Did Trump Engage in 'Insurrection or Rebellion' Against the Constitution?

The impeachment article against the president cites a little-discussed section of the 14th Amendment.


The article of impeachment against President Donald Trump that the House of Representatives is expected to approve tomorrow invokes Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, a little-discussed provision originally aimed at former Confederates. As relevant here, Section 3 says "no person" may "hold any office, civil or military, under the United States," who, "having previously taken an oath as…an officer of the United States…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."

I understand why House Democrats might want to cite a specific legal provision as justification for Trump's second impeachment after catching flak for not doing that the first time around. But I'm not sure this is a can of worms we want to open.

Under Section 3, the impeachment article charges, Trump disqualified himself from office by inciting his followers to violently obstruct the congressional affirmation of President-elect Joe Biden's victory last Wednesday. The article also cites Trump's "prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election," specifically mentioning the January 2 telephone call in which he pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn that state's election results.

Those actions, the article says, "threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government." Trump "thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

Today Trump claimed his remarks last Wednesday, when he inflamed his followers with his oft-repeated fantasy of a stolen election and urged them to "fight like hell" against an "egregious assault on our democracy," were "totally appropriate." They were not; they were manifestly outrageous and irresponsible. At the same time, his speech, which on its face advocated nothing beyond peaceful protest, did not qualify as incitement to riot under federal law. Nor did it exceed the bounds of constitutionally protected speech as described in the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which said even advocacy of illegal behavior is covered by the First Amendment unless it is not only "likely" to incite "imminent lawless action" but also "directed" at doing so.

Trump's conversation with Raffensperger, during which he suggested that the secretary of state could face criminal prosecution if he failed to "find" the votes needed to change the outcome of Georgia's election, was clearly an abuse of power. But it is doubtful whether it violated any criminal statutes, given Trump's apparently sincere (though utterly groundless) belief that he was trying to correct election fraud rather than encourage it.

None of this means that Trump cannot be impeached for such conduct, since impeachment is not limited to statutory crimes (as even Rudy Giuliani, Trump's lawyer, has conceded). But is it accurate to say that Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the Constitution when he persistently pressed his delusional claim that he actually won the election by a landslide, even after all the states had certified their results?

If so, wouldn't the Republican members of Congress who supported his cause by objecting to electoral votes for Biden without a plausible argument that they had not been properly certified also be disqualified from office by Section 3? The Washington Post reports that some Democrats "want to use the 14th Amendment against members of Congress who supported the baseless allegations that the election was stolen from Trump and the demonstrations that led to the deadly attack on the Capitol." Section 3 expressly applies to "senator[s] or representative[s]." Under a broad reading of "insurrection or rebellion," legislators who use fiery rhetoric while violating their oath to "support and defend the Constitution" (pretty much all of them) would be ineligible to remain in Congress.

The history of Section 3 does not illuminate its reach very much. In a recent paper that he describes as "the first detailed account of Section Three," Indiana University law professor Gerard Magliocca says the provision "disappear[ed] from constitutional law" after the postbellum controversy over how to treat former Confederate leaders, which began with tough enforcement, followed by congressional amnesties.

But Washington Post reporter Michael Rosenwald describes a subsequent episode that should give pause to those who favor a wide interpretation of Section 3. "In 1919," Rosenwald notes, "Congress barred Victor L. Berger, a socialist from Wisconsin, from occupying a House seat following his opposition to the United States entering World War I." The rationale for disqualifying Berger suggests how Section 3 could be abused to punish dissenters.

A special House committee concluded that Berger, "because of his disloyalty, is not entitled to the seat to which he was elected, but that in accordance with the unbroken precedents of the House, he should be excluded from membership; and further, that having previously taken an oath as a Member of Congress to support the Constitution of the United States, and having subsequently given aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States during the World War, he is absolutely ineligible to membership in the House of Representatives under section 3 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

If speaking out against a senseless war counted as giving "aid and comfort" to America's enemies (which tracks the Constitution's definition of treason), what unanticipated results might flow from defining Trump's two-month refusal to admit defeat as "insurrection or rebellion"? While alleging abuse of power or manifest unfitness for office unmoored to specific constitutional or statutory violations also creates a risk of unjustified, politically driven impeachments, the requirement of a Senate supermajority for removal is a pretty good safeguard against that danger. And the latter approach does not open the door to casting out senators or representatives based on differences of opinion.

South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman, a lecturer in the Department of Law at Maynooth University in Ireland, argue that Trump cannot be impeached based on his constitutionally protected speech. George Mason law professor Ilya Somin disagrees, because "high government officials don't have a First Amendment right to be protected from firing based on their political views." That principle, he says, "applies to presidents facing impeachment no less than other officials."

Somin's argument that presidents can be fired for speech that would not justify criminal prosecution comports with the more general understanding that impeachment is an appropriate remedy for serious presidential misconduct even when it does not technically violate the law. I think that is what we have in this case.

NEXT: Judge's Stay Halting First Federal Execution of a Woman in 70 Years Has Been Vacated

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. open this link…… Here is More information.

    1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..CashApp 1

    2. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. open this link……INFORMATION USA HOME JOB.

    1. I am making over $9k a month working part time. I stored being attentive to different human beings inform me how much money they are able to make on line so I decided to lok into it. well, it turned into all actual and has completely modified my life.

      That is what I do…. Home Profit System

    2. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week… LRNjsa I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…….Home Profit System

  2. The fundamental problem we have is that Americans think using violence against peaceful people is a great way to solve problems. They just disagree on how to go about it.

    At that point, insurrection, sedition, secession, etc, take on the flavor of process crimes.

    1. No, Americans don’t be,I eve that. Progressives do, but not Americans.

      1. You are deluded and a partisan hack. Americans have always loved violence – against pretty much anybody – as an early if not first response to almost anything. It is in our DNA right back to/thru colonial era.

        You morons seriously think US history is basically a form of Quakerism until the Progressives? What fucking planet do you live on where you can actually believe this sort of shit. God you people are just plain stupid.

        1. Yeah, humans are traditionally rather violent. It’s hardly specific to Americans.

          1. Start generating extra cash online from home more than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get started…
            Open This Website…… USA ONLINE JOBS

        2. Liberal is mad.

          1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet.And Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
            COPY This Website OPEN HERE….. Visit Here

        3. It’s awesome how you can dismiss EVERY SINGLE detail of every battle (be it defensive/aggressive or right/wrong) and just stamp a ‘violent’ label on it.

          It’s like watching a President get prosecuted for anything anyone did from a-time to z-time based on everyday naturally occurring events as evidence.

          My cat died of old age at the Capitol at b-time; ITS TRUMPS FAULT!

      2. The Trump cultists on here frequently threaten violence against their political opponents. So your claim is, on its face, total bullshit.

        1. No they don’t WK.

          1. Man does this guy ever get tired of lying about easily provable stuff? Whether its attributing something others have said that havent, or not being able to admit your side are the bloodthirsty fucks who constantly clamor for the bodies of those that oppose you.

            All your besties on the board (that have to white knight for your BS, ironically) are regular offenders. Aside from Tony’s occasional insane comments that are on the same level from the prog side, it is basically 100% trumpers / right wingers on here threatening and wishing for violence and death of their political opponents. Daily.

            Sad to see you blatantly lying, again, despite almost any reason comment thread proving you wrong. Sadder that you seem not to be embarrassed by how you are proved to be a liar daily on here.

            1. Hey look it’s White Blights other other other sock.

            2. Hahahahahahahaha

        2. Beware of the new lefty-narrative of stamping the word ‘violence’ on any descent just like they over-stamped the word ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s ALL an attempt to silence (which ironically is EXACTLY what’s going down the sh*tter right now).

          Remember the guy who defended his property from BLM and was arrested…

    2. The fundamental problem is that the Dems have been trying to get Trump for 4 years and now they think they’ve got him (again).

      Some of his supporters committed crimes and should be prosecuted. Just let him go away next week and get on with building back better. We’ll render a verdict on how that works out 2 years from now.

    3. And which Americans would those be. The vast majority of Americans (including progressives) have never committed a violent act against a peaceful person.

      1. “(including progressives)”

        One of the reasons I rip the authors here for not being libertarian, is because they’re not. The NAP is NEVER discussed, and it’s one of the cornerstones of libertarianism. So therefore, very few of the commentariat even know what it is.

        If your political philosophy is full of ideas that the government should implement on your behalf against others, backed by violence by the state, then you, by extension are committing violence.

        So progressives, by definition, are violent.

        1. Yup. The law IS violence. To advocate laws is to advocate violence against those who won’t obey. People who think otherwise are like people who buy hamburger wrapped in plastic in the grocery, and think they’re not responsible for cows being slaughtered.

          That’s why you should never advocate a law you wouldn’t personally think yourself justified in violently enforcing.

        2. Application of that Libertarian Purist standard (as opposed to PRACTICAL Libertarian standards) would define ALL members of Congress (even Rand Paul) as “violent”.

          Libertarian purists make the same mistake as Communists,that is, HONEST Communists. They seem to believe people are fundamentally angels and we really don’t need ANY government services.

          1. Wrong. Some problems are such that violence is the only solution. There is no solution that is more ethical and more practical. Luckily, such problems are few. The issue is: some people would like to assert, falsely, that such problems are many.

    4. The major disagreement isn’t on how to go about it, but over who it should be used against.

  3. You spent hours writing a whole article about this. Wow.

    1. Hours may be generous.

  4. Short answer:


    1. At the same time, his speech, which on its face advocated nothing beyond peaceful protest, did not qualify as incitement to riot under federal law. Nor did it exceed the bounds of constitutionally protected speech as described in the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which said even advocacy of illegal behavior is covered by the First Amendment unless it is not only “likely” to incite “imminent lawless action” but also “directed” at doing so.

    2. “Duh.”

      Sounds right for you.

    3. Man, when you tear a mask off you really tear it off.

      1. He pulled off his dumb fuck mask to reveal a dumb fuck underneath.

      2. At least he was decent enough to wear a mask.

        1. Man. This is the Uber wit of the left these days huh. Why are you still wearing the multiple socks WK?

      3. At least she’s not swearing like a hypocrite today.

    4. That’s offensive to retards I have flagged you and reported you to reason

      1. I think we should all flag each other’s comments so none of us have to read things with which we disagree.

        1. I don’t agree with that!

        2. We know. Just like your sock you have bitched about reason not banning posters.

  5. Let us not forget that Trump, baselessly and without any evidence whatsoever, insisted that he was not a Russian stooge as well.

    1. Oh no you don’t you never-Trump piece of shit, you’re not wriggling out of your culpablilty now.

        1. Sarcasmic sock trying to deflect from his culpability as he calls it.

          1. You guys sure do post about each other a lot.

            1. Tissue?

              1. Great. I thought the imposter problem was solved.

                1. No you didn’t. You knew both accounts of yours still worked. You used it on Saturday.

                  1. Both? Here I know I have only one and I’m told I have twenty three! Make up your mind!

                    1. Maybe you use the other ones when you’re black out drunk.

                2. You think a lot of stupid shit Chipper.

  6. Donald Trump’s norm-shattering presidency risks earning ignominious new distinctions over the coming days that will trail him into his post-presidency and far into the afterlife.
    The U.S. president’s political epitaph will carry the legacy of two upcoming votes in the House of Representatives, including on impeachment in the fallout of last week’s mob attack on the U.S. Capitol that he’s accused of inspiring.

    1. Yes, because treasonous progressives despise him. Not because he did anything bad. The people creating these false narratives are pure evil, and are terrified of Trump.

      More proof the left must be destroyed.

      1. The left lives in an alternate reality where the U.S. is a Democratic National Socialist country — and we all know what a disaster Trump has been for that country… They just haven’t faced the reality that the USA isn’t that alternative but instead a Constitutional Republic.

  7. There was no insurrection.
    There was no incitement.
    Other than that, go for it.

    1. Agree, but it was disgusting at best.

      1. Signal that virtue.

    2. Charlie Manson: There was no insurrection.
      There was no incitement. Why did he get life in prison? Go for it.

      1. Oh, I don’t know – maybe, just maybe, because of the actual criminal convictions for seven counts of first degree murder and conspiracy?

    3. Well, I think there was definitely incitement. Imagine if you walked up to someone of diminished mental capacity and said “Someone is about to go shoot your wife and kids! Oh, and there’s the guy right there (pointing at someone down the street). You’re the only one who can do anything about it, and _this_ is the _last_ chance you’ll have to stop him”. I think you’d certainly be responsible for inciting any violence that ensued. Compare this with Trump, pointing down Pennsylvania Ave at the Capitol, telling thousands of dead-enders that the Senate is minutes away from sealing the fate of their guns, religious freedom, and any hope for a new American greatness.

      As far as “insurrection” goes, I didn’t think so at the time I was watching it, but I then asked myself “If this _wasn’t_ an attempt to destroy the democratic process in the U.S., then what _would_ an anti-democratic insurrection in the U.S. _look_ like?”. I don’t think we’d see something like we see in banana republics, with half of the army fighting the other half (even though it’s starting to look like some of the police may have been less than enthusiastic about holding off the rioters, and the Pentagon may have been deliberately sluggish in sending support, perhaps to see if the situation might actually bear fruit… in the minds of generals who regard Dems as anti-military).
      No… too many Americans take pride in our democracy for a “I lost the election but it’s imperative that I stay in power” type of coup to work. The only way to do it is to assert that the democracy that is so precious to us has been _lost_, and must be reestablished. Just today, I read an article about a history prof who was fired after live-streaming his participation in the invasion. His defense, of course, was “Hey, it was all just light-hearted fun. We weren’t _serious_” (which is right out of the Daily Stormer style guide, by the way). But, in a way, he _was_ serious. He might not have had the intention of taking senators hostage, but some individuals _were_. And, once those senators got taken as hostages, I’m betting this guy would have thought to himself “Hey… this could turn out well for us”. He wouldn’t have suddenly said that things had gone too far, and the senators need to be released to finish the certification. So, he _was_ serious about wanting to see our democracy (in its current state) disregarded… he just wasn’t serious about how much _he_ was willing to risk for it.
      Anyway, long story short… I think there’s the argument to be made that it was in insurrection.

      1. Can the same argument be made for the much longer occupation during the Kavanaugh hearings? How about the attempt at disrupting the Kavanaugh swearing in?

        Remember how that was widely discussed is insurrection across the media? I mean, nobody got shot by the police. but I’m not sure that getting shot by the police is something you can entirely put on the demonstrators. At least, that’s not what we’ve been going with of late.

        It looked exactly like what it was, a bunch of idiots run around LARPing. They weren’t even a two on a scale of one to antifa. Yet somehow this is the greatest threat the republic has ever known?

      2. As far as “insurrection” goes, I didn’t think so at the time I was watching it, but I then asked myself “If this _wasn’t_ an attempt to destroy the democratic process in the U.S., then what _would_ an anti-democratic insurrection in the U.S. _look_ like?”.

        Well, for one thing, it would involve arresting most of the political opposition–which means sending real cops or soldiers, or at least people with enough training to act like real cops or soldiers, not a bunch of clowns in buffalo skins and horn helmets. It would involve seizing the broadcast media, and either shutting down or taking control of the Internet in order to block the opposition from using it to organize resistance. It would involve putting troops on the street to intimidate the populace, and to enforce a curfew and a ban on demonstrations. (Hmm, we seem to have something like that, but it isn’t Trump who has imposed it.)

        What you would not do is tell people that you expect them to act “peacefully and patriotically.”

      3. Holy crap! You just described practically every politician that ever lived.

        Should Bernie Sanders be thrown in jail for the guy who shot up a baseball field filled with Republican law makers?

        You know, if a politician is threatening to throw grandma off a cliff or spew toxins in the air and water, what is the acceptable response? After all, grandma and your children’s lives are at stake!! You might just have to take matters into your own hands!!

  8. Federal buildings were attacked this summer in riots also claimed to be similarly indirectly encouraged by political leaders. I would be okay if we called for everyone one of them to be tarred alongside Trump.

    1. Funny thing – BLM’s peaceful protesters lifted “violence is the speech of the unheard” from MLK to justify their riots dignified, peaceful protests.

      With the attack on Parler,, what do they think is coming their way?

    2. That’d be a fair trade, IMO.

    3. Actually kamala Harris and maxiene waters and aoc actively encouraged that

      1. Their hearts were in the right place

    4. Then 90% of the government is canceled for doing black face?

    5. Not a very good comparison…no one person could stop the summer riots. Trump could have halted it within minutes, he didn’t even try, only giving a speech telling them they were good people. His speech at the rally would be overwhelming evidence against anyone who wasn’t President. The President can only be punished by the Congress and the voting public.

      1. “His speech at the rally would be overwhelming evidence against anyone who wasn’t President.”


      2. ? Well, I suppose.

        But it certainly took more than one person to create them. There were a slew of Democrat officials who told police not to intervene. there were dozens of Democrat prosecutors who promised not to prosecute anyone for doing violence in the name of all that is holy and progressive. There were also the same cohort of Democrat prosecutors who promised to prosecute anyone who stood in their way. And actually did prosecute such people.

        Then there are the political leaders. You know, the ones who could have called for peace. The same ones who stood up and said there should not be peace. The ones who said that businesses should be burned down.

        So yeah, it’s exactly the same thing. one guy said nothing about doing anything violent, doing any property damage, or even disrupting a meeting. The others actively encouraged violence through their actions and their words, for many months at a time, even after many people were killed. One was a developing situation that happened away from the location of the speech, where nobody could have possibly made it to the capital if they stayed to hear the speech, and nobody actually at the site of the riot could have heard anything he said to mollify them.

        Sure, I see the equivalence…

        I mean, Trump could have easily halted everything within minutes by speaking to a group of people who were nowhere near him via secret means. Perhaps if he had told people to go home. Oh wait…

      3. Trump could have halted it within minutes,

        said dbruce without evidence.

        1. ^RIGHT; The left has it in there heads Trump supporters are a [WE] POWER mob. In all actuality they are American Patriots trying to save the Constitutional Union of Republican States from a [WE] mob trying to install a Democratic National Socialism.

          They’re so wrapped up in their [WE] mob theology they cannot distinguish the difference of who Trump is as a person and what policy he represents. In their minds; They figure if they can destroy the [WE] mob leader then Principles in the Constitution will fall with it.

        2. Yes, to my mind that’s a ludicrous assumption. These fools were almost certainly on their own trajectory at that point. They felt lied to, manipulated and ignored by “establishment elites” for so long (not an untrue belief on many fronts) that Trump was almost incidental that day.

  9. “Insurrection”? Really? I didn’t vote for Trump, but Sullum needs to check into a TDS clinic, fast.

  10. But I’m not sure this is a can of worms we want to open.

    Seriously people, they’ve gotten to Sullum. He’s got to be doing this against his will. Someone needs to get in touch with the hostage rescue team at Quantico before it’s too late.

    1. I can’t decide if it is normal ‘Libertarians acting as the opponents of the current regime’ that is going on with him or if we’ve finally found Reason’s ‘bridge too far.’

  11. If Trump were really disqualified by this act from running again, it would really set up a Constitutional crisis. Imagine he enters the primaries in 2024 and starts winning. What would the Democrats do? Since they’ve spent years moaning about the E.C. and voter suppression being ‘undemocratic’ would they really want to thwart the will of the voters?

    1. would they really want to thwart the will of the voters?


      1. They wouldn’t even be capable of feeling ashamed about it.

      2. It’s not enough to abandon Trump, Cocaine Mitch and his fellow establishment Republicans can’t fall on their knees fast enough to the Democrats. Read all about it online at Foxnews, the authorized online news source for conservatives (for now):

    2. By then, automatic universal mail-in ballots will be in place throughout the battleground states and the GOP will never hold the presidency again. They won’t be able to compete with urban ballot harvesting.

      1. Ballot printer go brrrrrrrrr… 🙂

  12. “Trial by combat”! Yeah yeah, I know, Trump didn’t say that. But, guilty by association, right. America’s Injustice System loves guilt by association so lock him up, lock him up, lock him up!

  13. We’ve come to the point were insurrection/sedition, like high crimes and misdemeanors, is now a political, not legal, question.

    1. Wasn’t it always?


    House Democrats have drafted an article of impeachment that accuses President Trump of “incitement to insurrection.” Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said Thursday that his office is “looking at all actors here and anyone that had a role” in the Capitol riot. Some reporters have construed that as including Mr. Trump.

    The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

    Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”

    In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.” This language is based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment. The justices held that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s calls for violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech. The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”

    The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

    District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.

    The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.

    Mr. Shapiro served as an assistant attorney general of the District of Columbia, 2007-09. He is a White House appointed official at the U.S. Agency for Global Media.

    1. Sullum’s TDS has gotten even worse than TDS cases among left wing propagandists at CNN, MSNBC, Daily Beast, NYT, WaPo, NPR, Huffington Post, etc.

      What will happen to the TDS pandemic (which is far more harmful for America than the covid) after Trump’s presidency ends?

      1. Anything bad that happens in the future will refer back to Trump as the cause.

  15. The president of the United States is being denied his 1a rights in violation of the constitution , in an act of sedition, by those he is accusing of rigging the election.

    I can’t wait for this to go to court.

    1. Those of you who think private media property rights allow the sitting president to be censored must think either

      1. To be heard the president must say what private media owners want.


      2. A fully taxpayer funded government news public broadcasting and social media network is required.

      1. Oh boy, two kinds of propaganda.

    2. Let me help you, here. Imagine that Twitter is a Christian cake shop and Trump is a gay wedding cake. Does that help you untangle the 1a issue?

      1. Free speech, not cakes, is an inalienable right.

        Which is it for you, 1 or 2? The president needs to address the population.

    1. It’s the Seattle Times. You could go back and compare this to their coverage of the local unrest this Summer.

    2. I’m still not convinced it wasn’t.

    3. Politi”Fact”
      Claim: BLM riots injured 1000 officers.
      Fact: DOJ only reports 700 officers injured during the George Floyd protests.
      Claim: 30 people were killed.
      Fact: News reports indicate 12-19 people were injured during the George Floyd protests.
      Claim: $8B in damages were done by BLM.
      Fact: Numbers aren’t in, but the record is $1.4B during the LA Riots. Some people think the protests might surpass that number.

      Mitigating factors: Both facts and BLM are nebulous things so…
      Conclusion: *No proof* that the claims are true.

      So, a broad statement with no conditionals has *no* proof because when we artifically choose one specific event that falls under the umbrella of the broader statement, we only arrive at ~70% of the numbers claimed.

      1. I just love the media take on this. We pivoted from Fuck The Police to our Brave, Brave peace officers standing between America and the Forces of Chaos.

        1. And shooting unarmed people.

  16. Sullum, why couldn’t you name or link the Cori Bush resolution attempting to expel duly elected members in this article? Don’t want to highlight the overt attempts by the left? Weird you left it out when you have a full paragraph about the issue.

  17. It is crystal clear that Donald Trump intended for his followers to go over to the Capitol and flood the galleries and halls and shout and scream and bellow until VP Pence and members of Congress bowed to his will and illegally declared him re-elected to a second term. Installing a man as head of state of the United States in violation of the terms of the constitution sounds like sedition to me.

    Jake, like many other semi-hemi-demi critics of Trump want to deplore him a lot, but not do anything substantive, frequently falling back on the “Trump sincerely believed that X”, as if “sincere belief” were a get out of jail free card, which it isn’t. Furthermore, Trump doesn’t “sincerely believe” anything other than that he is entitled to anything he wants. His statements do not reflect beliefs of any sort, but are simply tools to obtain what he wants.

    1. Which of Trumps words or actions make it ‘crystal clear’ that was his intention?
      What makes you keen to his intentions?

      1. What makes you keen to his intentions?

        It’s what he would do if the positions were reversed.

        1. He would send in a couple hundred civilians to stage a coup? That was his entire plan to be reinstalled as President?

          Alan isn’t too bright is he?

    2. Can you link the crystal clear statement? because your imagination isn’t clear to anyone else.

      1. Why do you care what happens to Trump? Even before this he was on the hook for more crimes than you can count and is seeing his lifetime of useless preening with other people’s money fall apart. It’s not going to end well for him.

        Whatever his intentions that day, relentlessly calling for the overturning of the election is what he did and what you did too. That’s sedition even if they hadn’t tried to murder Congress.

          1. Yeah, first they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing, because I’m not a Nazi.

            Oh well. I’m an American. We kill Nazis.

            1. Actually, we defend their free-speech rights. Or at least, we used to, just as we used to defend the rights of Communists, Scientologists, Moonies, NAMBLA spokesmen, and others we didn’t like.

              But Tony wants to kill them. And no doubt thinks that *Trump* is inciting violence.

              1. We defend the rights of people whose rights need defending. Nazis are rather ascendant right now. I’m worried about all the various and sundry types of people they like to mass murder.

                1. Tony’s complete lack of self awareness never ceases to amaze me.

            2. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one. You couldn’t find your own asshole with both hands and a flashlight Tony.

        1. I don’t really care about Trump. I hope he exits the scene quickly.

          What I care about is justice. I care about what this Congress is planning to do within the next two years.
          I’m concerned that these claims of sedition and conspiracy will only expand if they think it’s successful.

          1. It was probably pretty retarded to attack the people who write the laws and miss, huh?

    3. Last I checked, round about this summer, encouraging followers to protest in order to influence congress isn’t illegal. Screaming isn’t illegal, and encouraging people to scream and disrupt proceedings isn’t illegal. If this is the standard we want to set going forward, there are a whole lot of congress members who should be very worried about their actions over the last four years, because the pendulum always swings.

      1. The FBI isn’t inventing any new laws, and we don’t need any.

    4. So were the Democratic Representatives that voted against certification of the electoral college in 2001, 2005 and 2017? Or any the ones who shared #resiat, #notmypresident, #illigetinatepresident also guilty of sedition?

      1. I agree that life would be simpler if Republicans weren’t terrible cheaters with no good ideas except that they deserve power.

        1. Life would be simpler, more peaceful, and more prosperous if petty tyrants like you weren’t running around thinking you know how everyone else should live their lives. The common delusion between all of your type is that you take the place of God, molding the peasant masses into a perfect form like clay. You never expect to have to live in the mud with the rest of the unwashed after the glorious revolution.

  18. “George Mason law professor Ilya Somin disagrees, because “high government officials don’t have a First Amendment right to be protected from firing based on their political views.””

    Funny, I don’t seem to read that in the Constitution. Also, it’s one thing to talk about firing the head of an agency. It’s quite another to compare that to impeachment. Basically, Somin is suggesting you can impeach somebody for disagreeing with their politics; which clearly is non-sense.

    1. Head of an agency – appointed.
      President and/or members of congress – elected.

      Is Somin really this stupid? Could you imagine a President losing both the house and senate, then simply getting impeached because of political views? This is your brain. This is your brain on TDS.

    2. Congress can impeach for whatever it wants to, it’s a political power, not a judicial power.

      I’m quite comfortable that the constitution gave congress the power to ultimately prevail in any showdown with either the executive or judicial branches, but of course congress needs to be overwhelmingly united to do so, simple majorities won’t do the trick.

  19. While alleging abuse of power or manifest unfitness for office unmoored to specific constitutional or statutory violations also creates a risk of unjustified, politically driven impeachments, the requirement of a Senate supermajority for removal is a pretty good safeguard against that danger. And the latter approach does not open the door to casting out senators or representatives based on differences of opinion.

    But “casting out senators or representatives based on differences of opinion” is, I suspect, the real point of this. It’s not really about “defeating Trump” anymore, it’s about getting rid of anyone they don’t like. Which is what they’ve wanted to do for a long time, they just think now they have a pretext for doing it. The idea that this could be used against in the future never crosses their tiny little minds.

  20. As relevant here, Section 3 says “no person” may “hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,” who, “having previously taken an oath as…an officer of the United States…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.”

    So Swalwell’s head is on the chopping block too? Or are vague groups of upset citizens enemies of the State but Chinese spies not?

  21. Did Trump Engage in ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’ Against the Constitution?

    Not nearly enough for my satisfaction!

    1. The Rules!

      1. If you listen to fools…The mob rules

        1. Let’s try that again: The mob rules

    2. The sad thing is some courts have used section 230 to cover for contractual breach by tech, so I don’t hold out hope for lawsuits, for what are clearly contractual breaches, such as what occurred with Parler. Not sure what GoDaddy’s policy is on deplatdforming and how much notice you must be given, but 24 hours seems a bit short.
      And for those who saw mention 230, no I am not using this to advocate to overturn 230, just stating the courts have in some cases given to broad an interpretation of the protections it provides. Taking it beyond simple liability protections and applying it to areas, such as contract law, in which it doesn’t apply.

  22. The Democrats cannot help themselves from gilding the lily by overcharging the offense.

  23. “…shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”

    Not guilty

  24. No, giving a speech is not insurrection (lol). Giving a speech that in no way shape or form urged the listeners to ransack the capital building is not insurrection.

    This whole thing is political theater from a bunch of hysterical morons.

  25. hey were not; they were manifestly outrageous and irresponsible.

    Sorry but they were no different than myriad examples you can find from other populists like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren and countless civil rights activists addressing crowds at demonstration.

    They were not, in any way, “manifestly outrageous and irresponsible”. You have to be a complete partisan nutjob to think that.

  26. To the left not wearing a mask makes you a serial killer. So yeah in their eyes sure Trump is fomenting rebellion. You see how their language changed as soon as they were the ones on the receiving end.

    Mostly though I think they were shocked, it was their 30 seconds over Tokyo moment when they realized people really do not like them and could actually touch the anointed and sacred scrolls of power. Apparently the polls didn’t tell them much of value.

  27. All the Democrat senators who objected to the Trump vote certification in 2016 will be impeached next, right?

    1. No because Trump was a danger and it was the right thing to do, per Tony the other day.

  28. So here’s something from an otherwise pretentious, snotty article from Yahoo that caught my eye. I highlighted the relevant items in bold:

    We all saw the images: threatening notes left on computers, the House Speaker’s computer screen unlocked with email open, MAGA terrorists looting — and taking electronic items yet to be identified. Reports, with probably more to come, of laptops stolen from the offices of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Jeff Merkley. Now there are as-yet unconfirmed reports that several classified laptops were stolen during the mob’s assault on the Capitol — left open and logged onto the classified SIPRNet network.

    Niprnet stuff is going to be an easy target anyway, because it’s always left out. But for god’s sake, Nancy can’t even pull her own CAC out of the card reader to lock her computer up? And what they hell are you doing leaving siprnet items out in the open, unlocked? You can’t even take the time to pull your sipr token and take it with you, and unplug the laptop and CIK key and drop them in your GSA safe?

    This is simple infosec shit that should be automatic. No wonder one of their party operatives fell victim to a basic-bitch phishing attempt.

    1. She is a leader in the same party as Hillary Clinton. Security rules are for the little people.

    2. If she were in the service she would be facing an article 15 at the least, more likely a courts martial and criminal charges.

  29. The thing about Amendment 14, Section 3 is it can be invoked in any proceeding where a person’s right to hold office is at stake.

    Congress in sec. 14 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 provided for *quo warranto* suits to remove people who held non-legislative offices for violating Article 3.

    Section 3 is self-executing, therefore, the moment the official commits an act of insurrection he loses his office.

    So under the House’s theory, Trump lost his office pursuant to Section 3, meaning he’s no longer President, meaning he’s back to being a private citizen and thus immune from impeachment.

    QED, you loonies.

    1. He’s welcome to make it clear that he’s no longer president. Unfortunately that language doesn’t come with any enforcement mechanism.

      Pelosi’s stated goal is to remove him from office before he causes any more damage, by whatever legal means are available. Understandable since he sent an angry mob to assassinate her.

      1. As the philosopher Sevo likes to say, your cite fell off.

        1. I saw it happen on TV. What, have they not played the video on FOX News yet? Are they perhaps too busy reporting on the latest gang arrest out of Chicago PD.

          You gotta get right with facts because facts are about to come back in vogue.

          1. Yeah, where’s the video where he tells people to assassinate anyone?

            1. Trump is a mob boss. You never implicate yourself. You talk in code. Code like “I hope Mike Pence comes through for us, I have to tell you. I hope that our great vice president, our great vice president comes through for us. He’s a great guy, because if he doesn’t come through, I won’t like him quite as much.”

              He is an incredibly stupid mob boss of course.

              Refusing to accept the outcome of the election is sedition enough in my book even without all the violence it caused.

              1. So when Trump said he expected his followers to act “peacefully and patriotically,” those with the secret decoder ring knew that he was really saying, “Burn the motherfucker down.”

                Apparently Tony was one of those with that secret decoder ring, as well as a minority of those attending the Save America rally. And some who weren’t even there, but were already at the Capitol preparing to make trouble.

                1. I can’t tell if you’re defending Trump or his violent mob. Either way he caused it by lying about the election.

                  A little more time spent reading books would have helped a lot of those people too.

              2. You never implicate yourself.

                Similarly, people who don’t want to start an insurrection also don’t implicate themselves by directly calling for insurrection.

                I get it: Trump’s craftiest trick is to act like he isn’t guilty of the crimes we know he commits. The nerve!

                1. Trump’s problem is that, apparently, you can’t commit normal crimes while president, so after four years he has lost all sense of being incentivized to stay just on this side of the law, since he doesn’t have a moral core of his own.

                  1. Let me guess: once Joe Biden is president, we’ll have to be constantly on the alert, lest Snowball Trump comes back?

                    1. Mitch McConnell wants him impeached and convicted so that he can’t.

                      Frankly I’m torn. I wanted Trump to be the face of the GOP for at least a couple more years until his dementia made him unable to speak even in his current broken English. Oh well. He came through in the end on the old terrible PR front, didn’t he?

                    2. You can try.

                      I remember when Nixon destroyed the Republican Party.

                      Do you remember what happened 6 years later?

                    3. Evil never sleeps, but Trump makes Nixon look like a girl scout.

                    4. Supporting segregation didn’t kill the democrat party.

                      But hey, maybe it will happen this time. Cross your fingers.

                    5. But the segregationist wing of the Democratic party did die. They became Republicans.

                    6. Actually, a lot of them were forgiven for the sake of their political power and actually just died.

                      I’m sure Republicans will just vanish, though.

                2. Are we at 5th-D chess then?

          2. Since when do you care about facts? Even in this case you are cherry picking and ignoring exculpatory facts.

  30. I see the word “insurrection” being bandied about and have to laugh.

    The reason for this is the answer to the question “What would have happened if the House hadn’t evacuated?”

    The answer? A whole lot of nothing. A bunch of yahoos who listen to too much talk radio aren’t going to hurt anybody. The charge is stupid.

    As for the idiot in chief, he is definitely to blame, but he didn’t do it on purpose. He failed to realize how much his followers have bought into his lies.

    1. Fuck off White Knight

    2. Five people are dead and there were live bombs found. There’s a $50,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the person or persons who planted the bombs.

      This was one bad turn away from being a massacre. It was worse than it even looked initially.

      And they’re not done. We wouldn’t want to look foolish downplaying this while they are still actively plotting massacres of government officials.

      Here’s a tip for anyone joining a cause. If the neo-Nazis are your militant wing, you’re probably on the wrong side.

      1. Bombs that were not deployed. These “massacres” exist only in the minds of Hannity fans who drink too much Coors.

        As far as joining a cause goes, you’ve got literal communists in your camp. You sure you want to be toasting marshmallows with idiots who believe that shit will work despite all the horrors it has brought?

        1. I don’t have to defend any supposed militant wing of the left, and I certainly don’t have to defend Mao and Stalin, before I can talk about what’s going on right now. Everyone knows communism is a red herring.

          Trump is more like Stalin than any silly leftist college student. We don’t condemn authoritarian regimes because they cared too much about the economic well-being of workers and peasants. We condemn the authoritarianism and brutality. If any of the total 5,000 communists in the United States looks like a threat to get one of them elected president or otherwise take over the government, you’ll be the first to know.

          1. Trump is a game show host. A narcissist. He got a taste of political power and wants to keep it, but not by violent means. He’s not the second coming of Stalin, and he’s certainly not a leftist.

            He’s a bombastic buffoon. Nothing more. And he’ll be quickly forgotten by everyone except the nutters who think he’s a great leader and the nutters who think he’s the devil.

            1. Stalin and Hitler were also buffoons with mental illness and/or drug problems. From a certain point of view, the problem was letting crazy people have too much power.

              Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a psychopathic bloodlust. He openly advocating leaving “blue states” to be overrun by pandemic.

              If there were no stupid buffoons, there would’ve be fascists.

              1. Sorry about typos. My phone is haunted today.

              2. He’s got no bloodlust at all. How many troops did he bring home? How many new conflicts did he get our military into?

                As far as the “pandemic” goes, that’s a different conversation. Specifically the difference between people dying “with” and dying “from’ the disease. Government numbers say “with” and media says “from.” Pretty nuts when the government is more honest than the media.

                1. I’m tired of explaining that Trump bombed more civilians than Obama. And repeating his own campaign. words “You have to target the families.”

                  Trump as pacifist is as big a myth as Trump as genius businessman. I guess we can count ourselves lucky that he was too concerned with his own Twitter addiction to start any actual new wars.

                  Don’t give me covid denial lies please. I can’t handhold your way through every goddamn thing.

                  1. I’m not invested so I’m not going to argue.

          2. We don’t condemn authoritarian regimes because they cared too much about the economic well-being of workers and peasants. We condemn the authoritarianism and brutality.

            The authoritarianism and brutality comes as a direct result of the communist ideology. People who believe in generally leaving people alone to act freely don’t go mad with power and start filling mass graves. Communism is a totalizing ideology which requires mass intimidation and violence to enforce.

            If any of the total 5,000 communists in the United States looks like a threat to get one of them elected president or otherwise take over the government, you’ll be the first to know.

            Whatever you’re on, I want some for my weekend parties. There are more than 5,000 communists in Portland alone.

            1. There have been lots of genocides in history, only a few caused by communists. Also, I have nothing good to say about the theory of communism, so I don’t even know why it’s being brought up. How in the holy fuck is it remotely relevant to anything?

              Bring up the Nazi’s genocide or the Rwandan one and then we’ll be talking about a political ideology that’s relevant to today’s news. We are not having a famine.

              1. We don’t condemn authoritarian regimes because they cared too much about the economic well-being of workers and peasants.

                I have nothing good to say about the theory of communism

                If you weren’t a lying hypocrite, you’d have no characteristics at all. You keep on being you, Tony. No one else would want to.

                1. Well, let me be clear. I support neither the theory of communism nor past authoritarian regimes that claimed to be applying it.

                  I also do not support vicious right-wing goobers using fear of phantom communism as a manipulation tool for their own terrible ends. Not now and not 70 years ago when they were doing the same thing.

                  I’m generally opposed to evil whatever its form. You?

  31. Apparently Trump watched with psychopathic glee as the storming happened, too glued to the TV to notice calls from Republicans in Congress to please call off his angry mob. Some offered to vote to overturn the election if he would call of the attack, in fear for their lives.

    Republicans in Congress sure thought Trump was leading a rebellion.

    Can of worms. Wouldn’t want to open any of those.

    1. Interesting. I read that he got pissed off because he saw the political backlash coming.

      1. He’s gonna need a better lawyer.

    2. Interesting. Where did you read this? Any names you can remember?

    3. Because the series of events look like an effort by the President to enlist an organized group of people’s assistance on behalf of his re-election, then the matter should be impeached so that the record of whatever it really happens to be becomes an official record.

      Otherwise, President Trump would be remembered by history to some as a protegee of Jefferson Davis, to hear an alternative narrative weigh-in, who resigned his responsibilities to lead a coup.

  32. Has anyone at Unreason thought about Senate procedure, post-impeachment vote from the House, while they bray like asses for impeachment? Didn’t think so.

    Once the House impeaches, it is a full stop. The Senate must conduct the trial. Everything stops. No nominees. No hearings. No legislation. The trial preparation, and trial itself could take weeks and weeks. And with a debt ceiling vote coming up in July, I see a lot of time-killing votes.

    The legislative agenda of His Fraudulency just grinds to a halt. Throw in some lawsuits challenging policy changes based on APA, maybe a nationwide injunction or two. Yeah, I’m good with that.

    In two years, the House will be in Team R hands.

    1. The Senate is not in session, and will not be again until after inauguration day.

      At that point the articles are moot.

      And this temper tantrum ends.

      1. Disqualification from holding future federal office — an authorized penalty upon conviction — does not become moot.

        1. Can you even impeach someone that is no longer in office?

  33. If Trump is an insurrectionist he stands on the shoulders of giants like Washington, Jefferson and Franklin!

    1. And they earned their place in history by whining a lot about the unfairness.

      No wait, they had to win a war first. Trump’s making war against what they made, so who do you hope wins that?

      1. If Trump is a whiner he stands on the shoulders of giants like Pelosi, Schumer and Schiff!

        1. Hahaha

      2. What our founders made does not exist in any meaningful way. It was eroded by time, as all things are, and now we live among its dust. Whoever wants to sweep up is good in my book.

        1. It certainly doesn’t contain all the slavery they protected. Took a bit of effort, that one.

          1. Trump’s making war against what they made, so who do you hope wins that?

            Implying that our founders and the country they made were good.

            It certainly doesn’t contain all the slavery they protected. Took a bit of effort, that one.

            Implying that our founders and the country they made were terrible. Keep on being a lying, hypocritical weasel, Tony. It’s what we’ve all come to expect of you.

            1. Like everything else, it was a little good and a little bad. What, are you not an adult or something?

              1. Just pointing out the obvious. That you’re a fucking shapeshifter in arguments and you can never stick to a single point.

                “Trump is evil because he’s warring against our founders’ beautiful Republic that we should all hold sacred. Oh, you do hold it sacred but think it’s decayed? Well let me dunk on you by pointing out that they were slavers and we should all say good riddance to what they built. Oh you think I’m being inconsistent? Then you obviously don’t understand that nuance exists, you intellectual child.”

                You argue dishonestly like this every time you post.

    2. The only shoulders Trump stands on are those of Simon Cowell and Alex Trebek.

      1. Those guys are great too!

  34. “They were not; they were manifestly outrageous and irresponsible.”

    Then you go on to explain why they were not.

    TDS is more rampant than covid….

  35. The joint chiefs are now calling it sedition. Mitch McConnell thinks Trump is impeachable.

    Of course, it’s Mitch, so his reasoning is that the Republican Party can rid itself of its big orange problem while Democrats take the blame.

    Always calculating. Yet Kentucky remains a shithole.

  36. This article would at least be interesting, if it established some sort of standard that Sullum was actually committed to, and willing to apply to others.

    But, given that this is Sullum speaking about Trump, we all know the rules for anyone else will be different.

  37. “Did Trump Engage in ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’ Against the Constitution?”

    The short answer is yes.

    1. Funny I haven’t seen any video of him inside the Capitol. I have seen Antifa members.

      1. That’s because you get your news from Gateway Pundit.

        Jesus Christ most of you are at least smart enough to admit where you get your bullshit from.

        1. Wait…. You saw video of Trump at the capital?

          1. Just in tattoo form.

            1. So you admit it’s not BS.

  38. This is what happens when your team takes power. You do know that right? People constantly fed a diet of “government is the problem.” How big of a problem was that? Big enough to dispense with democracy? That’s what I heard for a long time. There are few big fans of maximum enfranchisement among libertarians. Voting is not a freedom that gets much ink here, huh?

    Reason should think less about how much it’s hurting Donald Trump’s feelings and more about what it has contributed to this movement.

    Think about what you gain if you reckon with all of your bad ideas. Those cocktail parties you “didn’t want to go to anyway”? All of mainstream media and science and academia you think are wrong about basic facts of reality? Turns out humanity’s top experts do know stuff better than shock jocks pushing My Pillows. Don’t let the clouds opening blind you too much.

    Suddenly the world will make so much more sense. In terms of things to be worried about, you’ll have to swap out scary blacks in Portland for climate change, but you know, we do make good cocktails. With those big cubes of ice that don’t drown the drink too fast.

    1. I don’t live within 2,000 miles of Portland why would I be worried about scary blacks there? For all I care they can burn it to the ground. I hope they do. The people there deserve it.

      1. There aren’t any blacks in Portland. Those are stupid honkies burning down their own town. But yeah, let them. They deserve it.

        1. What do people who attacked the US Capitol deserve?

          1. I would at least think they get a chance to burn it down with no interruptions, for the sheer equality of it all.

    2. Hey Tony, eat a bag of dicks.

        1. Tony is in touch with his inner Armin Meiwes.

    3. Yes, government remains the problem.

      You do not comprehend what you approve of so thoughtlessly.

      Hire a fellow, theoretically, to pronounce government being the problem, repeating this stance in public view 365 day per year. Her opinion changes nothing; there is nothing to act on.

      But the greater cause so delivered occurs on any occasion that government becomes the problem, precisely as anyone else who should be equal under law becomes the problem on any specific occasion.

      IMO, the better view would be the needful view over the omniscient one.

  39. I always remind my kids not to film yourself doing anything stupid. I guess these d-bags had dumb parents?

    1. My favorite little boomerang of stupidity is how they didn’t wear masks because they are big strong truth tellers and covid is a myth, forgetting that there’s a good reason to wear a mask when you’re committing a crime on TV.

  40. “Did Trump Engage in ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’ Against the Constitution?” Yes. Open that can. Should be a fun next few years for the traitors, including all you fucking authoritarian QAnon MAGA Trump worshippers bowing before your manly orange god posing as libertarians.

  41. There is nothing in Trump’s speech or actions that would justify impeachment and conviction. Of course, if your aim is to start a war (a civil war) I guess any place is as good as another.

  42. Time for the inquisition. Send all Trump supporters to the gulags. 75 million of them. We must purge all insurrectionists. But BLM and Antifa, they fought for a good cause. They get a pass

    1. PBS Principal Counsel saying Republican children should be sent to reeducation camps. You can’t make this stuff up.

      1. “These people are soooo hateful and constantly projecting their vile beliefs on conservatives.”

        This is what you morons think is journalism.

        1. Ad hominem. The last resort of those with no argument.

          1. You mean I can’t use ad hominem because I’m not a registered Gateway Pundit journalist.

            1. Journalists aren’t registered. The 1st amendment applies to everyone. Moron.

      2. Yet Trump is the kooky one.

        Like this guy wasn’t wearing it on his sleeve.

        Chief counsel

        Guaranteed Reason ignores this.

        1. He was at least one of PBS’s lawyers.

          Emphasis on the “was” – a search indicates that he either quit or was fired after this was exposed.

  43. Did Trump Engage in ‘Insurrection or Rebellion’ Against the Constitution?

    No. Next question?

  44. Leftists keep pushing, oblivious to their fragility.

    Question: what do you think would happen if Trump just said
    “Fuck it, they’re going to accuse me of trying to incite a rebellion no matter what I/we do. Might as well explicitly call for a no-holds-barred revolution.”

    Would you like that, leftists?
    You psychotics keep telling the world we’re monsters and acting against us as such, we may just decide to live up to your fantasy.
    What the hell do we have to lose anyway?

    1. I would like that. Nobody is under the delusion that all of your tacit threats aren’t exactly what they seem.

      “You wouldn’t want to be divisive, would you?”

      Have your rebellion. The US Armed Forces will be controlled by Joe Biden in a week. Think you can beat them?

  45. The Supreme Court of Italy Trial of a whistleblower sat in an Italian court of law yesterday and admitted that he uploaded changes to the US election via an uplink satellite throught a us contractor Leonardo. 100’s of whistleblowers have come forward signed a witnesses affadavit under penalty of perjury and jail sentence that there was in fact election fraud. How in the hell do the citizens of the US just turn their nose up at this? The failure of the Supreme Court to take this case goes back to Justice Roberts refusing the case. Why did he do so? What skeletons does he have in his closet. As far as I’m concerned without clean elections in the country this website serves no purpose. The GOP member Brian Kemp and Arizona Gov Doug Ducey are heavily involved in the corruption.

  46. Pelosi just named Swalwell as impeachment manager.

    A guy who was literally getting screwed by a Chinese intelligence agent, and had to be warned off by US intelligence is being made the face of this effort.

    At least the Chicoms know they are getting their money’s worth.

  47. That would be impossible. Trump was not alive when the Constitution was written and alleged to be a contract among those dead people.

  48. Arguing that a crime isn’t technically necessary in impeachment is what you do when you have no actual legal argument. The language of the constitution makes clear that to impeach a president, criminal-like behavior akin to bribery or treason must be proven. The senate is literally a court which is conducting a trial about a criminal-like accusation to possibly convict an individual. Thus, the senate must use law and precedent since literally all courts use precedent when making decisions.

    To prove that the senate is literally a court, the constitution provides the following quote: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury.” Thus, impeachment IS a “trial of a crime”. Furthermore, the constitution says that, after impeachment, the convicted will be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment.” This implies that the convicted must have done something such that they will be “subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment.” In other words, the convicted must have done a crime or something very akin to a crime which would lead to further legal proceedings.

    Furthermore, the constitution explicitly defines treason as a high-crime and defines what treason is. Thus, to impeach someone for treason, you must use the standard of treason in the constitution. This standard of treason also applies against all other people in the United States. Anyone can be convicted of treason. This implies that the same standards used for general criminal trials against normal people should be used in impeachments. This also establishes that the senate cannot completely ignore standards and impeach based purely on their whim of what they think is abusive or wrong.

    Thus, nearly everything in the constitution points to the fact that impeachment is similar to normal criminal trials and should generally use similar standards. Thus, if we wish to convict Trump of incitement to violence, he should be held to the same standard as everyone else (Brandenburg V. Ohio). This means Trump’s comments are well within the 1A and Trump should be acquitted. Arguing to ignore legal precedent is an excuse. If we don’t follow law and precedent, what do we follow? Pure passion and opinion. Would that be a fair “trial of a crime”? Would that be faithful to the constitution? Saying the senate can impeach without a crime doesn’t mean they SHOULD impeach without a crime.

  49. Following the rule about questions as headlines, I’m gonna say the answer is “No”.

  50. I have noticed that the writers at reason more often than not attempt to rationalize various political factions thoughts and behavior. It doesn’t matter at this point if Trump is guilty of inciting a riot or complicit in an act of insurrection. The goal here is to silence all opposition by any means necessary. Logical consistency has nothing to do with it. I think Reason still has this hope that Biden is going to be some kind of moderate and that we will all revert back to the pre-Trump days and politics as normal. At one point I thought this was a possibility. I no longer share that optimism. There will be no return to normalcy in the foreseeable future. I am actually quite concerned that some very terrible things are on the horizon. I believe that liberty is going to die the death of a thousand cuts and it is going to happen very soon. I hope that I am wrong.

    1. The only terrible things on the horizon are all gonna come from Trumpers.

      Rebellion against the US because of a lie about an election and a stupid-ass conspiracy theory made up by some guy on the internet.

      Extreme lack of any social responsibility during a pandemic.

      Republicans don’t practice any basic duties of citizenship, such as educating themselves about facts in the real world. That’s why they shouldn’t have any power over us. Without their incessant screeching populism and lies, this country could be a pretty decent place.

  51. In spite of all of Trumps faults, there is one thing that his tenure in the white house has unmasked. The political establishment has long been posing as moderates. They are nothing of the sort. They are all charlatans to the last! They have no moral center. They are empty husks posing as people of character. They are self proclaimed leaders but without conviction. I believe we have all suspected this. It has now been laid bare for all to see and it can no longer be denied by any rational person. They must all go or the Republic will fall as it is already foundering.

  52. President Trump surely was not incorrect in supposing his supporters to be innocent until proven guilty, at least going by valid legal premises.

    Any guilty party should had been either in prison or awaiting trial, for example.

  53. Why weren’t democrat politicians impeached for calling Trump the illegitimate President due to “Russia collusion” with his campaign. A total falsehood.
    File this under you reap what you sow. Democrats wanted to illegitimatize Trump’s election, Trump returned the favor.

  54. Why would dems want to burden the Senate with a shit show impeachment trial when they worked so hard to gain control to right the wrongs of the Trump administration? It’s almost as if they’re willing to work against Biden from the start and hamper his agenda however right or wrong it may be.
    Our Politicians in office now are not statesmen. They are unconscionable sociopaths.

    1. If the Senate is occupied with an impeachment trial, then at least their attention will be distracted from packing the Court, admitting DC and Puerto Rico as states, banning semi-automatic firearms, and all the other fun items on the Democratic to-do list.

  55. Why are Democrats so mad at President Trump? If he is responsible for the attack on the Capitol it could not have been better timed and benefited them. Sen. Cruz was in the process of proposing an emergency audit in such a way it would have been extremely hard for Democrats to deny. Shutting it down must have been a relief for them. Strange Trump supporters would take away the last chance President Trump had of getting the audits after months of fighting. Who were they attacking it for? The Democrats benefited greatly and immediately any questions about the irregularities and illegal actions during the election became sedition and even racist and were completely shut down. Doing as the President suggested and allowing Congress to hear the voices of the people sure would have been a much better way. I guess there were people in the crowd that did not want to see what audits would reveal. You do have to admire how it was played.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.