FINALLY, THE REST OF THE STORY!
By Mike Koontz
ON SATURDAY FROM 2-4 WABC RADIO YOU MAY HAVE TUNED IN FROM TIME TO TIME TO ANTHONY WEINER FORMER 9TH DISTRICT NY CONGRESSMEN WHO RESIGNED IN 2011. HE HOSTS A SHOW CALLED IN THE MIDDLE. IN THE MIDDLE? YOU FIGURE IT OUT! ON SATURDAY DEC. 23, I HAPPENED TO TUNE IN AND THEN I TUNED OUT. ANTHONY WAS TRUMP BASHING AS ALL THE USUAL SUSPECTS DO. HE WENT ON THIS RANT DEFENDING THE UNIQUELY LOW IQ COLORADO SUPREME COURT DECISION TO BAR PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM THE 2024 ELECTION BALLOT IN THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION. ACCUSING PRESIDENT TRUMP OF INSURRECTION OR WAS IT AN ERECTION, AS CHUCK SCHUMER MISTAKENLY CALLED IT RIGHTLY SO! WELL AS GILDA RADNER USED TO SAY"It's always something" WE MISS GILDA! I ADMIT, I GOT TICKED OFF BY ANTHONY'S DEFICIT OF KNOWLEDGE, RESEARCH, AND HISTORY! READ THE 14TH AMENDMENT CAREFULLY ANTHONY AND THE 1ST AMENDMENT WHILE YOU'RE AT IT. OF COURSE, HE'LL SAY HE DID. SO, NOW WE HAVE JUDGES UNELECTED DECIDING WHO VOTES, WHILE THE DEMOCRATS ARE ALWAYS CRYING FOUL ON ELECTION SUPPRESSION, ETC. IT'S DEMOCRACY FOR THEM DICTATORSHIP FOR US. SO I DECIDED OLD SCHOOL TO WRITE A LETTER TO WABC RADIO, KAS, AND ANTHONY, TO EDUCATE AND ENLIGHTEN THE LISTENERS. I PUT A FLASHLIGHT ON ANTHONY'S DIS-IMFORMATION, HOPEFULLY IT WON'T NEED NEW BATTERIES.. NOW HERE'S THE REST OF THE STORY!
Dear Sirs and The Team at WABC,
First I would like to congratulate your Team on the great revival of WABC at a time when this iconic station had almost lost its standing. Many of my associates and in my inner circle rely on your great team of broadcasters from Sid in the Morning, Curtis at Noon, Greg Kelly, Americas Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Mark Levin, Rita Cosby, and the great line-up of weekend greats JD Jeanine Pirro, Dick Morris, Cindy Adams and course one of my favorites Roger Stone. These journalists / Broadcasters give, for the most part, a fair and credible program both factual and honest. Thanks for all the good work you do.
However, now I come to Anthony Weiner, who apparently is the spokesperson for the liberal narrative countering most of your Conservative Programming. It is useful to have divergent opinions or two points of view and appeal to listeners who might be less than conservative. This is well intended however my issue with Anthony Weiner is his lack of facts and then defends dis-information narratives. I will cite one of many that stood out on 12/23/2023 and many of my associates had the same reactions. The Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision to exclude President Trump from the Presidential Primary Ballot, Election, and possibly The General Election due to accusations that he participated in an insurrection or encouraged one on January 6, 2021, is false. It was clear Mr. Weiner was politically motivated never a supporter of Trump and had poorly researched the topic. He should know better. Let me outline the factual details, not Mr. Weiner’s interpretation.
* Amendment 14 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. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, EVEN IF YOU SELL THE INSURRECTION TO YOURSELF WITH NO BASIS THAT IS LISTED IN SECTION 3, GIVEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BEING EXCLUDED FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS JUST LOOK ARE SECTION 5. Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. ONLY CONGRESS.
THE ISSUE IS MOOT!
First, the interpretation the President is an office holder listed in Section 3 in the sequence above would be considered wrong if observed incorrectly, the sequence follows the categories of Senator, Congress, or elector then office/civil/military/state legislature/executive or judicial officer of any state. This does not include any suggestion that the President or Vice President falls into this sequence or category. The only remedy is impeachment with a conviction for participating, planning, and supporting an insurrection against the government once charged. President Trump was rendered as an acquittal of all such charges by the Senate in 2021. The only remedy was conclusive, not guilty.
1. The indictment of President Trump by the special Council Jack Smith did not include charges in the indictment of insurrection or for that matter incitement since the matter had been concluded in the Senate 2021 without a conviction. It is also fair to say that no suggestion of insurrection supported by President Trump fell within any suggestion of inciting a riot, insurrection, or planned or purposeful overthrow of the US Government. The Quote which has been repeated numerous times “We will now peacefully and patriotically walk down to the Capital and make our voices heard” Some’s up the First Amendment a first Amendment Right both for the President and as citizens including all participants on January 6th, 2021 but also does not exonerate any damages to property or person by individual participants in the protest at the Capital. The question of charges filed against protesters or rally attendees is a discussion for another day. President Trump did not incite an insurrection and no indictment has charged him of this allegation.
2. The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the decision of District Court Judge Shara Wallace, who presided over a bench trial last month, and she concluded that Trump “ she believed engaged in an insurrection” which was a personal observation by Wallace with no bearing on the law regarding The President on January 6, 2021. However, she also ruled that the 14th Amendment’s Section 3 and disqualification clause applied to Trump because the provision doesn’t mention the President in its reference to Section 3. The Defense: “If it was so important that the president be included, I come back to the question, why not spell it out” Justice Carlos Samour asked a lawyer for the challengers “Why not include president and vice president? …They spelled out senator or representative.” Argued with the right Decision.
3. Also a biased Colorado Supreme Court, all Democrat appointments, choose to make a decision based on the opinion of both Judge Wallace and The 1/6 Unofficial Committee or as we say the Un-Select committee, both concluded opinions without a legal remedy in the US Constitution and no evidence, exclusion of evidence, and as Judge Wallace decided Section 3 does not apply to the President. But the Get Trump Supreme Court of Colorado created a narrative that is not judicial but political making thier voter exclusion decision. A sad day for Colorado and America.
4. Last, to know Civil War history, the 3rd Section of the 14th Amendment was established for the sole purpose of stopping or mitigating uprisings and real insurrections by Confederate Patriots who would not conform to the ending of the war and the Union of the country once the Civil War had officially ended. There were violent uprisings that were either contained or had to be repressed by Union Troops. The Union was also concerned about Southern representatives serving in the Congress or Senate and whether they would support an insurrection. Section 3 was applied only, to that period of our history. Section 3 may need revision in the future to reflect on leaders of government who directly plot or support a riot or insurrection with arms, combatants, and planned access to a venue for overthrowing the government. I doubt a President would go that far.
A final comment, as a historical reference. The idea that a Judicial Branch could make such an outlandish decision based on a 1/6 committee bias non-binding report shows how history repeats itself. To defend Richard Nixon the 37th President as it refers to Watergate Incident. It was also the Prosecution who was obsessed with removing Nixon for political reasons and sent a report that was factually questionable and had no binding legal impact on President Nixon. Nixon had Immunity as President. Instead, the Prosecution and Special Council listed the President as an un-indictable co-conspirator in the Plumbers Break-in case at The Watergate Hotel and sent an illegitimate report known as The Roadmap to then Democrat Congressman Peter Rodino Chairman of House Judiciary Committee to establish grounds for impeachment. So President Nixon was blindsided by unsubstantiated allegations. GET TRUMP GET NIXON not much difference 50 years later.
I suggest Mr. Weiner get his facts right rather than hyperbolic political flag-waving. It argues dis information to the listeners of WABC who deserve better. I can be reached by phone, email, or regular mail. OR OUR CONTACT PAGE ON THIS SITE.
Sincerely, Mike Koontz, BA, MAC
Owner Publisher, Commentator, Committeeman, Co-Administrator-Bergen County NJ for Liberty since 2011.
Credit: The Nixon Conspiracy by Geoff Shepard is an excellent Account of the plot to remove the president.