Summary
Democrats blame Attorney General Merrick Garland for delaying prosecution of Donald Trump over the January 6 Capitol attack, allowing him to win reelection before facing trial.
Critics argue Garland wasted critical time before appointing a special prosecutor in late 2022, enabling Trump to evade accountability due to DOJ policy barring prosecution of sitting presidents.
While Trump faces ongoing civil lawsuits, his return to power threatens pardons for convicted rioters and continued revisionism about the attack.
Despite public disapproval of Trump’s actions, he successfully leveraged misinformation to regain the presidency.
Do you actually understand how impeachment works? The House passing articles of impeachment means very little. For a legal equivalent, it’s like the grand jury agreeing to indict. Should we be punishing criminals just because charges were brought against them, even if they were acquitted? Of course not. While the House has the Power to Impeach:
The reality of the situation is that the Impeachment of Trump isn’t a factor in the 14th Amendment barring him. Had the Senate convicted, it would have been a cut and dried situation, but that didn’t happen. Were Trump convicted for insurrection for his actions on January 6th, it would again be an easy situation. The reason there is such an interesting conversation, and not much else, around the 14th Amendment and Trump is that the legal situation isn’t clear. Lots of folks have said that Trump’s actions were an insurrection, but he hasn’t actually been convicted of it. Congress could probably bar him from holding office, but that hasn’t happened.
I’d also point out how insane it would be for the House’s Power to Impeach to become the de facto bar for executing the 14th Amendment’s bar on holding office. This requires a simple majority in the House. Really think that one through. You want the House to be able to bar any person from holding Federal Office, based on a simple majority vote? The level of chaos that would create would be insane.
I do. Thanks. You’re still focused on the wrong thing here.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require any specific test which defines “insurrection”. The impeachment is a useful anchor for establishing an agreement that an insurrection did occur and that Trump was, at the very least, an active participant in that insurrection.
The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (crsreports.congress.gov) provides an well crafted and neutral review of this. Its closing sentence is particularly relevant to our back and forth:
Republican strategy has long revolved around the targeted devolution of norms. They hide in the cracks between definitions which assume good faith participation in the labor of mutually consensual governance and shield themselves in perpetual faux-victimhood. If Congress does not pursue the execution of Section 3 it is nothing less than an abdication of their duty to their Oath of Office.
Your last paragraph is a result of misunderstandings and assumptions on your part.
Ya, the real problem is that it doesn’t. As specifically stated by the CRS:
And that difficulty is why that whole document exists, there isn’t clear legal guidance. And the historic precedents on it are a mess. Yes, either house of Congress has the power to refuse to seat a member of their respective house and have used the 14th Amendment as a reason in the past. Moreover, Congress could pass a law which sets out a legal framework; but, that’s not really happened either. The whole reason that this is even a discussion is that lack of clarity.
Arguably, Congress did try to do something, the House Impeached Trump. The Senate dropped the ball. And the American people then buried that ball far enough to interfere with Satan’s daily activities by re-electiong Trump. It’s a bad situation, but also not one we’re going to solve by misrepresenting the law. Especially by handing The House the sole power to determine what Presidential Candidates have engaged in insurrection by a simple majority vote (the requirement to impeach). If you want to bring up “devolution of norms”, that sort of power is going to take the cake. Anytime we have a split government, we’re going to see impeachment and barring from office on the flimsiest of excuses. What we need isn’t half-baked ideas but an actual, well considered framework.
I think it’s down to you moving the goalposts. You specifically stated:
You are arguing that the House Impeaching is enough to trigger Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Which is what I’m calling ridiculous. Trump being convicted by the Senate would have clearly barred him from holding office again. The reality is that he was acquitted. That’s the part which is actually important.