Updated 03/13/2024
This week, SCOTUS is poised to rule on whether or not Trump can remain on the ballot, however, that ruling also hinges on whether or not Trump was ever qualified for POTUS in the first place -- regardless if the "justices" Trump appointed consider the same -- because in order to be impeached as an officer of the United States, one first has to be properly qualified to be an officer of the United States like POTUS, in the similar manner that in order for a justice appointed by Trump to rule whether or not Trump is eligible for office, they first have to determine if he was eligible for the office that allowed SCOTUS to rule on the same.
Accordingly, if SCOTUS doesn't investigate whether or not Trump was eligible to run for POTUS -- due to to his treason and elections fraud with Russia BEFORE the 2016 eletcions -- they would be doing so to RICO obstruct their own illegitimacy. As RICO organized crime protecting traitors, insurrectionists, seditionists, and terrorists would, instead of apply the law in an equal manner, SCOTUS applied DARVO and attacked victims of Trump's crimes, crying foul and how dare the State of Colorado try and enforce long-standing law, posturing Trump as the victim, accusing plaintiffs of allowing one state to determine who could be on the ballot, when the fact of the matter is that Trump and the GOP disqualified themselves from public office BEFORE the 2016 elections, and thereafter, which is not the fault of the State nor people of Colorado, akin to the corrupted SCOTUS accusing a rape victim of trying to put their rapist in jail in order to seek justice, and how unfair for the rapist the corrupted SCOTUS implied, to be held accountable for the crimes committed. Shame on the corrupt SCOTUS for applying DARVO to the victims, the people and State of Colorado, who bravely stood up to the ongoing organized crime syndicate of Jeffrey Epstein and Russia, only for SCOTUS to shame them for the same, to give aid, comfort, and to adhere to enemies of the United States during wartime, outside of their oaths of office, outside of the scope of their duty, and outside their employment protections. Shame on them and the traitors and enemies of the United States they seek to RICO obstruct justice for.
Here is where Congressional hearings, investigations, and committees become important, because the January 6th, 2021 Commission found that Trump did engage in an insurrection in order to unlawfully remain in power, and more recently Adam Schiff did get John Durham to admit that Trump and the GOP did conspire to "cheat with an enemy" of the United States to win the 2016 elections, which further proved after the Mueller investigation, that Trump was not eligible for public office before the 2016 elections, and thus further proves that 3 out of 9 SCOTUS justices were not legitimately installed, because no one like Trump who wasn't eligible for public office can legitimately appoint SCOTUS justices to rule on Trump's and SCOTUS' legitimacy, nor no one like the GOP in congress can legitimately confirm such justices, if they were not legitimately made POTUS or members of congress due to acts of treason and elections fraud with an enemy of the United States, as specified in those laws.
"Mr. Schiff. I thank you for yielding. One of my colleagues in the Republican side of the aisle took issue with my saying that the Trump Campaign invited Russian help, received Russian help, made use of it, and then lied about it. So, let’s break this down.
Let’s go to invited Russian help. Mr. Durham, you’re aware of Donald Trump’s public statements along the lines of, hey, Russia, if you’re listening, hack Hillary’s emails. You’ll be richly awarded by the press. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Durham. I’m aware of that.
Mr. Schiff. You’re aware that Mueller found that hours after he made that plea for Russian help, the Russians, in fact, tried to hack one of the email servers affiliated with the Clinton Campaign or family.
Mr. Durham. If that happened, I’m not aware of that.
Mr. Schiff. You’re not–
Mr. Durham. It could very well. I just don’t know.
Mr. Schiff. –aware of that in the Mueller Report? When you’re saying you’re not aware of evidence of collusion in the Mueller Report, it’s because apparently you haven’t read the Mueller Report every well if you’re not aware of that fact. Let me ask you about something else.
Mr. Durham. Sure.
Mr. Schiff. Don Jr. when offered dirt as part of what was described as Russian government effort to help the Trump Campaign said, “if it’s what you say, I love it;” Would you call that an invitation to get Russian help with dirt on Hillary Clinton?
Mr. Durham. The words speak for themselves, I supposed.
Mr. Schiff. I think they do. In fact, he said, especially late in summer. Late in summer was around when the Russians started to dump the stolen emails, wasn’t it?
Mr. Durham. Late in the summer, there was information that was disclosed by WikiLeaks in mid to late July. I think there had been some in June, and then there was maybe some later in October was it, I think. Don’t hold me to those dates.
Mr. Schiff. This gets to the receipt of help, second thing I mentioned, receiving Russian help. The dumping of those emails by the way just as forecast by what Papadopoulos told
the Australian diplomat. That is that the Russians would help by leaking dirt anonymously through cutouts like WikiLeaks and DCLeaks.
Mr. Durham. I don’t think that’s exactly what he told the Australians.
Mr. Schiff. Well, he said that he was informed that the Russians could anonymously release this information, right?
Mr. Durham. Release what?
Mr. Schiff. By anonymously releasing information damaging to Hillary Clinton, right?
Mr. Durham. I think if you read what’s in the cable and what’s in the report as to what the diplomats reported there was a suggestion of a suggestion that the Russians could help. They have damaging information as to Ms. Clinton.
Mr. Schiff. By releasing it anonymously, right? That’s exactly what happened, isn’t it?
Mr. Durham. I don’t–
Mr. Schiff. You really don’t know?
Mr. Durham. I’m not sure–when you say exactly what happened–
Mr. Schiff. Well, the Russians released stolen emails through cutouts, did they not?
Mr. Durham. There were emails that were released by WikiLeaks.
Mr. Schiff. It’s a very simple question. Did they release information, stolen information, through cutouts, yes or no?
Mr. Durham. I’m not sure that–
Mr. Schiff. You really don’t know the answer to that? The answer is yes, they did. Through DCLeaks–
Mr. Durham. In your mind, it’s yes.
Mr. Schiff. Well, Mueller’s answer is yes. More important than mine, Mueller’s answer was yes. Now, that information, of course, was helpful to the Trump Campaign, wasn’t it?
Mr. Durham. I don’t think there’s any question that Russians intruded into hacked into the systems.
Mr. Schiff. Well, I just want to get–
Mr. Durham. They released information.
Mr. Schiff. That was helpful to Trump Campaign, right?
Mr. Durham. The conclusion in the ICA and in the Mueller investigation was that the Russians intended to assist–
Mr. Schiff. Can you answer my question, Mr. Durham? That was helpful to Trump Campaign, right?
[Crosstalk.]
Mr. Schiff. Trump made use of that, as I said, didn’t he, by touting those stolen documents on the campaign trail over 100 times?
Mr. Durham. Like I said, I don’t really read the newspapers or listen to the news.
Mr. Schiff. You were totally–
Mr. Durham. I don’t find them reliable, so I don’t know that.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, you were totally oblivious to Donald Trump’s use of the stolen emails on the campaign trail more than 100 times?
Mr. Durham. I’m not aware of that.
Mr. Schiff. Did that escape your attention?
Mr. Durham. I am not aware of that.
Mr. Schiff. Are you aware of the final prong that I mentioned, that he lied about it, that the Trump Campaign covered it up? It’s the whole second volume of the Mueller Report. I hope you’re familiar with that.
Mr. Durham. Yes, that’s a section of the report, the second volume relating to their obstruction of justice.
Mr. Schiff. Well, thank you for confirming what my Republican colleague attacked me about. He also criticized the use of the word collusion. Apparently giving private polling data to the Russians while the Russians are helping your campaign, they don’t want to call it collusion.
Maybe there’s a better name for it. Maybe they would prefer we just call it good old fashioned GOP cheating with the enemy. Maybe that would be a little bit more accurate description.
Mr. Durham. Yes."
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/02/06/john-durham-feigns-totally-dumb-about-russian-collusion/
Accordingly, even Bill Barr's RICO obstruction of justice agent and co-conspirator, John Durham, has admitted to Congress that the GOP and Trump "cheated with the enemy" and obstructed justice for the same as specified in Part II of the Mueller Investigation, and where obstruction again is like a getaway driver to a bank heist, but in this case it was stolen 2016 elections, but in reality, stolen 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 stolen elections or attempts to steal elections Trump and the GOP aren't eligible to run for as a matter of established law, law they are asking those they illegitimately installed onto SCOTUS to overturn so that they can overtly further the ongoing conspiracy to steal elections, which SCOTUS would be acting outside of the scope and protections of their illegitimate offices if they overtly further by RICO corruption and obstruction.
And was the enemy of the United States, Russia, involved in warfare or terrorism against the United States, before and after they conspired with Trump and the GOP to "engineer" Trump into power per the treason and elections fraud conspiracy of Felix Sater 11/03/2015?
The answer is that yes they were.
Russia has been an enemy of the United States since the Cold "War", so before Trump ran for office.
Russia more recently engaged in cyber"war"fare and cyberterrorism against the United States BEFORE Trump ran for office and AFTER Trump personally and publicly asked U.S. enemy Russia to attack the critical infrastructure and communications of the United States via cyberwarfare, to further Felix Sater's, Putin's, Mike Flynn's, Michael Cohen's, and Russia's ongoing conspiracy to "engineer" Trump and the GOP into power by way of an ongoing treason, cyberwarfare, and elections fraud conspiracy, furthered by Trump's insurrection, fake elector plot, stolen documents, intimidation of witnesses, and the RICO obstruction of all of the same, similar to how a getaway driver is guilty of the crime of robbing the bank, in this case the 2016 elections.
"Cozy Bear, classified by the United States federal government as advanced persistent threat APT29, is a Russian hacker group believed to be associated with one or more intelligence agencies of Russia. The Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) deduced from security camera footage that it is led by the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR),[5] a view shared by the United States.[4] Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike also previously suggested that it may be associated with either the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) or SVR.[2] The group has been given various nicknames by other cybersecurity firms, including CozyCar,[6] CozyDuke[7][8] (by F-Secure), Dark Halo, The Dukes (by Volexity), Midnight Blizzard[9] (by Microsoft), NOBELIUM, Office Monkeys, StellarParticle, UNC2452, and YTTRIUM.
On 20 December 2020, it was reported that Cozy Bear was responsible for a cyber attack on U.S. sovereign national data, believed to be at the direction of the Russian government.[10]
Kaspersky Lab determined that the earliest samples of the MiniDuke malware attributed to the group date from 2008.[1] The original code was written in assembly language.[11] Symantec believes that Cozy Bear had been compromising diplomatic organizations and governments since at least 2010.[12]
The CozyDuke malware utilises a backdoor and a dropper. The malware exfiltrates data to a command and control server. Attackers may tailor the malware to the environment.[1] The backdoor components of Cozy Bear's malware are updated over time with modifications to cryptography, trojan functionality, and anti-detection. The speed at which Cozy Bear develops and deploys its components is reminiscent of the toolset of Fancy Bear, which also uses the tools CHOPSTICK and CORESHELL.[13]
Cozy Bear's CozyDuke malware toolset is structurally and functionally similar to second stage components used in early Miniduke, Cosmicduke, and OnionDuke operations. A second stage module of the CozyDuke malware, Show.dll, appears to have been built onto the same platform as OnionDuke, suggesting that the authors are working together or are the same people.[13] The campaigns and the malware toolsets they use are referred to as the Dukes, including Cosmicduke, Cozyduke, and Miniduke.[12] CozyDuke is connected to the MiniDuke and CosmicDuke campaigns, as well as to the OnionDuke cyberespionage campaign. Each threat group tracks their targets and use toolsets that were likely created and updated by Russian speakers.[1] Following exposure of the MiniDuke in 2013, updates to the malware were written in C/C++ and it was packed with a new obfuscator.[11]
Cozy Bear is suspected of being behind the 'HAMMERTOSS' remote access tool which uses commonly visited websites like Twitter and GitHub to relay command data.[14]
Seaduke is a highly configurable, low-profile Trojan only used for a small set of high-value targets. Typically, Seaduke is installed on systems already infected with the much more widely distributed CozyDuke.[12]
Cozy Bear appears to have different projects, with different user groups. The focus of its project "Nemesis Gemina" is military, government, energy, diplomatic and telecom sectors.[11] Evidence suggests that Cozy Bear's targets have included commercial entities and government organizations in Germany, Uzbekistan, South Korea and the US, including the US State Department and the White House in 2014.[13]
In March 2014, a Washington, D.C.-based private research institute was found to have CozyDuke (Trojan.Cozer) on their network. Cozy Bear then started an email campaign attempting to lure victims into clicking on a flash video of office monkeys that would also include malicious executables.[12][1] By July the group had compromised government networks and directed CozyDuke-infected systems to install Miniduke onto a compromised network.[12]
In the summer of 2014, digital agents of the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service infiltrated Cozy Bear. They found that these Russian hackers were targeting the US Democratic Party, State Department and White House. Their evidence influenced the FBI's decision to open an investigation.[5][15]
In August 2015, Cozy Bear was linked to a spear-phishing cyber-attack against the Pentagon email system, causing the shut down of the entire Joint Staff unclassified email system and Internet access during the investigation.[16][17]
Main article: Democratic National Committee cyber attacks
In June 2016, Cozy Bear was implicated alongside the hacker group Fancy Bear in the Democratic National Committee cyber attacks.[2] While the two groups were both present in the Democratic National Committee's servers at the same time, they appeared to be unaware of the other, each independently stealing the same passwords and otherwise duplicating their efforts.[18] A CrowdStrike forensic team determined that while Cozy Bear had been on the DNC's network for over a year, Fancy Bear had only been there a few weeks.[19] Cozy Bear's more sophisticated tradecraft and interest in traditional long-term espionage suggest that the group originates from a separate Russian intelligence agency.[18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Bear
Similarly, "In 1999, Moonlight Maze was the US investigation of a 1996-1999 Russian cyberattack against NASA, the Pentagon, the US military, civilian academics and government agencies. The cyberattack was attributed to Russian-state-sponsored hackers.[71][72][73]
The 2008 cyberattack on the United States was connected to Russian language threat actors.[74]
In April 2015, CNN reported that "Russian hackers" had "penetrated sensitive parts of the White House" computers in "recent months." It was said that the FBI, the Secret Service, and other U.S. intelligence agencies categorized the attacks as "among the most sophisticated attacks ever launched against U.S. government systems."[75]
In 2015, CNN reported that Russian hackers, likely working for the Russian government, are suspected in the State Department hack. Federal law enforcement, intelligence and congressional officials briefed on the investigation say the hack of the State Department email system is the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency.[76]
In February 2016, senior Kremlin advisor and top Russian cyber official Andrey Krutskikh told the Russian national security conference in Moscow that Russia was working on new strategies for the "information arena" that was equivalent to testing a nuclear bomb and would "allow us to talk to the Americans as equals".[77]
In 2016, the release of hacked emails belonging to the Democratic National Committee, John Podesta, and Colin Powell, among others, through DCLeaks and WikiLeaks was said by private sector analysts[78] and US intelligence services[79] to have been of Russian origin.[80][81] Also, in December 2016, Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Committee on Armed Services called for "a special select committee to investigate Russian attempts to influence the presidential election".[82][83]
In 2018, the United States Computer Emergency Response Team released an alert warning that the Russian government was executing "a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities' networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks." It further noted that "[a]fter obtaining access, the Russian government cyber actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally, and collected information pertaining to Industrial Control Systems."[84] The hacks targeted at least a dozen U.S. power plants, in addition to water processing, aviation, and government facilities.[85]
In June 2019, the New York Times reported that hackers from the United States Cyber Command planted malware potentially capable of disrupting the Russian electrical grid.[86] According to Wired senior writer Andy Greenberg, "The Kremlin warned that the intrusions could escalate into a cyberwar between the two countries."[86]
Over several months in 2020, a group known as APT29 or Cozy Bear, working for Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, breached a top cybersecurity firm and multiple U.S. government agencies including the Treasury, Commerce, and Energy departments and the National Nuclear Security Administration.[87] The hacks occurred through a network management system called SolarWinds Orion. The U.S. government had an emergency meeting on 12 December 2020, and the press reported the hack the next day. When Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service performs such hacks, it is typically "for traditional espionage purposes, stealing information that might help the Kremlin understand the plans and motives of politicians and policymakers," according to The Washington Post, and not for the purpose of leaking information to the public.[88]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia
Per Cornell Law on treason, "Treason refers to the betrayal of one’s own country by attempting to overthrow the government through waging war against the state or materially aiding its enemies. According to the United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses (John Durham, Adam Schiff, Robert Mueller, Michael Cohen, Felix Sater, the email provider of Felix Sater and Michael Cohen's 11/03/2015 emails, Mike Flynn, WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, Julian Assange, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, but not at all limited to the same) to the same overt act, or on confession in open court (Trump's attorneys have specified in the last year that there was no Russia hoax or more specifically that Russia did engage in elections interference in 2016).” Furthermore, 18 U.S.C § 2381, states that a person guilty of treason against the United States “shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/treason
Accordingly, the evidence herein this article and found at https://www.uprightsnews.com/crossfire-hurricane-origins make it clear that there is ZERO doubt that Russia has been an enemy of the United States since the Cold "War" and that they have engaged in "warfare" against the United States military, and in a conspiracy overtly furthered by Donald Trump and the GOP, BEFORE the 2016, in a manner that immediately disqualified Trump and the GOP from public office BEFORE the 2016 elections, and before Trump and the GOP rushed to appoint and confirm half of the GOP SCOTUS majority now poised to rule on their own legitimacy in a major conflict of interest, which cannot result in a legitimate ruling either way.
No one who was appointed and confirmed by someone who was not eligible to be appointed and confirmed themselves can be legitimately appointed and confirmed, nor can their rulings be legitimate either, regardless how they rule on their own cases.
Accordingly, it is very significant that the January 6, 2021 Committee of Congress did find that Trump did incite and lead an insurrection, in the context that this overtly furthered Putin's and Russia's Felix Sater's 11/03/2015 treason and elections fraud conspiracy with Trump and the GOP, and it is significant that John Durham admitted that Russia was an enemy when Trump and the GOP cheated with this U.S. enemy to steal the 2016 elections, and then obstructed justice for the same through to the present day, allowing them to steal the 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections also, and where now the illegitimate SCOTUS they installed are being asked to allow them to steal the 2024 elections, which will overtly further the 11/03/2015 conspiracy of U.S. enemy Russia if SCOTUS chooses to aid, comfort, and adhere to Russian agent Donald Trump and/or the GOP this week -- making any and all SCOTUS, Democratic and Republican alike -- conspirators of U.S. enemies Russia, the GOP, and Trump, if they unlawfully rule in Trump's favor via RICO corruption and obstruction, as Trump's, Putin's, Russia's, fake electors', and insurrectionists' getaway driver.
SCOTUS HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOOSING TO RULE ON A CASE WHICH IN EFFECT IS RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATELY INSTALLED, WHEN THEY HAVE NOT BEEN LEGITIMATELY INSTALLED
"The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week about whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from running for president for his role in the events of Jan. 6, 2020. As explained last week, the most likely issue Trump v. Anderson will be decided upon isn’t the hot-button issue of whether he engaged in insurrection.
Instead, the Court will likely rule on seemingly mundane questions, with the most probable candidate being whether Congress is required to pass legislation that enforces Section 3 of the 14th amendment before one can be disqualified under that constitutional provision.
The issue’s crux is whether Section 3 is “self-executing” — that is, whether it takes effect as soon as it’s ratified. Take, for instance, the Commander-in-Chief Clause — the president can act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces without waiting for Congress to pass a law making the president such. Likewise, constitutional rights are generally deemed self-executing.
But other portions of the Constitution are not operative until Congress passes some legislation making them so. Sometimes this is very clear in the constitutional text, such as the Presidential Succession Clause, which states that after the President and Vice President, “Congress may by law determine presidential succession.”
However, as specified above, Trump was never eligible to be president after he overtly furthered, aid, comforted and adhered to U.S. Russia in 2015 and 2016, BEFORE he was "engineered" by this enemy into power, and where Trump personally overtly furthered that treason conspiracy BEFORE the 2016 election.
Accordingly, all of this posturing regarding protecting the presidency, removing the president by impeachment, Trump's authority on January 6, 2021, and whether or not Trump was an officer -- is moot -- because Trump was NEVER eligible to run for office BEFORE the 2016 elections as a matter of law, just as at least 3 out of 9 SCOTUS were NEVER eligible to rule on whether Trump was eligible for office, as a matter of law.
"The argument against disqualifying.
Those arguing that Section 3 is not self-executing point to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment for support, which states: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
In the 1866 debates in the Congress that drafted Section 3, there are also repeated statements by Senators and Representatives that Section 3 would require implementing legislation by Congress for it to be enforceable, and no comments to the contrary.
Resolving the case on this point may be attractive to the Court because it does not require condoning or condemning Mr. Trump. The Justices can just bypass any discussion of whether he engaged in insurrection in relation to January 6.
In this way, the Court can avoid being seen as interfering in politics and inflaming the passions of a large portion of the country since someone will be upset no matter how the Court rules on that substantive question. Instead, the Court would let the voters decide whether Mr. Trump’s actions disqualified him from another term in the White House.
This issue may also provide the easiest analysis for the Court since there is relevant precedent — a single case from 1869, the year after the 14th Amendment was adopted. In that case, a criminal defendant invoked Section 3 to challenge his conviction before a judge who had served as an officer in the Confederate Army.
The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Salmon Chase, decided this case while sitting on the Virginia Circuit court (something Justices used to do). As Stanford Law Professor and former federal judge Michael McConnell observes, “Chase had been a leading abolitionist lawyer, served in Lincoln’s cabinet, was Lincoln’s nominee to replace Roger B. Taney as Chief Justice, and knew everything there was to know about the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Chief Justice Chase held that the enforcement mechanism of a Section 3 disqualification “can only be provided for by Congress,” citing the same Section 5 discussed above. And while the Supreme Court is not bound by this case, the Court often finds these old decisions by Supreme Court Justices sitting on lower courts to be persuasive authority.
One year after the case, Congress responded and passed the Insurrection Act of 1870, which provided that anyone convicted of engaging in “any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof” shall be “incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
But Mr. Trump has not been convicted, or even charged, with engaging in insurrection. And Congress has not currently provided any other enforcement mechanism, such as a civil action, for Section 3."
However, Jeffrey Epstein's Bill Gates' Microsoft's MSN is entirely misleading here with respect to Jeffrey Epstein's Donald Trump, because again it was the Congressional January 6, 2021 Committee which found that Trump did engage in insurrection.
"After roughly 18 months of investigations, the House committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol has released their full report.
The document, which is more than 800 pages long, recommends the Justice Department pursue criminal charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in the attack. And they say Congress should act to bar Trump, and others involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection, from ever holding federal office again.
A summary of the full report was released Monday after the committee concluded its final public hearing. More documents are still expected to be released."
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/23/1145209559/jan-6-committee-final-report
"The argument for disqualifying.
This is not an easy issue, however, as the arguments on the other side — that Section 3 is self-executing — also have force. First, Section 5’s empowering of Congress to enforce the amendment through legislation means Congress may legislate to enforce Section 3, but it does not mean only Congress can act to enforce the provision. And Section 5 does not expressly exclude the states or courts from enforcing the amendment.
Also, the rest of the amendment, Sections 1, 2, and 4, are self-executing, so it’s odd to read Section 3 differently, especially since it contains no language implying that it should be understood distinctly from the rest of the amendment. What’s more, other times the Constitution uses the same language as Section 3 — “no person shall” — those provisions are considered self-executing.
In addition, the states are required to apply the Constitution, including state courts, and states are also authorized to run presidential elections. On that latter point, states have historically excluded folks from the ballot that did not satisfy other requirements, like being a natural born citizen or 35 years of age. And if Congress does not agree with a state’s disqualification of someone under Section 3, that same section allows Congress to override the disqualification.
Also, Chief Justice Chase’s opinion in that 1869 case was based on weak reasoning and concerns not present here since Mr. Trump had a trial. And prior to the enactment of enforcement legislation by Congress, states disqualified state officials under Section 3."
Accordingly, per stare decisis, a priori, and a fortiori, before anyone can rule on whether or not Trump is eligible for office after he engaged in insurrection, one has to first determine if Trump was ever eligible for public office immediately before the 2016 elections -- because he was not -- and where no justice he installed as a result can legitimately rule either way in his favor or not, as a matter of established law, nor can they rule on a case which in effect is ruling on whether or not they are eligible to rule on any case, especially this case, also a matter of established law, as no one can be their own judge.
And yet that is exactly what is happening here, Trump's own judges are ruling on whether or not Trump is eligible for the 2024 office he wasn't eligible for BEFORE the 2016 elections, which resulted in the Trump judges ruling on the same. Res ipsa loquitur malum in se, this natural evil speaks for itself, and any evidence to the contrary is fruit from the poisonous tree of ineligibility.
Photo: https://unsplash.com/@bradyn