1. Trumps SCOTUS Hearing Attorney: J6 was SHAMEFUL, CRIMINAL AND VIOLENT

2. Section 3.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

3. Their argument in section three applies only to existing elected officials and not candidates for office, which is stupid like they are, why would you allow someone on the ballot and then elected [in this instance] , then say congress then would have to remove with 2/3 vote?

4. SCOTUS Hearing for the Traitor Trump

5. Clarence Thomas of course is asking for evidence that doesn't exist, it's Unprecedented a scumbag would incitement of a coup and then run for President again... elections were different in the 1800s... his question was focused on if their were examples of states excluding, restrict federal candidates? States didn't write or un ballots, everyone was a write in... if states can exclude a president candidate that's not a natural born citizen from ballot, why can’t they exclude an Insurrectionist?

6. They're splitting hairs on what the 14th amendment states...

7. Historical evidence?

8. Congress has the primary role to determining 14th amendment

9. Roberts: confused about what an Insurrection is and other states could charge anyone with Insurrection

10. Kavanagh: chief chase was right... ?

11. 1876, no Insurrection since...

12. Alito: never seen anything before Johnson to Clinton

13. Murray keeps emphasizing what we all saw

14. Alito... planery

15. gorsuch: brings up military official disobey an order...what would compel to follow order?

16. Murray continues to keep these ambulance chasers on the purpose of traitors in government. They don't get it because they're bias and

17. Alito: what do we do? What people have seen? Different states see things and unmanageable?

18. Gorsuch: office or officers...

19. Kavanagh: state powers concerns, Colorado case... Trump didn't participate. Rhetoric from Murray, Trump hasn't been charged with Insurrection. Does the tool exist, framers understood traitors don't get charged. Section three has vague language and let people decide, voters are disenfranchised? Yeah, letting the traitors go is disenfranchising us.. that's what they're doing.

20. Murray: the constitution doesn't give Trump another chance to stage another coup detat

21. Thomas: qualified candidate? Statute.

22. the notion that his disqualification would be somehow anti-democratic, disenfranchising the people who would like to vote for him and would not get a chance to

23. Guardian: "To disqualify him would not be to undermine democracy but to protect it, by averting the seizure of the republic by the man who has been quite frank about his intention to destroy it"

24. Cont: "If section three is still the law, and if insurrectionists are still barred from taking federal office, then how can this law be enforced? And that’s where the court, in its apparent effort to avoid having to take much of a stand on the issue, seems to have planted a loaded gun"

25. The simplest way to legally enshrine loyalty to the U.S. government as a post-war qualification for federal and state political offices was by amending the Constitution. This marked the start of a many-years debate over who should be allowed to serve in government—and who got to decide

26. Radical Republicans in Congress dismissed those objections, arguing that Section 3 wasn’t a punishment, but rather a new qualification for holding office

27. Section 3