Re: Madison Cawthorn RWNJ in the House
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:24 pm
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
Yeah, sadly it probably won't go too far, and the cost for trying it may end up being too high. As a concept, however, I love it and wish I thought it would work - it'd be a great way to get trash like Cruz, Hawley and Brooks kicked to the curb in a heartbeat. I do hope that Trump can be found legally liable of pretty much anything having to do with his being involved in the insurrection just so he can be disqualified for reelection.
Agree 100%. We will not be able to even begin healing from all the damage he has done until he kicks the bucket. That cannot happen soon enough.Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:35 pmYeah, sadly it probably won't go too far, and the cost for trying it may end up being too high. As a concept, however, I love it and wish I thought it would work - it'd be a great way to get trash like Cruz, Hawley and Brooks kicked to the curb in a heartbeat. I do hope that Trump can be found legally liable of pretty much anything having to do with his being involved in the insurrection just so he can be disqualified for reelection.
Granted, I'd prefer the natural end of his life would just hurry the fuck up and get here without any help from outside forces (NADT!!!)
Concur. I think any attempt to apply the 14th Amendment's bar will, at best, be dismissed by the courts as a political question.Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:35 pmYeah, sadly it probably won't go too far, and the cost for trying it may end up being too high.
{combing preacher hair back]Oh Brothers and Sisters, can I get an *AMEN* to *THAT* please and thank you? [/combing preacher hair back]Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:35 pm
Granted, I'd prefer the natural end of his life would just hurry the fuck up and get here without any help from outside forces (NADT!!!)
Is it Carnac? Never looked it up. Thx!
According to the Wikipedia article about the 14th Amendment, it only requires a law passed in Congress, by simple majority, to invoke section 3 of the 14th. Since, at the moment, the Democrats have a majority in the House and a razor-thin hold on the Senate, it is not impossible.bob wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:41 pmConcur. I think any attempt to apply the 14th Amendment's bar will, at best, be dismissed by the courts as a political question.Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:35 pmYeah, sadly it probably won't go too far, and the cost for trying it may end up being too high.
The closer question is if a chamber of Congress voted not to seat an insurrectionist on this basis, but I don't see that vote happening.
I don't believe that this has ever been tried before. I'm not up on my post-civil war history enough to know if the mere presence of the 14th deterred former US Representatives or Senators from the Confederacy from attempting to regain their old seats or not.wikipedia wrote: The Section 3 disqualification could be imposed by Congress passing a law or a nonbinding resolution stating that the January 6 riot was an insurrection, and that anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution and who incited or participated in the riot is disqualified under Section 3.[190] Some legal experts believe a court would then be required to make a final determination that Trump was disqualified under Section 3.[191]
Possible, yes, but not probable. So improbable, it is (IMO) not worth the time or effort. And given the readily foreseeable consequence of getting doxxed, also not worth the risk.noblepa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:35 amAccording to the Wikipedia article about the 14th Amendment, it only requires a law passed in Congress, by simple majority, to invoke section 3 of the 14th. Since, at the moment, the Democrats have a majority in the House and a razor-thin hold on the Senate, it is not impossible.
I agree the courts would dismiss any challenge to such a congressional resolution as a non-justiciable political question.wikipedia wrote:If Congress passed such a bill or resolution, and someone challenged it, and if a court (probably going all the way to SCOTUS) dismissed the challenge on the grounds that it is a political question, that would mean that the resolution would stand, and the person or persons named in the resolution would be barred from holding office.
https://t.me/MadisonCawthorn/358Madison Cawthorn wrote:I'm starting to think [This quote could end right here, it is clearly false. Cawthorn doesn't "think" about anything.] "COVID misinformation" is anything that hurts Pfizer's pocket.
Nah, he is so much smarter than everyone else, so how could anyone improve his magnificent shit he produces -- much like his hero the orange shitgibbon.notorial dissent wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:41 pm The whole "think" thing negates any possible connection to Maddy. I've always wondered if he actually hired someone, purely by accident mind you, who went to a real school and got a real education to clean up the illiterate mess he would, and still does, generate.
The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee took Wednesday as an opportunity to hold a virtual hearing on how toxic chemicals are killing U.S. soldiers. Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) took the hearing as an opportunity to clean his gun.
Cawthorn, the youngest current member of Congress, fiddled with his black pistol while one witness explained how university medical researchers could help the government examine how burn pits are harming military service members.
“It was immature. He’s a child. He lacks common sense. I think the congressman was overcompensating for something that he lacks and feeling inadequate among the heroes on that call,” said John Feal, a 9/11 first responder who was at the virtual meeting.
Feal was one of at least two people at the Veterans’ Affairs meeting who noticed what Cawthorn was doing. Both were infuriated. But the general public couldn’t see it, because the two-hour virtual hearing was held over Zoom—which meant that those tuning in could only see the person speaking.
We may be better than this, but Cawthorn surely isn't.Lindsay Church @lkmchurch wrote: Imagine you showed up for a Zoom meeting and a colleague decided that was when he needed to clean his gun. Because that’s what happened today in a Congressional roundtable on toxic exposure. We’re better than this.
The Daily Beast asked Cawthorn’s office if the congressman thought this an appropriate time to clean his firearm. His communications director, Luke Ball, responded: 'What could possibly be more patriotic than guns and veterans?'
United We Stand @unitedweare23 6h
Satisfactory 43%*
Replying to @Orly_licious @CawthornforNC and @robbystarbuck
sounds like a cult…. when the dear leader has to be followed or your in trouble
john henry @realjohnhenry11 2h
Replying to @Orly_licious @CawthornforNC and @robbystarbuck
Face with tears of joy Face with tears of joy Face with tears of joy
Slawdog @ChrisSlawek 13h
Replying to @Orly_licious @CawthornforNC and @robbystarbuck
Madison beat Mark Meadows and Trumps endorsement in the primary here in District 11 and became the youngest Congressman in history. I'm sure he's shaking in his shoes
kittenpawsbb @kittenpawsbb 6h
Problematic 81%
Replying to @Orly_licious @CawthornforNC and @robbystarbuck
If he is a Christian man, then he will win.
We must follow the order of God.
God->Jesus-> Man->Woman->Child
President Trump understands the order. Wait and see what happens.
Relieved face Folded hands Red heart Flag of United States Glowing star🕊
john henry @realjohnhenry11 2h
I think you meant
Person->Woman->Man->Camera->TV
No?
Irene @SoCalNative60 3h
Disruptive 50%
Replying to @Orly_licious @CawthornforNC and @robbystarbuck
She called Trump ‘disgusting’
Are you not aware of that? Is Trump not aware of that??
Madison Cawthorn Lawyer Cites Confederate Amnesty Act To Defend Rep’s Job
A lawyer for Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) cited an 1872 congressional action granting amnesty to Confederate soldiers to defend his own client’s eligibility for office.
The argument from Cawthorn lawyer James Bopp Jr. came in response to a legal effort to have Cawthorn declared ineligible for office because he allegedly “encouraged, and upon reasonable suspicion helped aid, the insurrection” on Jan. 6.
The legal challenge, from a group of North Carolina voters backed by the organization Free Speech For People, alleges that Cawthorn violated the third section of the 14th Amendment, which states, “No Person shall be a […] Representative in Congress […] who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
On the phone with TPM Wednesday, Bopp said “there are substantial constitutional defenses, which include the fact that Congress passed the 1872 Amnesty Act, which removed all persons whatsoever from the disability under Section 3 as a result of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion.”
If he didn't encourage and aid the insurrection, why does he need amnesty?dan1100 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:37 pm This seems insane.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1486460969169702919
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/madi ... surrection
Madison Cawthorn Lawyer Cites Confederate Amnesty Act To Defend Rep’s Job
A lawyer for Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) cited an 1872 congressional action granting amnesty to Confederate soldiers to defend his own client’s eligibility for office.
The argument from Cawthorn lawyer James Bopp Jr. came in response to a legal effort to have Cawthorn declared ineligible for office because he allegedly “encouraged, and upon reasonable suspicion helped aid, the insurrection” on Jan. 6.
The legal challenge, from a group of North Carolina voters backed by the organization Free Speech For People, alleges that Cawthorn violated the third section of the 14th Amendment, which states, “No Person shall be a […] Representative in Congress […] who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
On the phone with TPM Wednesday, Bopp said “there are substantial constitutional defenses, which include the fact that Congress passed the 1872 Amnesty Act, which removed all persons whatsoever from the disability under Section 3 as a result of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion.”
I'm sure that he's trying to argue that the amnesty overrides the 14th Amendment; that the amnesty act means he was not guilty of insurrection.Resume18 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:44 pmIf he didn't encourage and aid the insurrection, why does he need amnesty?dan1100 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:37 pm This seems insane.
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1486460969169702919
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/madi ... surrection
Madison Cawthorn Lawyer Cites Confederate Amnesty Act To Defend Rep’s Job
A lawyer for Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) cited an 1872 congressional action granting amnesty to Confederate soldiers to defend his own client’s eligibility for office.
The argument from Cawthorn lawyer James Bopp Jr. came in response to a legal effort to have Cawthorn declared ineligible for office because he allegedly “encouraged, and upon reasonable suspicion helped aid, the insurrection” on Jan. 6.
The legal challenge, from a group of North Carolina voters backed by the organization Free Speech For People, alleges that Cawthorn violated the third section of the 14th Amendment, which states, “No Person shall be a […] Representative in Congress […] who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress […] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
On the phone with TPM Wednesday, Bopp said “there are substantial constitutional defenses, which include the fact that Congress passed the 1872 Amnesty Act, which removed all persons whatsoever from the disability under Section 3 as a result of engaging in an insurrection or rebellion.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/2 ... t-00003050Trump faces MAGA revolt over endorsement
The former president's pick in an open congressional primary has sparked pushback from some of Trump's closest House allies and MAGA activists.
By ALEX ISENSTADT 01/27/2022 06:42 PM EST
Former President Donald Trump is facing serious backlash from die-hard loyalists over his decision to intervene in a Tennessee House race, with his supporters accusing him of spurning a staunch Republican ally who’s running. Trump on Tuesday evening endorsed Morgan Ortagus, who served as a State Department spokesperson during his administration and is pondering a run for a Middle Tennessee-based congressional district. The announcement has caused a firestorm, with far-right, high-profile backers ranging from North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn to conservative activist Candace Owens taking to social media to voice their support for Robby Starbuck, a rival candidate who’s been a mainstay of the pro-Trump movement. Even Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, one of the former president’s most prominent supporters, promoted a tweet outlining criticisms of Ortagus. The gripes have included everything from Ortagus’ support of Jeb Bush in the 2016 GOP primaries to her being photographed with President Joe Biden and having her wedding officiated by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Amid the criticism, two of the former president’s top lieutenants, eldest son Donald Trump Jr. and social media director Dan Scavino, have privately voiced their displeasure over what Trump’s inner circle concedes was a hasty endorsement rollout, according to two people familiar with the internal discussions.
Starbuck himself is far from a sure-fire primary bet: He’s a first-time candidate and a relative newcomer to the district, running in what is expected to be a large field of formidable Republicans, and he has posted lukewarm fundraising numbers. Still, the episode represents perhaps the most intense blowback Trump has received from loyalists since leaving office — and a potential test of the former president's credibility with some of his fiercest defenders. While he has endorsed in races up and down the ballot ahead of this year’s midterms, few of them have generated substantial criticism from allies, though there have been ongoing questions about how carefully Trump has made his endorsement decisions. “This in a lot of ways is a watershed moment for, I’ll say, the entire Trump team,” said Daniel Bostic*, a conservative activist whose Twitter page has closely documented the backlash. “And it should be, to be honest, because it is being perceived as a back-stab to his own base.”
Unlike many of the former president’s other endorsements, the decision to get behind Ortagus unfolded quickly. The would-be candidate, joined by her family, met with Trump on Monday at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, where she informed him she was considering running. In the hours after their meeting, Trump began asking a range of people what they thought of Ortagus. By Tuesday evening, the former president had decided to move ahead with the announcement. He released a statement calling the 39-year-old Ortagus, a former Fox News contributor, “an absolute warrior” for his movement and saying she was “fantastic in her role” at the State Department. “Morgan Ortagus will have my Complete and Total Endorsement if she decides to run!” Trump said. The pushback was swift. “Absolutely not,” wrote Ned Ryun, a conservative activist, on Twitter. “Nope. Trump has this completely wrong,” Owens tweeted. “Trump is now firmly in the establishment camp,” wrote John Cardillo, another conservative activist.
Within a few hours, Bostic, who was a producer of the pro-Trump documentary “The Plot Against the President,” began pumping out tweets with photographs of Ortagus alongside Biden and Ginsberg while noting that she worked on Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign. The following evening, the Republic PAC Twitter account circulated a TV clip from 2016 of Ortagus saying that she’s “not a Trump fan.” Within some corners of Trump’s inner circle, there were complaints about what they regarded as an impulsive, poorly planned and unnecessary endorsement, especially given that Ortagus isn’t an announced candidate. Others, however, defended the move, saying they’d received widespread positive feedback about Ortagus. They also contended the pushback was unfair, pointing out that Ortagus steadfastly defended the administration’s policies during her time at the State Department and as a Fox News contributor, and that she had a role on Trump’s first campaign. During a November appearance as guest host on “The View,” Ortagus went after House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a prominent Trump antagonist. Ortagus has gotten backup from the likes of Robert O’Brien, who served as Trump’s national security adviser and on Tuesday evening published a tweet announcing his support for her.
There is also a degree of skepticism within some corners of Trump’s orbit about whether Starbuck would be the strongest candidate in a potentially crowded primary. While Starbuck, whose real name is Robby Newsom, has developed a reputation as a Twitter personality and has garnered support from out-of-state Trump backers, he has lived in the district for only a few years and never run for office. The primary is expected to draw a number of well-known local officials. The list of potential candidates includes former Tennessee state House Speaker Beth Harwell and Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles. Apart from the online backlash, it remains unclear whether Ortagus will actually enter the congressional contest. While she has begun reaching out to strategists and local party officials, she has yet to make a final decision. Ortagus, who has been working in the health-care industry since the Trump administration ended, has been living in the area for about a year. Whether she jumps in or not, the drama has taken center stage within Trump-world. During a Wednesday evening fundraiser at the Miami home of pro-Trump megadonor Peter Thiel, donors were abuzz about the skirmish, inquiring about how the endorsement had unfolded, according to several attendees. “Ortagus’ endorsement really came as a complete shock,” Bostic said. “My phone started blowing up.”