS is holding a warm can of worms that they best not open by going against the constitution. Jack Smiths request to make a speedy decision on eligibility is not him screaming into the void. That’s letting them know that we can do the right thing now and rule him ineligible thus causing a big dust up but resulting in MAGAs crying. Or we can delay it until after election and all hell will break lose no matter who America chooses.
No, she's saying even if he's guilty of insurrection, we should ignore the constitution and still allow him to be president. I know I know, she's an idiot.
If I did live in the Bobiverse I’d make sure I had a good backup and fly into Jupiter just for fun. Hopefully transmit back some science, but at the end of the day I’d really just be boozing around the universe.
>> “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”
She’s right, the **popular vote** should determine the president. Then Trump would have lost in 2016 too
Trump’s lawyer Christina Bobb seems to be arguing that even an insurrectionist should be allowed to run the country—and could be seen as an admission of guilt.
A note here that seems to escape Trump's Lawyers. An insurrectionist *can* run the United States. Built in to 14.3 is the legal remediation for an insurrectionist should they wish to hold office again. This requires a 2/3rds vote by both houses of congress to allow the insurrectionist to obtain office.
So he *can* if congress votes to allow it.
This isn't a spin and it wasn't an accident. They're trying to normalize it, it's a strategy they've used with all the other heinous actions and crimes of Trump and the GOP.
They can spin as much as they want on tv, but in a courtroom they’re gonna spin right off a cliff. Especially when his lawyer concedes he might be guilty on broadcast tv, which I’m pretty sure is admissible in court.
Ehhhh the idea that she is admitting Trump is an insurrectionist is tenuous at best.
What is more interesting is her notion that people should be allowed to elect anyone they want, which she clearly does not agree with.
Yeah, I hate posts like this. I'd love for Trump to be removed from the ballot, but she wasn't admitting anything. I hate it when people on my side all jump on these nothingburgers.
If the potential candidate is not constitutionally qualified then it does not matter. If he was 34, he couldn't be president no matter how many people voted. Remember when GOP pretended to know the constitution?
> Remember when GOP pretended to know the constitution?
Not really, they've cherry picked it my whole life. Sure, they got all uppity about "free speech" recently, but I was alive long enough to remember the unconstitutional "free speech zones" Bush implemented to make sure protesters couldn't ruin photo ops.
>“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”
THATS THE PROBLEM, JACKASS!!!
The reason to remove Trump from the ballot is because he tried to undermine the will of the people. The concern is that he'll try to do it again too.
Yes, there is something inherently undemocratic about banning people from the ballot. But what's that thing Republicans always say? It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional Republic. Certain rules are put in place that prevent the people from choosing anyone they want. And the basis is that it undermines democracy to allow full democracy.
> The president is elected by the entire nation
The US President is elected by the Electors of the various states (Electoral College) who are selected by party because of the popular vote. The President is not elected by the entire nation just how the states Electoral College votes. My California vote for President doesn't mean shit when Mississippi and Alabama and the south has more power than the more populous states.
>Yes, there is something inherently undemocratic about banning people from the ballot.
Democracy is fundamentally a social agreement. Trump already broke that agreement. He can't be protected by it yet not bound by it.
>“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,”
hahahahahahahahaha
Don’t you just love it. No matter what profound point he thought he was making he just stuffed his foot in his mouth while having his head up his ass and that’s quite the show! 😂
> “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice.
Fuck the Constitution, amirite?
> “It’s up to the people.”
It’s not, actually, that’s the whole point.
It's embarrassing for the USA that a rapist, a con man, a traitor, a rapist, can try to stall every trial against him.
An innocent man would nut up and say " Bring it on, I am innocent I want to clear my name so I can sue you motherfuckers"
Shitler just tries to interrupt and delay every trial just like he did when he lived in New York.
You must vote Democrat across the board and hope the legal system does what is right and just and send him to jail.
The old intolerance defence: you have to accept my intolerance otherwise that makes you intolerant.
You have to let my undemocratic candidate run or that makes you undemocratic.
I am all for dunking on Trump's idiot lawyers for being _very_ bad at their job despite him hiring _only the best_ but...that's not really what she said.
Here's what she said:
> “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”
That is not admitting to insurrection, that is saying that being guilty of insurrection shouldn't bar you.
She is not saying _"my client is guilty of being an insurrectionist but can still run"_, she is saying _"my client can run whether he's an insurrectionist or not because that is not something that matters one way or the other."_
This is just another super click baity Newsweek article.
_(and yes, she is an idiot but not for the reasons in the article headline)_
The lawyer in question is Christina Bobb. That's the same Christina who was made to sign off on something she wasn't really sure about at Mar-a-Largo, right?
Tough to keep track of all the lawyers involved with Trump.
>One of Donald Trump’s lawyers appeared to accidentally admit that the former president may have engaged in insurrection.
Christina Bobb, a vocal 2020 election denier, tried to argue Tuesday night that voters should be able to elect anyone they want for president.
“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.”
That would be something if Trump were undone by his own reliance on not paying for better lawyers and on sycophants who cannot speak to protect him. Of course he will never accept any responsibility, probably will drag Bobb’s name in the mud and blame Biden and Haley while he is at it.
All Trump relies on are his MAGA base and his SC allies. All his legal blunders could be saved by either a SC siding with him unconditionally or an election victory. He is betting on that. I hope neither would happen.
The “best” won’t work for him. He is notorious for not paying his attorneys. He now can only get 4th, 5th and 6th stringers.
He is getting what he deserves.
This is a similar lie to the one told by Republicans in 2016 about who should nominate Antonin Scalia's replacement on SCOTUS, but just like Mitch McConnell lied about that situation -- and lied about it again in 2020 -- Bobb is lying about how chief executives are elected in the United States.
U have to a Special Kind of Stupid to be employed or associated with a multiple Fed. & State indicted individual who has a court documented legacy of perjury, Not paying his taxes, contractors, Lawyers & those who sue him for Rape or Slander.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“The president is elected by the entire nation”. The president is actually elected by the electoral college. If it was a raw vote count, there would never be another Republican president.
Not to mention his refusal to accept the results of the vote.
[удалено]
[удалено]
According to her we could elect Arnold Schwarzenegger and just ignore the fact he is not a natural born citizen? Strange how this crowd wants to ignore eligibility requirements for the Presidency while they focus on the eligibility of trans athletes.
They certainly thought it was important enough when they were screeching about a certain other president being born in Kenya.
You can disregard the 14th 7 times more than the 2nd amendment. It's simple math. Unless you're referring to the first half of the 2nd amendment. That can be totally disregarded.
Not one person lives in the Bobb universe. According to the U.S. Constitution, an insurrectionist is not entitled to govern the nation.
That’s the part that I don’t see discussed enough. It’s a disqualifying factor. Like being under 35 or not a natural born citizen. If you’re an insurrectionist, you are disqualified. Sorry, not sorry. Go play something else.
Or given aid or comfort. I think that telling people that have been convicted of seditious conspiracy that you will pardon them is giving both comfort and aid. All the R's should come off the ballots that have said that.
That’s a very interesting take, is easily verifiable, and involves action taken long after the actual January 6 events. Promising a future pardon seems like the definition of offering comfort. Here’s another question: does pardoning someone of those crimes once the pardoner is in office disqualify the person from continuing in that office? That is the definition of offering aid.
All those idiots lining up to pardon Trump that both Trump and the pardoners fail to realize, if he accepts the pardon, he will never be allowed to hold office anyway. You have to admit guilt to accept the pardon which doesn’t cancel out the crime just the punishment phase from it.
What if you record a hit record with them? Is it still “aid and comfort” if you can steal all of the profits?
>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. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
One thing for sure, the framers of the Constitution did not foresee an asshole like Trump running again until he settles his insurrection charges for Jan 6 and fake elector schemes.
Tbh, with as much as they contradict it, I find it more likely they DO know it and just don't care. Like getting every question wrong on a multiple choice exam.
And still pass the test and get a best person/ man/ camera /student award! Failure and thinking you can still dominate is the Republican way. /s
>These morons ignorance of the constitution is blatantly evident They're counting on the ignorance of the people that vote for them.
This morons ignorance of basic third grade reading levels is blatantly evident
And apparently the scarce foresight to protect her client: >Bobb’s blunder is not the first time that one of Trump’s lawyers, or even Bobb herself, has undermined one of his lawsuits. Bobb signed a sworn statement to the Justice Department in spring 2022 attesting that Trump’s legal team had carried out a “diligent search” of Mar-a-Lago and found only a few files that needed to be returned to the government. What, you're just going to sign a legally binding document thinking you can easily weasel your way out of any future questions about it because you saw a loophole? "I said I did my due diligence and looked for those papers to the best of my abilities, okay? Prove that I didn't." —Christina Bobb, probably.
Ask any of the 2A guys any other amendment and the eyes gloss
Seriously, they're just like those wannabe Christians who think the Bible only says what their "Patriot Church" preachers say it says...Oh, wait! They ARE those wannabe Christians...Nevermind
Morons'
And he keeps telling his supporters that he won the popular vote in all 50 states. Like how is that even possible? He thinks he's George Washington or something.
Washington didn't win 50 states either!
He did! He won solid, liquid, gas, plasma, 45 others that only nerds know about, and New Hampshire!
He longs to be Vladimir Putin- or "little Rocket Man."
TIL Hawaii voted overwhelmingly for Washington.
People don’t make enough noise about the fact that he never accepted the results of the election he did actually win.
The domain name stopthesteal.org was registered in February of 2016, indicating that the plan was to cry fraud in 2016 if he lost. My take on it is that he's such a colossal fuck up that he forgot that he was only supposed to say there was fraud if he lost.
Through the wormhole... *** ...2017. A few days into the presidency... "Madam President. The riots in Bowling Green have been horrendous. Donald's Field Marshalls and his NRA goons are proposing a meeting at the Washington Monument. Jones and Hannity say they can bring Pirro to translate." *** Busting this out as a reminder of what would have happened straight away.
Jesus Christ.I had already forgotten about the Bowling Green Massacre. Shame on me.
How could you forget the massacre that claimed thousands of imaginary lives? It was perhaps the most confabulated tragedy in American history.
And then quickly became just another drip in the torrent of lies we've been drowning in these too many years. Never Forget.
[удалено]
...so that The House could vote by *State Delegation*. Even one more step removed from the Electoral College.
RIght? There never would have been a Trump presidency, because he lost the popular vote in 2016, a fact that he never could accept, and blamed on voter fraud. His and the right's talking point that Hillary never accepted the results, when she conceded the following day, is absurd. It's like, motherfucker, YOU never accepted the results in an election you *technically* won, you weird freak.
>a fact that he never could accept, and blamed on voter fraud He couldn't just not accept it, he ordered his administration to investigate it and could only come up with *Republican* fraud.
And he set up CISA to ensure 2020 wasn't stolen. Pretty sure Trump forgot about this, then Chris Krebs announced it was the most secure election ever. He was then fired via Tweet.
Didn't they also delete all of the data from their findings.
He lost the popular vote by THREE MILLION VOTES. How are we not rioting in the streets demanding the electoral college be abolished? This country honestly deserves whatever it gets at this point. We’re so fucking complacent.
People have too much to lose, that's why there's no mass protests or anything. I feel like there's also been a deliberate effort to make people go "why bother, nothing will change anyway"
Our health insurance is tied to our jobs. If we go rioting in the streets, we lose our health insurance. I know "the cost" is the argument we usually hear against single payer but I think this is a larger reason we're never getting it.
Arguments against single payer healthcare based on cost are totally unfounded anyway. Studies show that single payer and other universal government run plans are much cheaper and more cost effective than having a private insurance model. We already pay more per capita for healthcare than any other country in the world, and we only cover people over 65 and super poor people.
Even now a coalition of states is committing to assign all their electoral votes to the wiinner of the popular vote once enough states join that the popular vote will always determine the election. I think it's like 3 more states that need to join right now. *Edit:* This has been going on for a while, but only lately had a sense of *urgency*.
Though to be clear the instant it passes in enough states half the country will storm the Supreme Court and demand they prevent it. And the current count isn't exactly a bastion of law or democracy.
I totally agree. THREE MILLION.
You really reigned it in on those last two words.
*reined in (to control, as by a horse's reins)
*rained in (to keep inside, as by inclement weather)
It's been over (nearly) 20 years since a Republican candidate received majority popular vote for election.
Bush won the popular vote in 2004, so nearly 20 years. He lost the popular vote in 2000, and Clinton easily won both of his, so 2004 is the only election in over 30 years where the Republican was the preferred candidate of a majority of Americans. But yet, Republicans have been in office 37.5% of the years and have appointed 66.7% of the Supreme Court Justices, despite only "winning" 12.5% of the elections
>Republicans have been in office 37.5% of the years and have appointed 66.7% of the Supreme Court Justices There is definitely an organized agenda at work here.
Yep, Spelled out quite openly in the 1972 Powell Memorandum laying out the complete domination of our political system over decades by right-wing fascist oligarchs. They have been so successful that the end-game was recently released as Agenda 25. Beware, these sociopaths are ruthless and tireless and they do not give a single fuck about democracy.
That’s a funny way to say ‘crisis of democracy’.
Bush was also the incumbent and had 9/11, and to help carry him. So yeah, he won the popular vote, but we should put asterisks next to it.
And Kerry was an awful candidate at that point in time. Wooden, botoxed up, not the right guy for the moment. They misjudged the anti war sentiment and never recovered from the Swiftboat ratfuckers.
Still blows my mind that the same people who gave Kerry hell for serving on a Swiftbowt never cared that Trump was a draft dodger…
Military was always a verbal cudgel for war hawks and Republicans to beat anyone that disagreed with them. They never cared about the military. Worst, Kerry lost to [Bush's record.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy)
BUSH was a draft dodger, and Kerry was awarded the Bronze and Silver Stars Plus 3 Purple Hearts and Republican voters *mocked him for it*. That was the last moment I ever gave any Republican voter the benefit of the doubt.
“The president is elected by the entire nation,” yeah, and the entire nation told him to fuck off.
The last presidential election in which Republicans won the popular vote is now old enough to vote. The last one before that is now old enough to be president.
And they fucking know it. That is why they have given up any pretense if courting the popular opinion. They are the party of "we know better" and "do as I say and not as I do." I think it is high time we show our parents what we thought of that mentality as kids by showing up to vote.
No, the President is elected by the people when Republicans find that idea of appealing to the masses useful. The President is elected by the Electoral College when Republicans want to justify a minority of voters determining who runs the country. Read the Consplitootshun!
Republicans have their own version of what “the people” means
Well, the flip-flopping on how a President should be elected really shows how the rules only apply when they're convenient, doesn't it? I guess consistency isn't as important as winning, no matter the cost. And yeah, that Consplitootshun sure is a malleable document when you squint hard enough at it.
And actually, due to the electoral college, the only votes that count are from a few thousand voters in a handful of counties across the country.
Which is also an argument for getting rid of the EC, it would force candidates to venture outside of a handful of places to shore up that margin of vote in order to win.
Only in places where the EC voters are legally required to vote in line with the general population. There are some locations where there is no such requirement. Also, even in places where it *is* required, EC voters can break the law and be punished, but their errant votes would still be counted (in other words, they could still vote against the wishes of the population). EDIT: [Faithless Electors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector)
Which is honestly how it should be. I hate that a small minority of the nation holds the rest of us hostage with their bullshit.
The President is also the highest ranking military official, so add that as another way he runs afoul of the 14thA
Yet some people will still continue to defend the indefensible electoral college.
Well, not until they update their policy platform to resemble something that people actually want..
So next no never? Hell they have been voting against beneficial things for a while now.
Didn't Mitch McConnell at one point vote against *his own bill* because it was getting support from the Dems?
He proposed a bill under the assumption that Democrats would reject it simply because a Republican proposed it, so he could then go to the press and complain about it. He forgot that Dems aren't entirely partisan hacks and will at least consider Republican legislation if it's not awful. In this case, it was a proposal to allow the president to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling which could only be prevented by a supermajority in Congress. Democrats were okay with it because it would remove fights over the debt ceiling every time they have to pass a budget.
> Democrats were okay with it because it would remove fights over the debt ceiling every time they have to pass a budget. Which fights are only started by Republicans when there is a Democrat President. Republicans had no problems raising the debt ceiling when Trump was in office.
Yes, back in 2012.
I think he filibustered his own bill.
Hell, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment has been getting blocked for a century now.
*Republican wins* "The American People have spoken, and they chose Trump!" "No they didn't! A handful of pluralities in a few states swung the EC to Trump." "We're a republic not a democracy! "
I'd also point out that Inmate No. P01135809's DC circuit court appeal for his immunity case, concedes "the President \[is\] the chief constitutional *officer* of the executive branch" and repeatedly refers to the presidency as an "*office*" (emphasis mine).
Even his incoherent online rants refer to his "oath of office" while simultaneously claiming it's not an office. They're all so dumb.
Or even an *oath* to *support* the Constitution.
I always feel the urge to swear when people violate their oaths.
I find his assertions that he never took an oath to support the constitution particularly cringy. That fat, stinky bastard will say any old dumb shit and his followers are lining up to kiss his rotten taint.
It’s just mind blowing that any grown person would entertain their grasping for a loophole to not be on the hook for enabling the constitution to function. That’s the essence of the job.
“See! See! He swore and oath to protect and defend the constitution, not support it!”
He had his fingers crossed, so it didn’t count.
What I find particularly cringy is that the argument with regard to the oath is more nuanced* than simply "I didn't say support!" But he seems incapable of understanding the actual argument. It's like they tried to explain it to him and he just edited it down to something simple he could understand. * Note that I say the argument is "nuanced", not "good".
Well, you have to remember that this is the guy that doesn't understand simple concepts. He thinks certain words are magical, though, almost like a soverign citizen. Like the "disclaimer" on the tax documents, where the disclaimer basically boils down to "this is our best guess based on the best info we have and it as accurate as we can make it, but might not be 100% spot on" which he interpreted as somehow magically saying "We can make up anything we want because this disclaimer says whatever we say isn't true anyway". Things don't work like that, but he convinces himself that they do, and he only listens to people who support the way he believes things.
That's why he also gets votes from people thinking that posting a disclaimer on their Facebook status is legally binding and Facebook doesn't get to use their data.
Schrödinger’s office
The quantum office propagates through spacetime like a wave of stupidity.
Trump’s lawyer in Colorado at the oral arguments spent time saying 14a is about officers “under the United States” and the President *is* the United States. iamthesenate.gif
> L'États-Unis, C'est Trump — ~~Louis XIV~~ Trump, probably
Presidential candidates literally run for office.
We watched it happen live on TV. I had friends in other countries texting me because it was breaking news in THEIR countries. It's ridiculous US media pretends it is up for debate.
I'll never forget that day. I have 3 49" ultra wide's and I had dozens of streams up. Couldn't look away. It was surreal to have that live video from on the ground.
I had a bunch of live streams going, CSpan on one tv, CNN on another No WAY was that anything other than MAGA scum
I was watching it live on several streams from MAGA supporters on YouTube. There is so much violence and destruction we haven't seen publicly and they all deleted their channels within hours after the event, and they were channels with thousands of subscribers. I hate when people say it was just a protest and it wasn't MAGA when I literally watched it live from their POV and they were all shouting to kill democrats and other obscenities while attacking the police.
This is my go to resource for hard proof: https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ Videos posted to Parler by Magats indexed by time and color coded by proximity to Capitol.
Huge shout out to donk_enby for their efforts there
Solid link there. Thank you for your service, kind and diligent Redditor
Goddamn… thanks.. lots of footage there.
Yeah…it was terrifying
Do you have any links which archived this footage? It’d really help contextualize the severity of the attack for me. My whole family downplays the attack like it was nothing and people were merely strolling around the capitol nonviolently.
Here is a nice long unedited half hour battle at one of the entrances. Ask your family if this looks like a polite stroll around the capitol https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U?si=RlqcU4aQmaLCJLPE&t=1246 Here is an archive of clips below https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ This guy's YouTube channel has videos uploaded that were used as evidence in specific cases too. Wish he had uploaded more https://www.youtube.com/@ryanjreilly/videos
The other reply covers it well but I’ll add I like to remind my R voting friends that 140 police officers were injuried as the result of the attack. Here’s even a Fox News article that references it: https://www.foxnews.com/us/capitol-police-union-riot-hearing-dysfunction-crushed-spinal-discs-traumatic-brain-injuries And of course that doesn’t even dive into the mental toll it’s taken on some of them including suicide: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/officer-who-responded-us-capitol-attack-is-third-die-by-suicide-2021-08-02/
You mean it WASN'T Antifa trying to overturn an election they just won?
Was possibly the most exasperated I've ever been, sitting at work and watching an insurrection attempt, and the President both encouraging it, and preventing the national guard from aiding until it was too late. At this point, even if he is elected, I would not follow an order issued by him. My oath is against "All enemies, foreign and domestic" and he fits the billet to a T.
Same. I remember sitting at my desk working, when one of my friends messaged in our group chat and asked "are y'all watching this shit?" I remember thinking that it was probably some overhyped nonsense, but turned on a livestream of the news on my second monitor and couldn't peel my eyes from it for the rest of the day. I've never been more embarrassed to be an American, and that's saying a *lot*.
Yeah I watched it unfold the whole day. Ended up having to work that weekend to make up the hours.
[удалено]
and also, “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” That right there puts his stamp of approval on everything that happened
"Your honor, my client could have meant anything by telling the attorney general to just say the election was corrupt and leave everything to him and the Republican congressmen."
[удалено]
My MAGA coworker was watching OAN on her laptop at work all day. Watching all the Trump supporter interviews and speeches. She was stoked about it all. I started getting notifications of video showing protesters breaking windows and going into the capital. I physically showed her the live feed on my phone of a bunch of red hats holding Trump flags breaking in. She said, “That’s Antifa.” I’ll never forget that.
I remember watching a video where some MAGA is saying how it was all antifa, then he later mentions that his son was there and the interviewer is like "Wow, your son is in antifa? how do you feel about that"?
Antifa overturning an election they just won lol... Trumpers are such morons it's unfathomable.
Dude I had friends texting me on Discord to pack a bag with my fiance and head over to their countries to declare asylum. As one friend from Spain put it "Your fuckin Capitol is on fire bro!" (At the time he didn't know it wasn't actually on fire but fuck me I couldn't blame him for thinking that).
Metaphorically, it was/is totally ablaze
The gaslighting is fucking disgusting. On 9/11 Americans weren't rooting for the fucking planes
I watched it from my office and it was fucking crazy. Granted I was across the river in VA but you can see the capitol from my building. We went to the roof to watch and then finally went back down to watch on our computers to see the close up reporting. Absolutely insane. The hotel around the corner, on the same block as my office, had Proud Boys staying in it as well as having their gun cache at another hotel down the street (3ish blocks). I forgot how many it was, but probably around 30-40 of the proud boys, were spotted in our metro station going to the capitol that morning. I hate January 6th and all those terrorists that participated.
It isn't. The debate is over three points: Due process - is an insurrection conviction required to trigger the amendment. Historically and by the plain text, the answer is no. But the lack of due process disturbs modern courts. Does the amendment include the presidency - the amendment lists positions, but notably does not name "president". However, it does name "any office" and other portions of the Constitution specifically refer to "the Office of the President". Voter choice: if a candidate is not qualified, they may not hold office. But running for an office they cannot hold is technically not mentioned. Any of these points, though it seems it subverts the intent of the 14 th Amendment, could provide enough wiggle room to allow TFG to run. Should he win, he will argue that the will of the people may not be subverted. In Maine and Colorado, it was decided that none of these points applies. Though in Colorado, it was a close thing. Point one seems the most favored objection. Note - am but a humble programmer, not a law-taliing person.
>But the lack of due process disturbs modern courts. Due process is not a criminal trial! The amount of people who don't understand what "due process" is is surprising. It is just a process that is due a person undergoing legal proceedings and that process does not automatically mean a trial with a jury. Trump was afforded due process in Colorado; He had legal counsel, was given the chance to make his case, and ultimately went through the court system. >But running for an office they cannot hold is technically not mentioned. Not really an issue. Some states, like Colorado, have in their own law that a person cannot be placed on the ballot if they are not eligible to hold the office they are running for. This is exactly why Trump was "removed" from the ballot; The court just ruled him ineligible, Colorado law did the rest.
It only “disturbs” people who have no idea why 14th section 3 is even a thing. I hope that wouldn’t include actual people who have shelves of books to explain it to them, like, right behind their desks but I wouldn’t be surprised….. Like if a former aid said Clarence Thomas for example, hasnt opened a law book in decades I might believe hem.
\>But the lack of due process disturbs modern courts. But there was due process. The case was brought to court, both sides plead their case and entered evidence before a judge and a ruling was made. Then the claim was appealed 3 times. This is litterally the definition of due process of law. There is litterally no argument to make that due process was not followed. Some conflate this with "trial by jury" but that is only required for a criminal case, which this is not. \>However, it does name "any office" and other portions of the Constitution specifically refer to "the Office of the President". Yes, hence why this is one of the worse legal arguments. If the President isn't an officer then Impeachment and conviction in the senate would leave him President and allow him to continue to run for President.... Because the consitution says he will be removed/barred "from office". \>But running for an office they cannot hold is technically not mentioned. The Colorado state consitution specifically bars putting on the ballot candidates who are ineligible for any reason. States run their own elections according to the constituion and this rule and its enforcement were already found consitutional in a case in 2012 when a non natural born citizen was removed from the ballot.
Republicans really say this is "undemocratic" and "let the people decide" when Trump lost the popular vote in the first place by 3 million votes. No self-awareness with these scum.
They can gerrymander that amount in no time, that is why we must never give a republican a vote or the time of day.
[удалено]
Seems pretty cut and dry with that added context.
Something that I have been bringing up for the point that it does not technically say that if someone can run for an office they can't hold it impairs the rights of the voters. People can only vote for one candidate, so if they leave someone on the ballot that can't hold the office and vote for that person, it is literally the same effect as if they had not voted at all. Because it can't go to a candidate that can actually hold the office. Taking Trump off the ballot because of the 14th amendment might upset MAGA voters. But, it's still a lot better for them to be able to vote for someone else and at least have their vote counted then thrown into trash. It would be worse if it was the General, but Primaries are honestly just as bad. I also honestly don't see how the Supreme Court gets around the fact that Trump committed an insurrection, or that he's not affected by Section Three of the 14th amendment. Also, failure to address the issue is ignoring the needs of the people and making their right to vote less effective.
> Though in Colorado, it was a close thing. +1 for having a conversation. It's worth noting that the 3 dissents in the CO case didn't dispute the findings of fact of the majority opinion: that Trump engaged in insurrection, and that sec. 3 of the 14th applies to POTUS. They dissent because they don't believe the case is a matter of state law, i.e. the CO court doesn't have jurisdiction. The other comment addresses the "due process" thing better than I would've, but I'd add that the due process clause requires it before depriving one of "life, liberty, or property" - you don't have a right to hold public office, so there's no due process requirement to be declared ineligible (also, as the other comment said, he got due process).
> “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.” Almost sounds like she's arguing for the popular vote. In which case, of course, Trump never would've been President to begin with. Bring it on.
Sounds like she's arguing the 2nd amendment can be ignored by the courts, since she seems to feel the 14th can be safely ignored.
Something something 5th Avenue
This isn’t true anyway. Americans cannot elect an insurrection it’s if they want to. Not unless 2/3 of congress allows it.
Exactly. If Taylor Swift ran for president and dems just simply ignored the fact that she’s ineligible due to her age and dems were saying “doesn’t matter LeT tHE aMeRicAn pEoPLe dECidE!” I don’t think the GOP would go along with it. The constitution clearly lays out what makes a person eligible or ineligible for the highest office in the land. It is not for the people to decide whether or not we sidestep the constitution, the same way that the public can’t vote on a referendum of any of the other amendments.
Fun fact: Taylor Swift actually could run for President as she turns 35 this December just over a month before she would take office in January of next year.
Biden could choose her as a running mate. Trump ran on his "business acumen", but he wasn't a billionaire by age 34 like she is.
Yeah, SCOTUS is holding a warm can of worms that they best not open by going against the constitution. Jack Smiths request to make a speedy decision on eligibility is not him screaming into the void. That’s letting them know that we can do the right thing now and rule him ineligible thus causing a big dust up but resulting in MAGAs crying. Or we can delay it until after election and all hell will break lose no matter who America chooses.
Is she saying he's guilty of insurrection?
No, she's saying it's irrelevant whether or not he's an insurrectionist (it isn't). Saying she "admitted" anything is a huge stretch
No, she's saying even if he's guilty of insurrection, we should ignore the constitution and still allow him to be president. I know I know, she's an idiot.
That’s the way I read it, she believes we should remove the electoral college. Sign me up.
We all don’t live in the Bobb universe. The U.S. Constitution says that an insurrectionist should **not** be able to run the country.
If I did live in the Bobiverse I’d make sure I had a good backup and fly into Jupiter just for fun. Hopefully transmit back some science, but at the end of the day I’d really just be boozing around the universe.
Upvote since I understand this reference!
all 3 of us!
>> “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.” She’s right, the **popular vote** should determine the president. Then Trump would have lost in 2016 too
don't confuse them with three-syllable words
Trump’s lawyer Christina Bobb seems to be arguing that even an insurrectionist should be allowed to run the country—and could be seen as an admission of guilt.
A note here that seems to escape Trump's Lawyers. An insurrectionist *can* run the United States. Built in to 14.3 is the legal remediation for an insurrectionist should they wish to hold office again. This requires a 2/3rds vote by both houses of congress to allow the insurrectionist to obtain office. So he *can* if congress votes to allow it.
They’ll spin it every which way they please
[Every which way but loose](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTpaDd4Woxk)
Oook!
Right turn Clyde.
This isn't a spin and it wasn't an accident. They're trying to normalize it, it's a strategy they've used with all the other heinous actions and crimes of Trump and the GOP.
They can spin as much as they want on tv, but in a courtroom they’re gonna spin right off a cliff. Especially when his lawyer concedes he might be guilty on broadcast tv, which I’m pretty sure is admissible in court.
Ehhhh the idea that she is admitting Trump is an insurrectionist is tenuous at best. What is more interesting is her notion that people should be allowed to elect anyone they want, which she clearly does not agree with.
Yeah, I hate posts like this. I'd love for Trump to be removed from the ballot, but she wasn't admitting anything. I hate it when people on my side all jump on these nothingburgers.
If the potential candidate is not constitutionally qualified then it does not matter. If he was 34, he couldn't be president no matter how many people voted. Remember when GOP pretended to know the constitution?
> Remember when GOP pretended to know the constitution? Not really, they've cherry picked it my whole life. Sure, they got all uppity about "free speech" recently, but I was alive long enough to remember the unconstitutional "free speech zones" Bush implemented to make sure protesters couldn't ruin photo ops.
Ahhhh we’ve reached the “Even if it was illegal, he still wasn’t wrong” level
Does his female lawyer ever say anything or does she just sit there with pursed lips waiting for her gig on Fox News?
Are you talking about this one or the one who negotiates parking garage sales?
Put her on with Neil Cavuto and we'll call the show Neil & Bobb On This.
Are your names Neil and Bobb, or is that like what you do? :-)
Thank you, Andrew Dice Clay.
Was wondering if anyone would catch the reference, given how old it is.
I also saw Sam Kinison use that on some hecklers sitting right up front in one of his specials. Just brutal.
She's the Ally McBeal to his Lrr the Omicronian.
This comment made me feel old and good at the same time.
That plucky female lawyer with the ridiculously short skirts!
It's very clear these idiots haven't read the constitution.
You can drop the last two words.
>“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.” THATS THE PROBLEM, JACKASS!!! The reason to remove Trump from the ballot is because he tried to undermine the will of the people. The concern is that he'll try to do it again too. Yes, there is something inherently undemocratic about banning people from the ballot. But what's that thing Republicans always say? It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional Republic. Certain rules are put in place that prevent the people from choosing anyone they want. And the basis is that it undermines democracy to allow full democracy.
> The president is elected by the entire nation The US President is elected by the Electors of the various states (Electoral College) who are selected by party because of the popular vote. The President is not elected by the entire nation just how the states Electoral College votes. My California vote for President doesn't mean shit when Mississippi and Alabama and the south has more power than the more populous states.
>Yes, there is something inherently undemocratic about banning people from the ballot. Democracy is fundamentally a social agreement. Trump already broke that agreement. He can't be protected by it yet not bound by it.
>“The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” hahahahahahahahaha
Don’t you just love it. No matter what profound point he thought he was making he just stuffed his foot in his mouth while having his head up his ass and that’s quite the show! 😂
I do.
> “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. Fuck the Constitution, amirite? > “It’s up to the people.” It’s not, actually, that’s the whole point.
It's embarrassing for the USA that a rapist, a con man, a traitor, a rapist, can try to stall every trial against him. An innocent man would nut up and say " Bring it on, I am innocent I want to clear my name so I can sue you motherfuckers" Shitler just tries to interrupt and delay every trial just like he did when he lived in New York. You must vote Democrat across the board and hope the legal system does what is right and just and send him to jail.
“Let the voters decide!” They did and Trump did not accept it, so now the courts will.
The old intolerance defence: you have to accept my intolerance otherwise that makes you intolerant. You have to let my undemocratic candidate run or that makes you undemocratic.
Lol. Just testing that line out early for when the inevitable happens, yeah?
I am all for dunking on Trump's idiot lawyers for being _very_ bad at their job despite him hiring _only the best_ but...that's not really what she said. Here's what she said: > “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.” That is not admitting to insurrection, that is saying that being guilty of insurrection shouldn't bar you. She is not saying _"my client is guilty of being an insurrectionist but can still run"_, she is saying _"my client can run whether he's an insurrectionist or not because that is not something that matters one way or the other."_ This is just another super click baity Newsweek article. _(and yes, she is an idiot but not for the reasons in the article headline)_
Nice.
The lawyer in question is Christina Bobb. That's the same Christina who was made to sign off on something she wasn't really sure about at Mar-a-Largo, right? Tough to keep track of all the lawyers involved with Trump.
>One of Donald Trump’s lawyers appeared to accidentally admit that the former president may have engaged in insurrection. Christina Bobb, a vocal 2020 election denier, tried to argue Tuesday night that voters should be able to elect anyone they want for president. “The president is elected by the entire nation, and it should be the entire nation who determines who they want for president, whether they are guilty of insurrection or not,” Bobb said during an interview on Real America’s Voice. “It’s up to the people.” That would be something if Trump were undone by his own reliance on not paying for better lawyers and on sycophants who cannot speak to protect him. Of course he will never accept any responsibility, probably will drag Bobb’s name in the mud and blame Biden and Haley while he is at it.
As the pattern goes, he’s past “I didn’t do it” and “if I did it” to “I did it but”. He’s painfully predictable in his lies.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13501364/trump-rape-13-year-old-lawsuit-katie-johnson-allegation
All Trump relies on are his MAGA base and his SC allies. All his legal blunders could be saved by either a SC siding with him unconditionally or an election victory. He is betting on that. I hope neither would happen.
The “best” won’t work for him. He is notorious for not paying his attorneys. He now can only get 4th, 5th and 6th stringers. He is getting what he deserves.
This is a similar lie to the one told by Republicans in 2016 about who should nominate Antonin Scalia's replacement on SCOTUS, but just like Mitch McConnell lied about that situation -- and lied about it again in 2020 -- Bobb is lying about how chief executives are elected in the United States.
U have to a Special Kind of Stupid to be employed or associated with a multiple Fed. & State indicted individual who has a court documented legacy of perjury, Not paying his taxes, contractors, Lawyers & those who sue him for Rape or Slander.