THERE MAY BE REPUBLICAN SENATORS
WHO SEE THAT FOR A RANGE OF
REASONS, IF THEY NEVER WERE
RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHER REASONS,
THEY MAY ALSO SEE IT AS A CHANCE
TO ONCE AND FOR ALL CUT HIM OFF
AS TWITTER AND OTHER ENTITIES
ARE DOING AND SAY OH, WELL, IF
THAT’S MY CHOICE JUST NOT EVER
HAVE HIM RUN AGAIN SOME
REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE MIGHT
COTTON TO THAT IN A DIFFERENT
WAY.
>> YEAH, OUR FOUNDERS WERE SO
WISE.
WHAT THEY SAID, AND THIS IS
GEORGE MASON AND OTHERS IN
PHILADELPHIA, IS WE NEED AN
IMPEACHMENT MECHANISM THAT DOES
TWO THINGS.
ONE, TAKE SOMEONE OUT, REMOVES
THEM FROM OFFICE.
BUT NUMBER TWO, SOMETIMES WE’RE
GOING TO WANT TO DISQUALIFY
THEM, A LIFETIME BAN ON FUTURE
OFFICE HOLDING.
SO IT’S BOTH OF THOSE THAT ARE
AT PLAY HERE.
AND EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE
TIME TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT BY
NEXT WEEK, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY
TO BAR HIM AND DISQUALIFY HIM
FROM FUTURE OFFICE HOLDING,
WHICH IS I THINK MORE A
STATEMENT ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW
THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
DONALD TRUMP’S NEVER GOING TO
WIN AN ELECTION FOR DOG CATCHER
AGAIN.
BUT THE POINT IS WE NEED TO SET
THE RULES AND WHAT OUR RED LINES
ARE.
AND YOU KNOW, IT’S OUTRAGEOUS TO
ME THAT REPUBLICANS LIKE JIM
JORDAN ARE SAYING OH, AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS WOULD BE TOO
DIVISIVE AND DESTROY UNITY AND
STUFF LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, LISTENING TO JIM JORDAN
TALK ABOUT DIVISIVENESS IS LIKE
ASKING DAVID DUKE TO RUN YOUR
IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING.
I MEAN, WHERE WAS THIS GUY FOR
THE LAST TWO MONTHS?
HE WAS OUT THERE SAYING THERE’S
ELECTION FRAUD AND JOINING ALL
OF THIS STUFF UP AND HELPING
CREATE THE CONDITIONS WE’RE IN
NOW.
THESE PEOPLE AREN’T PATRIOTS.
THESE PEOPLE ARE
INSURRECTIONISTS.
>> WELL, AND TO YOUR POINT,
THERE’S A QUESTION ABOUT
INSURRECTION AND TRAITORS.
AND THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT
PEOPLE HAVE TO BE ON RECORD FOR.
PEOPLE DIED THIS WEEK, THIS PAST
WEEK.
SO CONGRESS CAN CERTAINLY --
THEY MADE A BIG POINT OF COMING
BACK IN THAT NIGHT TO HOLD A
VOTE ON WHAT WAS A SOUNDLY
DEFEATED SHAM FINAL CHALLENGE TO
THE RIGHTFUL ELECTION.
THEY ACTED LIKE DOING THAT WAS
SOMEHOW STANDING UP TO THE MOB.
OF COURSE THERE WAS A TENSION
THERE BECAUSE WHILE I UNDERSTAND
WHILE THEY WANTED TO RESTORE
ORDER, IT WAS IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE MOB AND THE SO-CALLED
STOP THE STEAL THAT THEY WERE
INITIALLY WORKING TO HEAR THAT
CHALLENGE.
SO IT WOULD SEEM TO MANY THAT
GOING BACK TO THE SENATE AND
ACTUALLY HAVING A VOTE ON WHERE
DO YOU STAND ON WHETHER ALL THIS
DONALD TRUMP SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO SEEK OFFICE AGAIN OR NOT.
AND AS WE ALL KNOW IN MODERN
SOCIETY, HIM EVEN SEEKING
OFFICE, EVEN PRETENDING TO RUN
ANOTHER CAMPAIGN, HAS
REPERCUSSIONS ITSELF.
I WANT TO GET YOU ON THE OTHER
PIECE OF THIS, NEAL, WHICH IS
VERY IMPORTANT.
FOLKS WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE NEWS
OR SAW AS I MENTIONED
OCASIO-CORTEZ OR PELOSI OR
OTHERS, WE’VE HEARD MORE AND
MORE TALK ABOUT THE 14th
AMENDMENT.
I’M CURIOUS WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT
THIS RATHER NEW POTENTIAL
INTERPRETATION WHERE SOME ARE
SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE YOU COULD
INVOKE THAT CIVIL WAR-ERA BAN ON
INSURRECTIONISTS OR SUPPORTERS
OF REBELLION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE
AND TO KEEP IT SIMPLE LET’S
FOCUS ON JUST AS POTENTIALLY
APPLIED TO DONALD TRUMP.
>> FIRST YOU ASK DO I SUPPORT
THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT
WOULD BE QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR
FUTURE OFFICE.
AND THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY
NOT.
THIS GUY IS NOT CAPABLE OF
RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
HE SHOULDN’T BE.
HE SHOULD BE BARRED.
HE HAS AS MUCH CLAIM TO RUNNING
FOR FEDERAL OFFICE AS VLADIMIR
PUTIN AT THIS POINT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE 14th
AMENDMENT I THINK SECTION 3 BARS
PEOPLE FROM SERVING IN FEDERAL
OFFICE IF THEY’VE, QUOTE,
ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION OR
REBELLION OR GIVEN AID OR
COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES THEREOF.
AND I DO THINK THAT LOOKS LIKE
IT’S BEEN MET HERE.
AND IT WOULD REQUIRE -- IT’S
NEVER REALLY BEEN KICKED IN
AGAINST A PRESIDENT.
BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE A
MAJORITY VOTE IN THE HOUSE AND
THE SENATE.
IT’S NOT CLEARLY IN THE TEXT.
WHAT IS IN THE TEXT OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS ONCE THERE IS
THAT DISQUALIFICATION IMPOSED ON