Watching the impeachment trial is like watching a movie when you already know the ending. Trump wins! So get your 🍿 & enjoy!

@BlueMetalChick except the 14th amendment, section 3 says nothing about a simple majority, so that would go to the supreme court.

@TheArbitrator It's without a doubt a majority in the House of Representatives. I think it's also a simple majority in the Senate, although I could be mistaken. It might be 60 votes in the Senate.

Even if it is 60 votes in the Senate, that's still fewer than what's required for impeachment.

@BlueMetalChick It's not without a doubt. Show me where it says all it takes is a simple majority. Firstly, they have failed to prove that Trump was involved in an insurrection. So, you can't just make up your own rules and say this person is guilty therefore disqualified, without having found the person guilty in a court.

@BlueMetalChick If that's the case, any ruling party could always invoke the 14 amendment and prevent a person from running with a simple majority based on their claim that the candidate engaged in insurrection. Congress is not a court.

@TheArbitrator "Firstly, they have failed to prove that Trump was involved in an insurrection. So, you can't just make up your own rules and say this person is guilty therefore disqualified, without having found the person guilty in a court."


Mmmmmm that seems pretty damn clear to me. Even if you say that he didn't start or participate in an insurrection or rebellion, he sure as hell "gave aid or comfort" to the people who were participating in it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who says otherwise, even the people who were causing all the trouble at the capitol building that day. Ask them if Trump was comforting them or giving them aid and they'll emphatically tell you that yes he was.

@BlueMetalChick The first question under Section 3 is who decides whether someone is ineligible. The answer is that a court must determine if someone outside of Congress is subject to the disability. This point was established in cases between 1868 and 1872, in which men who were accused of being ineligible contested that claim in court with full due process of law. In this respect, Section 3 is different from a disqualification from federal office imposed as a sentence for an impeachment conviction. A disqualification sentence from the Senate is final and not, for all intents and purposes, subject to judicial review.

By contrast, Congress cannot simply declare an official outside of that body ineligible under Section 3 without the concurrence of the courts. To hold otherwise would allow simple majorities in Congress to oust federal and state officials without judicial scrutiny and would subvert long-established constitutional principles, such as life tenure for federal judges and the limits of the impeachment process. At most, Congress can exercise its Section 5 enforcement authority under the 14th Amendment to express its considered opinion that certain individuals are ineligible, with the expectation that the courts will accept that opinion under the “congruence and proportionality” standard articulated by the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Boerne v. Flores—assuming that City of Boerne even applies to the enforcement of Section 3.

@TheArbitrator Guy, it says directly in the text of the amendment "president or vice president." If your case is that the 14th Amendment is only used to prevent people from holding office in the Congress, you're out of luck.

@BlueMetalChick It would be up for the courts to decide, not a simple majority of congress. It's already been argued in court

@TheArbitrator Jesus Christ, a majority in the House of Representatives to INVOKE the amendment, not to make the decision. We had to have days worth of congressional argument to decide whether or not we could impeach Trump. THEN it went into trial. Were you thinking I was trying to say that the House and Senate would be the ones doing the trial?

@BlueMetalChick Reread what I posted.

... a court must determine if someone outside of Congress is subject to the disability. This point was established in cases between 1868 and 1872, in which men who were accused of being ineligible contested that claim in court with full due process of law. In this respect, Section 3 is different from a disqualification from federal office imposed as a sentence for an impeachment conviction.

It's not up for congress to decide. There's nothing in there that says a simple majority of congress shall decide ....

@BlueMetalChick You're highly delusional if you think a court is going to find Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection. This impeachment trial is a political spectacle. No court is going to abate the conviction process.

@TheArbitrator A court doesn't need to find him guilty of inciting an insurrection. They would need to find him guilty of providing aid, comfort, or encouragement to an insurrection. It's not a done deal, but that's not too far a shot.

@BlueMetalChick What aid or comfort did Trump provide? Is there any evidence that Trump provided artillery or military help? Did Trump 'engage' in the insurrection? The text doesn't say 'encouragment' so I won't argue a moot point. Congress can make whatever argument they want during the impeachment trial but it gets very technical in court. The burden of proof would be on Democrat managers and it would encompass more than showing videos & Trump's disagreement with the election outcome. There's no chance at all.

@TheArbitrator Instructing people to march down Pennsylvania, saying he loves them, telling them to fight like hell...I wouldn't necessarily call that incitement, but aid? Comfort? Yeah, that I would.

@BlueMetalChick I'm not sure how the courts work in your country but they don't work that way here. In the first place, aid refers to tangible aid, not speech or inspiration. If a musician made a song calling for an attack on government, could that musician be charged with insurrection because some militants are inspired to storm Capitol Hill? Not in the United States. We are a civilized nation; it takes more than circumstantial evidence to convict someone of a crime here. If money or equipment was involved, it would constitute providing aid.

@TheArbitrator In my country? Dude, I'm from Chicago. Are you not from the United States? If so, why are you trying to argue about the impeachment of the American president?

@BlueMetalChick You're from Chicago? Did you attend a public school there? If so, that explains it. 😂

@TheArbitrator No, I didn't, I went to Francis Parker.

Apparently they taught me better than you because you needed me to explain the 14th Amendment to you, and then you thought that the House of Representatives holds a trial like they're judges in a court.

@BlueMetalChick No, I clearly wrote that it was up for the courts to decide whether or not Trump could be disqualified by the 14th amendment. Come on, admit it! Trump did not order an insurrection, no more than Kamasutra Harris ordered the Minnesota riots/looting. It's all just a political spectacle, and I'm surprised you're falling for it. You were once fair & sensible. Be sensible here! Yes, Trump should be censured and perhaps the GOP should disqualify him from running as a Republican. Why didn't the Democrats go that route? Mitch Mcconnell & others would have probably worked with Democrats to stop a 2024 Trump run. The vast majority of GOP senators & reps do not support Trump running again. Instead, Nancy Pelosi wants to flex her congressional powers.

@TheArbitrator I had to tell you that the aforementioned majority in the House would be to decide whether or not to take it to trial. Did you forget that entire step?

We went over this already. Trump left himself enough plausible deniability to avoid being convicted of starting a riot or inciting an insurrection. He did, however, provide aid and comfort to one.

You're making up arguments and pretending that I'm saying them. It won't work. No matter how many times you insist that I think Trump invited an insurrection, I'm not falling for it.

@LvChris You ain't wrong. A family friend of mine has turned into an overnight legal expert despite having been a barefoot acid-dropping Dead Head for the last fifteen years who believes that government shouldn't even exist and we should all be playing ukulele and braiding each other's hair.

Which...tbh I'm totally down for.