14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 3 and our dear fiend, Madison Cawthorn

Me too. It appears that it may have been passed in 2006.

Agreed. And him having the burden of proof makes it even more so. Much more so.

What?! Now it’s really interesting. I was thinking it was a readmission measure.

1 Like

i know you think he is “seditious scum” but can you explain what he did?

i’d like to add btw that there was no “insurrection”

eta nor was there an attempt at one

3 Likes

I could be wrong, it’s just a guess from the citation I saw.

Yours is better

I was asking safiel because he said this:

But good point.

I don’t read slate.

Funny, marc elias tweeted about this very thing a week or so ago, and here we are.

1 Like

The mob was seeking to disrupt the Electoral Vote count and prevent the certification of the election. The mob successfully shut down the legislative branch of the United States Government for six hours.

Their intent was seditious, their successful shutdown of Congress was insurrectionary. This was an insurrection. Now we just have to walk back the chain of individuals and the chain of events, those that actually took part, those that spearheaded the event, those that conspired with the ringleaders and those that gave aid and comfort.

Cawthorn will have the opportunity, under oath, to show he did not give aid and comfort.

In any event, the evidence stage in regards to Cawthorn is forthcoming, we will get to see the evidence at that time.

There’s outrage over him using the Amnesty Act of 1872 but no evidence by virtue of him being shielded from testimony as a sitting congressman.

The whole thing is a crowbar being used to pry the January 6th “insurrection!!” back into everyone’s minds before midterms.

2 Likes

So no real sufficient evidence, just speculative sufficient evidence?

4 Likes

I feel like someone should tell safiel that’s not how the law works.

Not my job to present the evidence, for you or anybody else.

Lol. You’re right. Don’t forget your ball.

2 Likes

In that case, I believe there is sufficient evidence that nancy pelosi and the sergeant at arms willfully let the riot happen, and therefore should be charged as the ringleaders.

They purposely ignored the warnings and the offers of having sufficient security.

There’s sufficient evidence of this already in the public sphere.

4 Likes

what you call an insurrection some call a protest

you dont know what their intent was any more than we know what the intent was of those trying to break into the supreme court building during kavanaugh

this treads on kangaroo court talk. the tone is to pin this on someone no matter what. definitions of “aid” and “comfort” will be stretched beyond belief, similar to how trump supposedly incited it despite indicating to protest peacefully and patriotically

maybe i missed it, but you’ve yet to explain how he provided this “aid”, as i’ve asked

1 Like

Right it is strictly against cawthorn. Not the Republican Party.

Allan

That’s why cawthorn himself will be deposed and he will prove himself an insurrectionist or not.

If he’s not one, it should be easily provable.

Allan

i’m still waiting to see what he did

but i guess that info isnt really needed. just say he was involved. that’s the beauty of the j6 narrative

1 Like