Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 14, 2021

An active-duty Marine officer stationed in Quantico, Virginia, was arrested Thursday and charged with crimes related to the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney's Office said.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Considering the favoritism shown officers, I think he only gets a dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all benefits. But they might (and should) make an example and send him to federal prison. Assault on a police officer carries a stiff sentence. And federal time? There is no such thing as parole. You do every day.

#1 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-14 11:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Leavenworth, right?

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2021-05-14 01:32 PM | Reply

#1 most of what you listed is UCMJ related and he probably will be court-martialed. He'll also have to face federal criminal charges. Double jeopardy is real for service members.

#3 | Posted by qcp at 2021-05-14 02:14 PM | Reply

3. True. We'll see if he does any jail time. He's certainly facing military discipline. But will they dishonorably discharge him? Or just a slap in the wrist reduction in rank, forfeited of some pay, but then get to retire comfortably? Shining the federal charges don't stick. If they do stick, he doesn't have enough years to retire I don't think and then he is just SOL.

I feel so bad for him. Not at all.

#4 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-14 02:46 PM | Reply

See? The White Nationalists have found a Safe Space in the Armed Forces.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-14 08:11 PM | Reply

"See? The White Nationalists have found a Safe Space in the Armed Forces."

What makes you think he is a white nationalist?

Or is that just the blanket term you use for people you disagree with?

#6 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-15 04:57 AM | Reply

His decision making process is too flawed for him to continue in the Marines.

#7 | Posted by YAV at 2021-05-15 09:14 AM | Reply

He participated in an insurrection at the capital of the United States. He needs to be dishonorably discharged, lose all benefits and go straight to Leavenworth for a very long time. Prison time is how we convey the consequences of insurrection to the rest of the population. We, as a nation, cannot tolerate insurrection from the extreme right, the Germans tolerated Hitler when they should have arrested and incarcerated him. If we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat it.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2021-05-15 10:06 AM | Reply

Don't worry. He is going to massively regret his involvement very shortly, if not already.

#9 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-15 10:49 AM | Reply

"He needs to be dishonorably discharged, lose all benefits and go straight to Leavenworth for a very long time."

Officers...and a major is an officer...cannot be dishonorably discharged.

Maybe come back when you're not an idiot.

#10 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-15 10:51 AM | Reply

"We, as a nation, cannot tolerate insurrection from the extreme right, the Germans tolerated Hitler when they should have arrested and incarcerated him. If we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat it."

But presumably we can tolerate insurrection from the extreme left?

#11 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-15 10:51 AM | Reply

Officers...and a major is an officer...cannot be dishonorably discharged.

Maybe come back when you're not an idiot.

#10 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I'm not sure that being unaware of that makes on an idiot...

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2021-05-15 10:57 AM | Reply

#11 there hasn't been an insurrection from the left.

Or is this where you tacitly support 1/6 by making the false equivalency to BLM and the right's favorite boogeyman, antifa?

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2021-05-15 10:58 AM | Reply

"I'm not sure that being unaware of that makes on an idiot.."

When you're trying to make a point, and you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to just remain quiet. Rather than sacrifice the creditability of the point you're trying to make.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-15 11:03 AM | Reply

"Or is this where you tacitly support 1/6 by making the false equivalency to BLM and the right's favorite boogeyman, antifa?"

I don't support 1/6...even in the slightest.

what do you think about Portland?

#15 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-15 11:06 AM | Reply

Since one of General Austin's mandates is to root out white supremacy in the military, I have a feeling this POS is going to be made an example of. It will be a valuable lesson to both the officer class and the enlisted class.

#16 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2021-05-15 11:08 AM | Reply

#14 - Still waiting to see that stop you.

#17 | Posted by YAV at 2021-05-15 11:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#10 maybe come back when you aren't a complete -----. I did know that, but in brevity and for the sake of the 95% off the population that doesn't know that, it's easier. They can be "dismissed" which for all intents and purposes is the same as a dishonorable discharge.

www.vetverify.org

#18 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-15 11:27 AM | Reply

#15 Nice downtown, except for the elevated highway. Would visit again.

#19 | Posted by bored at 2021-05-15 11:28 AM | Reply

#8 Nah Danni, no discharge. Give him want he wants. Let him fight tyranny in Iran by air dropping him there. The benefits and pension will take care of themselves. He knew what he signed up for.

#20 | Posted by bored at 2021-05-15 11:30 AM | Reply

Portland remains one of my fav cities.

#21 | Posted by YAV at 2021-05-15 12:08 PM | Reply

"But presumably we can tolerate insurrection from the extreme left?"

Do you know what Whataboutism is?

It's your comment.

Stop it.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-15 01:12 PM | Reply

"But presumably we can tolerate insurrection from the extreme left?"

When did the left invade the Capital of the United States? And threaten the lives of the Speaker of the HOuse and the Vice President?

#23 | Posted by danni at 2021-05-15 01:42 PM | Reply

""I'm not sure that being unaware of that makes on an idiot.."'

I'm not sure MB even made a correct point. Officers have been tried by court martial and sentenced to prison, I find it difficult to believe Lt. William Calley wasn't give a dishonorable discharge. He definitely served prison time and was turned down time after time for a reduction of his sentence. He was granted the ability to serve his time on house arrest by that thug Richard Nixon but what else would you expect from such a disgusting person.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2021-05-15 01:45 PM | Reply

Comparing Portland to the Insurrection at the U.S. Capital with the intention of hunting down and murdering the Speaker and the Vice President is ridiculous. It's laughable.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2021-05-15 01:47 PM | Reply

I suspect that in the event of serious charges they reduce the rank of the defendent and then treat that person the same as an enlisted personnel.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2021-05-15 01:49 PM | Reply

#24 he's right. Officers are under different rules. They can be "dismissed" which is a dishonorable discharge but with a less bad name Bernie we wouldn't want to insult the poor sensibilities of officers. They also can not be reduced in rank in the same manner enlisted soldiers can. But they can be stripped of all accrued benefits fairly easily, dismissed, and then thrown to the wolves of the federal judicial system.

But he's still a pretentious d bag.

#27 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-15 03:15 PM | Reply

I don't generally support the death penalty, but for treason it seems appropriate.

It should be a public execution though. He should be hanged in front of The Captiol.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-15 03:59 PM | Reply

I don't support 1/6...even in the slightest.

what do you think about Portland?

#15 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Stupid question. You know the answer. It's still not an insurrection.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2021-05-15 04:33 PM | Reply

...aaaaand I hope HE'S not active duty
fir much longer...

#30 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-05-15 11:55 PM | Reply

"Do you know what Whataboutism is?"

I do know what it is.

It's what you invoke when you want to be critical of political violence on one end of the spectrum while defending it on the other end.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 04:48 AM | Reply

"I suspect that in the event of serious charges they reduce the rank of the defendent and then treat that person the same as an enlisted personnel."

No, Danni, they don't.

This is why, when you don't know about something, you should remain quiet.

I think your point is valid, but when you make stupid statements it erodes the credibility of your argument.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 04:50 AM | Reply

"Stupid question. You know the answer. It's still not an insurrection."

Really?

Using physical political violence as a means of attacking our system of government?

Who do you think has caused more damage? The rioters in Portland, or the rioters at the Capitol Building?

And I'm assuming you have a broad enough understanding of civics to know that there is absolutely nothing that any one of the rioters in DC could have done to change the outcome of the election. Zero. They were there because they had no understanding of civics, their fat, stupid president had zero understanding of the constitution, and most of them took as scripture the comments of some stupid conspiracy theorists.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 04:54 AM | Reply

#33. Insurrection isn't just based on ability to carry it out. It's based on INTENT and ATTEMPT to carry it out. Both of which are extremely difficult to prove without written statements indicating what their intent is. If the people in the Capitol intended to over throw the election, and then went about and made an attempt to do so, even though there is no scenario where they could have been successful, is that still not an insurrection?

If it isn't, i would love to know why you think it isn't. There is a reason that attempted murder carries almost a harsh penalties as actual murder.

As I said, all anyone has to do is deny that it was their intent and it's all but impossible to prove, so I am speaking more from an abstract position, not a concrete, legal, prove it in court, position.

#34 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 06:22 AM | Reply

"If the people in the Capitol intended to over throw the election, and then went about and made an attempt to do so, even though there is no scenario where they could have been successful, is that still not an insurrection?"

I don't think so. Not at all.

If so, then we're judging people on their beliefs, which I think puts us into very dangerous ground. It would immediately qualify all sorts of people with beliefs that conflict with the US constitution as insurrectionists.

What the rioters appear to have been attempting to do on 06 Jan was overturn the outcome of a legal and valid election, which would have been an unconstitutional act. Every military officer and most public office holders take an oath to the US constitution and the constitution alone. The fact that they didn't know what they were doing-I think many were operating under the assumption that they were somehow defending the constitution-probably saved many of their lives. The US military pretty much exists to ensure that the US operates under constitutional law, be it under attack for foreign or domestic enemies.

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 06:45 AM | Reply

"There is a reason that attempted murder carries almost a harsh penalties as actual murder."

That's the thing. The act they wanted to carry out was not legally possible. on 20 January, Trump was no longer going to be president. Period.

And we may be getting into semantics.

And don't for a second think that I have even the slightest bit of sympathy for any of them. I think they need to be crushed and crushed hard. But as you've seen here, many of those who would happily execute every last rioter in DC are the same who made the claim that the months of left-wing violence in Portland was due to Trump, somewhat justified, and not really a problem.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 06:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

So, in your view, an insurrection must be successful in order to actually be one? And overturning a legal and valid election isn't an insurrection? That doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like a distinction without a difference.

#37 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 06:50 AM | Reply

Sticking with the attempted murder scenario. If I announce I'm going to murder you, then show up at your door with a weapon, try for hours but can't get past the steel reinforced door you have in place to keep out murderers, did I still attempt to murder you? In my mind? Yes. I admit that's shaky legal ground, but I intended to and tried to. Is no different than the Capitol. They announced they wanted to stop the election results from being certified so Trump could remain President, showed up to try and do exactly that, but there was no way to get past the safe guards in place, or the constitutional process. But they damn sure still tried.

#38 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 06:57 AM | Reply

"The act they wanted to carry out was not legally possible."

Murder is also not legally possible.

And, you are choosing to ignore that if the crowd had killed Pence, Pelosi, and maybe one other person -- all of whom were present in The Capitol that day -- the order of succession makes Mike Pompeo the next in line for the Presidency.

So there is both motive and true legal opportunity to subvert democracy.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 08:05 AM | Reply

"So, in your view, an insurrection must be successful in order to actually be one?"

be successful? As in overturn the outcome of the election? That was never even a possibility. They may as well have been there with the intent to revoke the constitution.

What happened on 06 Jan was a bunch of uniformed, ignorant idiots broke into and trespassed on Federal property. Had they been engaged in some activity that would have resulted in the election being overturned, that might be a different story. But I can't for the life of me figure out what that would have been or what it would have looked like. There was absolutely nothing they could have done that would have enabled Trump to be president past noon on 20 January. They maybe (maybe) could have murdered various members in the presidential line of succession, but that in and of itself would have been dealt with swiftly.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 08:36 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"They announced they wanted to stop the election results from being certified so Trump could remain President, showed up to try and do exactly that, but there was no way to get past the safe guards in place, or the constitutional process. But they damn sure still tried."

Maybe I'm not as smart as I think.

Based on my understanding, there was zero possibility that any action taken by any protester on 06 Jan could have led to Trump remaining in office. Even in the odd chance that the votes weren't certified, that doesn't mean Trump stays in office. On January 20th, if there were any questions about the validity of the election, then the office of president is automatically passed to the Speaker of the House, Ms. Nancy Pelosi. After that, it would be up to the various branches of government to either certify the votes, hold another election, or though other constitutional means place a duly elected president in the office.

But there was no possible way for Trump to be president on 21 January. Had he made the attempt, that in and of itself would have been an unconstitutional act.

Do you see it differently? Do you see a possible outcome where Trump would have remained president? Am I missing something?

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 08:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"So there is both motive and true legal opportunity to subvert democracy."

Yeah. That's the only thing I can see they could have done to influence who took over as president on 20 Jan. And that very much would have been an insurrection, and would have likely been met by drone strikes and a motley band of pipe hitters whose job it is to support and defend the constitution.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 08:44 AM | Reply

#41 their target appears to be the certification results that had to be removed from the building one they broke in. My understanding is, they thought if they destroyed those tabulations of the Electoral College vote, the election couldn't be judged as certified and the transfer of power completed on January 20th. They were redundant, so their goal wasn't going to be successful, but they didn't know that. As you say, it couldn't have happened, but that seems to be the theory many were operating under. Make sure the vote can't be certified so Trump can stay in office longer while individual state results are challenged and changed, so the process can be either re-voted, or re certified in the swing states declaring Trump the winner.

#43 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 08:55 AM | Reply

"After that, it would be up to the various branches of government to either certify the votes, hold another election, or though other constitutional means place a duly elected president in the office."

Pompeo, named as the successor, could state that Trump will remain in power during these tumultuous times.

There is no Constitutional remedy other than the order of succession.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 09:12 AM | Reply

"Do you see a possible outcome where Trump would have remained president?"

Yes, in the event of a Reichstag Fire, the ensuing State of Emergency would have been used to rationalize continuity in government to deal with the crisis.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 09:16 AM | Reply

"Pompeo, named as the successor, could state that Trump will remain in power during these tumultuous times."

Nope.

First, the rioters would have needed to eliminate both the Speaker of the House and the President pro Tempore of the Senate. That would leave Pompeo as next in the line of succession. Of course even then his role would be restoring the country to constitutional law. And finally, there is no constitutional means that allows a sitting president to choose who becomes the next president.

The only way I could see this being possible would be if Pompeo, as president, appointed Trump as SECSTATE and then killed off the new Speaker of the House and the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and then stepped down himself. And I don't know if even that would be possible given that the Speaker and President pro Tempore would both be quickly replaced.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 09:26 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

ABH

The shorter version is that the insurrection was a Hail Mary, sponsored and fueled by Trump's irrational sense of entitlement and his bitter hatred of a process (democracy) that just denied him a second term.

Not to mention the myriad of unfulfilled assurances he gave to Vladimar Putin that has now set Russia's expansion plans into Eastern Europe back ~~ who knows how many years. That cannot be going over well in Moscow. Mr. Putin doesn't strike me as the type who considers failure an option.

There may be some fear motivating Trump's irrational acts of desperation since losing a second term.

#47 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-05-16 09:27 AM | Reply

"Yes, in the event of a Reichstag Fire, the ensuing State of Emergency would have been used to rationalize continuity in government to deal with the crisis."

This is where I am not as smart as I should be. Like I said earlier, I know of no constitutional means by which Trump would have remained in office. Including war. There's nothing to rationalize. If it's not permissible by the constitution, it's not going to happen. And if it does happen, it's an unconstitutional act, and it would be illegal for anyone to obey ordered that were issued by an unconstitutionally placed president.

Do you know of something different that would allow a president to legally overstay his/her term?

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 09:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Also, had Trump attempted to illegally remain in power, it would not have been an insurrection, but rather a coup.

#49 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 09:31 AM | Reply

"First, the rioters would have needed to eliminate both the Speaker of the House and the President pro Tempore of the Senate."

That's what the gallows was for.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 09:34 AM | Reply

"And if it does happen, it's an unconstitutional act"

So what?
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
We denied gay marriage for a century and a half, until the Supreme Court said the Fourteenth Amendment made it Constitutional starting in 1865.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 09:36 AM | Reply

If Pence and/or Pelosi had been kidnapped and/or killed, I think it was Trump's plan to declare martial law. Under martial law, he would then have the authority to suspend business as usual in the country. This potential threat to the rule of law and the constitution was taken seriously by many people who understood the stakes involved. For example:

All 10 living former defense secretaries: Involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory

www.washingtonpost.com

I don't know if it is true, but recent reports claim Liz Cheney was behind organizing that op-ed. My belief is that Trump planned to use the insurrection, which he hoped would turn more violent than it did, to lay the groundwork for a coup.

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-16 09:38 AM | Reply

#48. Their goal was to create a constitutional crisis. We've never gone into January 20th without a certified election. Their is enough gray area to that for them to think if it happened, a swearing I ceremony couldn't take place for President Biden.

#53 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Even after the insurrection, people close to Trump were urging him use his presidential powers to act categorically:

A close-up photo of meeting notes carried by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell appears to include drastic national security moves in his meeting with Trump to

A Washington Post photographer caught a glimpse of President Donald Trump and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell's meeting notes on Friday, where they appeared to discuss explosive national security moves.

One line reads, "Move Kash Patel to CIA acting," previewing more personnel changes Trump could push. Another reads," ... foreign interference in the election trigger [illegible] powers. Make clear this is China/Iran."

Lindell is holding the notes with a phone in one hand and a coffee cup in the other hand, bending the notes face open so that some sentences are legible. One of those phrases reads ""Insurrection Act now as a result of the assault on the ... martial law if necessary upon the first hint of any ... ",


www.businessinsider.com

#54 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-16 09:44 AM | Reply

Which would leave Trump in power until it was hashed out in court. Buying them the time they wanted to challenge the elections in the swing states.

#55 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 09:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Their goal was to create a constitutional crisis. We've never gone into January 20th without a certified election. Their is enough gray area to that for them to think if it happened, a swearing I ceremony couldn't take place for President Biden."

Agreed. Trump was trying to think of anyway to delay certification:

New York Times: Trump and DOJ attorney had plan to replace his acting AG and undo Georgia election result

Justice Department lawyer Jeffrey Clark nearly convinced then-President Donald Trump to remove then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and use the Department of Justice to undo Georgia's election results, The New York Times reported Friday.

Clark -- who appealed to the former President's false claims of election fraud -- met with Trump earlier this month and told Rosen following the meeting that the then-President was going to replace him with Clark. Clark would then move to keep Congress from certifying the election results in then-President-elect Joe Biden's favor, according to the paper.


www.cnn.com

#56 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-16 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Which would leave Trump in power until it was hashed out in court. Buying them the time they wanted to challenge the elections in the swing states."

Yes. That was the plan as Rudy spelled it out:

Giuliani called a newly sworn-in GOP senator for help with slowing Biden's election certification but accidentally left a rambling voicemail on the wrong politician's phone

In the call, Giuliani seems to outline a strategy to "slow down" the counting of electoral-certification votes and acknowledge that President Donald Trump's team has run out of legitimate challenges to Joe Biden's election win.

"The only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow--ideally until the end of tomorrow," he said. "So if you could object to every state and, along with a congressman, get a hearing for every state, I know we would delay you a lot, but it would give us the opportunity to get the legislators who are very, very close to pulling their vote."

Giuliani appeared at Trump's White House rally on Wednesday, in which the president encouraged his supporters to walk to the Capitol to protest.

Giuliani told the gathered crowd that slowing down the electoral-vote count would allow for a more thorough look at "fraudulent" ballots and "crooked" machines, despite there being no evidence of widespread voter or electoral fraud.

"Over the next 10 days, we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent and we're wrong, we will be made fools of," he said. "But if we're right, a lot of them will go to jail."


www.businessinsider.com

#57 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-16 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"My belief is that Trump planned to use the insurrection, which he hoped would turn more violent than it did, to lay the groundwork for a coup."

That's a bit different. First, a coup would be an unconstitutional act. And as such, Trump would have no legal authority to give any orders to anyone. In fact it would be illegal for anyone to act on any orders he gave. More importantly, he would now be the target of the US Military, whose whole roll is in support and defense of the constitution. Which means that Trump would need some sort or military force that was able to protect from the US Department of Defense.

Most successful coups involve an unconstitutional replacement of a sitting leader, but with the support of the rest of government. The Chilean Coup in 1973 only happened because both the Chamber of Deputies and the Supreme Court called on the military to restore constitutional law after Allende abandoned it in an effort to create a socialists state. The Honduran coup was conducted under similar circumstances

Trump didn't have that kid of support. SCOTUS wasn't interested in his nonsense. He had isolated the military (this major not withstanding) on numerous occasions. And there is no way that the Senate or the House would have issued a statement supporting a coup.

had Trump tried this on 20 Jan, it's quite likely that he would have been dead by 21 Jan. Drone strike. Too easy.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 10:00 AM | Reply

You're being childish, MadBomber. Especially when you claim the military would launch a drone strike on what, the White House? You might as well be saying the insurrection itself could never have happened since the military would secure The Capitol with small arms.

You don't know what would have happened. And your dismissive hypotheticals are built on ignoring how other insurrections and coups have played out.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Which would leave Trump in power until it was hashed out in court. Buying them the time they wanted to challenge the elections in the swing states."

How do you come to that conclusion?

Why wouldn't the presidential line of succession function as designed, with the Speaker of the House becoming president?

And what authority would make that shift away from constitutional law?

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 10:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why wouldn't the presidential line of succession function as designed, with the Speaker of the House becoming president?"

Why did it take 150 years for the Fourteenth Amendment to function as designed, with respect to gay marriage?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 10:05 AM | Reply

"Especially when you claim the military would launch a drone strike on what, the White House?"

If needed, yes.

The Chilean Air Force bombed the ---- out of La Moneda in 1973

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 10:05 AM | Reply

"You don't know what would have happened. And your dismissive hypotheticals are built on ignoring how other insurrections and coups have played out."

Not at all.

What I am pointing out is that there was no constitutional, "constitutional" being the operative word, that Trump remained president after 20 Jan.

There are all sorts of unconstitutional possibilities. And I truly believe that his army of rabble would happily have made him king/emperor/sultan....whatever. They had exactly zero interest in the constitution. They may as well have burned all those flags they had been carrying.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 10:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Why did it take 150 years for the Fourteenth Amendment to function as designed, with respect to gay marriage?"

It's still not functioning as designed.

Try and marry more than one person.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 10:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#60. Because the government, in a constitutional crisis, rarely works that Fast. Electoral vote isn't certified. The country now has no actually named successor to Trump. You can't even officially say Trump didn't win. So does it activate the succession line and make Pelosi President? Or does Trump remain President until the vote can be certified. There is no precedent. The courts would have had to rule. So get ready for a MOUNTAIN of motions filed to obfuscate and delay the process ... . Which, by default, world have just left him in office until a rolling COULD be made.

#65 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To be clear, if it came down to it, no President on January 20 accomplishes the same goal as Trump staying in. Delay, obfuscate , and rail against the process as a diversion for getting more time to challenge the state outcomes.

#66 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 10:15 AM | Reply

"Why wouldn't the presidential line of succession function as designed, with the Speaker of the House becoming president?"

We're lucky Trump didn't do more than refuse to concede and to attend Biden's inauguration:

"It's possible to imagine, come January 20 [Inauguration Day], that we don't have a president," Lawrence Douglas, a professor at Amherst College, tells Vox:

By the terms of the 20th Amendment, Trump ceases to be president at noon on January 20 and [Mike] Pence likewise ceases to be vice president. At this point, by the terms of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, could become acting president, but only if she resigns her House seat.

But what if Trump continues to insist that he has been reelected and is the rightful president? Imagine if, come January 20, Trump stages his own inauguration ceremony with Clarence Thomas issuing the oath of office. Then we might have Nancy Pelosi and Trump both claiming to be the commander in chief.

With political factions deadlocked, disagreeing on both who should be in office and what procedures should decide on the result, there is no rule that can be used to resolve this dispute. We would be in a situation like Venezuela today, where two elected leaders " Nicols Maduro and Juan Guaid--both claim to be the rightful president.
www.vox.com

#67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-16 10:29 AM | Reply

It's still not functioning as designed.
Try and marry more than one person.
#64 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Setting aside how stupid your comment is:
Then surely you can see why other parts of the Constitution might not work as intended.
So, stop arguing it's impossible.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 10:33 AM | Reply

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is very important. The language of the succession articles stipulate they are enacted when: the present dies, is incapacitated, or removed. That leaves a gray area a mile wide to say that the election isn't certified so they haven't been removed from office ... ..

#69 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 10:35 AM | Reply

Not so, ABH

The Constitution is very clear about the line of succession in a constitutional crisis and congress, if necessary, can activate a Succession Clause that gives them the authority to appoint a President pro tem, with all the powers of the President (with the exception of declaring war) until the crisis is resolved.

Trump became officially unemployed at noon on January 20th. There is nothing that would allow Trump to extend his term in office. The responsibility would fall on the Constitutional line of succession or, as a last resort, if necessary, upon the shoulders of Congress.

Trump's army of Proud Boys didn't do their homework. An insurrection wasn't going to work, no way, no how ~ even if they went in and torpedoed the whole swearing in process.

All they got in return for their effort was their name on a "Most Wanted" list.

Trump screwed them over royal. He's walking around free and they are either on the run, already in jail or have court dates ~ not to mention the fact that some of their comrades are singing like canaries.

#70 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-05-16 10:44 AM | Reply

#70. But of the election isn't certified, how can you say he lost the election and shouldn't be in office past noon on the 20th? That's the doubt they were trying to create.

#71 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 10:53 AM | Reply

"But of the election isn't certified, how can you say he lost the election and shouldn't be in office past noon on the 20th? That's the doubt they were trying to create."

If the election is not certified, how could you say Biden lost the election?

That's the whole point. If there was still not a clear victor on 20 Jan, then Nancy Pelosi becomes president. And the rest is figure out later on.

But there was no way Trump was going to be president on 21 Jan.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 11:18 AM | Reply

"Setting aside how stupid your comment is:"

Stupid?

You brought up marriage equality.

I brought up marriage equality.

Was your comment stupid?

I didn't thinks so.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 11:19 AM | Reply

ABH

Do your homework. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for an extension of Trump's term in office ~ certification or no certification.

The doubt Trump was trying to create depended entirely on the ignorance of his sub-culture of insurrectionists and the lies with which he was using to incite them into lawlessness.

It was just never going to achieve the goal they were led to believe.

#74 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-05-16 11:24 AM | Reply

But there is also nothing in the constitution that says what to do when we don't have a certified election on the 20th. It's like you can't see the gray at all. Is your world REALLY that black and white?

"Hey I didn't lose the election and you can't prove I didn't because the results weren't certified, so I'm staying in office. "

"I think Pelosi is President because that's what the line of succession says! Trump get out of the White House or we're going to court. "

Okay go to court. Here's 37,000 motions that are guaranteed to cause this to extend past the 20th. Now what? Who's going to the order the secret service or the military or both to forcefully evict him from the White House? Do they have the authority to do it? Oh we have to go to court to figure that out too? Hello February. At least.

Stop being nave and thinking everything works perfectly and as intended all the time. It doesn't. Especially in Situations that have never come up in nearly 250 years this country has existed. Thankfully, they STILL haven't come up, but we really skirted disaster.

If those EC results were stolen, and the back ups somehow as well. A tall order I know, that would be a seriously ugly problem. But that's exactly what the capitol invaders were trying to force.

#75 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 12:15 PM | Reply

'Invasion'? Guess you lefties got tired of misusing the word 'insurrection'. ; )

#76 | Posted by MSgt at 2021-05-16 12:45 PM | Reply

'Invasion'? Guess you lefties got tired of misusing the word 'insurrection'. ; )

#76 | POSTED BY MSGT

Your word for it? Try to avoid using "picnic".

#77 | Posted by Zed at 2021-05-16 12:55 PM | Reply

Forcibly entering someone's home is called an "home invasion."

#78 | Posted by ABH at 2021-05-16 01:01 PM | Reply

"I brought up marriage equality."

Three party marriages have been shown to not be equal to two party marriages.

The government can, and has, made the case for that. The government failed to do so for gay marriage. In the absence of that argument, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government from treating gays like second class citizens.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 01:31 PM | Reply

"But there was no way Trump was going to be president on 21 Jan."

Meanwhile, some think he's still President. Your reasoning is about as convincing as theirs.

What the Constitution says, and what actually happens, are two different things.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 01:33 PM | Reply

SNOOFY

"What the Constitution says, and what actually happens, are two different things."

That's what Dictator Trump would like us to believe. Lord knows he's tested the theory often enough on smaller, less important matters.

But fortunately, in cases as important as a presidential election, he'd was then and he is now, dead wrong, as evidenced by the decisions of 60+ federal judges and the Supreme Court of the United States.

If that didn't tell him something, nothing will. Trump is acting every bit the part we'd expect of a Dictator (self appointed).

#81 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-05-16 02:33 PM | Reply

"The government can, and has, made the case for that."

Interesting.

Is that the same government that made the case against gay marriage?

You seem to be a bit selective in when you support the government's decision to oppress people.

#82 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 02:54 PM | Reply

"Is that the same government that made the case against gay marriage?"

You're so proud of your ignorance.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 02:55 PM | Reply

"You're so proud of your ignorance."

Am I?

Was it a different government?

Am I missing something?

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-05-16 03:35 PM | Reply

You're missing the government's case against gay marriage that can withstand the guarantee of equal protection.

You're missing it because it doesn't exist.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-05-16 03:51 PM | Reply

'Invasion'? Guess you lefties got tired of misusing the word 'insurrection'. ; )

#76 | POSTED BY MSGT

Would you prefer treason? Sedition? Rebellion?

Or do you prefer calling it some good old fashioned domestic terrorism? (Timothy McVeigh style?)

I prefer sedition. Though treason certainly fits.

"Sedition is a federal crime that falls short of the offense of treason. While the crime of treason requires action, sedition is any conspiracy to overthrow, put down or to destroy by force the government of the United States. This includes preventing, hindering or delaying the execution of any law of the United States or seizing, taking or possessing any property of the United States."

2383. Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103"322, title XXXIII, 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#86 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-05-16 05:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lock em up.

#87 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-05-16 05:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another reason Trump was hoping to delay certification of the election on January 6th, which he hoped, in turn, would lead to his being able to remain in office (emphasis mine):

On January 6, Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the opening of the certified results before a joint session of the new Congress. If there are competing slates of electors in Arizona, Pence might decide to recognize the slate signed by the governor, Lessig says. If both a senator and a member of the House of Representatives sign an objection, the Senate and House would vote on whether to uphold the objection. In all likelihood, the House would vote to sustain the objection. If the Senate votes to overrule the objection, the slate signed by the governor would be counted. Even without Biden electors from Arizona, however, Biden should still have more than 270 electoral votes. But if the state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and/or Wisconsin submit competing slates of electors, that dispute would also end up in Congress.

If neither Biden nor Trump secure 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment provides that the House would decide who becomes president. Each state gets one vote and since there are more red states than blue ones, Trump would win.


www.jurist.org

I say again: Dodged a bullet, we did.

#88 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-17 06:51 AM | Reply

Donald Trump got away with so much as president because Democrats often suffer from what I think of as a failure of imagination. I tend to agree with ABH's assessments in this thread about the things that could have happened but most fortunately did not:

Legal scholars correctly point out that the Constitution firmly sets the date of national elections and also the date and time of the end of the president's and vice president's term. Does a president have the authority to ignore or modify this electoral calendar? As Professor Cass Sunstein has written, "The answer is clear. He does not" . Unfortunately, the risk in this cutthroat world of practice does not end with that crisp analysis.

www.justsecurity.org

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2021-05-17 07:02 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort