I sure hope you're right about Trump losing at the ballot box. And thank you so much for using "uncharted waters" correctly. I cringe whenever I see "unchartERed waters." We use charts for navigating, not CHARTERS! Drives me batty. ;)
Thanks! A few thoughts on your assessment/breakdown (very helpful btw) - I find this verbiage interesting "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." I would say even without a straight conviction, it could be proven using his own words that he has given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof in the case of Jan 6th. As far as the 22nd Amendment, I would say your argument would open the door for a dangerous path forward. Not only does it then acknowledge that he in fact had the election stolen from him and therefore won (which I just don't think is true), it then opens the door for him to argue that he didn't actually have the opportunity to serve his rightful term, so where does that leave things? Does he get to have 4 years to govern as President by default and in exchange for accepting that by the 22nd he can't run again for a 3rd term without having gotten the opportunity to serve the 2nd term? Seems too murky, and giving him wayyyy too much credit.
Me and Loopy -- same wave length.
No notes.
Same name, same wave length, ha. ;)
I sure hope you're right about Trump losing at the ballot box. And thank you so much for using "uncharted waters" correctly. I cringe whenever I see "unchartERed waters." We use charts for navigating, not CHARTERS! Drives me batty. ;)
Gotta admit, that one was pure luck. :)
David French had a very good piece in The NY Times yesterday on this topic. Definitely worth a read.
Lunchtime!
Thanks! A few thoughts on your assessment/breakdown (very helpful btw) - I find this verbiage interesting "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." I would say even without a straight conviction, it could be proven using his own words that he has given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof in the case of Jan 6th. As far as the 22nd Amendment, I would say your argument would open the door for a dangerous path forward. Not only does it then acknowledge that he in fact had the election stolen from him and therefore won (which I just don't think is true), it then opens the door for him to argue that he didn't actually have the opportunity to serve his rightful term, so where does that leave things? Does he get to have 4 years to govern as President by default and in exchange for accepting that by the 22nd he can't run again for a 3rd term without having gotten the opportunity to serve the 2nd term? Seems too murky, and giving him wayyyy too much credit.
Thanks for bringing forth the 22 Amendment argument. I hope I get the opportunity to bring it up in conversation.