On the Legal AF podcast, defense attorney Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo debate what happens next now that the United States Supreme Court has written out of existence the 14th Amendment Section 3 insurrectionist ban provision, and what does the new court ruling mean for the Court’s future decision about whether Trump has immunity from state and federal prosecution.
Visit https://meidastouch.com for more!
Support the MeidasTouch Network: https://patreon.com/meidastouch
Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-meidastouch-podcast/id1510240831
Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com
Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/meidastouch
Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook: https://facebook.com/meidastouch
Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram: https://instagram.com/meidastouch
Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@meidastouch
Karen has a drawing of Trump on her wall next to the dog!!
This Supreme Court is not for the people and not chosen by the people
Until crimmally charge like they should be for lying to congress to get comfirmed after overturning roe v wade they will never be charged
Morally bankrupt
FUCK SCOTUS!
We cant trust the judical ststem especially tbe u. s. supreme court justices!
Cause they are corrupt as hell ,playing games and that was a slam to the lower coyrts intelligence ? I cant wait if biden becomes president we need to put these cheap ass judges in there place and we dont wantbto trust these who get paid by a billionaire to have his will on cases thats benofit the rich,trump and the coup,investigate them now !
What really happened here? Well… SCOTUS is coorrupted. The American legal system is broken.
Please note Exhibits A & B
Exhibit A: US Constitution Article 2 Section 4"
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Exhibit B: US Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights – Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
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.
In Review –
Example 1:
In The US Constitution – Please note: Article 2, Section 4: The President, Vice President and "all civil officers of the United States", shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Example 2:
NOW please note Amendment 14.3 Disqualifies "an officer of the United States" due to having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Questions:
Is the "US President a Civil officer?" Are examples 1 & 2 not the same thing especially when 14.3 accounts for "No person shall be a …'elector of President '.
Does this mean that A- That a President not being an Officer, is allowed to "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies " and then run for a second term so to be able once again to engage in insurrection and rebellion against the same, and give aid and comfort to the enemies ?
Or does it mean that B- That a President being an Officer, is not allowed to run for a second term if having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies"
Thanks for your thoughts on this –
The Supreme Court is filled with Supreme Idiots and that's the problem.
Wow.
SCOTUS IS A COMPLETE DISAPPOINTMENT.
Democrats always want Trump gone , that is why Trump was charged in 4 events. Trump has not ever been charged by anyone as committing INSURRECTION . Even the Biased Democrat Committee that was done about 1-6 never said Insurrection only obstruction could have been done.
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Who was CONVICTED of "insurrection" of January 6th? No one. Who was even CHARGED with "insurrection" of January 6th? Not one person. Not. One. Get a grip.
Total BS! The FIRST requirement to instituting Section 3 is to establish that someone has by LAW, committed "insurrection" – which means that IN A COURT OF LAW, a person has to be CHARGED and CONVICTED with "insurrection," a very specific charge, which is NOT "interfering with government operations."
Interesting to see these comments. I really was finding it hard to believe anyone could support the policies of the Dem party that are destroying this nation. But I see now that there really are those out there that support Biden and all the damage he’s caused. And it seems that most of it is still driven by an insane Trump Derangement Syndrome.
14th clearly states that insurrectionists cannot HOLD public office. It absolutely positively DOES NOT say an insurrectionist cannot be on any ballot.
Also, a CONVICTION under full due process in the proper venue for insurrection is REQUIRED – see 14-1. NO STATE can declare someone guilty of insurrection – that sole right is Congress and FEDERAL COURTS. For J6, that is Federal Courts in DC only. Or Congress. No crime occurred in ANY State.
Scotus ruled properly and constitutionally THIS TIME anyway.
There is currently ZERO legitimacy to the SCOTUS! Absolutely ZERO!!!
Any Justice can dissent on anything in writing. They’ve actually done it so I’ve heard from a guy who heard from a guy. Just because you want something doesn’t make it true. Trump has never been convicted. The Supreme Court is easily correct. It was a layup. 100 free throws. Easily correct to someone who isn’t showered in their own bigotry. I’d love to hear you make this same argument on Biden’s objective, factually video supported dementia. If 22 states suddenly took him off the ballot you would stand up and applause.
If you and your ilk had an ounce of brain between you you wouldn't even have published this. At no point were charges filed against anyone for insurrection. The complete abrogation of any legal actions by the so called January 6 Committee prove that it was a complete load of BS. If there was any truth in it why were so much of the claimed evidence suppressed. I would also ask why the actions by BLM and Antifa in DC and other cities in 2022 not treated the same way. The question has been asked how does this decision bring peace? My question is how does your constantly telling your lie and calling people who disagree with you names and want to destroy us for supporting the Constitution bring peace?
Given their reading of the 14th Amendment, it is extremely doubtful that any member of SCOTUS has ever managed to assemble Ikea furniture.
I agree with the SC. Congress has to find someone guilty of insurrection. That didn't happen.
I personally do not feel that the current members of SCOTUS are qualified to park cars at a casino, I do not think they are trustworthy enough. I also personally feel that they are brick stupid and as corrupt as a boondocks Sheriff. At what point does having 9 jerks dressed up in robes (to cover their enormous money belts they wear) result in justice? I guess you as lawyers have a sense of respect, or maybe that is not fair on my part. Maybe you think they suck gas also?
From watching your preview, it really sounds like you only got your sources from news outlets. The whole consensus from the court is you can't just have a state on its own ban someone to become president. They would have to have congress say someone is, as the 5th section of the amendment clearly states that only congress can enforce the amendment (with legal overview by the courts [taken from DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v.
NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL.]). Otherwise you could have 51 different people saying they should be President as all 50 others are banned in their state/DC.