Every Good Insurrectionist Deserves Favor

For legal reasons, it makes total sense for Trump's lawyer not to be arguing "No, he isn't an insurrectionist," but it's still wild to hear Trump's lawyer saying, basically, well sure maybe he is but he can still run for office!

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) February 8, 2024

frankly amazing that the strongest characterization of Jan 6, 2021 “riot/criminal” came from Trumps own lawyer….

— Dahlia Lithwick (@Dahlialithwick) February 8, 2024

Or, you know, from the horse's mouth:

I thought it wasn’t an insurrection. https://t.co/N3OEyM1cXh

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 8, 2024

Yeah, I know, "Nancy Pelosi."

CNN's Daniel Dale fact-checks Trump's claims that Nancy Pelosi was behind January 6.

Dale: "He also said this was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi. That is an insane statement. That is beyond fact check false. That is completely deranged.”
pic.twitter.com/XOZjequt09

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) February 8, 2024

Just chalk it up to Trump's dementia and watch the donut, not the hole.

Just digest this: the United States Supreme Court is currently debating a bunch of technical legal questions we may need to resolve because Donald Trump did something that may qualify as engaging in insurrection against the U.S.

That alone makes him wildly unfit.

— Ian Bassin 🇺🇦 (@ianbassin) February 8, 2024

The Supremes are going to decide the Colorado ruling raises impermissible political questions, which the Court generally (wisely) stays away from. Unless it's politics they like: Hobby Lobby, Dobbs, Holder, the football coach who wasn't fired for praying on the football field, etc., etc., etc.

They preach it round and square, as a retired judge once put it to me.

I personally don't care if Trump is on the ballot, or not.  I care about the Constitutional question, and whether the Supreme Court will write a position so full of holes the new Democratic Congress will decide on Jan. 6, 2025 that the victor Donald Trump can't be confirmed to office because of the 14th Amendment, and that Congress affirmatively votes NOT to remove the "disability."

There has to be a better solution to the "problem" of the Constitution, than that.  If only because Congress can so decide without any application of due process (Colorado had a five-day trial) or equal protection under law.

Is that really how the Constitution is supposed to be used?

Trump spent millions and millions of dollars fending off the various ballot challenges like Colorado. And very few people counted on those challenges ever being upheld by SCOTUS. Nevertheless, I revert back to the spending of millions to determine the value of the efforts.

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 8, 2024

There is that, of course.  😈 And the cavalcade of stupid that will follow:

Trump filed 62 different lawsuits asking courts to overturn the 2020 election results. pic.twitter.com/UE9ELlXJmr

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 8, 2024

Unless the candidate is not old enough; or not natural born as a citizen, enough (I'm looking at birtherism). Or doesn't gain the support of enough of the primary voters of one of the two major parties (those who don't even try don't count at all). Other than that, sure, "we, the people" choose our POTUS. So long as enough of us vote in the right states (major population centers and states are SOL if enough low-population rural states go the other way. Popular vote count doesn't elect POTUS; the electoral college does.)

Really, these stupid arguments make me tired.