The J6 show trial is about one thing. Like most things emanating from DC, the hearings might seem like gobbledegook, but in the madness of hearsay testimony, there is an objective; keep Donald J. Trump off the ballot in the 2024 presidential election. Can and should that be done?
The liberal-run institutions of Washington DC want no more of Trump. His combative and disruptive management style is not welcome. The insiders want to run things their way without interference from something commonly referred to as MAGA.
The J6 panel is stacked with nothing but Trump haters. When the panel was created, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected outspoken and fiery Republican Jim Jordan (R: OH). Pelosi replaced him with soon-to-retire Adam Kinsinger (R-IL) and soon-to-be-ousted-from-office Liz Cheney (R-WY), both USDA grade “A” branded RINOs.
Speaker Pelosi is on board with job 1, keeping Trump off the ballot in 2024, out of DC, and out of politics. If successful, it may be her final signature act before leaving the House.
STOPPING TRUMP BY COMMITTEE FIAT
How does Pelosi’s tribunal stop Trump? What is the available path that can guarantee the dream of every Democrat; that Donald Trump no longer holds the office of President, ever again, or perhaps, any other office anywhere in the United States?
The answer is found in the one word repeated thousands of times by the media and Democratic Party, insurrection. The word “insurrection” is used because it congers images of war-like conduct, coups, juntas, and deadly rebellion. To highlight the impact of the word, its proponents have coupled it with colorful adjectives like armed, criminal, unlawful, dangerous, and others. To be sure, history has had those kinds of insurrections. The Revolutionary War would be one example.
Insurrection is the chosen word for good reason. It’s in the U.S. Constitution. It is a part of the 14th Amendment. This Amendment is the first written and enacted just three years after the end of the Civil War. It was enacted because of the Civil war. Its date is July 9, 1868.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains a prohibition against insurrectionists ever holding office again, anywhere. Section 3 reads:
“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.”
Again I ask, how? How is this applied and implemented against those who “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion…?”
What is the determinative process to convict and ensure that a President has, in fact, “…engaged in insurrection or rebellion…or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” and, therefore, cannot subsequently hold office? The 14th Amendment does not say.
Congress may vote to remove the “disability” of the 14th Amendment, but there is no mechanism for applying the restriction. Nonetheless, I believe the 14th Amendment is the chosen approach to blocking Donald Trump from ever being elected again.
CONGRESS HAS BUT TWO PATHS, BOTH FRAGILE
Several legal scholars believe the correct path to implementing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is criminal prosecution.
The J6 committee could refer the former President to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The 14th Amendment could then be applied, including other punishments if convicted.
But will the DOJ accept such a referral against a former President? After all, the J6 panel is not an unbiased tribunal, it’s a DNC witch-hunt. The J6 process has been rife with hearsay, hearsay about hearsay, personal bias, and most importantly, a lack of the constitutional right to face one’s accusers and cross-examine them. The committee is not a court of law but acts like one. It intends to deceive by illusion.
If the DOJ wants to prosecute, it must impanel a Grand Jury. But who could serve with impartiality after the committee’s wall-to-wall media coverage and condemnation of Trump? The committee itself has openly condemned Donald Trump?
A prosecution of Trump by the already politicized DOJ would set a dangerous precedent and alter our democratic Republic forever. The weaponization of the DOJ in the election process would devastate America. After all, the DOJ is busy spying on parents who confront school boards and reading Tucker Carlson’s email.
A second option, which is not necessarily decoupled from criminal prosecution, is to keep Trump off state election ballots. But again, how? State legislatures could use their election ballots as a clever tool to stop a Trump candidacy, thus blocking him from the Electoral College.
This has viability. Blue states could simply legislate Trump off their ballots as an insurrectionist. But like prosecution, such an attempt is without precedent and would create a vicious, long-term legal battle that could outlive the candidate’s election viability.
This would lead to the Supreme Court, and it seems like the Democrats have had enough of the SCOTUS, except to promote felony protests in front of the homes of targeted Justices.
This second ballot option is already under consideration and could be triggered by specific punitive recommendations in the final J6 committee report to Congress.
The J6 tribunal, while not holding prosecutorial authority, could conclude that Donald J. Trump engaged in an insurrection and recommend that each state impose punishment commensurate with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
In other words, states like California and New York could enact legislation keeping the “insurrectionist” off their ballots. In an ABC news exchange, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD ) boldly asserted,
“The point is that the constitutional purpose is clear, to keep people exactly like Donald Trump and other traitors to the union from holding public office.”
No bias from Representative Jamie Raskinhere, mind you.
There you have it. The clear objective is twofold. First, leverage the 14th Amendment and weaponize it to stop Trump in 2024. Secondly, apply an insurrection charge to Donald Trump. The purpose of the J6 tribunal is to stop Donald J. Trump from ever holding any political office anywhere in America.
But again, I ask, who does this? Who convicts, who enforces Section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Is it a majority vote of both houses of Congress? Is it a criminal indictment followed by conviction? Or, as I have suggested, does the committee toss the matter back to the states?
The core question is who acts, legitimizes, and issues the mountain of legal challenges that will inevitably be forthcoming. Will Secretaries of State be coerced by DC to keep Donald Trump off their ballots? And if Donald Trump, why not others who have said or acted in ways that can be woven into Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
Can words and speeches, written statements, policies, recommendations for government modification, and social media rants be used to label someone an “insurrectionist?” Or, does an angry person have to enter the Capital while a President gives a speech, thus convicting both the trespasser and the speaker?
WRAPPING IT UP
We’re heading into dangerous, uncharted territory on a ship with no sail, no oars, and no engine. This, too, is a part of the desired outcome. For years the DC political class has wanted more control over state-run elections, ballots, and who gets to vote. The J6 committee is the DNC’s central mechanism that can serve as the tool for future mischievous adventures designed to create, hold, and wield power.
Could we not assert that President Joe Biden is an insurrectionist who, having taken an oath, is permitting the nation to be invaded and is giving “aid and comfort to an enemy” in the form of housing, welfare, healthcare, cash advances, cell phones, and free relocation services throughout America?
I believe that Joseph Robinette Biden is an insurrectionist, overthrowing the rule of law in America. He should not be allowed to hold office anywhere.
We must ask ourselves if the Founders intended the Republic to operate by show trial committee? If one political party can leverage its power against another to eliminate candidates, it finds to be unacceptable.
At a moment in history where we are overwhelmed with debt, a southern border invasion, failed foreign policy, inflation, crumbling education, and a pending economic recession, do we want a government in Washington, DC, using a committee process to tell us who gets to run for office?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –