General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNot a lawyer, or even one of the DU smart people but a thought.
Trump has held 2 fundraisers for the 1/6 insurrectionists and is on and pushing their sing song tape. Under Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, how is this not “giving aid and comfort”. He is clearly raising money for them thus aiding their cause.
(Clip from article, link below) Donald Trump attended a fundraising dinner for January 6th defendants at his Bedminster, N.J., golf club on Tuesday night, ahead of the first Republican presidential debate and his own arrest in Atlanta.
People shouted 'our hero' and 'we love Trump' at him as he walked into the ballroom, according to videos posted on social media.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12437995/amp/Donald-Trump-attends-fundraising-dinner-January-6-defendants-arrest.html
Article 14 Section 3 of the Constitution?
Another section dealing directly with the aftermath of the Civil War, section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits those who had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” from serving in the government.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
2naSalit
(102,793 posts)Hopefully a prosecutor or three might pick up on that. Could be used against some enablers too if properly addressed.
Tetrachloride
(9,624 posts)ps.
in my mind,
your nickname spells out Salty
2naSalit
(102,793 posts)Not so far off from what a couple friends used to call me, surly! 
Duppers
(28,469 posts)Where's the press?
Guess they just need a fight...and there's Faux - that network and the Heritage Foundation are trying to end democracy.
Btw, can someone tell me:
Why are donations to the Heritage Foundation tax deductible??
Rhiannon12866
(255,525 posts)And he was not only "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," he was their "leader" who called them there. Don't they have a resentment that they're convicted/in prison while he still walks free? They're obviously still deluded and he's still guilty as hell. 
Duppers
(28,469 posts)You nailed it.
Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Vagueness, in law.
90 felony charges, and Rico not enough to satisfy the bloodlust, have to take a shot at the brave prosecutors and expert in their field?
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)The the fact is that the fundraisers are being used to benefit those tho attacked the Capitol with the intent of overthrowing government. This was a physical attack not free speech.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Defendants are innocent until proven guilty. The ones fundraised for have not been proven to have committed the crimes they are accused for.
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)It is not a shot at the prosecutors, the aid and comfort only took place 5 days ago.
Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 27, 2023, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)
A question of knowledge. In example, baboon shit don’t stick to courtroom walls, well known insider fact!
In law I trust!
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)
bucolic_frolic
(55,140 posts)and aren't those photos copyrighted?
Bucky
(55,334 posts)They're made by the government, so they're the property of the people. Anything your government makes, you as a citizen can reproduce for free.
It's part of the whole transparency of government thing
kentuck
(115,406 posts)He knows what he is doing.
The Judges and the prosecutors know what he is doing.
He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
For someone looking to clarify the 14th Amendment, the disqualification clause, this might be a good start.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)... until proven guilty. Fundamental priniciple of USofA law, and Canada, and UK, and ....
So they are not enemies in the eyes of the law (yet), only accused.
Accused are allowed to raise a fully developed defence. If tRump didn't raise money for them, the government would pay for lawyers for those who need them. But of course, J6 fascists would not want government lawyers if they can avoid them. And that is a right they have.
Providing defendants support is a right. It is not against the law. It is not aiding and comforting enemies because they have not been proven enemies.
Trueblue Texan
(4,464 posts)There is nothing in the 14th amendment that mentions the necessity of convicted crimes.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)These people have already pleaded or have been found guilty and convicted of their crimes.
Response to kentuck (Reply #12)
Bernardo de La Paz This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Trueblue Texan (Reply #11)
Bernardo de La Paz This message was self-deleted by its author.
kentuck
(115,406 posts)But how does that apply to these folks that have already pleaded guilty to crimes against the government?
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)
Irish_Dem
(81,266 posts)They have been found guilty.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 26, 2023, 09:07 AM - Edit history (3)
Conviction for seditious conspiracy, then financially and morally aided by does raise questions …if that meets the legal tests…while out on bail x3.
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)Additionally, many of the confederate troops who took up arms against the US were never tried for their crimes but were barred from serving in reconstruction government due to this amendment.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)This is the source of some of your confusion and the confusion among many who read your OP.
moniss
(9,056 posts)because they keep having people on who frame the "enemies"/"aid and comfort" aspect as being about foreign governments etc. and they do not give an honest reading of what the Amendment actually says and is about. These distinctions may seem small but words and definitions are important and give guidance to interpretation as you point out.
First of all it is important to note that what is being referenced in the Amendment is the Constitution. The Amendment specifically calls out and limits applicability to officials and personnel at various levels who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. This first part is very important also in understanding that it would not apply to the man on the street who never took such an oath. I mention that because invoking the 14th to prevent some run of the mill MAGA persons who got convicted for 1/6 activity would not be prevented from holding office under the 14th although there may be other avenues in law to prevent them doing so.
A nuance here that is interesting is that the language in the Amendment does not talk about insurrection or rebellion against the United States as a country but rather against the Constitution. Some may see that as a distinction without a difference and in some cases it may be but the upthrust of the distinction is that the 14th appears to be more squarely focused on the rule of law that is the Constitution. The Civil War was about some states not wanting to submit to the Constitution with respect to their differences about what should be legal or about how to use the process and to abide by the process. That nuance is a huge importance here on the subject of whether the Orange Ruski is barred by the 14th.
The 14th further explains applicability as engaging in insurrection or rebellion "against the same" and that is directly preceded by a reference to the Constitution of the United States. So it is clear that the disqualification clause is about people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and then tried to not follow it and rebelled/engaged in insurrection against the rule of law. That is an important concept that is not well explained by the media.
But Fani and Jack are right on the money because they specifically go to the heart of the matter. They are referencing that there was a legal process to follow to contest an election and even before their losses in court challenges the defendants were engaged in planning/conspiring to usurp that process by illegal means if needed. Therefore the very definition of insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution. Added to that of course is what was planned and coordinated to take place on 1/6. If we can get convictions/confessions on the record about the planning it will greatly bolster using the 14th to go after the members of Congress who took part in the insurrection/rebellion against the Constitution. They along with the Orange Ruski and others have been giving aid and comfort all along.
So to sum it up the disqualifying act is that a person or persons swore an oath to uphold the system of laws we have, the Constitution, but despite having done so they were planning for insurrection/rebellion against that system of laws and they then in fact implemented that insurrection/rebellion. It thankfully failed at the time but is still active by way of various persons and organizations.
Joinfortmill
(21,164 posts)moniss
(9,056 posts)who watch TV also don't understand how these segments are produced. One of the program producers "interviews" the guest before they come on the show about what they would say about certain topics. If it fits with the desired narrative of the show host or network then all is good. If it doesn't reinforce that view then they will construct rebuttal for the host to throw at the guest in a discrediting manner if they even let the segment go forward. So when someone comes to them to give context and depth that is something that is not desired/allowable. Also they want responses to questions to stay under 10 seconds and if you go 15 seconds more than once in the segment that is frowned upon because that adds up to one or two times the host isn't heard sounding off an authoritative statement/conclusion.
Joinfortmill
(21,164 posts)Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)You are the target…as always.
OldBaldy1701E
(11,142 posts)Is gullibility. By now anyone who takes anything from the MSM without a barrel of salt is asking for it. They have proven time and time again that they are more interested in profit than accurate information. Why would anyone take anything they say at face value?
moniss
(9,056 posts)and it affects greatly our ability to get through to the "independent" voters out there. The GQP voters are just a lost cause completely at this time. We do need to get through to the vast uninformed out there in that "independent" realm. One of the reasons the MSM doesn't go hard at the GQP is they like being able to bring them on for their weak "point/counterpoint" type segments in order to give the "independent" voter the illusion of fairness and the mistaken idea that they are providing complete and factual presentations of issues.
Another nuance about the 14th and disqualification is that it disqualifies anybody who has ever taken the oath. So an individual is disqualified even if they took the oath years ago for an office or military position and then years later participates in the insurrection/rebellion described by the 14th and then years later after the rebellion fails they are still prohibited from running later on. Some people think it means you have to be in office during your participation in order to be disqualified but that is wrong. The 14th wording makes clear that this is a matter of once you have ever sworn to uphold the Constitution and then even years down the road gone against it you will be barred from office forever. The only way around it of course is the provision for a 2/3 vote by Congress.
Scrivener7
(59,522 posts) 
vlyons
(10,252 posts)and are presumed to be innocent until convicted.
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)Sedition, conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
Those charged and convicted of sedition were engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same [United States],
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)Enemies in the context of the Constitution usually means enemies of the state, involving some kind of armed conflict or a declared enemy. None of these groups has been named an official enemy either by the US government or by a court.
As others have also noted, it's curious how quickly we're ready to throw due process out the window when doing so serves a purpose.
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808 ; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148 .)
Fla Dem
(27,633 posts)To the insurrectionists already in jail? To their families? Those waiting for trial? Is it a fund set up to accept requests for support from insurrectionists and their families?
What a farce, why is he supporting those that attacked our government.
He isn't. I bet not one dime makes it to any of these traitors and or their families which is a good thing, they are being played.
It's just another money grab to line his pockets.
DFW
(60,186 posts)Ten years later, they killed him, strung his body up and mashed in his dead face.
Of those that have been played for fools, the last to find out are often the angriest at those who duped them.
Brainfodder
(7,781 posts)Been wondering same on those possible charges among many. (all his Putin/Russian stuff included)
Where's his death penalty case for actual espionage?
Instead it is just STOLLEN haha documents?
Response to bottomofthehill (Original post)
Bernardo de La Paz This message was self-deleted by its author.
LAS14
(15,506 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)They thought you were talking about convicted people.
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)Anyone who was chanting stop the count,
anyone in the mob, anyone who was a party to the assault on the Capitol would and should be charged and convicted. The judicial system did not have the band with but clearly looking at the definition below, they fit, every shitbag one of them. They took up arms against the US, they attacked the capitol in an attempt to stop the counting of the electoral college votes which was an attempt to overthrow the US Government.
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808 ; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, §1, 70 Stat. 623 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148 .)
former9thward
(33,424 posts)They mainly were charged with misdemeanors like trespass and a minority with felonies if they assaulted federal officers or caused major damage. The crowd was estimated to be in the area of 40,000 so most were not charged with anything. Most did not enter the Capitol. It is not against the law to chant "stop the count" or anything else.