ADVERTISEMENT

Harry Dunn

urfan1

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
19,165
5,492
113
Reading the first hand account of the J6 insurrection written by Officer Harry Dunn (he has been on many national shows and testified as to the events of the day). Do yourself a favor and read his book, was surprised to learn he was OL at JMU from 2002 to 2005.

Harry Dunn - Football - James Madison University Athletics

Harry Dunn (69) Offensive Lineman - At JMU: Fifth-year Duke who is a gifted athletic and who the JMU staff hopes will assume a major role, said OL coach Curt Newsome…
jmusports.com jmusports.com
 
What "insurrection?" A "bunch of tourists" beating Capitol and DC Metro policemen was just "legitimate political discourse." And besides, those Capitol invaders were all Antifa anyways.
 
Wood Hall said:
What "insurrection?" A "bunch of tourists" beating Capitol and DC Metro policemen was just "legitimate political discourse." And besides, those Capitol invaders were all Antifa anyways.
Click to expand...
unfortunately some truly believe this.
 
The events surrounding January were abhorrent. As Commander-in-Chief, President Trump was responsible. He should not be a candidate for the office. But neither should Biden.
 
Trump absolutely should be legally forbidden from running for elected office again. The fact that this is even a question is a sad indictment on where we are as a nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bullfrog91
He was impeached by the House for inciting an insurrection. Senate did not convict. For Constitutional reasons, don't believe it will go far in the Courts.

He has not been convicted of anything (yet) so on what basis would you disqualify him from running? The Colorado and Maine decisions are an insult to democracy. Convict then disqualify. You can't reverse the two unless we have become a Banana Republic.

Said by a Never Trumper.
 
Well I mean that he should be convicted. The fact that that hasn't happened yet is troubling. I know things take time, but this should be an open and shut case. The guy tried to overthrow our system of government. He wants to become a dictator and he will if somehow elected again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

I think he is not eligible, but I would prefer he be convicted before prohibited from running, only for peace in country. Language of Article is not an innocent until proven guilty provision. House has found twice he was engaged in insurrection. Language puts obligation on Trump to convince 2/3s each house to allow him to run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
Wow. Stunned. Innocent until proven guilty is a pillar of our judicial system. If folks don't believe this, fold up the tents. Our constitutional republic experiment is over.

Don't read the Amendment that way at all. Says if you engaged in insurrection you are barred from further service unless 2/3's of each House give you a get out of jail free card.

Not the question here.

If it has not been determined the person alleged did indeed engage in insurrection (tried once, not convicted), on what basis do you disqualify?

Let the system work. Don't allow blind hatred cloud our good judgment.
 
Last edited:
KE Spider said:
Wow. Stunned. Innocent until proven guilty is a pillar of our judicial system. If folks don't believe this, fold up the tents. Our constitutional republic experiment is over.

Don't read the Amendment that way at all. Says if you engaged in insurrection you are barred from further service unless 2/3's of each House give you a get out of jail free card.

Not the question here.

If it has not been determined the person alleged did indeed engage in insurrection (tried once, not convicted), on what basis do you disqualify?

Let the system work. Don't allow blind hatred cloud our good judgment.
Click to expand...
He is not being arrested for violating the Constitution. He faces no legal jeopardy. Due process, nor the presumption of innocence, does not apply here.

He simply no longer meets the Constitutional requirement to be president, both because of his calling for the Jan. 6 terrorist attack, and his collusion with the Russians. Same as if he were 34 years old, nor not a native-born American citizen.

The truth is, if you want the Constitution to be worth the parchment it's printed on, you'd be in favor of barring Trump. He is a clear and present danger to our country and our democracy and should be dealt with as such.
 
Disqualifying anyone from running for an office BEFORE he/she has been convicted of anything is a clear and present danger to our democracy. Why this is not obvious to everyone confounds and flabbergasts me. Have we become a Banana Republic?

Let the system work. Don't allow blind hatred to cloud sound judgment.

Again, I am a Never Trumper, but damn we need to follow our founding principles and not be blinded by hatred.
 
KE Spider said:
Disqualifying anyone from running for an office BEFORE he/she has been convicted of anything is a clear and present danger to our democracy. Why this is not obvious to everyone confounds and flabbergasts me. Have we become a Banana Republic?

Let the system work. Don't allow blind hatred to cloud sound judgment.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Again, I am a Never Trumper, but damn we need to follow our founding principles and not be blinded by hatred.
Click to expand...
Here is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

It was passed after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate leaders from being able to run for office. To my knowledge, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were never convicted of any crimes after the Civil War. Do you think either would have been allowed to run for President? Under Section 3 I think not, even though each was never convicted. It does not say "convicted", it says "engaged". So to me it boils down to a simple factual question: Did Trump engage in an insurrection? If you think he didn't then he should be allowed to run. If you think he did he should not be allowed to run. The Colorado Court decided on a factual basis that he engaged in an insurrection. My guess is the Supreme Court, 3 of 9 having been appointed by Trump, will find a way to overturn the Colorado Court but a reading of Section 3 does not require a conviction to bar someone from running, and certainly the enactors, based on the reason for enacting it in the first place, had this in mind when it was enacted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
Long Island, sensible argument devoid of hate.

Comes down to "engage". Who decides? Who has the right to decide? Me thinks it isn't the Colorada Supreme Court or the Secretary of State in Maine on a national issue.

Admittedly, voting procedures are largely left to the states barring discriminatory practices, but nixing candidates is dangerous to a democracy. Pretty obvious who wore Grey in the Civil War plus Union held Confederate enlistment records so identification to whom the Amendment applied was evident. Not so now without a novel reading.

Where does this end? What are the guardrails? If you want to go this route, good bye democracy because both sides can play this game.

This disqualification gambit by the haters is fraught with danger for our Republic.
 
Last edited:
From Mark Cuban:

"I wish Biden would come out and say he wants Trump on the ballot. The 14th doesn't apply. Then thanks him for the playbook describing how to never leave office and the appreciation of knowing he can't be charged, no matter what he does.

And ends it with " My Fellow Americans , I'm not ever going to leave the White House and there is nothing you can do to me. "

Sounds good. And the sitting VP gets to certify false electors and do whatever the heck else it is Trump said Pence had the power to do.

People are routinely prevented from running for office without being convicted. If they're not old enough, if they're not native-born citizens, if they don't live in the district they're running in, etc.
 
The Amendment was specifically written to bar former Confederates from running for office without 2/3s approval from both Houses. We all know this.

No one outside of the Left echo chamber ever dreamed it would be distorted to apply in the situation today.

It is a dangerous, slippery slope that could lead to a great deal of mischief. What if the Secretaries of State for Texas, Arizona and Florida decided to disqualify Biden because he took an oath to uphold the laws of the country, but willfully, purposely failed to enforce immigration laws thereby is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors? Farfetched? Sure, but so is the current effort to disqualify a candidate.

Easy solution. Cut the misguided crap and beat him at the ballot box.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallipoli
Wood Hall said:
Those restrictions are in the Constitution. So is the insurrection clause. No difference.
Click to expand...
Didn't answer the question bc outside of Confederates there are NO examples to cite. Point of the question.

You are advocating a position never advanced before. A horrible precedent for the country, extremely divisive when we need to move in the other direction, and all driven by hatred.

Just beat him at the ballot box. He'll not get my vote, but this disqualification movement is nonsensical, misguided and dangerous.
 
read my post #9 I would prefer a conviction, but he was impeached for inciting an insurrection and the J6 committee recommended DOJ pursue criminal charges for his acts, If there was no basis for calling him an insurrectionist it would be a terrible precedent, but a worse precedent would be for an insurrectionist to be elected President!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
Yes, I am a proud never Tumper, and I have been since I heard him confess to rape on an interview by Howard Stearn approximately 30 years ago.

Essentially he said women did what he wanted because he was rich, if they were reluctant he would give them plenty of alcohol (drunk is not consent) and if that didn't work he may have to use force, but he got what he wanted.
 
urfan1 said:
read my post #9 I would prefer a conviction, but he was impeached for inciting an insurrection and the J6 committee recommended DOJ pursue criminal charges for his acts, If there was no basis for calling him an insurrectionist it would be a terrible precedent, but a worse precedent would be for an insurrectionist to be elected President!
Click to expand...
Charged by House Dems, not found guilty by Senate. Done. Over. The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine Secretary of State can't legitimately substitute their judgment for the Senate.

Move on. Quit putting the country through hell over a pique.

As to your second paragraph, agree he is despicable. Will not get my vote, but nor will Biden.
 
Last edited:
KE Spider said:
Didn't answer the question bc outside of Confederates there are NO examples to cite. Point of the question.

You are advocating a position never advanced before. A horrible precedent for the country, extremely divisive when we need to move in the other direction, and all driven by hatred.

Just beat him at the ballot box. He'll not get my vote, but this disqualification movement is nonsensical, misguided and dangerous.
Click to expand...
That happened once, by a landslide, and he refused to recognize the results and then attempted to overthrow the government. What do you think he'll do when he loses by another landslide next time?

There are never any examples to cite about anything until there are. Somebody has to be the first in every single thing in life. Trump was the first sitting president to attempt to overthrow the government.
 
The Senate, the decider, did not agree with your opinion. They have the power. You have only an opinion which you are entitled to of course.

If he going to lose by a landslide, why the disqualification gambit? Why put the country through more divisiveness?

Looks horrible, like Eastern Europe, sub Sahara Africa, etc. Leading opposition candidate disqualified from running by ruling party. Hope we are better than this.

This will be smacked down by the Supreme Court in a heartbeat whether comprised of a 6-3 conservative or 6-3 liberal majority.

Not a party issue to me. It is a question of principle and good governance.
 
Last edited:
KE Spider said:
Why the disqualification gambit? Why put the country through more divisiveness?

Looks horrible, like Eastern Europe, sub Sahara Africa, etc. Leading opposition candidate disqualified from running by ruling party. Hope we are better than this....

Not a party issue to me. It is a question of principle and good governance.
Click to expand...
This is a banana republic or a Russian tactic. The left is unhinged by Trump. They are obsessed with "getting" him. They bend the rules to get Trump. Let the people decide. I can guarantee you one thing, Republicans will be prepared to contest any voting irregularities that may appear.
 
I can guarantee you one thing, Republicans will be prepared to contest any voting irregularities that may appear.

Like all those "irregularities" that appeared in 2020? The ones that never existed and were thrown out of court and resulted in disbarment and sanctions of attorneys, prison sentences to phony electors and a $900 million fine to FAUX News?

Yes I sure hope those nasty Democrats don't try to slip through phony groups of electors, ask the Veep to ignore his Constitutional duty or beg state officials to change the final votes in Georgia and Michigan again.

Hey if we lose we'll claim the election was rigged, ignore the will of the people, and attack the Capitol again!

Oh wait, that wasn't the Democrats who tried to overturn the 2020 election?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Long Time Spider Fan
I don't have a dog in this fight because I think that both parties leave a lot to be desired. It's comical to read this stuff. It's a sad state that we find ourselves in when the sitting party is so afraid of a guy that was once voted out when all they have to offer up is a guy that can't find his way off of a stage or remember what he had for breakfast. You'd think this country could offer up something better. It's sad and laughable. I feel for my grandchildren. I'm too old to care anymore. I kinda feel the same about Richmond basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallipoli
Gallipoli said:
This is a banana republic or a Russian tactic. The left is unhinged by Trump. They are obsessed with "getting" him. They bend the rules to get Trump. Let the people decide. I can guarantee you one thing, Republicans will be prepared to contest any voting irregularities that may appear.
Click to expand...
For someone who supposedly does not like Trump, you sure do emulate him. Straight from the Trump playbook.
 
The national political system is broken, like many other things in this country. We shouldn't have to choose between two 80-year-old men, but when one party stands idly by or supports an insurrectionist and the other refuses to put its candidate out to pasture, here we are.

At the same time, I think presidential aspirations have become limited to a much smaller crop of people in recent years (who the hell would actually want that job?) and most of them are either egomaniacs and/or willing to be bought and sold, or both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whampas
Yeah, 322 million population (well 330 now with the border issue ;)) and the best two options for President we can come up with is a redux of the 2020 election.

The Mummy vs The Maniac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallipoli and whampas
I am waiting to see if No Labels presents a Unity Ticket. A second election of Trump will be dangerous for this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back